<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2014-04-22</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Brian Matzge</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Checklist: x *Add TEMPHEAD, change DATE, validate x *Review structure: FRONT,BODY, BACK, DIV or rarely GROUP x *Add DIV TYPEs, make sure that types makes sense as a navigational aide, and work in the context of the whole text, validate x *Survey book for troublesome formats of all kinds, including lists, illustrations, tables, music, math, end-notes, quasi-tabular arrangments, and marginalia. x *Proof title page(s) x *Examine marginalia. Is it all best tagged as NOTE? x *Observe divtop and divbottom material marking beginnings and ends of divisions, check that they are correctly tagged as HEAD, TRAILER, OPENER, CLOSER, ARGUMENT, EPIGRAPH, SIGNED, DATELINE, BYLINE, etc. x *Check for GAPs x *Check PB placement and completeness, ensure sequence of N="" x *Check ^, italic I / J, _Initals, space between &amp;c. x *Check for illustrations and correct usage of FIGURE. Add FIGDESCs if necessary. x *Check q; startq endq Q x *If appropriate, check for yoghs. x *If appropriate, check for Latin problems, e.g. oe and ae digraphs x *If appropriate, check for abbreviation and brevigraph problems. x *If appropriate, check for units of measure, symbols (alchemical, astronomical, etc.) and the like. x *Correct illegibles from proofsheet x *Check illegible page, para, line, span, word, dollar signs x * Run Check x *Final validate Corrected [ ] illegible groups out of [ ]. Converted [ ] illegible groups to GAP DESC="illegible". DONE</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="B14661">
<STC T="S">17101</STC>
<STC T="C">S109013</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99844664</BIBNO>
<VID>177104</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="license">
<PB REF="1">
<PB REF="1">
<PB REF="2">
<P>LIbrum hunc, cui titulus <HI>(A Ca&s;e for the Spectacles, &amp;c.)</HI> cum nihil contineat Orthodoxae Fidei, bo|ni&s;ve moribus adver&s;arium, &s;ed multa egregi&egrave; docta, fructum&abque; &s;tudio&s;is Le|ctoribus haud vulgarem allatura, dig|num cen&s;eo, qui typis in publicum pro|feratur.</P>
<CLOSER><DATELINE><DATE>Decemb. <HI>4. 1637.</HI></DATE></DATELINE>
<SIGNED>THO: WYKES R. P. Epi&s;c: Lond: Capell. dome&s;t.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="2" MS="y">
<P>A Ca&s;e for the Spectacles, OR, A Defence of VIA TUTA, <HI>The Safe Way,</HI> By Sir HVMPHREY LYNDE Knight, In An&s;wer to a Book written by <HI>J.R.</HI> called, A PAIRE OF SPECTACLES, <HI>Together with a Treati&s;e Intituled,</HI> STRICTURAE IN LYNDOMASTYGEM, by way of Supplement to the Knights An&s;wer, where he left off, pre|vented by Death. AND, A Sermon preached at his Funerall, at Cobham, <HI>Iune</HI> 14^t^h 1636.</P>
<P>By DANIEL FEATLEY, D. D.</P>
<Q>The <HI>way</HI> of the Lord is &s;treight, and the ju&s;t &s;hall walke therein; but the wicked &s;hall fall therein. <BIBL><HI>Ho&s;. 14.9.</HI></BIBL></Q>
<Q><HI>In&s;anis veritas &s;candalum e&s;t, &amp; caecis Doctoribus fit caligo quod lumen e&s;t.</HI> <BIBL>Leo Magn. Serm. <HI>1.</HI> de Epiph.</BIBL></Q>
<P>LONDON, Printed by <HI>M. P.</HI> for <HI>Robert Milbourne,</HI> at the &s;igne of the Vnicorne in Fleet-&s;treet, neere Fleet-Bridge. 1638.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="dedication">
<PB REF="3">
<PB REF="3">
<HEAD>TO THE RIGHT Reverend Father in God, THOMAS, <HI>By Divine Providence, Lord</HI> B. of DURESME, &amp;c.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>May it plea&s;e your good Lord&s;hip;</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>_AFTER I had taken a re&s;o|lution to apologize for my departed friend, and make a kind of <HI>hedge</HI> to his <HI>Via tuta,</HI> I &s;eriou&s;ly bethought my &s;elfe, who would <HI>maimtaine the fence,</HI> by one &s;o made; and patronize this pa|tronage of that his worthy worke. For though the cau&s;e in hand, be the truth of God; and the per&s;on whom I undertake to defend again&s;t the Calumniations of
<PB REF="4"> his Adver&s;arie, be now <GAP DESC="foreign">, out of the eye of<NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Horat. Od. <HI>14.</HI> l. <HI>3.</HI> Subla|tum ex ocu|lis quaerimus invidi. Ovid. l. <HI>3.</HI> De Pont Pa&s;citur in vi|vis livor po&s;t fata quie&s;cit. Et Iuvenal. Sat. <HI>1.</HI> Nulli gravus e&s;t p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rcu&s;&s;us Achilles, aut multum quae&s;i|tus Hylas.</NOTE> <HI>envie,</HI> and the reach of <HI>malice;</HI> yet I well know, that neither the con&s;i|deration of the one, nor regard to the other, will prove any <HI>Amulet</HI> again&s;t the poy&s;on of the<NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">Ari&s;toph. in Plut. <GAP DESC="foreign">, id e&s;t, annulis me|dicinalis aut antidotus.</NOTE> Sycophants tooth, or venom of the Detracters tongue. Death I grant, which &s;ets a period to all &s;uits in Courts, &s;hould grant a <HI>Super&s;edeas of Cour&s;e,</HI> again&s;t all <HI>Arre&s;ts</HI> and mole&s;tati|ons of them who have taken <HI>Sanctuarie</HI> in the grave; and therefore<NOTE N="(c)" PLACE="marg">Bru&s;onius facet et exemp. l. <HI>1.</HI> Solon legem condidit, qu&acirc; prohibuit in de|&s;unctos maledi|cta con&s;icere. Et Theodorus Chius cen|&s;uit Pom|peium in aegypt, admittendum addens <HI>Mor|tuos non mor|dere.</HI> Era&s;m. Apoph. p. <HI>374.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Selon</HI> ena|cted a Law, whereby, under a great pe|naltie, he prohibited any to ca&s;t any foule a&s;per&s;ion on the dead. And<NOTE N="(d)" PLACE="marg">Bru&s;on. ibid. A&s;inius Pollio cum orationes condidi&s;&s;et in Plancum quas po&s;t mortem ejus legendas &s;ervabat audiit &agrave; Planco, <HI>cum mortuus non ni&s;i larvas pugnare.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Plancus</HI> &s;harply reproved the folly of <HI>A&s;inius Pol|lio</HI> (who threatned to &s;tigmatize him af|ter his death, by publi&s;hing his declama|tions again&s;t him) &s;aying, <HI>None but Hob|goblins fight with ghosts.</HI> Notwith&s;tanding this privilege granted to the dead, even by the Law of Nature; I cannot remem|ber
<PB REF="4"> without horrour, nor expre&s;&s;e with|out griefe, what the <HI>Acts and Monuments</HI> of the Church, pre&s;ent to the view of all men, concerning Popi&s;h malice &s;urvi|ving life it &s;elfe, and committing in|humane (not onely unchri&s;tian) outra|ges on the corpes, and not le&s;&s;e upon the workes of Orthodoxe Profe&s;&s;ors now with God. The ble&s;&s;ed Martyr, Saint<NOTE N="(e)" PLACE="marg">Cypr. de lap. &amp; Ep. l. <HI>2.</HI> Saevitum e&s;t in plagas, &s;aevi|tum e&s;t in vul|nera: &amp; in &s;ervis Dei non jam membra torquebantur &s;ed vulnera: manabat pro fletibus &s;an|guis, &amp; pro lae|chrymu~ cruor<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e &s;emiu&s;tulatis vi&s;ceribus deflu|ebat.</NOTE> <HI>Cyprian,</HI> &s;etting the cruelty of the hea|then, as it were, <HI>upon the Racke,</HI> could <HI>&s;traine</HI> no <HI>higher</HI> after hee had &s;aid, <HI>The&s;e Salvage Per&s;ecutors wreake their furie on the bru&s;ed, and battered &s;ervants of Chri&s;t; and torture not &s;o much their members as their wounds.</HI> Yet there is a <HI>Plus ultra</HI> in the enraged malice of our Romi&s;h Ad|ver&s;aries, <HI>Saevitum e&s;t in cadavera, &s;aevitum e&s;t in o&s;&s;a, &s;aevitum e&s;t in cineres.</HI> For they<NOTE N="(f)" PLACE="marg">Vide hi&s;t. de mort. Spala|ten&s;is. M.S.</NOTE> <HI>Arraigne the dead,</HI> they &s;ue again&s;t them an <HI>Ejection</HI> out of their <HI>long homes,</HI> and interre them in<NOTE N="(g)" PLACE="marg">Acts and Monuments, volume <HI>3.</HI> pag. <HI>778.</HI> The body of <HI>Peter Martyrs</HI> wife, at <HI>Oxford,</HI> was taken up by Doctor <HI>Mar&s;hall</HI> out of her grave, in the Church of <HI>Saint Fride&s;wids,</HI> and buried in a dunghill.</NOTE> <HI>Le&s;tals;</HI> nay they
<PB REF="5"> burne their<NOTE N="(h)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Acts and Monuments, vol.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 606. <HI>The body, and bones of</HI> Iohn Wickliffe, <HI>by the Decree of the Synod of</HI> Con&s;tance, were taken up &amp; burned, 41. yeares after he was buried, in his owne Pa|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">i&s;h at <HI>Lutter|worth,</HI> and his a&s;hes taken &amp; throwne into the river; <HI>and &s;o was hee re|&s;olved into three ele|ments, Earth, Fire, and Wa|ter: thinking thereby, utterly to ex&s;tingui&s;h and aboli&s;h both his name and Doctrine for ever. Acts &amp; Monuments, volume</HI> 3. <HI>pag.</HI> 771. <HI>The Vicechancelior taking with him a publike Notarie, bound the Pari&s;hioners with an oath, to digge up</HI> Paulus Fargius <HI>his bones: and received the like oath of</HI> Roger Davis, <HI>and</HI> William Ha|zell, <HI>for doing the like with</HI> Martin Bucer, <HI>when they came to the place of execution, the</HI> Che&s;ts were &s;et up an end, with the dead bodies in them, and fa&s;tened on both &s;ides with &s;takes, and bound to the po&s;t with a long iron chaine, fire being forthwith put to, as &s;oone as it began to flame round about, a great &s;ort of bookes that were condemned with them, were ca&s;t into the &s;ame.</NOTE> bones, and &s;trew their a&s;hes on the rivers.</P>
<Q>Tantene animis coele&s;tibus irae?</Q>
<P>Loe the <HI>bowels</HI> of them who mo&s;t boa&s;t of <HI>workes of Mercie,</HI> towards the bodies of true Profe&s;&s;ors, whilome, <HI>Temples of the holy Gho&s;t:</HI> yet their charitie to their &s;oules, exceeds this; for the&s;e they pe|remptorily <HI>exclude out of heaven, and &s;end them pell-mell, without Baile, or Mainpri&s;e, to the dungeon of hell;</HI> and there &s;entence them to more <HI>exqui&s;ite</HI><NOTE N="(k)" PLACE="marg">Coccleus <HI>hi&s;t. Hu&s;sit. l.</HI> 2. Multo graviora e&s;&s;e crediderim Wicklefi tormenta quam &s;int apud inferos, vel &s;celera|ti&s;&s;imorum hominum <HI>Iudae</HI> proditoris Chri&s;ti, &amp; <HI>Neronis</HI> Chri&s;tianorum per&s;e|cutoris.</NOTE> <HI>torments, than either</HI> Nero <HI>the mon&s;ter of men, or</HI> Iudas <HI>the betrayer of Chri&s;t him&s;elfe, indure.</HI> Of this<NOTE N="(i)" PLACE="marg">Edmund. Camp. rat. <HI>10.</HI> Calvinum &amp; hes principes unum coelum capere non pote&s;t. Et <HI>Fi&s;hers</HI> re&s;p. to Doctor <HI>White,</HI> and Doctor <HI>Fearley.</HI> c. <HI>2.</HI> p. <HI>152.</HI> Out of the unity of the Romi&s;h Church, no &s;alvation. Et <HI>Co&s;ter</HI> re&s;p. ad re&s;ut. <HI>O&s;iander</HI> propo&s;it. <HI>8.</HI> wi&s;heth him&s;elfe damned with Lucifer, if ever my <HI>Lutheran</HI> were &s;aved.</NOTE>
<PB REF="5"> &s;traine is the Knights<NOTE N="(l)" PLACE="marg">Flood, Spect. c. <HI>17.</HI> per tot. Papi&s;ts dying in their Reli|ligion &s;aved, <HI>Prote&s;tants damned.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Ala&s;tor,</HI> with whom I am to deale; who&s;e perfect cha|racter your Lord&s;hip may &s;ee in <HI>Sozimus,</HI> drawne to the life by <HI>I&s;idorus Pelu&s;iota,</HI>
<Q><GAP DESC="foreign">,</Q> as your Lord&s;hip may find likewi&s;e, an exact Emblem of his booke in <HI>Plinie</HI> his de&s;cription of the<NOTE N="(m)" PLACE="marg">Plin. nat. hi&s;t. l. <HI>9.</HI> c. <HI>36.</HI></NOTE> Beares whelpe, <HI>Jn|formis caro &s;ine oculis, &s;ine pilis, ungues tan|tum prominent?</HI> In which con&s;ideration, I thought it mo&s;t needfull to make choi&s;e of a Patron of eminent qualitie,<NOTE N="(n)" PLACE="marg">Ben. Syr. Apoph. <GAP DESC="foreign">, Sapiens nutu &s;tultus fu&s;te, Dru&s;. in Alph. vet. &s;ap. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> who with his Authoritie, might &s;toppe the mouth of &s;uch railing <HI>Rab&s;hakah's;</HI> and if need be, lend them a <HI>&s;mart blow</HI> with his <HI>Crozure,</HI> as<NOTE N="(o)" PLACE="marg">Hom. I&s;. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>&V;li&s;&s;es</HI> did <HI>Ther&s;ites</HI> with his <HI>golden Scepter.</HI> Now, although the Knight vvanted not many Noble and vvorthie friends, and &s;ome of your Lord&s;hips Sacred order, who honoured him living, and would willingly have afforded him their protection being dead. Yet two rea&s;ons were prevalent with me, to dedicate this <HI>Apologie</HI> to your
<PB REF="6"> Lord&s;hip. Fir&s;t, becau&s;e none of your Lord&s;hips ranke now living, to my knowledge hath &s;o often <HI>entered into Li&s;ts</HI> with the <HI>Romi&s;h</HI> Adver&s;aries, nor <HI>&s;erved</HI> &s;o long in this <HI>&s;acred Leguer</HI> as your Lord|&s;hip; in &s;o much, that at my aboade in <HI>France,</HI> now 25. yeares agoe: where I &s;aw the<NOTE N="(p)" PLACE="marg">Fitzg: Hector Romuli|dum cecidit &s;ub Achille <HI>Iuello.</HI> Rhemen&s;i Han|nibali Scipio <HI>Fulcus</HI> erat. Tum cor papico|lis <HI>Rainoldus</HI> fregit in <HI>Harto. Alba Stapleto|num jugera</HI> de|inde premunt: Ac cedes no&s;tris pretium <HI>De|ringe</HI> papyris. Nec <HI>gemmae</HI> Renues <HI>Annu|lus</HI> ire comes. Abfuit Ely &s;iis tantum &s;ua <HI>Laurea</HI> lucis. Te Deus in lu|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">os tran&s;tulit er|go &s;uos.</NOTE> <HI>Armes</HI> of other Champions of the truth <HI>blazoned</HI> in a Latin Epigram, I de&s;cried your Lord&s;hips among them in an appo&s;ite Anagram, made by a re|nowned Pa&s;tor of the <HI>French</HI> Church.</P>
<Q><HI>THOMAS MORTONIVS</HI> homo Martis notus.</Q>
<P>With this, or the like Euloge.</P>
<Q>Qua&s;&s;anda e&s;t i&s;t&acirc; Pelias ha&s;ta manu.</Q>
<P>The other rea&s;on was, your Lord&s;hip in your la&s;t, no le&s;&s;e unimitable, then un|an&s;werable<NOTE N="(q)" PLACE="marg"><P>Mort. in|&s;titut. &s;acram. l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>3.</HI> p. <HI>158.</HI> Of Rom. Tran|&s;ub. This &s;en|tence I have &s;eene lately can|va&s;ed by a Ie|&s;uit again&s;t a <HI>judicious and religious Knight,</HI> fal&s;ly imputing unto him diver&s;e fal&s;ities, &amp;c.</P>
<P>And l. <HI>7.</HI> c. <HI>7.</HI> pag. <HI>545.</HI> Your Ie&s;uit in his booke of Spectacles made in confutation of a <HI>judicious and religious Knight,</HI> among many other of his Paradoxes and Ab|&s;urdities &amp;c.</P></NOTE> ma&s;terpiece, <HI>held up your buckler</HI> over the <HI>Knight</HI> then living, more
<PB REF="6"> then once, and <HI>ward off</HI> the <HI>Ie&s;uits blowes;</HI> and therefore I doubt not but that your Lord&s;hip will now <HI>be&s;tride</HI> him being <HI>dead,</HI> and &s;ave him from all further injury. For my &s;elfe, as nothing induced me to make this &s;upplement to his Apologie, but the love of Gods truth, and the truth of my friends love: &s;o I hope that all who love the truth in &s;incerity, upon the impartiall peru&s;all hereof, will doe the <HI>Knight</HI> honour, and me right. For envie it &s;elfe cannot denie that he hath much advantaged the common cau&s;e, both by convincing the Adver&s;aries, in all the maine p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ints of difference betweene us, out of their owne mouthes, and di&s;co|vering more at large then any the <HI>my&s;tery of their Indices expurgatorij;</HI> wherein though they profe&s;&s;e to correct onely their owne writers, and that but from the yeare 1518. yet the <HI>Knight</HI> hath tra|ced them upwards, and detected their corruption of all &s;orts of Writers in all former ages: whereby the judicious
<PB REF="7"> Reader may ob&s;erve &s;uch indirect dea|ling in our Adver&s;aries towards us, as<NOTE N="(r)" PLACE="marg">Melancth. orat. Tom <HI>1.</HI> de Od Sophi&s;t. Cum triginta Tyranni legem tuli&s;&s;ent, ne quis &egrave; &s;uo Ca|talogo in dict&acirc; cau&s;&acirc; necaretur Critias tamen Therammenem collegam &s;uum, cujus nomen in Catalogo &s;crip|tum erat, in dict&acirc; cau&s;&acirc; in|terfici ju&s;sit cumque The|rammenes legis occiliu~ peteret, re&s;pondet, legem &s;criptam e&s;&s;e de iis quorum nomina &s;unt in Catalogo, &s;e vero jam The|rammenes no|men in Catalo|go delevi&s;&s;e.</NOTE> <HI>Critias</HI> in the <HI>Athenian</HI> State practi&s;ed again&s;t <HI>Therammenes:</HI> there being a law enacted in the time of the 30. Tyrants at <HI>Athens,</HI> that none of them &s;hould be put to death without a legall tryall, who&s;e names were written in a certaine Cata|logue, <HI>Critias</HI> bearing a &s;pleene to <HI>The|rammenes,</HI> fir&s;t blots his name out of the Catalogue, and then proceeds to &s;entence him to death; and when <HI>Therammenes</HI> pleaded the priviledge of the law, as be|ing one of the thirty Governours, who&s;e name was &s;et downe in the Catalogue; <HI>Critias</HI> an&s;wered, that the benefit of the law was re&s;trained to tho&s;e who&s;e names were in the Catalogue; but that he had newly &s;trucke out the name of <HI>Therammenes.</HI> Let any that hath a &s;ingle eye, judge whether the proceedings of our <HI>Romi&s;h</HI> Adver&s;aries again&s;t us, are not altogether as injurious as this of <HI>Critias</HI> towards his Collegue <HI>Therammenes.</HI> Fir&s;t,
<PB REF="7"> they raze out our Records, and burne our writings, and then <HI>non&s;uit</HI> us for want of <HI>Evidence.</HI> Secondly, they blot and cut out by their <HI>Indices Expurgatorij,</HI> the mo&s;t pregnant te&s;timonies of Antiquity for us, and then charge us with fal&s;e Allegations, becau&s;e, for&s;ooth, they agree not with their <HI>ca&s;trated</HI> Copies. I freely confe&s;&s;e that if any man &s;hall &s;earch all the <HI>Knights</HI> quotations, e&s;pecially out of the <HI>Romi&s;h</HI> Writers, in the latter corrected, or rather corrupted Editions of them, or looke up|on him through the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> Spectacles un|rubbed, he will thinke him very foule in &s;ome Allegations at lea&s;t: but let him in quire into the more Auncient and uncor|rupted Copies, or looke upon the <HI>Knights</HI> writings without the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> fal&s;e <HI>gla&s;&s;es, and glo&s;&s;es,</HI> or even through tho&s;e <HI>Specta|cles</HI> he hath fitted for him in this la&s;t Pam|phlet; as they are now <HI>wiped and clen&s;ed</HI> by me, he will finde him a mo&s;t faire and ingenuous Writer.</P>
<P>There is no text of Scripture among
<PB REF="8"> many &s;cores, no Allegation of Antiquity among many hundreths, <HI>vellicated</HI> by the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> which is not here <HI>vindicated:</HI> no argument &s;eeming to be <HI>blunted,</HI> which is not <HI>&s;harpened,</HI> and a <HI>new edge &s;et on it;</HI> no <HI>paint, colour,</HI> or <HI>varni&s;h</HI> layed by the <HI>Ie|&s;uit</HI> on the rotten <HI>Pillars of Popery,</HI> which is not here <HI>&s;craped out,</HI> or <HI>wa&s;hed away.</HI> And thus at the length the <HI>Ca&s;e for the Spe|ctacles</HI> begunne by the <HI>Knight</HI> is fini&s;hed: on which I crave leave to <HI>imprint</HI> your Lord&s;hips <HI>Name and Armes;</HI> entreating your Lord&s;hip to accept this <HI>Dedication</HI> as an <HI>indication</HI> of my &s;incere love to my de|cea&s;ed friend, and withall an acknow|ledgment of that great <HI>debt</HI> of thankes I <HI>owe</HI> your Lord&s;hip for your Lord&s;hips many unde&s;erved favours, which I am a|ble no other wayes to <HI>di&s;charge,</HI> then by underwriting my &s;elfe,</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Your Lord&s;hips mo&s;t humbly and affectionatly Devoted, <HI>DA. FEATLEY.</HI></SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<GROUP>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="table of contents">
<PB REF="8" MS="y">
<HEAD>The CONTENTS of the fir&s;t Part.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<HEAD>In the Epistle to <HI>I. R.</HI></HEAD>
<ITEM>FAl&s;ifications objected by the Ie&s;uit, an&s;werd and retorted. <HI>pag.</HI> 2.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Per&s;onall &s;ucce&s;&s;ion of vi&s;ible Profe&s;&s;ors is no certaine note of a true Church. <HI>pag</HI> 3.</ITEM>
<ITEM>The &s;econd Commandement is morall, and the Ie&s;uits leaving it out of the Decalogue, is unexcu&s;able. <HI>pag.</HI> 8.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>In the An&s;wer to the Preface.</HEAD>
<ITEM>The Ie&s;uits an&s;wer is full of railing, &s;landers, &s;ophi&s;mes, and ter|giver&s;ations. <HI>pag.</HI> 16.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>CHAP. I.</HI> The Articles of the Roman Creed, publi&s;hed by Pope <HI>Pius</HI> the fourth, were never anciently received. <HI>pag</HI> 25.</ITEM>
<ITEM>The 39 Articles of the Church of <HI>England</HI> ju&s;tified. <HI>pag.</HI> 30.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Papi&s;ts teach, that the Pope hath power to create new Articles of Faith. <HI>pag.</HI> 33.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Many Doctrines of Poperie are new, by the confe&s;&s;ion of Papi&s;ts them&s;elves. <HI>pag.</HI> 38.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Prote&s;tants have a certaine rule of Faith, Papi&s;ts have not. <HI>pag.</HI> 45.</ITEM>
<ITEM>The Roman tran&s;lation of the Bible, is mo&s;t corrupt. <HI>pag.</HI> 51.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Three &s;orts of corruptions, and abu&s;es of ancient Fathers. 1. By foy|&s;ting ba&s;tard Treati&s;es, &amp; entitling them to the Fathers. 2. By fal|&s;ifying their undoubted Treati&s;es by additions, detractions, or mutations. 3. By alleaging pa&s;&s;ages and places out of them, which are not extant in their Workes: and of all the&s;e three kinds, Ro|mani&s;ts are proved guiltie. <HI>pag.</HI> 64.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Corruptions, and fal&s;ifications of ancient Writers, by Papi&s;ts:
<LIST>
<ITEM>In the fir&s;t Age. <HI>pag.</HI> 65.</ITEM>
<ITEM>In the 2. Age. <HI>pag.</HI> 67.</ITEM>
<ITEM>In the 3. <HI>pag.</HI> 68.</ITEM>
<ITEM>In the 4. <HI>pag.</HI> 73.</ITEM>
<ITEM>In the 5. <HI>pag.</HI> 77.</ITEM>
<ITEM>In the 6. <HI>pag.</HI> 89.</ITEM>
<ITEM>In the 7. <HI>pag.</HI> 90.</ITEM>
<ITEM>In the 8. <HI>pag.</HI> 92.</ITEM>
<ITEM>In the 9. <HI>pag.</HI> 105.</ITEM>
<ITEM>In the 10. <HI>pag.</HI> 109.</ITEM>
<ITEM>In the 11. <HI>pag.</HI> 110.</ITEM>
<ITEM>In the 12. <HI>pag.</HI> 111.</ITEM>
<ITEM>In the 13. <HI>pag.</HI> 112.</ITEM>
<ITEM>In the 14. <HI>pag.</HI> 114.</ITEM>
<ITEM>In the 15. <HI>pag.</HI> 115.</ITEM>
<ITEM>In the 16. <HI>pag.</HI> 122.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Of implicit Faith, and blind Obedience, maintained by Papi&s;ts. <HI>pag.</HI> 143.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>CHAP. II.</HI> Papi&s;ts their bitterne&s;&s;e again&s;t reformed Churches, is cau&s;le&s;&s;e. <HI>pag.</HI> 148.</ITEM>
<PB REF="9" MS="y">
<ITEM>The definition of Heretikes agreeth to Papi&s;ts, but no way to Pro|te&s;tants. <HI>pag.</HI> 151.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Rome</HI> confe&s;&s;ed to be <HI>Babylon,</HI> by learned Romani&s;ts. <HI>pag.</HI> 157.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>CHAP. III. Ca&s;&s;ander</HI> and <HI>Cae&s;enus</HI> are ju&s;tified. <HI>pag</HI> 164.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Corruption in Faith as well as manners, are confe&s;&s;ed to have been in the Roman Church by the learned of that partie. <HI>pag.</HI> 165.</ITEM>
<ITEM>The Councell of <HI>Trent</HI> intended a reformation of Faith as well as manners. <HI>pag.</HI> 173.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>CHAP. IV.</HI> The Catholike Faith is not &s;o indivi&s;ible, but that a man may renounce it in part, though not in all, as many learned Romani&s;ts have renounced the <HI>Trent</HI> Faith in part. <HI>pag.</HI> 178.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Prie&s;ts marriage is lawfull. <HI>pag.</HI> 181.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>CHAP. V.</HI> Romani&s;ts prefer their own interpretations of Scrip|tures, before the ancient Fathers. <HI>pag.</HI> 188.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>CHAP. VI.</HI> Many errours have crept into the Church, who&s;e fir&s;t Authors cannot be named. <HI>pag.</HI> 191.</ITEM>
<ITEM>The difference between Here&s;ie and Apo&s;tacie. <HI>pag.</HI> 196.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>CHAP. VII.</HI> The petty degree of the Romi&s;h Faith is drawne from the ancient Heretikes, namely; the <HI>O&s;&s;eni Helche&s;cite,</HI> the <HI>Capernaites,</HI> the <HI>Manichees,</HI> the <HI>Angelici,</HI> the <HI>Collyridians,</HI> the <HI>Tacians,</HI> and the <HI>Cathori&s;ts. pag.</HI> 219.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>CHAP. VIII.</HI> The Antiquitie, and Vniver&s;alitie of the Prote|&s;tant Faith in generall is proved by the te&s;timonies of our lear|ned Adver&s;aries. <HI>pag.</HI> 253.</ITEM>
<ITEM>There are but 22 Canonicall books of the old Te&s;tament, as is pro|ved by the te&s;timonies of the ancient Fathers, both of the Greeke and Latine Church. <HI>pag.</HI> 276.</ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<HEAD>Errata in the first Part.</HEAD>
<P>PAge 42. line 8. reade his. lin. 17. r. authority, in marg. l. 2. r. ad Dard. p. 57. lin. 11. r. their fore&s;eene. p. 66. l. 4. r. the deepe. p. 75. l. 20. r. Angles. p 92 in mar. l. 8. r. alius, in text, l. 29. r. rejected. p. 93. l. 16. r. &s;erve. p. 109. l. 23. r. ma|king him &s;peake. p. 131. in mar. l. 12. r. veniali. p. 138. l. 25. r. very corruptly. p. 139. l. 25. in marg. r. repurgata: p. 153. l. 22. r. homoou&s;ians. p. 164 in marg. l. 25. r. vice&s;imi tertii. p. 173. l. 23. r. operierunt. p. 189. in mar. l. 17 &s;equinitur. p. 218. l. 2. r. Vitalian. p. 219. l. 18. in marg. r. regnum. p. 224. in marg. <HI>l.</HI> 10. r. minus. p. 248. in marg. l. 12. r. curvat. &amp; l. 14. r. pronus. &amp; l. 18. r. iudico. p. 25 1. l. 6. r. ar|gument. p. 255. l. 3. r. ingenuou&s;ly. p 257. l. 12. r. true body. &amp; l. 21. r. is. &amp; l. 22. dele and. p. 270. l. 4. r. looke. p. 271. l. 29. r. of the. p. 273. l. 3. dele to the p. 279. l. 22. r. when.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="response to dedication">
<PB N="1" REF="9">
<HEAD>To <HI>J. R.</HI> AUTHOR OF THE BOOKE CALLED <HI>A paire of Spectacles.</HI></HEAD>
<P>_I Received a Treati&s;e from you, (M^r. <HI>J.R.</HI>) not long &s;ince pub|li&s;hed again&s;t me by the title of <HI>A paire of Spectacles,</HI> or, <HI>An An&s;wer to a booke called Via tuta,</HI> The &s;afe way: wherein you &s;ay the booke is &s;hewed to be <HI>a Labyrinth of Errours, and the Author a blinde Guide.</HI></P>
<P>To what end your <HI>Spectacles</HI> were made for a blinde man I cannot tell; for &s;ure I am, if I were blinde, a paire of your <HI>Spectacles</HI> could not make
<PB N="2" REF="10"> me &s;ee: how&s;oever if the indifferent Reader will look but upon the <HI>Fronti&s;pice</HI> of your own book, he &s;hall ea&s;ily di&s;cerne that your gla&s;&s;es are deceitfull, and do ju&s;tly occa&s;ion a <HI>Writ of Error</HI> to be brought again&s;t your &s;elfe, for making that to &s;eem in S. <HI>Au|&s;tin,</HI> your fir&s;t Author, which is not. Your words are the&s;e:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Qui autem praetergreditur regulam fidei, non accedit in vi&acirc;, &s;ed recedit de vi&acirc;. Aug. in Joh. Tract. <HI>98.</HI> Tom. <HI>9.</HI> p <HI>487.</HI></NOTE> <HI>He that goeth be&s;ides the rule of faith (which is the Catholique Church) doth not come in the way, but goeth out of the way:</HI> wherein you have added the&s;e words of your owne (viz.) <HI>which is the Catholique Church,</HI> in the &s;ame character with S. <HI>Au&s;tin:</HI> and in lieu of Scripture you pretend the Church to be the rule of Faith; whereas that ancient Father a&s;&s;ures us,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Civitas Dei credit Scriptu|ris&mdash;Und&egrave; fides ip&s;a concepta e&s;t, ex qu&acirc; ju|&s;tus vivit Aug. de Civit. Dei, l. <HI>19.</HI> c. <HI>18.</HI> Tom. <HI>5.</HI> Sancta Scrip|tura no&s;trae do|ctrinae regulam figit. Idem de bono Viduita|tis. Tom. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> that <HI>from the holy and canonicall Scriptures, that faith is formed and bred by which the ju&s;t doe live.</HI> Nay more, hee expre&s;&s;ely profe&s;&s;eth with us, that <HI>the holy Scripture doth fix or &s;ettle the rule of our doctrine.</HI> And thus in your fi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;t citation you fal&s;ifie S. <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> and go be&s;ides the rule of faith and good manners al&s;o, and by &s;tumbling at the thre&s;hold, you &s;hew your &s;elfe to bee the blinde guide you &s;peake of in the fir&s;t page, and the fir&s;t place.</P>
<P>I proceed to your <HI>Dedicatorie Epi&s;tle;</HI> fir&s;t, you begin to de&s;cant upon my name, in paralelling the words <HI>Lyend</HI> and <HI>Lye,</HI> how&s;oever (&s;ay you) <HI>The title of Sir will be left for you.</HI></P>
<P>The&s;e bee the fir&s;t flowers of your eloquence, and they &s;avour &s;weetly. Now if I &s;hould repay you in your owne language, and &s;hew you what men are branded with the letter <HI>(R)</HI> which &s;tands for your name; if I &s;hould &s;hoot backe (I &s;ay) your
<PB N="3" REF="10"> <HI>arrowes, even bitter words,</HI> into your owne bo&s;ome, would it not &s;hew rather want of matter than proofe of doctrine? If you <HI>delight to &s;it in the &s;eat of the &s;cornefull,</HI> it &s;hall be my comfort to tread in the &s;teps of my Saviour, <HI>who when hee was reviled, reviled not againe.</HI> To let pa&s;&s;e your bitter reproa|ches of my learning and breeding, I will come to the matter.</P>
<P>You have not &s;tated the que&s;tion (&s;ay you) <HI>fully and truly, for you were to &s;hew the vi&s;ibilitie of the Church by per&s;ons in all ages.</HI> Then you demand of me where the Church was, which S. <HI>Paul</HI> called <HI>the hou&s;e of God, and pillar of truth;</HI> and thus you pre&s;cribe mee my weapons, and teach mee how to fight.</P>
<P>Touching the vi&s;ibilitie of the Church, it is not to be confined within the narrow compa&s;&s;e of an Epi&s;tle; and therefore I will an&s;wer you and your Je&s;uites challenge at large in place convenient: and as touching your demand where the Church was, which is called <HI>the pillar of truth,</HI> I an&s;wer in briefe, not in <HI>Rome,</HI> but in <HI>Ephe&s;us;</HI> for otherwi&s;e it might &s;eeme incongruous, that the Apo&s;tle &s;hould exhort <HI>Timothy</HI> to walke circum&s;pectly in the Church of God, becau&s;e the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> was the pillar and firmament of truth. And therefore the <HI>Turke</HI> may better alledge this place to prove <HI>Mah<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">mets</HI> religion, being now &s;ubject to his power, than you to ju&s;tifie the Romi&s;h religion, becau&s;e <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> was the pillar of truth.</P>
<P>You proceed, and by way of prevention you tell
<PB N="4" REF="11"> me <HI>the controver&s;ie is not &s;o much of the doctrine as of the per&s;ons:</HI> and then you conclude &s;imply in the very &s;ame page, <HI>The que&s;tion is not of the doctrine, but of the per&s;ons. Oportet e&s;&s;e memorem:</HI> I will but let you &s;ee your contradiction, I quarrell it not, onely I pray you tell mee in the words of &s;oberne&s;&s;e and truth, did ever anywi&s;e man (except your &s;elfe) un|dertake to prove the true Church by the vi&s;ibilitie of the per&s;ons? May not <HI>Jewes</HI> and <HI>Heretiques</HI> by the &s;ame rea&s;on claime a true Church, becau&s;e they had vi&s;ible per&s;ons in all ages?</P>
<P>But &s;ay you this hath beene the way which the holy Fathers have taken, either in proving the Ca|tholique faith, or di&s;proving of here&s;ies; and for your A&s;&s;ertion, you cite <HI>Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cy|prian, Optatus</HI> and <HI>Augu&s;tine:</HI> give me leave to ex|amine your Authors, for as yet you have produced but one ancient Father, and him you have fal&s;ified in the <HI>Fronti&s;pice</HI> of your booke.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Tertull. pre|&s;cript. c. <HI>32.</HI> &amp; lib. <HI>3.</HI> Car. ad|ver&s;. Marcion.</NOTE>Touching your fir&s;t Author, <HI>Tertullian,</HI> (in the fir&s;t place cited by you) hee demon&s;trates two wayes how to di&s;cerne the Church: fir&s;t, by &s;hew|ing &s;ome Apo&s;tle or Apo&s;tolicall per&s;on to have founded it; next, by the conformity of the do|ctrine to the Apo&s;tles: and in his third book again&s;t <HI>Marcion</HI> (which is your &s;econd citation) hee hath nothing at all for your purpo&s;e.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Iren. l.</HI> 3. <HI>c.</HI> 1, 2, 3. <HI>&amp; l.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 43, 45, 46.</NOTE>Touching your &s;econd Author, <HI>Irenaeus,</HI> hee is expre&s;&s;ely again&s;t you; for in the fir&s;t chapter and third booke (cited by you) he &s;aith, <HI>By the will of God they have delivered the Go&s;pel to bee the pillar
<PB N="5" REF="11"> and foundation of truth.</HI> In the &s;econd hee &s;aith, that <HI>when Heretiques are convinced by the Scrip|tures, they fall to accu&s;e them, as if they were not right, or of authoritie, and that they are ambiguous and doubtfull.</HI> In the third hee proveth the truth of the Church by the conformitie of doctrine to the A|po&s;tles, not by the vi&s;ibilitie, as you pretend. In his fourth booke cited by you, he &s;hewes that bare &s;ucce&s;&s;ion is no note of the Church; and in his 45. chapter, which you quote, there is nothing that ma|keth for your que&s;tion. And la&s;tly, in the 46. chap|ter he proveth that the New Te&s;tament is as &s;evere again&s;t fornication as the Old, or rather more: and this may touch the free-hold of that Church which di&s;pen&s;eth with <HI>Stewes;</HI> but of the point in que&s;tion he &s;peakes nothing at all.</P>
<P>Touching your third Author, S. <HI>Cyprian,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Cypr. Ep. <HI>52.</HI> &amp; <HI>76.</HI></NOTE> in the 52. Epi&s;tle cited by you, he per&s;wades <HI>Antonianus</HI> rather to adhere to <HI>Cornelius</HI> than <HI>Novatianus:</HI> and in his 76. Epi&s;tle alledged by you, hee &s;hewes that <HI>Novatianus</HI> &s;ucceeding none in that See, was ordained by him&s;elfe, and therefore could bee no true Bi&s;hop; but as touching the controver&s;ie in que&s;tion, <HI>Ne gry quidem.</HI></P>
<P>Touching your fourth Author, <HI>Optatus,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Optat. adver&s;. Parmen. lib. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> he hand|leth not the que&s;tion, neither maketh any thing at all for you.</P>
<P>La&s;tly,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Augu&s;t. P&s;al. <HI>2.</HI> part. Don. &amp; Ep <HI>165.</HI> &amp; de Utilit. cred<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nd<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> c. <HI>7.</HI></NOTE> touching S. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> you cite the &s;econd <HI>P&s;alme,</HI> and there is nothing handled of the que&s;ti|on: you cite likewi&s;e his 165. Epi&s;tle, wherein hee declares a &s;ucce&s;&s;ion of Bi&s;hops from the Apo&s;tles
<PB N="6" REF="12" MS="y"> time to <HI>Ana&s;ta&s;ius:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Si ordo Epi&s;co|porum &s;ucce|dentium con&s;i|deran<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">us e&s;t. Ep. <HI>165.</HI> p. <HI>751.</HI> Proculdubio ab Eccle&s;i&acirc; Catho|lic&acirc; &s;umendum exordium. De Utilit. creden|di. c. <HI>7.</HI> Idem contr. Cre&s;c. l <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>33.</HI></NOTE> <HI>If</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>an orderly &s;ucce&s;si|on of Bi&s;hops is to be con&s;idered.</HI></P>
<P>Yea but S. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> (&s;ay you) particularly proves the que&s;tion, where he tels his friend <HI>Honoratus, he mu&s;t begin his enquirie from the Catholique Church.</HI></P>
<P>Hee that told the <HI>Manichees, wee mu&s;t take our Exordium from the Church,</HI> told the <HI>Donati&s;ts</HI> like|wi&s;e, <HI>wee mu&s;t re&s;ort to that Church for the re&s;o|lution of our faith, which the &s;acred Scriptures un|doubtedly demon&s;trate to be the true Church:</HI> for <HI>in them</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>we have knowne Chri&s;t,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem Ep. <HI>166.</HI></NOTE> <HI>in them wee have knowne the Church.</HI> If you can derive your &s;uc|ce&s;&s;ion in per&s;on and doctrine, from Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles, we will an&s;wer you as &s;ometimes S. <HI>Au|&s;tin</HI> an&s;wered <HI>Petilian</HI> the <HI>Donati&s;t:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem contr. l. Petil. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>85.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Whether of us be Schi&s;matiques we or you? aske you not mee, I will not aske you, let Chri&s;t bee asked, that hee may &s;hew us his owne Church.</HI></P>
<P>After the&s;e &s;everall pa&s;&s;ages you returne againe to your fir&s;t Author <HI>Tertullian,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Tertull. pre|&s;cript. c. <HI>19.</HI></NOTE> and with him you conclude; <HI>where it &s;hall appeare that there is the truth of Chri&s;tian di&s;cipline and faith, there &s;hall bee the truth of Scriptures and Expo&s;itions.</HI> And from hence you inf<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rre, that <HI>we are fir&s;t to &s;eeke the per&s;ons that profe&s;&s;e the faith, that is, the Church.</HI> Whereas in truth his te&s;timony doth rather prove the per|&s;ons, by the doctrine, than the doctrine by the per|&s;ons, and th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s is mo&s;t agreeable to his owne A&s;&s;er|tion in the third chapter,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem c. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Ex per&s;onis probamus fi|dem, an ex fide per&s;onas?</HI> As if hee &s;hould &s;ay, wee plainly prove the per&s;ons by the doctrine, not the doctrine by the per&s;ons.</P>
<PB N="7" REF="12" MS="y">
<P>Now put on your Spectacles, and take a review of your Authors. The fir&s;t maketh nothing for you, the &s;econd is expre&s;&s;ely again&s;t you, the third &s;peakes not to the point in que&s;tion, the fourth and fifth handle the que&s;tion, but not at all to your ad|vantage, or our prejudice: and thus you have pro|duced foureteene &s;everall places out of the ancient Fathers in one page, and all either impertinently, or fal&s;ly, or directly again&s;t your &s;elfe: by which the Reader may conjecture what is like to bee the i&s;&s;ue of your whole worke, who have &s;o gro&s;&s;ely fal&s;i|fied &s;o many authorities in your Epi&s;tle, and before the entrance into the body of your booke.</P>
<P>From your lame proofes of the Churches authori|tie, you proceed to the ju&s;tification of your maimed commandements, <HI>viz.</HI> in leaving out the &s;econd, and altering the fourth in your <HI>Breviaries</HI> and <HI>P&s;al|ters.</HI> You &s;ay <HI>you print them in your Bibles, and therefore they are not ab&s;olutely left out, as long as they are el&s;ewhere: Mate quod &s;cimus.</HI> It is true the words are contained in your Bibles. But <HI>Dic quod rogamus,</HI> why doe you not publi&s;h Gods comman|dements as hee wrote them? Admit that in your <HI>Catechi&s;mes</HI> you &s;hould &s;et downe this forme of <HI>Bapti&s;me, I baptize thee in the name of the Father,</HI> and leave out the <HI>Sonne,</HI> and the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> would it be &s;ufficient to &s;ay it is not ab&s;olutely left out, be|cau&s;e it is contained in the B<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ble? Shew mee the man among&s;t your Papalins that dare alter a Kings command or a Popes Breve, and will your Church attempt more again&s;t the Precepts of God, than
<PB N="8" REF="13"> again&s;t a Popes Bull or a Kings Proclamation? But the truth is, and you know it too well, if the &s;econd precept were expre&s;&s;ely &s;et downe in your <HI>P&s;alters,</HI> the common people would be too bu&s;ie in expo&s;tu|lating the cau&s;e why Image-wor&s;hip &s;hould be com|manded by the Church, and yet condemned by Gods word.</P>
<P>Yea, but <HI>it is part of the fir&s;t commandement</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>or otherwi&s;e it is ceremoniall.</HI></P>
<P>Let it bee one or other, &s;ince God thought it needfull to be added, how dare you leave it out? It was the voice of God him&s;elfe,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Deut.</HI> 4.2.</NOTE> <HI>You &s;hall not adde unto the word which I command, neither &s;hall you dimini&s;h ought from it, that you may keepe the com|mandement of the Lord your God.</HI> Againe, how is it a part of the fir&s;t if it be ceremoniall, when the fir&s;t is agreed on all hands to be naturall &amp; morall? The truth is, it is not ceremoniall, but morall, and plainly di&s;tinct from the former; for the fir&s;t for|bids the true wor&s;hip of any fal&s;e god, the &s;econd forbids any fal&s;e wor&s;hip of the true God; and how&s;oever <HI>Pere&s;ius</HI> and <HI>Catharinus,</HI> and you for company, would have gladly the Law again&s;t Ima|ges to be po&s;itive and ceremoniall, and &s;o to cea&s;e at the comming of Chri&s;t; yet your owne <HI>Bellar|mine</HI> di&s;avowes it with a <HI>Non probatur:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Bellarm. de Imag. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>7.</HI></NOTE> <HI>This opi|nion is not allowed of us, both for the rea&s;ons made again&s;t the Jewes, and for that Irenaeus, Tertullian, S. Cyprian, and S. Au&s;tin, doe all teach that the com|mandements, excepting the Sabbath, are a Law wholly naturall and morall.</HI></P>
<PB N="9" REF="13" MS="y">
<P>After your Apologie for your maimed comman|dements, you grow &s;o virulent, as if <HI>the poy&s;on of A&s;pes were under your lips,</HI> you crie out, I <HI>notoriou&s;ly fal&s;ifie &s;ome Authors,</HI> and <HI>impertinently alledge</HI> o|thers; you charge me with <HI>execrable perjurie,</HI> you &s;ay, <HI>I am a framer of lies,</HI> and <HI>I offend in all kinde of fal&s;hood:</HI> and la&s;tly, you conclude the booke to bee none of mine, but &s;ome <HI>Mini&s;ters,</HI> becau&s;e you heare it from &s;ome, that <HI>I &s;carce skill of ordinarie Latine.</HI></P>
<P>I profe&s;&s;e for my learning I cannot boa&s;t of it; I doe willingly a&s;&s;ume that &s;aying of <HI>Origen,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Gratias ago Deo, quod ig|norantiam meam non ig|noro. Orig. <HI>1</HI> Cor. <HI>1.27.</HI> P&s;al. <HI>82.</HI></NOTE> <HI>I am not ignorant of my ignorance:</HI> but let me tell you, as in Gods cau&s;e I &s;eeke no prai&s;e, &s;o I feare no re|proach; for <HI>God hath cho&s;en the fooli&s;h things of the world to confound the wi&s;e;</HI> nay more, <HI>out of the mouth of babes &amp; &s;ucklings he hath ordained &s;trength, to &s;till the enemie and the avenger.</HI> And how&s;oever &s;eemingly you condemne mee for ignorance, yet I am verily per&s;waded that if I were more ignorant than you make mee, you would love me the more: for your Church commends <HI>Ignorance for the mo|ther of Devotion:</HI> and the rather, becau&s;e your owne <HI>Clemangis</HI> tels us,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Nich. Clemang. c. <HI>6.</HI></NOTE> before the dayes of reformati|on, <HI>Many Prie&s;ts who had cure of &s;oules, were &s;ent to their flocks, not from their &s;tudies, or from the &s;choole, but from the plough, and they under&s;tood as much La|tine as Arabick; nay, they could not read, and that which was &s;hamefull, they could not di&s;tingui&s;h an Al|pha from a Beta.</HI> Neither can it be denied, that ma|ny Popes have di&s;pen&s;ed with ignorant men, who
<PB N="10" REF="14" MS="y"> <HI>per &s;altum,</HI> without any learning, have leaped into a B<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;hopricke. Pope <HI>Paul</HI> the third created <HI>Rober|tus Venantius</HI> Arch-Bi&s;hop of <HI>Armach,</HI> for two &s;pe|ciall qualities;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Tum quod Mi&s;&s;am bell&egrave; canere, tum quia cur&s;u Ve|redario in equo vehi per t&egrave; di|ceretur. Gen|til. Exam. Con|cil. Trid l. <HI>2.</HI> &s;e&s;&s;. <HI>1.</HI> p. <HI>33.</HI></NOTE> <HI>the one, becau&s;e hee could &s;ing Ma&s;&s;e &s;weetly; the other, becau&s;e he could ride a Po&s;t hor&s;e skilfully.</HI> And in the latter ages it was &s;o u&s;uall to admit any <HI>Ignoramus's</HI> into a Bi&s;hoprick, that when our King <HI>Edward</HI> the third &s;ollicited Pope <HI>Clement</HI> the &s;ixth, to create <HI>Thomas Hartfield</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Durham,</HI> notwith&s;tanding the Cardinals cried out he was a Lay-man, and an Ideot, the Pope replyed, <HI>If the King of England had entreated for his A&s;&s;e,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Si Rex Angliae pro a&s;ino &s;uo &s;upplic&acirc;&s;&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t, votum &s;uum hac vice obti|nui&s;&s;et. Wal|&s;ing. citat. apud Antig. Brit. in vita Joh. Uf|fordi. <HI>And</HI> Godwin <HI>in his Catal. of Bi|&s;hops, p 526.</HI> Era&s;. Encom. Mor. Heb. <HI>7.3.</HI></NOTE> <HI>he &s;hould have obtained it at that time.</HI> To come nee|rer to the times; <HI>Julius</HI> the third made the keeper of his monkey a Ma&s;&s;e-prie&s;t, and I pre&s;ume he had &s;mall &s;tore of <HI>Latine.</HI> The Friar who would prove from the words of Chri&s;t, <HI>An non decem facti &s;unt mundi?</HI> that God made ten worlds, had &s;crace skill of ordinarie Latine. And la&s;tly, hee was S^r. <HI>John Lack-Latine,</HI> who would prove that <HI>Melchi&s;edeck</HI> offered &s;alt with bread and wine, becau&s;e he read in the text, <HI>Rex Salem,</HI> which is, the King of peace.</P>
<P>I &s;peake not this by way of recrimination, but to let you know, how well you and your fellowes are read in the two titles of the Law, <HI>De maledicis, &amp; De Clerico promoto per &s;altum.</HI></P>
<P>Take therefore from me what learning you will, di&s;traine it, and impound it at your plea&s;ure, I will never trouble you with <HI>Replevin:</HI> on ly I &s;ay with S. <HI>Au&s;tin, Seeke others of more learning, but beware of them that pre&s;ume of learning.</HI></P>
<PB N="11" REF="14" MS="y">
<P>And whereas you conceive a <HI>Mini&s;ter made my booke, and I beare the name onely for to countenance the worke:</HI> If I had received help from &s;ome in this kinde, you need not blame me for it, for it is ordi|narie with your men, to have whole Colledges joyne their helping hand in defence of your cau&s;e. But in an&s;wer to your &s;uppo&s;all, and to vindicate our Mini&s;ters from tho&s;e great a&s;per&s;ion<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> of igno|rance, of corruption, of ob&s;tinacie, of perjurie, laid unto their charge (as Authors of the worke) I witne&s;&s;e a true confe&s;&s;ion before God, who knowes I lye not, a Mini&s;ter was &s;o farre from making my booke,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Via Tuta. Via Devia.</NOTE> that I neither had help from Clergy-man nor Lay-man, for compo&s;ing or making either of my bookes.</P>
<P>Let it &s;uffice for me to have &s;aid the truth, which although it appeare never &s;o &s;imple, yet it is able to remove a <HI>mountaine</HI> of learning: if there be in mee, I &s;ay not any talent, but onely a mite of a talent, my prayer unto God is, &amp; ever was, it may be be&s;towed wholly to the honour of his truth, and the benefit of his Church. And whereas you charge mee with ob&s;tinacie and malice (which, &s;ay you, is the true cau&s;e of all my errours) let mee tell you, if I were in an errour, you have not the patience to &s;hew it me, but by bitterne&s;&s;e and railing. Your learning haply may worke miracles in the eares of the un|learned that cannot judge; but it cannot turne dark|ne&s;&s;e into light, nor errour into truth. And although your bitterne&s;&s;e might ju&s;tly occa&s;ion that malice, of which you accu&s;e me; yet it is &s;o farre from my
<PB N="12" REF="15" MS="y"> thoughts, that I pitie you, and in requitall of your paines, I pray for you: and that which S. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;aid of the <HI>I&s;raelites,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Rom.</HI> 10.1.</NOTE> I wi&s;h to the <HI>Romani&s;ts</HI> and members of your Church, <HI>Brethren, my hearts de|&s;ire and prayer to God is that they may be &s;aved.</HI></P>
<P><HI>But</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>the&s;e were not your fir&s;t fruits, for you tran&s;lated and publi&s;hed</HI> Bertram, <HI>an ob&s;cure Au|thor, with a preface of your owne, and thereby gave &s;ufficient triall of your ignorance and corruption, whereof you were convinced by</HI> (O.E.) <HI>but never clee|red your &s;elfe of &s;o foule a taxe.</HI></P>
<P>It is true that &s;ome ten yeeres &s;ince I cau&s;ed <HI>Ber|tram</HI> to be reprinted, and publi&s;hed with a preface before it; and it is as true, that hee being a Romi&s;h Prie&s;t taught our doctrine of the <HI>Euchari&s;t</HI> above eight hundred yeeres &s;ince, and therefore by way of prevention, you terme him <HI>an ob&s;cure Author,</HI> though he were famous in his time.</P>
<P>As touching the foule taxe of ignorance and cor|ruption, in fal&s;e tran&s;l<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ting it (wherewith you charge mee) you are much mi&s;taken; for I never tran&s;lated it, but onely reprinted the old tran&s;lati|on: this both hee and you might have &s;eene in the <HI>Fronti&s;pice</HI> of the booke, in the&s;e words: <HI>Tran&s;lated and imprinted in the Engli&s;h tongue, Anno Dom.</HI> 1549, <HI>and now the third time publi&s;hed:</HI> &s;o that the Tran&s;l<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tion into Engli&s;h was made before I was borne. Againe, in the end of my preface you &s;hall finde the&s;e words, <HI>Pittie it were but this lamp &s;hould receive a new light by reprinting him, which the ini|quitie of the time had almo&s;t extinqui&s;hed.</HI> Now I
<PB N="13" REF="15" MS="y"> pray, Sir, what cau&s;e was there of any an&s;wer to your namele&s;&s;e Author, or rather what cau&s;e was there of his and your bitterne&s;&s;e, in charging mee with fal&s;e tran&s;lating, with ignorance and corrup|tion? I profe&s;&s;e I am not ignorant that your men are guiltie of many &s;uch fal&s;e accu&s;ations <HI>(ad faci|endum populum)</HI> to make your Pro&s;elytes beleeve, that all our bookes are full of lyes; of whom I may truly &s;ay, as S. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> &s;ometimes &s;pake of the <HI>Do+nati&s;ts, When they cannot by &s;lie and wily co&s;enage creep like A&s;pes, with open profe&s;&s;ed violence they rage like Lions.</HI></P>
<P>La&s;tly (you &s;ay) that <HI>an An&s;wer to my booke hath hitherto beene deferred, becau&s;e no man of learning would thinke it worth his paines to make any.</HI></P>
<P>Let mee tell you, I have received three printed an&s;wers to <HI>Via tuta,</HI> be&s;ides two written copies from namele&s;&s;e Authors: the fir&s;t was from a Mer|chant, and that is called <HI>Via ver&egrave; tuta:</HI> the &s;econd from a Prie&s;t, and that is called <HI>A paire of Specta|cles to &s;ee the way:</HI> the third is from a Clerk, and that is termed <HI>A Whe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;tone of Reproofe.</HI> The fir&s;t printed Author is termed M^r. <HI>John Heigham,</HI> who&s;e Treati&s;e &s;avours too much of bla&s;phemie and ri|baldrie: the &s;econd is M^r. <HI>John Floyd,</HI> who&s;e worke is full of bitterne&s;&s;e and &s;ubtiltie: the third is <HI>Tom Tell troth</HI> (for &s;o he termes him&s;elfe) who&s;e pam|phlet is fraught with all childi&s;hne&s;&s;e and imperti|nencie. Now if none of the&s;e were men of learning, as you confe&s;&s;e (becau&s;e no learned man would take the paines to an&s;wer it) what may I thinke of your
<PB N="14" REF="16"> wi&s;dome, which hath returned an an&s;wer full of railing accu&s;ations (&s;uch as the <HI>Angell</HI> of God would not have brought again&s;t the Devill him|&s;elfe)? I &s;ay, in regard your bitter lines are rather a libell without a name, than a Chri&s;tian and mode|rate confutation, I might well have declined a re|plication to it, and have told you with S. <HI>Jerome, Your bitterne&s;&s;e de&s;erves rather an an&s;wer with &s;corn,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Magis indigna|tionem &s;criben|tis quam &s;tu|dium. Hieron. adver&s;. Vigil.</NOTE> <HI>than a refutation in earne&s;t.</HI> But when I con&s;idered it was the fruit of your religion, and common practice of your Church, that for want of matter you com|monly fall upon the per&s;on, I re&s;olved with my &s;elfe to call you to a &s;ober reckoning, that the truth of God might appeare, and that by your owne bit|terne&s;&s;e, you might better di&s;cerne the character of a bad cau&s;e, and an evill &s;pirit.</P>
<P>For a conclu&s;ion take but a &s;hort view of your bit|ter reproaches: you term me a <HI>blind Guide,</HI> &amp; a <HI>Mi|ni&s;teriall Knight;</HI> you &s;ay <HI>my booke is a Labyrinth of errours;</HI> you crie out <HI>my &s;irname ha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">h the two fir&s;t letters of a lye;</HI> you &s;ay <HI>the title of Sir will be left for me;</HI> you condemne me of <HI>execrable perjurie;</HI> you affirme <HI>I am a framer of lyes,</HI> and <HI>abound in all kind of fal&s;hood;</HI> you tell me, <HI>I &s;carce under&s;tand Latine,</HI> and it is conceived a <HI>Mini&s;ter made my booke;</HI> you charge me with <HI>ob&s;tinacie,</HI> with <HI>malice,</HI> with <HI>cor|ruption,</HI> with <HI>ignorance,</HI> with <HI>fal&s;e tran&s;lating;</HI> you proclaime the fearefull <HI>judgements</HI> of God upon me for <HI>perverting &s;oules,</HI> and as if I were pa&s;t all grace, you &s;ay <HI>I am not capable of any good advice;</HI> yet at la&s;t (as if you would make mee &s;ome amends
<PB N="15" REF="16" MS="y"> for all your accu&s;ation) you conclude: <HI>I forbeare to &s;ay any more, re&s;ting how&s;oever your well wi&s;hing friend.</HI></P>
<P>Surely you have &s;aid enough, and you doe well to forbeare to &s;ay more; for I thinke the words of your Epi&s;tle are &s;o &s;ufficiently dipt in lye and gall, that they will &s;erve for your whole worke: but I pardon you, and &s;hall returne you no other an&s;wer than the Arch-Angell gave to <HI>Satan,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Jude ver&s;. <HI>9.</HI></NOTE> <HI>The Lord re|buke you:</HI> onely let me tell you, I cannot thinke you a well-wi&s;hing friend, who&s;e heart and tongue is full of cur&s;ing and bitterne&s;&s;e; for I may truly &s;ay of you as <HI>Cato</HI> &s;ometimes &s;aid of <HI>Lentulus,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Dicam falli eos qui negant os habere. Seneca.</NOTE> <HI>They are much deceived that deny you to have a mouth (and a foule one too.)</HI> In the meane time you mu&s;t remem|ber that for your idle and vaine words you mu&s;t give accompt to God; and for your fifteene &s;eve|rall fal&s;ifications you mu&s;t give an accompt to your Reader. And thus by way of <HI>Traver&s;e</HI> and deniall to all other things impertinently alledged, I an&s;wer No: to your railing I an&s;wer nothing.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="response to preface">
<PB N="16" REF="17">
<HEAD>AN ANSWER TO HIS PREFACE to the Reader.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Good Chri&s;tian Reader,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>_FIr&s;t thou &s;halt ob&s;erve, that the author of the <HI>Spectacles</HI> chiefe aime is either by &s;hifts and ca|vils to outface the truth, or by Sophi&s;trie and bitter words to darken it: one while hee cries downe my booke, and &s;lights it in &s;uch a &s;cornefull manner, as if it were not worth the an&s;wering; another while hee complaines that <HI>there is no place in the whole booke,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 205.</NOTE> <HI>which is not either fal&s;ly or impertinently alledged:</HI> one while hee pro|claimes, that my endevours <HI>are poore indeed, and farre &s;hort of what is requi&s;ite in writing bookes;</HI> another while he profe&s;&s;eth, <HI>It hath &s;omewhat in it
<PB N="17" REF="17"> which may draw away an hone&s;t-minded man,</HI> and that <HI>his Catholique friend was &s;tumbled at it.</HI> Now what is the rea&s;on of the&s;e impertinent excur&s;ions and contradictions? It was the ob&s;ervation of an|cient <HI>Maxentius: Heretiques when they finde them|&s;elves not able to yeeld a rea&s;on of their wilfulne&s;&s;e, then they fall into plaine railing.</HI> And certainly &s;uch is the bitterne&s;&s;e of this Author, that were I per|&s;waded <HI>Pythagoras</HI> tran&s;migration of &s;oules into other mens bodies, had beene true; I &s;hould be|leeve that the &s;oule of <HI>Rab&s;hekah</HI> had beene tran&s;|ported into his body: for otherwi&s;e if he had but a graine of charitie, hee would never &s;purne a blinde man (for &s;o he termes me) when Chri&s;tian charitie teaches him another le&s;&s;on. If he were well ver&s;ed in Antiquities, hee would never have cited &s;o many places of ancient Fathers fal&s;ly and impertinently in one page, and yet condemne others of ignorance (and fal&s;ification) in the Fathers. If hee were well read in the Booke of Wi&s;dome (I meane, in the &s;a|cred Scriptures) he would never have replyed with &s;uch &s;corne and di&s;daine; for without doubt the Apo&s;tle &s;pake to M^r. <HI>Lloyd</HI> the Romani&s;t, as well as to the re&s;t of the <HI>Romans:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Rom.</HI> 11.3.</NOTE> <HI>Not to thinke of him|&s;elfe more highly than he ought to thinke, but &s;oberly, according as God hath dealt to everie man the mea|&s;ure of faith.</HI></P>
<P>Hee that accu&s;eth another man of ignorance, of lying, of malice, of execrable perjurie, and the like, had need be a man him&s;elfe without all exception; yet if wee may beleeve the Doctors of his owne
<PB N="18" REF="18" MS="y"> Church, he is guiltie of the&s;e and much more: wit|ne&s;&s;e the <HI>Sorbonicall</HI> cen&s;ure at <HI>Paris,</HI> wherein <HI>Hal|lier</HI> and <HI>Aurelius</HI> accu&s;e him of <HI>lying,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Aurelius in li|bri &s;ui titulo. Hallier in Ad|monit. ad Lect. p. <HI>8, 9.</HI></NOTE> <HI>of ignorance, of here&s;ie, of profane &s;currilitie, of bla&s;phemie and im|pietie, of furious, filthy, and devilli&s;h railing, of un|&s;ufferable arrogancie,</HI> and the like: and as touching his bitter accu&s;ations, it &s;eemes it is his accu&s;tomed manner of writing, witne&s;&s;e his <HI>Spongia</HI> written again&s;t the <HI>Sorboni&s;ts,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Aurelius in Vindiciis. p. <HI>385.</HI></NOTE> under the title of <HI>Hermannus Laemilius,</HI> otherwi&s;e di&s;covered to be <HI>John Floyd:</HI> I &s;ay he hath drencht his &s;ponge in that gall of bitter|ne&s;&s;e (&s;uch charitie and unitie is there among&s;t them|&s;elves) that I may truly &s;ay of him, as the <HI>Spartans</HI> &s;ometimes &s;aid of the <HI>Theban</HI> Oratour; <HI>If he think as he writes, his ignorance is de&s;perate; if otherwi&s;e, his con&s;cience is &s;eared.</HI></P>
<P>To give you a ta&s;te of the manner of his writing: when I cite authorities that are pregnant, and be|yond his ju&s;t exception, hee &s;pares my per&s;on, and condemnes the Authors them&s;elves, and complaines they are branded with the note of here&s;ie and &s;in|gularitie: when as in truth they are branded onely by their Inqui&s;itors, for &s;peaking again&s;t the errors of their <HI>Trent</HI> Doctrine, being otherwi&s;e, knowne members of the <HI>Roman</HI> Church.</P>
<P>When I cite an Author of our owne, as namely, B. <HI>U&s;her,</HI> for tran&s;lating <HI>Aelfricks</HI> Homily out of the <HI>Saxon</HI> tongue, one while hee cries out, <HI>U&s;hers corruptions are laid open to the world:</HI> another while he tels mee, <HI>I tooke the words from U&s;her, be|cau&s;e I under&s;tood not Latine, or perhaps becau&s;e I
<PB N="19" REF="18"> would be loth not to follow any errours or corruptions that come in my way:</HI> and thus hee &s;pends about ten pages, &s;ometimes inveying again&s;t our reverend and renowned Bi&s;hop, &s;ometimes again&s;t mee, for fal&s;e tran&s;lating <HI>Aelfrick</HI> out of <HI>Latine,</HI> when as the <HI>Latine</HI> cited by B. <HI>U&s;her</HI> in the margent,<NOTE PLACE="marg">See B. <HI>U&s;hers</HI> an&s;wer to the Je&s;uites chal|lenge, chap. of the Reall pre&s;ence.</NOTE> which hee takes to be <HI>Aelfricks,</HI> is the <HI>Latine</HI> of <HI>Bertram,</HI> and not <HI>Aelfricks,</HI> who&s;e was tran&s;lated out of the <HI>Saxon</HI> tongue, and not out of the <HI>Latine.</HI></P>
<P>Againe, when I cite an Author of his &s;ide, as namely, <HI>Petrus Crinitus,</HI> for taking down of Images in Churches, he <HI>&s;tretches his throat,</HI> &amp; makes this hi|deous exclamation:<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 303.</NOTE> <HI>For your authorities of the Com|mon Law, there are &s;o many foule faults committed by you, that I know not where to begin:</HI> then hee tax|eth me with leaving out two principall words <HI>(Hu|mi &amp; &s;olo)</HI> whereas the Author, which I cite, hath no &s;uch words: I render the place truly as I finde it, I put not to him, I take not from him, I alter not one letter of his words or meaning, and yet he cries out, <HI>the faults are &s;o many, that I know not where to begin.</HI></P>
<P>Againe, when I cite ten or twelve Authors for our Communion in both kindes, for our prayer in a knowne tongue, and the like: for mo&s;t of them he &s;ends me to <HI>Bellarmine</HI> for an an&s;wer, &amp; for the re&s;t (&s;aith he) Ile que&s;tion you. Then he complaines of fal&s;ifications, when as in fine, the Exception is a|gain&s;t the tran&s;lation of &s;ome poore word (This) for (That): and when he is de&s;titute of any colour of an&s;wer, his la&s;t refuge is this, <HI>The book is prohibited.</HI></P>
<PB N="20" REF="19">
<P>As touching my Engli&s;hing of Latine Authors, I confe&s;&s;e I have not tran&s;lated whole &s;entences <HI>ad literam;</HI> for I intended not a volume, but a ma|nuell: yet I ever faithfully render the true &s;en&s;e and meaning of the Author. Well, what exception could he take to this?<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 52.</NOTE> One while hee confe&s;&s;eth I &s;et downe the Latine truly, but I doe not tran&s;late it literally: another while hee cries out: <HI>It will not &s;erve your turne,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 224.</NOTE> <HI>to &s;ay you place it in the Engli&s;h as you place it in the Latine, for in tran&s;lation the &s;en&s;e is chiefly to be regarded.</HI></P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 459.</NOTE>La&s;tly, hee prote&s;teth for him&s;elfe, that <HI>hee hath declined no Author, either moderne or ancient;</HI> when as it will appeare, he &s;ends many of them to <HI>Bellar|mine</HI> for an an&s;wer; others he rejects, as condem|ned by the <HI>Index Expurgatorius;</HI> others hee de|clines, as unworthy of his an&s;wer, by &s;lighting them, or otherwi&s;e pa&s;&s;eth by them, as children u&s;e to doe; when they cannot read, they thinke it be&s;t to skip over.</P>
<P>To &s;ay nothing of his <HI>Elenchs,</HI> his <HI>Sophi&s;mes,</HI> his <HI>Sophi&s;try,</HI> his <HI>Fallacies,</HI> which are many, I will trace him in his &s;teps (God willing) laying a|&s;ide all bitterne&s;&s;e and railing accu&s;ations. In the meane time I will &s;ay with the Prophet <HI>David: Plead thou my cau&s;e,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P&s;al.</HI> 35.1.</NOTE> <HI>oh Lord, with them that &s;trive with me: for the flouds are ri&s;en, the flouds lift up their voyce,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P&s;al.</HI> 93.4, 5.</NOTE> <HI>the flouds lift up their waves, the waves of the &s;ea are mightie, and rage horribly; but yet the Lord that dwelleth on high is mightier.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="response to text">
<PB N="21" REF="19" MS="y">
<HEAD>An An&s;wer to <HI>J. R.</HI> his booke called <HI>A paire of Spectacles.</HI></HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. I.</HI> The Summe of his An&s;wer to my fir&s;t Chapter.</HEAD>
<P>_IN this his fir&s;t Chapter, hee endevoureth princi|pally to prove, that the Articles of the Roman Creed, publi&s;hed by Pope <HI>Pius</HI> the fourth, were anciently received, though newly defined by the Councell of <HI>Trent:</HI> for proofe, he in&s;tanceth in the fir&s;t Councell of <HI>Nice,</HI> and compareth that Coun|cell and their <HI>Creed</HI> with this of <HI>Trent:</HI> hee proceeds by way of recrimination to que&s;tion the 39. <HI>Articles</HI> of our Church; he accu&s;eth us for corrupting and mi&s;|interpreting the Scriptures, for declining Traditions, Fathers, and Councels: hee excu&s;eth their <HI>Index Ex|purgatorius,</HI> and accu&s;eth us for fal&s;ifying the <HI>Fathers:</HI> and la&s;tly, he concludeth with the doctrine of implicite faith: and this is the &s;ub&s;tance and contents of his an|&s;wer to my fir&s;t Chapter. All which, and what&s;oever el&s;e is materially contained therein, and the re&s;t of his &s;e|ctions following, I will take into &s;everall parts di&s;tinct|ly, and returne him a moderate an&s;wer.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="response to chapter">
<HEAD>The Reply to M^r. <HI>Lloyd.</HI></HEAD>
<P>FIr&s;t, touching your <HI>Trent Creed,</HI> you complaine that according to the common fa&s;hion of our
<PB N="22" REF="20"> Mini&s;ters, by way of deri&s;ion, I divide it into twelve points, as it were into twelve Articles, which (&s;ay you) <HI>he and they might with as much rea&s;on di|vide it into foure and twentie.</HI></P>
<P>Here you begin to quarrell at your fir&s;t en|trance, but I hope you will gladly forgive us this wrong; for if wee accu&s;e your <HI>Trent</HI> Fathers, for coyning twelve Articles in &s;tead of foure and twentie, they and you are more beholding to us, for laying the le&s;&s;er number to your charge: and yet if you plea&s;e to review them, you &s;hall finde they fall mo&s;t naturally within the number of twelve.</P>
<P>But you would know what difference there is betwixt the Councell of <HI>Nice,</HI> and the Councell of <HI>Trent,</HI> and their two <HI>Creeds.</HI></P>
<P>Let mee tell you, if ever the proverb held true <HI>(Compari&s;ons are odious)</HI> it holds betwixt the two Councels, and their two Creeds: the Councell of <HI>Trent</HI> is not worthy to be named the day wherein the Councell of <HI>Nice</HI> is mentioned. That famous Councell of <HI>Nice</HI> was the fir&s;t, and be&s;t generall A&s;&s;embly, after the Apo&s;tles time, that was &s;um|moned in the Chri&s;tian world: it had in it 318. Bi|&s;hops, <HI>Totius orbis terrarum lumina,</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Victori|nus</HI>) among&s;t whom were the foure Patriarchs of the <HI>Ea&s;terne</HI> and <HI>We&s;terne</HI> Churches. It was called by the fir&s;t and be&s;t Chri&s;tian Emperour,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Qua&s;i &s;erva|tor &amp; medi|cus animarum. Eu&s;eb. in vita Con&s;tant. orat. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>10.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Con&s;tan|tine</HI> the <HI>Great,</HI> who was <HI>Vocali&s;simus Dei praeco,</HI> and (as it were) <HI>the Pre&s;erver and Phy&s;itian of our &s;oules,</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Eu&s;ebius.</HI>) This Emperour exhorted
<PB N="23" REF="20" MS="y"> the Fathers and Bi&s;hops of that Councell,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Omni igitur &s;editios&acirc; con|tentione depul|s&acirc;, literarum divinit&ugrave;s in|&s;piratarum te|&s;timoniis res in quae&s;tionem ad|ductas di&s;&s;ol|vamus. Theod. Hi&s;t. Eccl. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>7.</HI> p. <HI>208.</HI></NOTE> to <HI>lay a&s;ide &s;editious contention, and re&s;olve all doubts and que&s;tions by the te&s;timonies of divine Scriptures:</HI> and accordingly they framed their Creed out of the doctrine of the Apo&s;tles, and all who were not of the <HI>Arrian faction did a&s;&s;ent and agree to it</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Theodoret.</HI>)</P>
<P>Now take a view of your <HI>Trent</HI> Councell, and compare them together. Your Councell of <HI>Trent,</HI> like <HI>Demetrius</HI> A&s;&s;embly, was &s;ummoned by Pope <HI>Paul</HI> the <HI>third,</HI> without a lawfull calling; the three Patriarchs of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> of <HI>Antioch,</HI> of <HI>Alex|andria,</HI> refu&s;ed to be pre&s;ent; the Legates of the Kingdome of <HI>Denmark,</HI> of <HI>Suetia,</HI> and the Duke|dome of <HI>Pru&s;ia,</HI> were all ab&s;ent, and returned their an&s;wer, that <HI>the</HI><NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Gravamina oppo&s;ita, Con|cil. Trid. Cau|&s;a. <HI>1.</HI> pag. <HI>21.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Pope had no right to call a Coun|cell.</HI> Our Queene<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Epit. rerum in orbe ge&s;t. &s;ub Ferd. <HI>1.</HI> ann. <HI>1561.</HI> apud Scard. tom. <HI>3.</HI> p. <HI>2171.</HI> E Belgio in In|&s;ulam trajicere prohibuit. ibid.</NOTE> <HI>Elizabeth</HI> of ble&s;&s;ed memory, di&s;avowed the Councell, in &s;o much that when the Pope &s;ent <HI>Hieronymus Martinengus,</HI> as Legate into <HI>England,</HI> to &s;ummon our Bi&s;hops, &s;hee would not &s;uffer him to land, or &s;et his foot on her Domini|ons. The <HI>French</HI> King &s;ignifieth by his Legate <HI>James Amiot,</HI> that hee for his part, neither held it for a generall, not yet for a lawfull Councell; but for a private Conventicle: and accordingly hee wrote, <HI>Conventui Tridentino.</HI> The Emperour,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Innoc Gentil. &s;e&s;&s;.</HI> 12. and Hi&s;t. of Trent, l 4. p. 319. <HI>Illyric. in Pro|te&s;t. contr. Concil. Trid.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Charles</HI> the <HI>fifth,</HI> declared by his Emba&s;&s;adour, <HI>Hurtado Mendoza,</HI> in the name of the whole Em|pire, that <HI>the Bi&s;hops wholly hanging at the Popes b<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">cke, had no authoritie to make lawes, in cau&s;es of re|formation of religion and manners. Andreas Dudi|thius,</HI>
<PB N="24" REF="21" MS="y"> the Bi&s;hop of five Churches,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Dudith. in Ep. ad Maximil. <HI>2.</HI> de Calice, &amp; Sacerdotum conjugio.</NOTE> told the Em|perours <HI>Maximilian</HI> and <HI>Ferdinand,</HI> that the <HI>Trent</HI> Fathers were like a paire of countrey <HI>Bag-pipes;</HI> which unle&s;&s;e they were &s;till blowne into, could make no mu&s;ick. The Holy Gho&s;t had nothing to doe with that Councell, and therefore they could create no new Articles of faith. Your hi&s;torie of <HI>Trent</HI> tels us,<NOTE PLACE="marg">The hi&s;torie of Trent.</NOTE> <HI>the Spirit was &s;ent in a Carriers cloak|bag from Rome to Trent; but when there fell &s;tore of raine, the Holy Gho&s;t could not come before the flouds were abated, and &s;o it fell out, that the Spirit was not carried upon the waters (as wee read in Gene&s;is) but be&s;ides them.</HI> Looke upon your Bi&s;hops, they were but fortie and two at the fir&s;t meeting, and two of them titular; the re&s;t, for the mo&s;t part (&s;aith <HI>Du|dithius</HI>) were but <HI>hirelings,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Andr. Dudith. ut &s;upr&agrave;.</NOTE> <HI>young men, and beard|le&s;&s;e, hired and procured by the Pope, to &s;peake as hee would have them.</HI> To &s;ay nothing of tho&s;e Empe|rours (who called the fir&s;t and be&s;t Councels) and were pre&s;ent in per&s;on, when as the Popes &s;end but their Legates:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Eu&s;eb. in vit&acirc; Con&s;tant. orat. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>16.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Ego intereram Concilio</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Con|&s;tantine) I was pre&s;ent at the Councell among&s;t you, as one of you.</HI> Touching his Imperiall &s;eat in the Councell,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. c. <HI>10.</HI></NOTE> <HI>his throne was very great and pa&s;&s;ed all the re&s;t</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Eu&s;ebius:</HI>) whereas there is no grea|ter di&s;tance in the time,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Advertendum, quod locus ubi &s;edet Impera|tor, non &s;it al|tior loco ubi te|net pedes Pon|tifex. Liber. Ceremon. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> than there is now difference in the places; for the <HI>Emperour</HI> is allowed but to &s;it at the Popes foot-&s;toole; and <HI>it is</HI> (&s;pecially) <HI>to bee noted</HI> (&s;aith your booke of ceremonies) <HI>that the place whereupon the Emperour &s;itteth, may bee no higher than the place where the Pope &s;etteth his feet.</HI>
<PB N="25" REF="21" MS="y"> Your Councell of <HI>Trent</HI> hath made many decrees for reformation of manners, but did they ever re|forme this abu&s;e, and re&s;tore the ancient cu&s;tome?</P>
<P>You then that are &s;o confident in equalling tho&s;e two Councels, doe you thinke there is no difference betwixt a conventicle and a generall Councell? be|twixt a Councell lawfully called, and one &s;ummo|ned by u&s;urpation? betwixt a late Councell, held in a corner of the world, in the wor&s;t age, and an an|cient Councell, in a mo&s;t famous citie, held in the mo&s;t flouri&s;hing age? betwixt a Councell that layes her &s;ole foundation in the Scriptures, and one that builds her fir&s;t Article of faith upon Traditi|ons?<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bulla Pii <HI>4.</HI> Art. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> betwixt a Councell approved by the whole Chri&s;tian world, and one that is di&s;claimed by mo&s;t Chri&s;tian Kings and Bi&s;hops, and the <HI>major</HI> part of Chri&s;tendome?</P>
<P>But you would further know a difference be|twixt their two Creeds.</P>
<P>Let me tell you in briefe. When a Romani&s;t, like your &s;elfe, would needs know of a Prote&s;tant, the difference betwixt his religion and ours,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Sube&s;&s;e Roma|no Pontifici omni humanae creaturae decla|ramus, dicimus, definimus &amp; pronunciamus omnin&ograve; e&s;&s;e de nece&s;sitate &s;a|lutis. Bonifac. <HI>8.</HI> in Extr. de Major. &amp; O|bed. cap. Unam &s;anctam.</NOTE> becau&s;e both beleeved the Catholike Church in the <HI>Creed;</HI> the Prote&s;tant made an&s;wer, that wee beleeve the Catholike faith contained in the Creed, but doe not beleeve the thirteenth Article which the Pope put to it: when the Romani&s;t was de&s;irous to &s;ee that Article, the Extravagant of Pope <HI>Boniface</HI> was brought, wherein it was declared to be altogether <HI>of nece&s;sitie of &s;alvation, for everie humane creature to be &s;ubject to the Bi&s;hop of Rome.</HI> This thirteenth
<PB N="26" REF="22"> Article in your <HI>Trent</HI> Creed (be&s;ides the newne&s;&s;e of the re&s;t) makes a great difference (M^r. <HI>Lloyd</HI>) be|twixt the two Creeds; and the rather, becau&s;e it is flat contrarie to the decree of the <HI>Nicene</HI> Councell, be&s;ides many other differences, as &s;hall appeare hereafter.</P>
<P><HI>But</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>they agree in this, that as the Arri|ans of tho&s;e times cryed out again&s;t that Creed, as be|ing new, and having words not found in Scripture; for example,</HI> Con&s;ub&s;tantiation: <HI>&s;o our Prote&s;tants cry out again&s;t the Trent profe&s;sion of faith, for the &s;ame rea&s;ons of noveltie, and words not found in Scripture; as for example,</HI> Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation.</P>
<P>It is true, the <HI>Arrians</HI> at the time of the Coun|cell cryed out again&s;t the <HI>Nicene</HI> Creed, for defi|ning the word <HI>Con&s;ub&s;tantiall,</HI> or <HI>Coe&s;&s;entiall,</HI> as be|ing new: but it is as true they complained without a cau&s;e; for long before that time the word was u&s;ed by <HI>Origen,</HI> and other ancient Fathers, as ap|peares by <HI>Socrates:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Doctos quo&s;|dam ex veteri|bus &amp; illu&s;tres Epi&s;copos Ho|mou&s;ii dictione u&s;os e&s;&s;e cogno|vimus, Socrat. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>8.</HI> Augu&s;t. contr. Maxim. l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>14.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Wee know</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>that of the old writers, certaine learned men, and famous Bi&s;hops have u&s;ed the word</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">: and accordingly it was re&s;olved by S. <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> that the name was not inven|ted, but confirmed and e&s;tabli&s;hed in the Councell of <HI>Nice.</HI></P>
<P>The word therefore <HI>Con&s;ub&s;tantiall</HI> was not new, which they complained of, but the word <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation</HI> is &s;o new, that it was altogether unknowne till the Councell of <HI>Lateran,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Concil. Latera|nen&s;e, Anno <HI>1215.</HI> Bellarm.</NOTE> 1200. yeeres after Chri&s;t; &amp; therefore your compari&s;on holds not in the fir&s;t place. But admit the Coun|cell
<PB N="27" REF="22" MS="y"> had fir&s;t devi&s;ed the word,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Quomodo di|cis in Scriptu|ris divinis <GAP DESC="foreign">, non inveniri? qua&s;i aliud &s;it <GAP DESC="foreign">, qu&agrave;m quod dicit, Ego de Deo patre exivi, &amp;, Ego &amp; Pater u|num &s;umus. Ambro&s;. de fide contra Arrian. Tom. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>5.</HI> p. <HI>223.</HI> in initio. Augu&s;t. Ep. <HI>174.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. Athana&s;. Ep. quod decret. Synod. Nic. Congruis ver|bis &s;unt expo|&s;ita. Nihil re&s;ert hanc vocem non e&s;&s;e in Scriptur&acirc;, &s;i vex id &s;ignifi|cat quod Scriptura do|cet. Va&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. in <HI>1.</HI> Thom. Tom. <HI>2.</HI> Di&s;p. <HI>110.</HI> c. <HI>1.</HI> &s;ect. <HI>4.</HI></NOTE> yet it is agreed on all hands, that the meaning of the word is contai|ned in Scripture. S. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> writing again&s;t the <HI>Arrians,</HI> puts to them this very que&s;tion: <HI>How doe you &s;ay the word Con&s;ub&s;tantiall is not in divine Scrip|tures, as if Con&s;ub&s;tantiall were any thing el&s;e, but I went out from the Father, and, the Father and I are one:</HI> the word therefore was a pregnant word, a|greeable to the &s;acred word of God. And albeit (&s;aith S. <HI>Au&s;tin) the word perhaps be not found there, yet the thing it &s;elfe is found: and what more frivolous quarrell is it, than to contend about the word, when there is certaintie of the thing it &s;elfe?</HI> In like man|ner <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> an&s;wered the <HI>Arrians</HI> in tho&s;e dayes, as I mu&s;t an&s;wer you: Touching the word <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>albeit it be not found in Scriptures, yet it hath the &s;ame meaning that the Scriptures intend, and im|ports the &s;ame with them who&s;e eares are entirely affe|cted towards religion.</HI></P>
<P>We cry not out again&s;t you &s;imply, becau&s;e your word <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation</HI> is not found in the Scrip|tures, but becau&s;e the true &s;en&s;e and meaning of the word is not contained in them; for the words <HI>Unbe|gotten, Increate,</HI> the word <HI>Sacrament,</HI> the word <HI>Tri|nitie,</HI> and the like, are not found in Scripture; yet wee teach them, wee beleeve them, becau&s;e their true &s;en&s;e and meaning may bee deduced from the Scripture: and we profe&s;&s;e with your Je&s;uite <HI>Va&s;|ques, Nihil refert, &amp;c. It mattereth not whether the word be in Scripture or no, &s;o as that which it &s;igni|fieth be in the Scripture.</HI></P>
<PB N="28" REF="23" MS="y">
<P>To come neerer to you: doe you but prove that the words, <HI>This is my body,</HI> imply <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiati|on,</HI> and let me be branded for an <HI>Arrian,</HI> if I refu&s;e to &s;ub&s;cribe to it: but that the world may know we condemne you ju&s;tly, both for the newne&s;&s;e of the word, and your doctrine al&s;o; hearken to the learned Doctors of your owne Church.</P>
<P>Your Schoole-man <HI>Scotus</HI> tels us, that before the Councell of <HI>Lateran,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Bellarm. l. <HI>3.</HI> de Euchar. c. <HI>23.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation</HI> was not beleeved as a point of faith. It is true, your fellow Je&s;uites are a&s;hamed of this confe&s;&s;ion, and there|upon <HI>Bellarmine</HI> an&s;wers:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE> <HI>This opinion of his is no way to bee allowed:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Suarez in <HI>3.</HI> Tom. in Euch. di&s;p. <HI>70.</HI> &s;ect. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> and <HI>Suarez,</HI> not content with &s;uch a &s;ober reckoning, proclaimes that <HI>for his lowd &s;peaking hee ought to be corrected:</HI> and as touching the words of con&s;ecration, from whence you would inferre both the name &amp; nature of <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantia|tion,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Mont. in Luk. <HI>22.</HI></NOTE> your <HI>Arias Montanus</HI> &s;aith, <HI>This is my body,</HI> that is, <HI>my body is &s;acramentally contained in the Sa|crament of bread:</HI> and (hee addes withall) <HI>the &s;ecret and mo&s;t my&s;ticall manner hereof, God will once vouch&s;afe more clearely to unfold to his Chri&s;tian Church.</HI> The doctrine therefore of your carnall and corporall pre&s;ence is not &s;o cleerely derived from the Scriptures: nay on the contrarie hee pro|te&s;teth, that the body of our Saviour is but &s;acra|mentally contained in the Sacramen (as the Prote|&s;tants hold) and therefore not bodily.</P>
<P>It is more than evident, that the word <HI>Con&s;ub|&s;tantiation</HI> (u&s;ed by the Fathers) was derived from the Scriptures, but you have not that infallible a&s;&s;u|rance
<PB N="29" REF="23" MS="y"> for your word <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation,</HI> witnes your Cardinall <HI>Cajetan,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ca<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">et. in Thom. part. <HI>3.</HI> q. <HI>75.</HI> art. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> he a&s;&s;ures us that <HI>there appeareth nothing out of the Go&s;pel, that may inforce us to un|der&s;tand Chri&s;ts words properly: yea nothing in the text hindereth, but that the&s;e words [This is my body] may as well be taken in a metaphoricall &s;en&s;e, as tho&s;e words of the Apo&s;tle, The Rocke was Chri&s;t: that the words of either propo&s;ition may well bee true, though the things there &s;poken be not under&s;tood in a proper &s;en&s;e, but in a metaphoricall &s;en&s;e onely.</HI> Nay more, your Je&s;uite <HI>Suarez</HI> confe&s;&s;eth,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Suarez Tom. <HI>3.</HI> di&s;p. <HI>46.</HI></NOTE> that this Cardinall (in his Commentary upon this Article) doth af|firme, that tho&s;e words of Chri&s;t <HI>[This is my body]</HI> doe not of them&s;elves &s;ufficiently prove <HI>Tran&s;ub|&s;tantiation, without the authoritie of the Church: and therefore by the command of Pope Pius the fifth, that part of his Commentary is &s;ponged out of the Romi&s;h Edition.</HI> Thus one while you correct your Au|thors, another while you purge them for delivering the truth in our behalfe.</P>
<P>Look upon your Cardinall <HI>Bellarmine;</HI> although he will not allow that &s;en&s;e which the <HI>Lutherans</HI> give,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bell. de Euch. l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>19.</HI></NOTE> yet hee granteth that tho&s;e words <HI>[This is my body] may imply either &s;uch a reall change of the bread, as the Catholiques hold; or &s;uch a figurative change, as the Calvini&s;ts hold.</HI> And although hee would &s;eeme to prove that the words of Scripture are &s;o plaine, that they may compell a refractorie man to beleeve them, yet having well weighed the rea&s;ons and allegations of other Schoole-men, at la&s;t concludes: <HI>It may ju&s;tly be doubted,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Bell. de Euch. l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>23.</HI></NOTE> <HI>whether the
<PB N="30" REF="24" MS="y"> text be cleere enough to inforce it, &s;eeing men &s;harp and learned (&s;uch as Scotus was) have thought the contrary.</HI> How therefore your Church &s;hould ground a point of faith upon a doubtfull opinion, or on &s;uch words as by the te&s;timonies of your be&s;t learned Divines may receive a double con&s;truction, I leave it to be judged.</P>
<P>But farther in proofe of Pope <HI>Pius</HI> Creed, <HI>I could urge</HI> S^r. <HI>Humfrey</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>with the</HI> 39. <HI>Articles appointed by the authoritie of the Church of England, to be uniformely taught by all Mini&s;ters, which they are to &s;weare unto; which Articles, though they be in|deed new coyned, as the foundation of a new Church, yet</HI> S^r. <HI>Humfrey being his mothers Champion, will not (I &s;uppo&s;e) yeeld her, or her doctrine to bee new.</HI> Thus you.</P>
<P>It is true as you &s;ay, there are 39. <HI>Articles</HI> ap|pointed by our Church, to bee uniformely taught by all Mini&s;ters: and it is as true that they are publi|&s;hed and received with unitie and con&s;ent (which your men acknowledge for a proper marke of the true Church.) And withall, let me adde this one thing for your ob&s;ervation (and indeed it is a thing remarkable) whereas all your <HI>Trent</HI> Articles have beene que&s;tioned, and confuted by <HI>Chemnitius, Chamierus, Gentilletus,</HI> and other Prote&s;tant wri|ters, yet there was never any Papi&s;t could goe far|ther, than to tell us, as you doe, I could urge you with the novelty of the 39. <HI>Articles.</HI> I &s;ay, never as yet did any Romani&s;t attempt, much le&s;&s;e was able to confute and overthrow our <HI>Articles,</HI> which &s;tand
<PB N="31" REF="24"> like a hou&s;e built upon a rocke, immoveable, and cannot be &s;haken.</P>
<P>Let me tell you further, your compari&s;ons betwixt our <HI>Articles</HI> and yours doe not hold; for all your Articles are fundamentall points to your <HI>Trent</HI> be|leevers, and the deniall of any of them makes them heretiques, and damned per&s;ons, as your Popes Bull expre&s;&s;ely declareth. On the other &s;ide,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bulla Pii quarti.</NOTE> &s;ome of our <HI>Articles</HI> concerne the di&s;cipline of the Church, and are not e&s;&s;entiall to &s;alvation; others concerne the ancient and latter here&s;ies, wherein we teach the negative, and tho&s;e are not properly <HI>Ar|ticles</HI> of faith which we beleeve, but points of do|ctrine which wee condemne, and beleeve not. And that you may know our Articles are not new, nor newly coyned by our men; if you will put on your &s;pectacles, you &s;hall finde that mo&s;t of our prime <HI>Articles</HI> are taught and received by your owne Church, as well as ours; and therefore I hope you will confe&s;&s;e they are not coyned, and built upon the foundation of a new Church.</P>
<P>Briefly touching our 39. <HI>Articles.</HI> The fir&s;t &s;ort are in the Affirmative, both ours and yours; and all tho&s;e are uniformely received by both Chur|ches. The &s;econd &s;ort are ours onely, which we af|firme, and you deny: and tho&s;e are very few in number, and are evidently deduced from the Scrip|ture. The third &s;ort are yours, which we deny, and you affirme; and for that cau&s;e you terme our re|ligion negative; and tho&s;e remaine for you to make good. Joyne therefore tho&s;e negative <HI>Articles,</HI>
<PB N="32" REF="25"> which are wholly yours, to tho&s;e po&s;itive <HI>Articles</HI> which you hold with us, and you &s;hall ea&s;ily di&s;|cerne (if the denomination followeth the greater part) tho&s;e <HI>Articles</HI> may mo&s;t properly bee termed <HI>Articles</HI> of your faith; for I dare confidently avow that of the 39. <HI>Articles,</HI> there are above 35. yours, that is, either &s;uch which you hold with us, which are at lea&s;t twentie, or &s;uch wherein the affirmative is yours, and not ours, which are at lea&s;t fifteene: take therefore your owne libertie, either confute ours, or make good your owne, <HI>&amp; herbam porri|gemus,</HI> and I will give you the bucklers.</P>
<P>You proceed, and upon a fal&s;e &s;uppo&s;all, that our Church hath created new Articles, you proclaime in the name of your owne Church the&s;e words: <HI>We teach that for Articles of faith, the Church can make none, as &s;he cannot write a Canonicall booke of Scrip|ture.</HI> Thus you.</P>
<P>When <HI>Diogenes</HI> &s;aw a &s;uppo&s;ed Ba&s;tard ca&s;ting &s;tones in a pre&s;&s;e of much people, he gave the boy this caveat: <HI>Take heed le&s;t thou hit thy father.</HI> This is like to bee your ca&s;e; for by this <HI>Tenet</HI> you will wound the Church your <HI>Mother,</HI> and among&s;t o|thers you will &s;urely hit your holy <HI>Father</HI> the Pope.</P>
<P>It appeares fir&s;t, that you endevoured to &s;hew, that your Church hath created no new Articles of faith, but for want of &s;olid proofes you begin to faint, and thinke it the &s;afe&s;t way to turne Prote|&s;tant in this point, and &s;ay, <HI>the Church can create none:</HI> but I wonder how you dare pronounce in
<PB N="33" REF="25"> the name of the Church <HI>(we teach)</HI> whereas in truth your Church teacheth it not. This is therefore but a cunning device of yours, to dazle the eyes of the ignorant with your fal&s;e gla&s;&s;es, and to make them beleeve it is the generall <HI>Tenet</HI> of your Church; and then you thinke they will conclude ac|cording to your A&s;&s;ertion: <HI>Ergo, The Church hath created none;</HI> when as your &s;aying makes more &s;trongly again&s;t you, if either your Articles prove new, or the Pope and his Agents profe&s;&s;e the contrarie.</P>
<P>M^r. <HI>Heigham,</HI> who fir&s;t an&s;wered my Book,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mr. <HI>Heigham</HI> in his an&s;wer called <HI>Via ver&egrave; tuta, pag.</HI> 199. <HI>&amp;</HI> 200.</NOTE> was a member of your Church, and he cries aluod, that <HI>the Church hath power to decree, and promulgate new articles of faith:</HI> But your third Replyer, <HI>Tom Tell-troth,</HI> in his <HI>Whet&s;tone of Reproofe,</HI> thought it the wi&s;e&s;t way to decline the que&s;tion; for hee knew well when you were both at odds, and taught flat contrarie doctrine each to other, the <HI>Whet&s;tone</HI> of nece&s;&s;itie would belong to one of his fellow writers. But to let pa&s;&s;e &s;uch differences among&s;t your &s;elves; bee it &s;poken to your comfort, Friar <HI>Walden,</HI> about two hundred yeares agoe, affirmed the &s;ame that you doe,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Waldens doct. Fidei. Tom. <HI>1.</HI> l. <HI>2.</HI> Art. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>22.</HI> p. <HI>203.</HI></NOTE> viz. that <HI>the Church could not create a new article of faith: How can any &s;uch article</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>framed after many yeares, be catho|lique and univer&s;all, when as it was unknowne to our fore-fathers for foureteen hundred yeares before? It was not beleeved, becau&s;e not heard of, when the Apo|&s;tle tels us, faith commeth by hearing. Such an arti|cle therefore, although it be of faith, yet it cannot be
<PB N="34" REF="26" MS="y"> catholique:</HI> and this hee proves directly from Fa|thers and Councels. And whereas you affirme, that your Church can no more make an article of faith, than &s;hee can make a Canonicall Booke of Scripture;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Canus loc. Theol. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>7.</HI> p. <HI>38.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Canus,</HI> your Bi&s;hop of <HI>Canaries,</HI> will joyne with you, That <HI>the Church of the faithfull now living cannot write a Canonicall Booke of Scrip|ture:</HI> and hee gives the rea&s;on for it; <HI>There are not now any new revelations to be expected, i|ther from the Pope, or from a Councell, or from the univer&s;all Church:</HI> and from hence it will follow of con&s;equence by your owne Logick; <HI>Therefore the Church can create no new article of faith.</HI></P>
<P>Thus farre I have waded in your behalfe, that you may the better ju&s;tifie your owne A&s;&s;ertion; for you wil find your Church is like a hou&s;e divided again&s;t it &s;elfe (and therefore cannot &s;tand long). I &s;ay that <HI>Quere</HI> which was made in <HI>Waldens</HI> dayes, was re&s;olved above two hundred yeares before by your profound Schoole-man <HI>Thomas Aquinas,</HI> in your Churches behalfe, that the Pope had power <HI>Condere articulos fidei,</HI> to create new articles of faith; to remove therefore the&s;e fig-leaves with which you would cover the naked truth: This learned Doctour well under&s;tood that there were many new articles of religion crept into the Church in his dayes; he knew well, that (albeit he were the prime Schoole-man of his time) yet with all his &s;ophi&s;trie hee could not make them comply with the ancient Catholique faith: and thereupon
<PB N="35" REF="26" MS="y"> he thought it the &s;ure&s;t way, to give the Pope an ab&s;olute and independant power over faith and re|ligion, and accordingly re&s;olved,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ad &s;olam au|thoritatem &s;ummi Pontifi|cis pertinet no|va Editio Sym|boli, &s;icut &amp; alia omnia quae pertinent ad to|tam Eccle&s;iam. Thom <HI>2.2.</HI> q. <HI>1.</HI> Art. <HI>10.</HI></NOTE> <HI>It belongs onely to the authoritie of the Soveraigne Pope, to make a new Edition of the Creed, and all things el&s;e that con|cerne the univer&s;all Church:</HI> Then he concludes the que&s;tion, and gives this rea&s;on for it; <HI>The publi&s;hing of a new Creed belongs to his power who hath autho|ritie finally to determine matters of faith: and this</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>belongs unto the Pope.</HI> Upon which pa&s;|&s;ages <HI>Andradius,</HI> a chiefe pillar of your <HI>Trent</HI> Coun|cell, confe&s;&s;eth, that <HI>the Bi&s;hops of Rome,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Romanos Pon|tifices, multa definiendo quae ante&agrave; latita|bant, Symbo|lum Fidei au|gere con&s;ue vi&s;|&s;e. Andrad. Def. Concil. Trid. lib. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> <HI>in defining many things which had beene formerly hidden, have been accu&s;tomed to increa&s;e their Creed.</HI> Now what thinke you of your <HI>Aquinas</HI> po&s;ition, and your <HI>Andradius</HI> confe&s;&s;ion? I hope you perceive that your learned Schoole-men are of another opinion: And that you may know that your Church doth not approve your pretended <HI>Tenet</HI> for Catholique doctrine; hearken and con&s;ider, what your holy Father the Pope declareth, touching this que&s;tion, and then con&s;ider in what ca&s;e you &s;tand. Pope <HI>Leo</HI> the tenth &s;ent out his Bull again&s;t <HI>Luther,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Certum e&s;t in manu Eccle&s;iae aut Papae pror|&s;us non e&s;&s;e &s;tatuere arti|culos fidei. Tom. <HI>4.</HI> Conc. Par. <HI>2.</HI> in Bulla Leon. <HI>10.</HI> in f<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ne Lateran. Conc. novi&s;&s;i|mi. p. <HI>135.</HI></NOTE> and among&s;t other articles, he chargeth him in particu|lar with this, that <HI>Luther</HI> &s;hould &s;ay, <HI>It is certaine that it is no way in the power of the Church or Pope to ordaine articles of faith.</HI> This you &s;ee is <HI>Luthers</HI> Te|net, and this is yours. Now what exception (think you) might the Pope take at this your A&s;&s;ertion? Behold, for this and the like <HI>Tenets,</HI> he thundereth <HI>Anathema</HI> again&s;t him; hee declareth this with the
<PB N="36" REF="27" MS="y"> re&s;t of his <HI>Articles</HI> to be a pe&s;tiferous, pernicious, &s;candalous, and &s;educing errour to well-minded men; he prote&s;teth, it was contrarie to all charitie, contrarie to the reverence of the holy Church, and my&s;teries of faith, and in conclu&s;ion condemnes all his <HI>Articles as hereticall,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Inhibentes in virtute &s;anctae obedientiae, ac &s;ub majoris ex|communicatio|nis latae &s;en|tentiae. Ibid. p. <HI>136.</HI></NOTE> <HI>forbids them to be received by vertue of holy obedience, and under paine of the graund Excommunication.</HI></P>
<P>You have heard the &s;entence of your Lord <HI>Pa|ramount,</HI> and by it you may know your owne doome. If you hold with <HI>Luther,</HI> you are in dan|ger of Excommunication, and &s;tand as a condem|ned heretique by his Holine&s;&s;e with the <HI>Luthe|rans:</HI> If you for&s;ake your hold, you have lo&s;t your faith: And thus you have a wolfe by the eares, you &s;tand in danger whether you hold him, or let him goe. I wonder that you, having taken &s;o long a time to an&s;wer &s;o poore a Work, and having many A&s;&s;i&s;tants for the compo&s;ing of it, they and you could be all ignorant of the Popes infallible <HI>Bull.</HI> Your Cardinall <HI>Bellarmine,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Qua&s;i Eccle&s;ia po&s;terioris tem|poris aut de&s;e|rit e&s;&s;e Eccle|&s;ia, aut facul|tatem non ha|beat explican|di, &amp; decla|randi, con&s;titu|endi etiam &amp; jubendi quae ad fidem &amp; mores Chri&s;tianos pertinent. Bell. in Barcl.</NOTE> who in the&s;e latter times hath laboured more than any other, to up|hold your new <HI>Articles</HI> of faith; yet in obedience to the Pope, and &s;aving all advantages to his cau&s;e, when (in the que&s;tion of depo&s;ing Kings) he failed of antiquitie and proofe out of Scriptures and Fa|thers, at la&s;t returnes this peremptorie an&s;wer; <HI>As if the Church of the&s;e latter times had cea&s;ed to be a Church, or had not power to explaine and declare, yea to ordaine and command tho&s;e things, which apper|taine to faith and Chri&s;tian manners:</HI> and that you
<PB N="37" REF="27" MS="y"> may know that you and your Co-adjutors &s;tand &s;ingle in opinion again&s;t the Pope and his Cardi|nals, your Je&s;uite <HI>Salmeron</HI> will &s;hew you, that it &s;tands with great rea&s;on to make <HI>additions in e&s;&s;en|tiall points of faith:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Doctrina fidei admittit addi|tionem in e&s;|&s;entialibus. Salm. Tom. <HI>13.</HI> Di&s;p <HI>6.</HI> Par. <HI>3.</HI> &sect;. E&s;t ergo. Idem Di&s;p. <HI>8.</HI></NOTE> and hee gives this an&s;wer for it: <HI>Becau&s;e nature is not capable of all truths at one time:</HI> and from this and the like rea&s;ons he con|cludes, <HI>therefore there may be new traditions concer|ning faith and manners, though they were never cre|ated, or declared by the Apo&s;tles.</HI></P>
<P>Thus you &s;ee the unitie among&s;t your &s;elves: and how&s;oever the&s;e po&s;itions may &s;eeme &s;trange to you and others of your opinions, yet your School-men and Lawyers have played the Popes Mid|wives: yea, Pope <HI>Leo</HI> the tenth hath put to his helping hand, to deliver your Pope <HI>Pius</HI> the fourth of that i&s;&s;ue, I meane, tho&s;e new borne <HI>Articles,</HI> of which your Church hath &s;o long time before tra|vailed. Briefly let mee tell you, your <HI>Articles</HI> are detected by your owne men to be <HI>grandement</HI> &s;u|&s;picious of new coynage; and if for no other cau&s;e, yet for this alone, they give a ju&s;t occa&s;ion and jea|lou&s;ie, when &s;uch poore &s;hifts and eva&s;ions are de|vi&s;ed by your Pope and his adherents, to make them good: for it is a true &s;aying of a renowned Bi&s;hop, and it is the faith of all reformed Catholiques:<NOTE PLACE="marg">B. Morton, Grand Impo&s;t. cap. <HI>2.</HI> &s;ect. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> <HI>He can onely make an article of faith who can create a &s;oule, and after make a Go&s;pel to &s;ave that &s;oule, and then give unto that &s;oule the gift of faith to beleeve that Go&s;pel.</HI></P>
<P>I proceed to your doctrine: <HI>That is onely to bee
<PB N="38" REF="28"> called a new faith</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>which is cleane of ano|ther kind, that is differing or di&s;agreeing from that was taught before.</HI> Thus you.</P>
<P>I will not take advantage of your fir&s;t A&s;&s;ertion, that your faith is grounded upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apo&s;tles (which you can never prove;) but wil joyne i&s;&s;ue with you upon your la&s;t <HI>A&s;&s;ump&s;it, That is only to be called a new faith, which is cleane of another kind, and is different &amp; di&s;agree|ing from what was taught before:</HI> but &s;uch are ma|ny of the Articles of Pope <HI>Pius</HI> the fourth, extra|cted from the Councell of <HI>Trent,</HI> as &s;hall appeare by proofes at large in their proper places. In the meane time let me tell you, your Church teacheth not onely <HI>Nov&egrave;,</HI> but <HI>Nova,</HI> not onely <HI>Praeter,</HI> but <HI>Contra,</HI> even be&s;ides, and contrarie to that which &s;he fir&s;t received from the ancient Church: &s;o that how&s;oever you &s;eeke to darken truth by faire and &s;pecious pretences, yet in truth your <HI>Trent</HI> Additi|ons are forraine to the faith, as neither principles nor conclu&s;ions of it. And that you may know and acknowledge with us, that your <HI>Trent</HI> faith is dif|fering and di&s;agreeing from what was taught be|fore; I pray call to mind your owne confe&s;&s;ions touching the&s;e particular Articles of your Roman Church.</P>
<P>Your doctrine touching Lay-peoples communi|cating under one kind (namely in bread onely) is an Article of the <HI>Roman</HI> faith, and now generally taught and practi&s;ed in the <HI>Roman</HI> Church: but this practice, by your owne confe&s;&s;ion, is different and
<PB N="39" REF="28"> di&s;agreeing from what was taught before: for you &s;ay, pag. 253. touching the Authors which you bring for proofe, <HI>That it was the common practice of the Church, for the Laytie to communicate in both kinds.</HI> I allow of their authoritie.</P>
<P>Your Prayer and Service in an unknown tongue, as it is now u&s;ed in the Roman Church, by your owne confe&s;&s;ion is different and di&s;agreeing from what was taught before; for, &s;ay you pag. 270. <HI>It is true,</HI> that <HI>Prayer and Service in the vulgar tongue was u&s;ed in the fir&s;t and be&s;t ages, according to the precept of the Apo&s;tles, and practice of the Fathers.</HI> In the beginning it was &s;o.</P>
<P>Your doctrine of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, which at this day is generally received, <HI>de &s;ub&s;tantia fidei,</HI> for an Article of Faith, yet by your owne confe&s;&s;i|on is different and di&s;agreeing from what was taught before; for, &s;ay you pag. 167. <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tan+tiation might well be &s;aid not to have beene, de &s;ub|&s;tantia fidei, in the Primitive Church, (as Yribarne &s;peaketh) becau&s;e it had not beene &s;o plainly delivered nor determined in any Councell, till Gregorie the &s;e|venth his time:</HI> and this was above a thou&s;and yeares after Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>Your private or &s;olitarie Ma&s;&s;e, wherein the Prie&s;ts doe daily communicate without the people, is by your own confe&s;&s;ion different and di&s;agreeing from what was taught before and practi&s;ed; for, &s;ay you pag. 191. <HI>They &s;ay</HI> (&s;peaking of divers Au|thors) <HI>it was the practice of the Primitive Church to communicate everie day with the Prie&s;t.</HI> I grant it.</P>
<PB N="40" REF="29">
<P>The&s;e points of controver&s;ie, which are &s;o ea|gerly pur&s;ued by your men again&s;t the members of our Church, the &s;trength and force of truth hath extorted from you, and therefore I may truly con|clude <HI>Ex ore tuo,</HI> from your owne confe&s;&s;ion, that your <HI>Trent</HI> faith is new, becau&s;e it is different and di&s;agreeing from what was taught before.</P>
<P>You that have taken an oath to maintaine the Pa|pacie, and are &s;o ready to teach others, you (I &s;ay) have either violated your oath, or at lea&s;twi&s;e have forgot your old le&s;&s;on, <HI>Oportet e&s;&s;e memorem, &amp;c.</HI> for verily it behoves him that &s;peakes lyes and contradictions to have a good memorie. But it &s;eemes you did conceive the Reader might ea&s;ily pa&s;&s;e by many &s;uch contradictions, being in &s;everall pa&s;&s;ages, and farre di&s;tant pages. For otherwi&s;e it would &s;eeme &s;trange, that you, which &s;o bitterly in|veigh again&s;t our reformed religion, &s;hould con|fe&s;&s;e the antiquitie of our Articles, and the noveltie of your owne, with flat contradictions to your owne A&s;&s;ertions. I will &s;ay to you therefore, as &s;ometimes S^t. <HI>Hierome</HI> &s;pake in his Epi&s;tle to <HI>Pa|machius</HI> and <HI>Oceanus;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Hieronym. ad Pamach. &amp; Oceanum, Tom. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Thou who art a maintainer of new doctrine, what&s;oever thou be, I pray thee &s;pare the Romane eares, &s;pare the faith that is com|manded by the Apo&s;tles mouth, why goe&s;t thou about now after foure hundred yeares</HI> (I may &s;ay foureteen hundred yeares) <HI>to teach us that faith which we before never knew? why bringe&s;t thou forth that thing that Peter and Paul never uttered? Evermore untill this day the Chri&s;tiam world hath beene without this do|ctrine.</HI></P>
<PB N="41" REF="29" MS="y">
<P>To pur&s;ue the re&s;t of your Allegations: <HI>The Church of England</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>admitteth of divers Books of the New Te&s;tament for Canonicall, whereof there was doubt of three or foure hundred yeares to|gether in the Church of God, as the Epi&s;tle to the He|brewes, the &s;econd Epi&s;tle of St. Peter, the Epi&s;tle of St. Jude, the Apocalyps of St. John, and &s;ome others, which were after admitted for Canonicall; I would know of him whether upon the admittance of them, there were any change of faith in the Church, or whe|ther ever tho&s;e books have received any change in them&s;elves.</HI> Thus you.</P>
<P>It &s;eemes you begin to feare that your <HI>Trent</HI> faith would be di&s;covered to be different and di&s;|agreeing from what was taught before, and there|upon you would &s;eemingly illu&s;trate the antiquitie of your new Articles by the authoritie of the anci|ent Books of Canonicall Scripture. But, I pray, where doe you find that the Books of the New Te&s;tament, as namely, the Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Hebrewes,</HI> the Epi&s;tle of St. <HI>Peter,</HI> and St. <HI>Jude,</HI> and the <HI>Apo|calyps,</HI> were not received (for three or foure hundred yeares) for Canonicall? It is true there was &s;ome doubt who were the right Authors of tho&s;e Books, but their divine authoritie was ever generally ap|proved by all Chri&s;tian Churches, and allowed for Canonicall. The Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Hebrewes</HI> was therefore doubted of by &s;ome, becau&s;e the diffe|rence &amp; diver&s;ity of the &s;tile made them think it not to be St. <HI>Pauls;</HI> and by others, becau&s;e the Author of it &s;eemed to them to favour the error of the <HI>No|vatian</HI>
<PB N="42" REF="30" MS="y"> heretikes, in denying the reconciliation of &s;uch as fall after Bapti&s;me: The &s;econd Epi&s;tle of St. <HI>Peter</HI> (which you &s;peake of) &s;ome doubted of, becau&s;e of the diver&s;itie of the &s;tyle: The Epi&s;tle of St. <HI>Jude</HI> was doubted, becau&s;e the Author of it hath borrowed both the matter and manner of writing from St. <HI>Peter,</HI> and therfore he was thought &s;ome &s;cholar of theirs, but no Apo&s;tle. Others &s;aid he brought in a profane Author, concerning the &s;trife of the Arch-angell and the Devill about the body of <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> which cannot be found in Canoni|call Scripture. La&s;tly, the <HI>Revelation</HI> of St. <HI>John</HI> was likewi&s;e doubted of; fir&s;t, becau&s;e of the no|veltie of the title of <HI>John</HI> the Divine: &s;econdly, becau&s;e of the difficultie and ob&s;curitie of his Pro|phecies. The&s;e and the like rea&s;ons were motives to &s;ome in the Church, to que&s;tion the Authors of tho&s;e Books: but it was never generally impea|ched. For further proofe of this A&s;&s;ertion, let an|tiquitie be heard, and it will appeare, that all tho&s;e Bookes were cited for doctrine of faith, by the writers of the fir&s;t ages, and con&s;equently were approved from, and after the dayes of the Apo|&s;tles.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Hieronym. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> Dardan<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, de terra repro|mi&s;sionis, Ep. <HI>129.</HI> p. <HI>1105.</HI></NOTE> Looke upon St. <HI>Hierome,</HI> he proclaimes it to the Church, <HI>Illud no&s;tris dicendum e&s;t.</HI> Be it known to our men, that the Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Hebrewes</HI> is not only received by all the Churches of the Ea&s;t, that now pre&s;ently are, but by all Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall writers of the Greek Churches, that have beene hereto|fore; as the Epi&s;tle of <HI>Paul,</HI> (though many thinke it rather to be written by <HI>Barnabas,</HI> or <HI>Clemens,</HI>) and
<PB N="43" REF="30" MS="y"> that it skilleth not who wrote it, &s;eeing it was writ-by an Author approved in the Church of God, and is daily read in the &s;ame. This ancient Father &s;hewes plainly, that how&s;oever &s;ome doubt was made of the Author of that Epi&s;tle, yet it was re|ceived both by the <HI>Ea&s;terne</HI> &amp; <HI>We&s;terne</HI> Churches. And how&s;oever &s;ome of the Ancients did attribute it to St. <HI>Luke;</HI> others (as namely <HI>Tertullian</HI>) did attribute it to <HI>Barnabas:</HI> yet all agreed in this, that it had an Apo&s;tolike &s;pirit; and accordingly Car|dinall <HI>Bellarmine</HI> tels you in your eare,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Inept&egrave; dici ve|tu&s;tatem de hac Epi&s;tola dubit&acirc;&s;&s;e. Bell. de verbo Dei, lib. <HI>1.</HI> cap. <HI>17.</HI></NOTE> <HI>It is foo|li&s;hly &s;poken, in &s;aying Antiquitie did doubt of this Epi&s;tle, when there is but one Caius a Grecian, and two or three Romani&s;ts, in re&s;pect of all the re&s;t, that &s;peake again&s;t it: and if we re&s;pect not the multitude, but the antiquitie of the cau&s;e, the Roman Clemens is more ancient than Caius; and Clemens Alexan|drinus than Tertullian; and Diony&s;ius Areopagita than both, who cites this Epi&s;tle of Paul by name.</HI></P>
<P>Touching the &s;econd Epi&s;tle of St. <HI>Peter,</HI> it was cited by <HI>Higinus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> within an hun|dred and fiftie yeares after Chri&s;t, and that by the name of <HI>Peter.</HI> The Epi&s;tle of St. <HI>Jude</HI> was cited by <HI>Diony&s;ius Areopagita</HI> by the name of <HI>Jude</HI> the Apo&s;tle, within &s;eventie yeares after Chri&s;t;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Diony&s;. de di|vinis nomini|bus, cap. <HI>4.</HI> Tertull. de ha|bitu muliebri. Orig. l. <HI>5.</HI> in c <HI>5.</HI> ad Romanos. Cypr. in lib. ad Novatianum.</NOTE> by <HI>Tertullian</HI> within two hundred yeares after Chri&s;t; by <HI>Origen</HI> and <HI>Cyprian</HI> within two hundred and fiftie yeares after Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, touching the Revelation of St. <HI>John,</HI> it was received for Canonicall in the fir&s;t and be&s;t a|ges: <HI>Diony&s;ius Areopagita</HI> cals the Revelation, <HI>The
<PB N="44" REF="31" MS="y"> &s;ecret and my&s;ticall vi&s;ion of Chri&s;ts beloved Di&s;ci|ple;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Arcanam &amp; my&s;ticam vi&s;i|onem dilecti di&s;cipuli. Dio|ny&s; Eccle&s;. Hier. cap. <HI>3.</HI> In Dial. cum Tryphone. Iren. lib. <HI>1.</HI> cap. ult.</NOTE> and this was &s;eventie yeares after Chri&s;t. <HI>Ju|&s;tin Martyr</HI> doth attribute this Booke to St. <HI>John,</HI> and doth account it for a divine Revelation; and this was an hundred and &s;ixtie yeares after Chri&s;t. <HI>Ire|naeus</HI> &s;aith, this <HI>Revelation</HI> was manife&s;ted unto St. <HI>John,</HI> and &s;eene of him but a little before his time; and this was an hundred and eightie yeares after Chri&s;t.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Tertull. de prae&s;cript. l. <HI>4.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Tertullian,</HI> among&s;t other things, accu&s;eth <HI>Cerdon</HI> and <HI>Marcion</HI> of here&s;ies, for rejecting the <HI>Revelation;</HI> and this was two hundred yeares after Chri&s;t. <HI>Origen,</HI> in his Preface before the Go&s;pel of St. <HI>John,</HI> &s;ayth, that <HI>John the &s;onne of Zebedee &s;aw in the Revelation an Angel flying thorow the midde&s;t of Heaven, having the eternall Go&s;pel;</HI> and hee flouri&s;hed two hundred and thirtie yeares after Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>Thus you &s;ee the Catholique Chri&s;tians, and mo&s;t ancient Fathers in the fir&s;t ages received both the Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Hebrewes,</HI> the &s;econd Epi&s;tle of St. <HI>Peter,</HI> the Epi&s;tle of St. <HI>Jude,</HI> and the <HI>Revela|tion</HI> of St. <HI>John,</HI> with one con&s;ent, accounting them no better than <HI>Hereticks,</HI> which either doubted of them, or denyed them: and yet you, to outface the truth, would make the world beleeve, that it was three or foure hundred yeares before they were received into the Church, and made canonicall; and upon this vaine &s;uppo&s;all you would know of me, <HI>Whether there were any change of faith in the Church when they were admitted, or whether tho&s;e Books re|ceived any change in them&s;elves.</HI></P>
<PB N="45" REF="31" MS="y">
<P>To an&s;wer you in a word, your propo&s;ition is fooli&s;h, and your que&s;tion is frivolous; for tho&s;e Books were alwayes received, even from the fir&s;t times: and no more could that word of God bee changed, than God him&s;elfe, who is immutable; and yet we &s;ee your faith is daily altered, for want of that foundation, and thereupon it behoves you to get more, and better proofes, for the confirmati|on of your new Creed.</P>
<P>From your ju&s;tification of your <HI>Trent</HI> faith, you begin to looke a&s;quint thorow your Spectacles at the reformed Churches, and after your wonted manner you crie out, <HI>They have no certaine rule of faith wherewith wee may urge them; authoritie of Church they have none: Scripture they have indeed, but &s;o mangled, corrupted, perverted by tran&s;lation, and mi&s;-interpreted according to their owne fancies, that as they have it it is as good as nothing.</HI> Thus you.</P>
<P>Have we no certaine rule of faith? What thinke you of the Scriptures? Doe not we make them the &s;ole rule of our faith? and is not that rule by your own Cardinals confe&s;&s;ion,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bell. de verbo Deo. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Regula credendi certi&s;si|ma, tuti&s;simaque,</HI> the mo&s;t certaine and &s;afe&s;t rule of faith? And as touching the authority of the Church, it is an Article of our Religion,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Art.</HI> 20.</NOTE> <HI>That the Church hath power to decree rites, or ceremonies, &amp; authori|tie in controver&s;ies of faith; and yet it is not lawfull for the Church to ordaine any thing that is contrarie to Gods word written, neither may it &s;o expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another:</HI>
<PB N="46" REF="32" MS="y"> This Article &s;hewes our obedience to the Scrip|tures, it declares the authoritie of our Church, and it vindicates our Mini&s;ters from perverting and mi&s;-interpreting of the Scriptures, wherewith you charge us in the next place.</P>
<P><HI>It is true</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>Scripture you have indeed, but mangled, corrupted, perverted by tran&s;lation.</HI> Here your charge is generall, and your accu&s;ation capitall; therefore you mu&s;t give me leave, for the better di&s;coverie of the truth, to &s;end out a <HI>Melius inquirendum,</HI> that your Tran&s;lation and ours being compared in particulars, the truth may better ap|peare.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t then it cannot be denyed, that the Prote|&s;tants in all their Tran&s;lations have a recour&s;e &s;till to the Originall of <HI>Hebrew</HI> and <HI>Greek,</HI> which was in|&s;pired by the Holy Gho&s;t; and the&s;e they preferre before all <HI>Latine</HI> and Vulgar Tran&s;lations what&s;o|ever:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bibl. Complut. in Proefat.</NOTE> on the other &s;ide, your <HI>Tran&s;lation</HI> (as your Interpreters fancie) <HI>hangeth betweene the Greek and Hebrew, as Chri&s;t hung betweene two theeves.</HI> Nay more, your men e&s;teeme the Vulgar Latine before the Originall:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bell. de verbo Dei, lib. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>11.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Not</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Bellarmine) that the rivers of Tran&s;lations &s;hould be preferred before the foun|taines of Hebrew and Greeke of the Prophets and Apo&s;tles, but becau&s;e the fountaine is muddie in ma|ny places, which otherwi&s;e &s;hould runne cleare; for without doubt, as the Latine Church hath beene more con&s;tant in keeping the faith than the Greeke, &s;o like|wi&s;e it hath beene more vigilant in pre&s;erving her bookes from corruption.</HI></P>
<PB N="47" REF="32" MS="y">
<P>The&s;e Paradoxes doe open a gap to Athei&s;me; for if the originall Scripture be corrupted, what a&s;|&s;urance, what certaintie can wee have of true faith and religion? (and if <HI>wee doubt, wee are condemned already.</HI>) Neither can it enter into my thoughts, that profane Writers &s;hould bee pre&s;erved in their &s;imple purene&s;&s;e from their fir&s;t ages, and that their Tran&s;lations &s;hould remaine in &s;ubjection to their copies, from whence they are derived, to be exa|mined by them; and yet the Watchman of <HI>I&s;rael, who neither &s;lumbers nor &s;leepes,</HI> for want of provi|dence, &s;hould &s;uffer his &s;acred Word become a Tributarie to a Tran&s;lation. But by this the world may &s;ee the guiltine&s;&s;e of a bad cau&s;e; you will ra|ther charge the word of God it &s;elfe with corrup|tion, than faile to make good the corruptions of your owne Church.</P>
<P>Your learned <HI>Andradius</HI> condemnes them that preferred the <HI>Latine</HI> before the <HI>Hebrew</HI> of the Old Te&s;tament, (as pretending it was corrupted by the Jewes.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Andrad. def. fidei Trident. l. <HI>4.</HI></NOTE>) <HI>It was very incon&s;iderately conceived</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>by &s;ome, that there was more credit to bee given to the Latine Edition than to the Hebrew, becau&s;e the Latine ever remained entire &amp; uncorrupt in the Ca|tholique Church, and the Hebrew was fal&s;ified &amp; de|praved by the perfidiou&s;ne&s;&s;e of the Jewes.</HI> And your owne <HI>Sixtus Senen&s;is</HI> doth witne&s;&s;e of the Greeke Text likewi&s;e,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Sixt. Senen&s;. Biblioth. l. <HI>7.</HI></NOTE> that <HI>it is the &s;ame which was u&s;ed in the dayes of S. Hierome, and long before him in the Apo&s;tles times, and is free from hereticall corrupti|ons, as by the continuall writings of the Greeke Fa|thers</HI>
<PB N="48" REF="33" MS="y"> (as namely) <HI>Diony&s;ius, Ju&s;tinus, Irenaeus, Me|lito, Origen, Affricanus, Apolinarius, Athana&s;ius, Eu&s;ebius, Ba&s;il, Chry&s;o&s;tome, Theophylact, doth mo&s;t plainly appeare;</HI> and yet your <HI>Gregory Martin,</HI> and the <HI>Rhemi&s;ts,</HI> are not a&s;hamed to profe&s;&s;e that the Tran&s;lation which they follow, is not <HI>onely better then all other Latine, but even than the Greeke Text it &s;elfe,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Preface to the <HI>Rhem. Te&s;tam.</HI></NOTE> <HI>in tho&s;e places where they di&s;agree.</HI></P>
<P>To examine your Tran&s;lation in generall, and &s;o de&s;cend into the particulars of yours and ours. Fir&s;t, it is decreed by the Councell of <HI>Trent, that among&s;t divers Tran&s;lations then in u&s;e, the old and vulgar Tran&s;lation &s;hould be declared to be authen|ticall in all publike Lectures,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Concil. Trid. Se&s;&s;. <HI>4.</HI> Decre|tam de editione librorum.</NOTE> <HI>Di&s;putations, Sermons, and Expo&s;itions, and that no man &s;hould dare or pre|&s;ume to reject it upon any pretext what&s;oever.</HI> What Tran&s;lation was under&s;tood by the old vulgar, was not expre&s;&s;ed in the Councell: It is pretended to be, and is called at this day St. <HI>Hieromes</HI> Tran&s;la|tion, and, which is remarkable, the Tran&s;lation was decreed but by 42. Bi&s;hops at the fir&s;t begin|ning of the Councell.</P>
<P>From hence ari&s;eth the fir&s;t <HI>Quere,</HI> which of St. <HI>Hieromes</HI> Tran&s;lations your Church doth fol|low (for St. <HI>Hierome</HI> confe&s;&s;eth that the fir&s;t was corrupt, and accordingly he did correct many things in his fir&s;t Tran&s;lation.) To this Objection your Cardinall makes this faire and free confe&s;&s;ion;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bell. de verbo Dei, l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>9.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Although Hierome did perceive &s;ome things fit to be changed, and afterwards did change them, yet the Church did adjudge the fir&s;t tran&s;lation for true, and
<PB N="49" REF="33" MS="y"> cho&s;e rather to keep that for the vulgar Edition. And</HI> then he concludes: <HI>Although the greate&s;t part of the vulgar Tran&s;lation be</HI> Hieromes, <HI>yet it is not that pure Edition which he tran&s;lated out of the Hebrew, but in a manner mixt.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Habemus confitentem reum.</HI> Now heare your owne <HI>Sixtus Senen&s;is:</HI> Albeit he pretends that the different readings in the Bible be no prejudice to the Faith,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Sixt. Senen&s;. Bibl. l. <HI>8.</HI> p. <HI>664.</HI></NOTE> yet (&s;aith he) <HI>wee ingenuou&s;ly confe&s;&s;e that many errours were corrected by</HI> Hierome <HI>in the old Tran&s;lation, and likewi&s;e there are found in our new Editions &s;ome fal&s;ifications, &s;oleci&s;mes, barbari&s;mes, and many things ambiguous, not well expre&s;&s;ed in the</HI> Latine; <HI>&s;ome things changed, other things omitted; and the like.</HI> Here both confe&s;&s;e that <HI>Hieromes</HI> fir&s;t Tran&s;lation was erroneous, (and the one &s;aith that your Church hath cho&s;en that which is not pure nor agreeable to the <HI>Hebrew,</HI> the other confe&s;&s;eth it hath Barbari&s;mes and untruths.) To &s;peake inge|niou&s;ly, the Sunne never &s;aw any thing more de|fective and maimed than the vulgar Latine. Your Bi&s;hop <HI>Lyndan</HI> cryes aloud,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Lynd. de opt. genere Inter|pret. l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>1, 2, 4.6.</HI></NOTE> and prote&s;teth it <HI>hath mon&s;trous corruptions of all &s;orts, &s;carce one coppie can be found that hath one booke of Scripture unde|filed, many points are tran&s;lated &s;o intricately and darkly, &s;ome impertinently and abu&s;ively, &s;ome not &s;o fully nor &s;o well and truly, &s;undry places thru&s;t out of their plaine and naturall &s;en&s;e: the Tran&s;latour po&s;sibly was no</HI> Latini&s;t, <HI>but a &s;mattering</HI> Gre|cian.</P>
<P>I proceed to the examination of more witne&s;&s;es.
<PB N="50" REF="34" MS="y"> About forty yeares after Pope <HI>Paul</HI> the third had decreed the vulgar <HI>Latin</HI> in your Councel of <HI>Trent, Sixtus Quintus</HI> by his <HI>Breve</HI> prefixed to his Bible, gives us to under&s;tand, that certaine <HI>Roman</HI> Catho|likes were of &s;uch an <HI>humour of tran&s;lating the Scripture into</HI> Latin,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Breve Sixti <HI>5.</HI></NOTE> <HI>that Sathan, taking occa&s;ion by them (though they thought no &s;uch matter) did &s;trive what he could out of uncertaine and great variety of Tran&s;lation, &s;o to mingle all things, that nothing might &s;eeme to be left certaine and firme in them:</HI> and thereupon hee takes occa&s;ion to publi&s;h a <HI>Latine Tran&s;lation</HI> of his owne peru&s;all, and with|all makes his Declaration of it in this manner: <HI>We of our certaine knowledge and fulne&s;&s;e of Apo&s;tolicall power,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Sixt. <HI>5.</HI> in Bulla praefix. Bib|liis, An. <HI>1588.</HI></NOTE> <HI>doe ordaine and declare that the Edition of the vulgar Bible of the Old and New Te&s;tament, which was received by the Councell of</HI> Trent <HI>as au|thenticall without any doubt or Controver&s;ie, is to be reputed or taken for this onely Edition; which being as well as was po&s;sible reformed and printed in our</HI> Vatican, <HI>our will and plea&s;ure is, and we doe decree it to be read throughout the whole Chri&s;tian World in all Churches; with this our determination and &s;a|tisfaction for all men, That fir&s;t it was allowed by a generall and joynt con&s;ent of the whole Catholike Church and Holy Fathers; &s;econdly, by a Decree made in the late Councell holden at</HI> Trent; <HI>and now la&s;tly by that Apo&s;tolicall Authority and Power which God hath given us: and therefore is to be received and accompted for a true, lawfull, authenticall and undoubted Copie, to be read, and no other, in all
<PB N="51" REF="34" MS="y"> publike and private Di&s;putations, Lectures, Ser|mons, or Expo&s;itions.</HI></P>
<P>This Tran&s;lation was publi&s;hed by <HI>Sixtus</HI> with great care and paines, profe&s;&s;ing that he printed it in the <HI>Vatican</HI> at <HI>Rome,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">No&s;tra nos ip&s;i manu correxi|mus, &s;iqua pre|lo vitia obrep|&s;erunt. Idem in Praefat.</NOTE> and <HI>corrected the Errours of it with his owne hands:</HI> he profe&s;&s;eth it was appro|ved by the generall con&s;ent of the whole Catho|like Church: he profe&s;&s;eth it was received for the be&s;t and mo&s;t vulgar <HI>Latine</HI> Edition, excluding all other Tran&s;lations private or publike what&s;o|ever; and thereupon concludes,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE> <HI>Let no man at|tempt to violate this our Decree, our will and decla|ration herein, or by ra&s;h boldne&s;&s;e contradict it: for if any &s;hall pre&s;ume &s;o to doe, let him know that he &s;hall incurre the indignation of Almighty God, and his ble&s;&s;ed Apo&s;tles</HI> Peter <HI>and</HI> Paul.</P>
<P>From hence will ari&s;e a &s;econd <HI>Quere,</HI> whether this Tran&s;lation of <HI>Sixtus</HI> were that <HI>Hieromes</HI> Tran&s;lation formerly confirmed, and ratified by the <HI>Trent</HI> Councell. If it were his, and confirmed by a Generall Councell, how came it to be cor|rected by <HI>Sixtus?</HI> If it were not the &s;ame, how could <HI>Sixtus</HI> Bible be allowed by a Decree made in the Councell of <HI>Trent,</HI> (for &s;o are the words of his <HI>Bull</HI>) whereas the Councell was called <HI>Anno</HI> 1545. and <HI>Sixtus</HI> publi&s;hed his Bible <HI>Anno</HI> 1592. which was above 40. yeares after the Councell was called? But ob&s;erve the &s;equell; The Decree of <HI>Sixtus</HI> was kept inviolable for a &s;hort time, and approved by <HI>Urban</HI> the 7^t^h, <HI>Gregory</HI> the 14^t^h, and <HI>Innocent</HI> the 9^t^h his immediate Succe&s;&s;ors: But
<PB N="52" REF="35" MS="y"> Pope <HI>Clement</HI> the <HI>eight,</HI> about &s;eaven yeares after the death of <HI>Sixtus,</HI> called in que&s;tion that Tran&s;la|tion, and publi&s;hed another of his owne, <HI>Ad perpe|tuam rei memoriam,</HI> and corrects <HI>Sixtus</HI> Bible, under this pretence;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Clem. in praef. Sixti Bibl.</NOTE> that <HI>his Predece&s;&s;or percei|ved not a few things to have crept into the Bi|ble through default of the Pre&s;&s;e, and that it needed a &s;econd care, and that certainly he him&s;elfe had in|tended to bring the whole worke to the Pre&s;&s;e againe, had he not beene prevented by death.</HI></P>
<P>The&s;e two Editions were publi&s;hed by two &s;e|verall Popes, and both commanded to be read and followed in their &s;everall <HI>Breves:</HI> Pope <HI>Sixtus</HI> di&s;claimes all Bibles what&s;oever, both Manu&s;cripts and printed, of the vulgar Edition, which did not agree with his Edition <HI>Ad literam,</HI> to a letter. Pope <HI>Clement</HI> profe&s;&s;eth that his Tran&s;lation, al|though it be not ab&s;olutely perfect in all points, yet without doubt it is more pure, and better cor|rected than any other that was publi&s;hed before it. In conclu&s;ion, both agree that the <HI>Forme of each mu&s;t be inviolably ob&s;erved without the lea&s;t particle of the Text added,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ne minima quidem parti|cula mutata. Sixt. in Praef.</NOTE> <HI>changed, or detracted.</HI></P>
<P>Now take your choyce of which Tran&s;lation you plea&s;e; if you allow <HI>Sixtus,</HI> it was corrected in many places by Pope <HI>Clement;</HI> if <HI>Clements,</HI> you mu&s;t incurre the cur&s;e of his Predece&s;&s;or Pope <HI>Six|tus:</HI> if you will receive the vulgar Tran&s;lation, which you terme St. <HI>Hieromes,</HI> your Cardinall tels you it is not of his pure&s;t Edition. La&s;tly, if you approve the vulgar Edition, decreed by the Coun|cell
<PB N="53" REF="35" MS="y"> of <HI>Trent,</HI> I &s;ay neither you, nor all the Papi&s;ts living, can re&s;olve which is that vulgar Edition.</P>
<P>For a Conclu&s;ion, either your vulgar Tran&s;la|tion before <HI>Clements</HI> time was corrupt, or in vaine did <HI>Clement</HI> command a <HI>Correctorium</HI> to pa&s;&s;e upon it, and to be read according to that correction. The worke of <HI>Lucas Brugen&s;is,</HI> who was living at that time, hath &s;ufficiently di&s;covered your corrup|tions in the Bible of <HI>Sixtus,</HI> which in his time was <HI>reputed for that onely Edition confirmed by the</HI> Trent <HI>Councell, commanded to be read throughout all Chur|ches, and allowed by the con&s;ent of the whole Catho|like Church:</HI> this Bible (I &s;ay) which for many ages was reputed the onely authenticall Edition in your Church, is purged and corrected (I &s;peake within compa&s;&s;e) in above 3000 &s;everall places. And as it hath beene ob&s;erved by a painfull labou|rer in that Vineyard,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Dr. <HI>Iames</HI> in his <HI>Bellum Pa|pale.</HI></NOTE> your Tran&s;lations in many pla|ces are flat contradictory each to other, (and he that beleeves contradictions, beleeves nothing at all.)</P>
<P>From the charge in generall, I will de&s;cend into particulars. And fir&s;t, I will give you an In&s;tance in the Old Te&s;tament.</P>
<P>We reade in the 34. of <HI>Exodus</HI> and the la&s;t ver&s;e, <HI>The Children of I&s;rael &s;aw the face, that the skinne of</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>face &s;hone:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Videbant fa|ciem egredien|tis Moi&s;i e&s;&s;e Cornuta~. Sixt. Bibl. Ibid. v. <HI>29,</HI> and <HI>35.</HI></NOTE> your <HI>Sixtus</HI> Bible in the vul|gar Tran&s;lation twice renders it, <HI>They &s;aw his face horned;</HI> but your <HI>Sixtus Senen&s;is</HI> complaines of <HI>Hierome,</HI> that contrary to the Originall he &s;o tran|&s;lated it. Thus one while you leave <HI>Hieromes</HI> Tran|&s;lation when it &s;avours not to your Palate, another
<PB N="54" REF="36" MS="y"> while you excu&s;e your owne by condemning of St. <HI>Hierome:</HI> (Now whether it were a part of that corrupt Tran&s;lation which your men u&s;e, and <HI>Hie|rome</HI> him&s;elfe corrected,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Rident ita que nos, &amp; ex|ecrantur Ju|daei quoties Mo&s;en in no|&s;tris Te~plis cor|nut&acirc; facie de|pictum a&s;pici|unt, qua&s;i nos eum Diabolum quendam, ut ip&s;i &s;tult&egrave; inter|pretantur, e&s;&s;e putemus. Sixt. Senen&s;. l. <HI>5.</HI> An|not. <HI>116.</HI> p. <HI>368.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> I di&s;pute not) but (&s;aith he) <HI>therefore the Jewes doe &s;coffe and hate us Chri&s;ti|ans, when&s;oever they happen to &s;ee the picture of</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>painted with hornes, as though, according to their Imagination, we thought him to have beene a Devill.</HI></P>
<P>Looke upon the particulars in the new Te&s;ta|ment. In the third of <HI>Matthew</HI> for Repentance you tran&s;late <HI>Penance,</HI> and by <HI>Penance</HI> you under&s;tand &s;atisfaction for &s;innes. So that when the Evangeli&s;t &s;aith, according to the <HI>Greeke</HI> Originall <HI>(Repent)</HI> you follow the <HI>Latine</HI> Tran&s;lation, which hath an ambiguous con&s;truction, and &s;ay, <HI>Paenitentiam agite,</HI> which your <HI>Rhemi&s;ts</HI> tran&s;late, <HI>Doe Penance.</HI> And in the 9^t^h of St. <HI>Matthew,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Math. 9.13. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> where he &s;aith, <HI>I am not come to call the Righteous, but &s;inners to repentance,</HI> you tran&s;late, <HI>I am not come to call the Ju&s;t, but &s;inners,</HI> and leave out the word <HI>Repentance</HI> (which is in the Originall.) And la&s;tly, as if you were guilty of a fal&s;e Tran&s;lation in both, in the fir&s;t of St. <HI>Marke,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Mark. 1.15.</NOTE> you tran&s;late the words according to the Originall, and in &s;tead of <HI>Doe Penance,</HI> you right|ly interpret, <HI>Be penitent, and beleeve the Go&s;pel.</HI></P>
<P>In the 11 of St. <HI>Luke</HI> you have maymed and fal&s;ified the Lords Prayer: you &s;ay in this manner; <HI>Father &s;anctified be thy name, thy Kingdome come, our dayly bread give us this day, and forgive us our &s;innes, for becau&s;e our &s;elves al&s;o doe forgive every
<PB N="55" REF="36" MS="y"> one that is in debt to us: And lead us not into tempta|tion.</HI> In this ab&s;olute forme of Prayer, you have omitted all the&s;e words; <HI>Our&mdash; which art in hea|ven, thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven, but deliver us from evill.</HI> Thus Chri&s;t taught his Di&s;|ciples to pray in one manner, and you in that place teach your Di&s;ciples in another; and this is agree|able to your vulgar Tran&s;lation, but not to the Originall.</P>
<P>In the 11 to the <HI>Romans</HI> we reade, according to the Originall; <HI>If it be of grace,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. 11.6.</NOTE> <HI>then it is not now of works, for then grace is no more grace: but if it be of works, then it is now no grace, for then worke is no more worke:</HI> your <HI>Rhemi&s;ts</HI> according to their vul|gar Edition render it; <HI>And if by grace, not now of works, otherwi&s;e grace now is not grace:</HI> and leave out all the latter part of the ver&s;e, in the&s;e words, <HI>But if it be of workes, then it is now no grace,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Graec. Orig.</NOTE> <HI>for then worke is no more workes;</HI> for what end let the Rea|der judge.</P>
<P>In the fir&s;t Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Corinthians</HI> we reade according to the Originall, <HI>Let a man &s;o accompt of us, as of the Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t, and Stewards of the My&s;teries of God;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. 1 Cor. 4.1.</NOTE> your <HI>Rhemi&s;ts</HI> following the <HI>Latine</HI> Tran&s;lation reade, <HI>Di&s;pen&s;ers of the My&s;te|ries of God:</HI> and how&s;oever the&s;e words might be di&s;pen&s;ed withall in &s;ome &s;en&s;e, yet by no meanes as you force it. For when your Pro&s;elites doe que|&s;tion your Prie&s;ts why they take away the Cup from the Lay people, with the&s;e words &s;o tran&s;la|ted you an&s;wer them, <HI>We are the Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t,</HI>
<PB N="56" REF="37" MS="y"> and Di&s;pen&s;ers of the my&s;teries of God: and &s;o by con&s;equence we may di&s;pence with the Sacramen|tall Cup, by the authority of Scripture. Witne&s;&s;e your Councell of <HI>Trent</HI> touching the Churches power of di&s;pen&s;ing with the Sacrament,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Id autem Apo|&s;tolus non ob|&s;cur&egrave; vi&s;us e&s;t innui&s;&s;e, &amp;c. Concil. Trid. Se&s;&s;. <HI>21.</HI> c. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> which profe&s;&s;eth that <HI>the Apo&s;tle doth plainly intimate un|to us a di&s;pen&s;ation with the Sacrament in tho&s;e words mentioned.</HI></P>
<P>In the 15. of the <HI>Corinthians</HI> we tran&s;late accor|ding to the Originall,<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 15.21.</NOTE> <HI>Behold I &s;hew you a my&s;terie, we &s;hall not all &s;leepe, but we &s;hall all be changed:</HI> your <HI>Rhemi&s;ts</HI> tran&s;late it according to the vulgar <HI>Latin,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Rhem. Te&s;t. ib.</NOTE> flat contrary to the Originall, and the mea|ning of the Holy Gho&s;t; <HI>Behold I tell you a my&s;terie, we &s;hall all indeed ri&s;e againe, but we &s;hall not bee changed.</HI></P>
<P>In the &s;econd Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Corinthians</HI> wee reade according to the Originall, <HI>Wherefore hence|forth know we no more after the fle&s;h, yea though we have knowne Chri&s;t after the fle&s;h, yet henceforth know wee him no more:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Rhem. Te&s;t.</HI> printed at <HI>Ant|werp An.</HI> 1621. <HI>in</HI> 2 Cor. 5.16.</NOTE> your <HI>Rhemi&s;ts,</HI> doubting the&s;e words may trench too farre upon your natu|rall and carnall pre&s;ence, have quite perverted the &s;en&s;e by their la&s;t Edition in the&s;e words, <HI>There|fore wee from henceforth know no man according to the fle&s;h, and if we have knowne according to the fle&s;h, but now know him no more.</HI> Here is no mention at all of Chri&s;t, but the chiefe words <HI>(yea)</HI> and <HI>(Chri&s;t)</HI> which are emphatically delivered by the Apo&s;tle, are quite left out; and I cannot conceive but it is done wittingly, becau&s;e you have carefully ob&s;erved
<PB N="57" REF="37" MS="y"> the <HI>Errata</HI> upon the Annotations, but none upon the Text it &s;elfe.</P>
<P>In the &s;econd of the <HI>Ephe&s;ians</HI> we reade accor|ding to the Originall,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ephe&s;. 2.10. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>We are his workman&s;hip crea|ted in Christ Je&s;us unto good workes:</HI> your <HI>Rhe|mi&s;ts</HI> following the <HI>Latine</HI> Tran&s;lation deprave the Text, &s;aying;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Non &s;atis com|mod&egrave; vertit vulg. Inter|pret. &amp;c. Vega opu&s;c. de Mer. &amp; Ju&s;tif. q. <HI>6.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Wee are created in Christ Je&s;us in good works: Which is no fit interpretation</HI> (&s;aith your owne <HI>Vega) becau&s;e we mu&s;t beware le&s;t that &s;ome take occa&s;ion from the Latine, to attribute the cau&s;e of their creation in Christ, unto his fore&s;eene good works; than which nothing can be more contrarie to St.</HI> Pauls <HI>doctrine.</HI></P>
<P>In the fift to the <HI>Ephe&s;ians</HI> according to the Originall we reade,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Eph. 5, 32.</NOTE> <HI>This is a great my&s;terie</HI> (&s;pea|king of <HI>Chri&s;ts</HI> marriage to his <HI>Church</HI>) your <HI>Rhe|mi&s;ts,</HI> to prove Matrimony one of their &s;even Sacra|ments, follow the <HI>Latin</HI> Tran&s;lation, and &s;ay, <HI>This is a great Sacrament;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Cajet. Coment. in hunc locum.</NOTE> whereas your <HI>Cardinall Ca|jetan</HI> tells us, <HI>The learned cannot inferre from hence that Mariage is a Sacrament, for St.</HI> Paul <HI>&s;aid not, It is a Sacrament, but a My&s;terie.</HI></P>
<P>La&s;tly, to maintaine your Image-wor&s;hip, whereas we reade in the <HI>Hebrewes</HI> according to the <HI>Greek,</HI> Jacob <HI>ble&s;&s;ed both the Sonnes of</HI> Jo&s;eph,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Hebr. 11.21.</NOTE> <HI>and wor&s;hipped leaning upon the top of his &s;taffe:</HI> your <HI>Rhemi&s;ts</HI> according to the vulgar <HI>Latine</HI> reade it, Jacob <HI>dying, ble&s;&s;ed every one of the &s;onnes of</HI> Jo&s;eph, <HI>and adored the top of his rod.</HI></P>
<P>Thus I have given you a ta&s;te of the differen|ces betwixt our Tran&s;lations, and your vulgar
<PB N="58" REF="38" MS="y"> <HI>Latin;</HI> now let the Reader judge which of tho&s;e readings are mo&s;t agreeable to the Originall. If we enquire of your <HI>Rhemi&s;ts,</HI> they tell us that we <HI>have no cau&s;e to complaine of their Tran&s;lation, unle&s;&s;e we complaine of the</HI> Greeke <HI>al&s;o.</HI> Nay more, they have not onely proclaimed it to the Reader, but they have outfaced the world in their Preface, that their <HI>Tran&s;lation is &s;o exact and preci&s;e,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Preface to the <HI>Rhem. Te&s;tam.</HI></NOTE> <HI>according to the</HI> Greeke, <HI>both the phra&s;e and the word, that deli|cate Heretikes</HI> (for &s;o they terme us) <HI>therefore re|prehend us of rudene&s;&s;e, and that it followeth the</HI> Greeke <HI>farre more exactly then the Prote&s;tants Tran|&s;lations.</HI></P>
<P>It is true indeed, that &s;ometimes you would &s;eeme to affect the <HI>Greeke,</HI> &s;ometimes the <HI>Latine</HI> tongue in your Tran&s;lation; but withall you have cunningly devi&s;ed uncouth words and phra&s;es, and for this purpo&s;e onely, that the Scripture may &s;eeme hard and ob&s;cure to the common people, that they might eyther take no plea&s;ure in the reading them, or reape no benefit for want of under&s;tanding them:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. 13.13. Galat. 1.14.24 Galat. 4.17. 1 Pet. 2.5. Phil. 4.10. Ephe&s;. 6.12. 1 Cor. 10.11. Hebr. 2.17. John 6.54. John 19.14.</NOTE> as for in&s;tance; <HI>Not in chambering and Im|pudicities. I expugned the faith. They emulate you not well, that you might emulate them. Be al&s;o your &s;elves &s;uperedified. Once at length you have reflouri|&s;hed to care for me. Again&s;t the &s;pirituals of wic|kedne&s;&s;e in the cele&s;tials. But they are written to our correption. That he might repropitiate the &s;innes of the people. All &s;hall be docible of God. It was the Para&s;ceve of Pa&s;che.</HI> The&s;e and &s;uch like are the exact and preci&s;e Tran&s;lations which you &s;o bragge
<PB N="59" REF="38" MS="y"> of, and for which we condemne you.</P>
<P>Now doe you joyne to the&s;e Engli&s;h phra&s;es, your fal&s;ifying and corrupting the genuine &s;en&s;e of the Holy Gho&s;t by your <HI>Latine</HI> Tran&s;lations, and tell me if I may not truly retort your A&s;&s;ertion into your owne bo&s;ome: <HI>Scripture you have indeed, but &s;o mangled, corrupted, perverted by Tran&s;lation, that as</HI> (you) <HI>have it, it is as good as nothing.</HI></P>
<P>But <HI>you have mi&s;interpreted the Scriptures</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>according to your owne fancies.</HI></P>
<P>Your bolt is &s;oone &s;hot, and if all your words were Oracles, and that <HI>Ip&s;e dixit</HI> were &s;ufficient, your bare word (for other proofes you have none) would ea&s;ily conclude us; but I will &s;hew you &s;o plainly, that without Spectacles you may &s;ee that the&s;e A&s;per&s;ions likewi&s;e reflect upon your &s;elves.</P>
<P>It was a que&s;tion among&s;t your fellow <HI>Je&s;uits,</HI> whether <HI>Jacob Clemens</HI> the <HI>Dominican</HI> might by Authority of the Scripture kill <HI>Henry the third,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>B. Barloes</HI> de|fence of the Articles, in his Preface, p. 7.</NOTE> King of <HI>France;</HI> and one of your <HI>Je&s;uits</HI> rea&s;oned thus with him&s;elfe: <HI>Ehud</HI> killed <HI>Eglon,</HI> and there|fore I may kill <HI>Henry;</HI> for <HI>Eglon</HI> was a King, and &s;o is <HI>Henry; Eglon</HI> &s;ignifies a Calfe, and <HI>Henry</HI> is a <HI>Calvini&s;t; and therefore a&s;&s;uredly I may murther him by Scripture.</HI> I hope you will confe&s;&s;e that this <HI>Je|&s;uite,</HI> although he were of your Society, did inter|pret the Scripture according to his owne fancie. In like manner, your Patriarke of <HI>Venice</HI> concludes &s;even Sacraments from the words of Scripture, and I conceive, it is according to his owne fancie: <HI>That</HI>
<PB N="60" REF="39" MS="y"> (&s;aith he) <HI>which</HI> Andrew <HI>&s;pake,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Inn. Gentil. exam. Concil. Trid. l. <HI>4.</HI> n. <HI>26.</HI> Se&s;&s;.</NOTE> <HI>There is a Boy which hath five loaves and two fi&s;hes, mu&s;t be under&s;tood of the ranke of St.</HI> Peters <HI>&s;ucce&s;&s;ors; and that which is added, Make the people &s;it downe; &s;ignifieth, that &s;alvation mu&s;t be offered them, by teaching them the &s;even Sacraments.</HI> And whereas the Prophet <HI>Da|vid</HI> &s;aith; <HI>Thou ha&s;t put all things under his feet: Antoninus</HI> your Archbi&s;hop of <HI>Florence,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Anton. in Sum. part. <HI>3.</HI> tit. <HI>22</HI> c. <HI>5.</HI></NOTE> about two hundred years &s;ince, expounded tho&s;e words in this manner: <HI>Thou ha&s;t made all things &s;ubject to the Pope; the Cattle of the field, that is to &s;ay, men living in the Earth: the fi&s;hes of the &s;ea, that is to &s;ay, the &s;oules in Purgatory: the fowles of the Ayre, that is to &s;ay, the &s;oules of the Ble&s;&s;ed in heaven:</HI> whether this Expo&s;ition be according to the &s;en&s;e which the Catholike Church holdeth, or according to his owne fancy, let the Reader judge.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Whitak. &amp; Camp. Rat. <HI>9.</HI></NOTE>To come nearer to you: <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> &s;aith, <HI>God made man after his Image:</HI> Pope <HI>Adrian</HI> inferreth, There|fore <HI>Images mu&s;t be &s;et up in Churches.</HI> St. <HI>Peter</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Behold here are two &s;words:</HI> Pope <HI>Boniface</HI> concludes,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Extra. de Ma|jor. &amp; Obed.</NOTE> Therefore the <HI>Pope hath power over the &s;pirituall and the temporall.</HI> St. <HI>Mathew</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Give not that which is holy unto dogges:</HI> M^r. <HI>Harding</HI> ex|pounds it,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Juels Def. p. <HI>52.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Therefore it is not lawfull for the vulgar people to reade the Scriptures.</HI> It was &s;ayd to St. <HI>Peter</HI> in a vi&s;ion, <HI>Ari&s;e, kill, and eate:</HI> your Car|dinall <HI>Baronius</HI> hence infers,<NOTE PLACE="marg">In voto Baro|nii contra ve|netos.</NOTE> <HI>The Pope is</HI> Peter, <HI>and the</HI> Venetians <HI>are the meat which mu&s;t be killed and devoured.</HI> To let pa&s;&s;e tho&s;e farre fetched and ex|travagant &s;en&s;es of Scriptures, which your learned
<PB N="61" REF="39" MS="y"> men wyer-draw for your <HI>Romi&s;h</HI> Doctrine. It is the word of God, <HI>Goe to my &s;ervant</HI> Job, <HI>and he will pray for thee:</HI> therefore there is an Invocation of Saints in Scripture. <HI>Give us this day our daily bread:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Bellar. de Sa~ct. Beat. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>10.</HI></NOTE> therefore the bread mu&s;t bee given to the Com|mon people, and not the Cup.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Roffen&s;. adver. Luther. Art. <HI>16.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Our Saviour opened the Booke of the Prophet</HI> E&s;ay, <HI>and afterwards clo&s;ed it:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ledi&s;. de divinis Script. Qu&acirc; vis lingu&acirc; non le|gend&acirc;. cap. <HI>22.</HI></NOTE> therefore Prayer and Service in an unknowne tongue is commanded by the Scripture. The&s;e and &s;uch like fal&s;e gla&s;&s;es you temper for your <HI>Specta|cles,</HI> to deceive your poore ignorant Pro&s;elites with the name of Scripture; and for feare they &s;hould make any doubt of the right interpretation of them,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Si quis habet interpretatione~ Eccle&s;iae Roma|nae, de loco ali|quo Scripturae, etiam&s;i&mdash;tamen habet ip&s;i&s;simu~ verbum Dei. Ho&s;ius de ex|pre&s;&s;o verbo Dei.</NOTE> your Cardinall <HI>Ho&s;ius</HI> prote&s;teth to all <HI>Romani&s;ts, If a man have the Interpretation of the Church of</HI> Rome <HI>of any place of Scripture, he hath the very words of God; though he neither know, nor under&s;tand, whether, nor how it agreeth with the words of Scripture.</HI> This puts me in minde of that excellent pa&s;&s;age of St. <HI>Hilary,</HI> who &s;peaking of the errours and Here&s;ies crept into the Church in the dayes of <HI>Con&s;tantius,</HI> makes this generall com|plaint, which in the&s;e dayes is truly verified in the <HI>Roman</HI> Church;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Hilar. l. <HI>3.</HI> ad Con&s;tant. &amp; l. <HI>1.</HI> ad Con&s;t. defunctum.</NOTE> <HI>Faith is now come to depend rather on time, than on the Go&s;pel, your &s;tate is dangerous and mi&s;erable: you have as many faiths as wills, and as many doctrines as manners; whil&s;t faiths are either &s;o written as you li&s;t, or &s;o vnder&s;tood as you will.</HI></P>
<P>I come now to your forbidden Bookes, wherein the my&s;terie of iniquitie: will manife&s;tly appeare:
<PB N="62" REF="40" MS="y"> and fir&s;t touching the &s;acred <HI>Bible</HI> which is forbid|den in the fir&s;t place.</P>
<P><HI>The Bible</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>is not &s;o forbidden, but that it is in the Bi&s;hops power to grant leave, if upon Confe|rence with the Pari&s;h Prie&s;t or Confe&s;&s;or of the partie that de&s;ireth leave, he finde him to be &s;uch a one as may not incurre danger of faith, &amp;c. which with any rea&s;onable man may be counted &s;ufficient liberty.</HI></P>
<P>It is true that by the fourth Rule of Pope <HI>Pius</HI> the fourth, the <HI>Bible</HI> may be licen&s;ed by the Bi|&s;hop, but the party mu&s;t have the licen&s;e in writing: and withall it is decreed,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Regula <HI>4.</HI> in indice libr. prohibit. p. <HI>16.</HI></NOTE> <HI>If any pre&s;ume without &s;uch licen&s;e either to reade or have it, unle&s;&s;e he come in fir&s;t and give up his Bible to his Ordinary, let him not have the pardon of his &s;innes.</HI> It is not lawfull then to reade the Bible without a di&s;pen&s;ation, but with a licen&s;e any man may reade it: and <HI>this</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>is &s;ufficient liberty for any rea&s;onable man.</HI> If I &s;hould grant you that which you &s;ay, yet you are never able to make good that licen&s;e: for Pope <HI>Clement</HI> the <HI>eight</HI> about thirty yeares after, upon this di&s;pen&s;ation &s;o granted, gives us to under&s;tand, That upon the Rule of <HI>Pius</HI> the <HI>fourth,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ob&s;ervatio cir|cae <HI>4.</HI> Regulam Ibid. p. <HI>22.</HI> in fi|ne Concil. Tri|dent.</NOTE> <HI>no new power was granted to the Bi&s;hops, or Inqui&s;itors, or Superiors, to licen&s;e the buying, reading, or keeping the Bible in the vulgar tongue; &s;eeing hitherto by the command and practi&s;e of the holy Inqui&s;ition, the power of granting &s;uch licen&s;es, to reade or keepe Bi|bles in the vulgar Language, or any part of Scripture, as well of the New as the Old Te&s;tament, or any &s;ums or Hy&s;toricall Abridgement of the &s;ame in any vulgar
<PB N="63" REF="40" MS="y"> Language hath beene taken from them: Quod qui|dem inviolat&egrave; &s;ervandum e&s;t;</HI> and this is inviolably to be ob&s;erved. You &s;ee then, that how&s;oever your <HI>Pius</HI> Pope gave a di&s;pen&s;ation for the reading of the Scriptures: yet Pope <HI>Clement</HI> his Succe&s;&s;or, declared that licen&s;e to be void and of none effect; and that which concludes your A&s;&s;ertion for an un|truth, it was by him decreed, to bee kept without any di&s;pen&s;ation or violation.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Inviolat&egrave; &s;er|vandum.</NOTE></P>
<P>Thus touching the &s;acred Bible you have &s;everall Tran&s;lations, upon &s;everall paines to be received, and both different each from other in many hun|dred places: you have ranked the &s;acred Bible a|mong&s;t the Bookes prohibited; and la&s;tly, you &s;ee|mingly grant a licen&s;e for the Ignorant to reade the Scripture: and by another decree you abridge that licen&s;e &s;o granted. I proceed from the forbid|ding of Scriptures, to your purging and fal&s;ifying of the ancient Fathers.</P>
<P><HI>As for Fathers</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>it is mo&s;t gro&s;&s;ely fal&s;e which the Knight after the ordinary Mini&s;teriall tune, &s;tands canting, that we blot out and raze them at our plea&s;ures. What is it then that the&s;e men would have? What is it they can carpe at? Nothing but that they them&s;elves are &s;tung, in that hereby they are kept either from publi&s;hing their owne wicked workes, or corrupting the Fathers at their plea&s;ure; and to wipe away this blemi&s;h from them&s;elves, would lay it upon us.</HI> Thus you.</P>
<P>It &s;eemes you have beene well acquainted with Rogues and &s;turdy Beggers, who have taught you
<PB N="64" REF="41" MS="y"> the Terme of <HI>(Canting)</HI> a word proper for &s;uch kinde of people: but whereas you &s;ay it is gro&s;&s;e|ly fal&s;e that you blot and raze the Fathers, and that therein we &s;eeke to wipe away the blemi&s;h from our &s;elves, and lay it upon you; for the better ma|nife&s;tation of the truth, fir&s;t, looke I pray upon the place where the corrupted Fathers were printed, &amp; &s;ee by whom they were licen&s;ed; then heare your owne men witne&s;&s;ing their owne confe&s;&s;ion, of pur|ging them; and la&s;tly, peru&s;e the places which I &s;hall produce razed and corrupted, and then tell me if the My&s;terie of Iniquity doth not clo&s;ely worke in your <HI>Roman</HI> Church, and that the ancient Fa|thers are gro&s;&s;ely fal&s;ified, and notoriou&s;ly cor|rupted by your owne men, even in the principall points of Doctrine controverted betwixt us.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t then wee mu&s;t ob&s;erve, that corruptions and abu&s;e of ancient Fathers may be of three &s;orts; either by foi&s;ting into the Editions ba&s;tard Treati|&s;es, and intitling them to the Fathers; or by fal&s;i|fying their undoubted Treati&s;es by additions, de|tractions, or mutations; or la&s;tly, by alledging pa&s;&s;ages, and places out of them, which are not ex|tant in their workes: and of all the&s;e three kindes your men are guilty,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Expurgari &amp; emaculari cur&acirc;&s;ti om|nium Catholi|coru~ &s;criptoru~, praecipu&egrave; vete|rum Patrum &s;cripta. Sixt. Senen&s;. in Ep. Pio <HI>5.</HI></NOTE> as it &s;hall appeare by in&s;tances in their &s;everall Ages, for the fir&s;t 800. yeares.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, concerning the purging of Fathers; your <HI>Sixtus Senen&s;is,</HI> in his Epi&s;tle dedicated to Pope <HI>Pius</HI> the <HI>fifth,</HI> among&s;t his many and famous deeds, recounts this for one of the greate&s;t, That <HI>he cau|&s;ed the writings of all Catholike Authours, but
<PB N="65" REF="41" MS="y"> e&s;pecially tho&s;e of the ancient Fathers, to bee purged.</HI> And <HI>Gretzerus</HI> your Je&s;uit proclaimes it by way of ju&s;tification;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Gretz. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>10</HI></NOTE> <HI>If it be lawfull to &s;uppre&s;&s;e or inhibite whole Bookes, as namely</HI> Tertullian <HI>and</HI> Origen, <HI>then it is lawfull likewi&s;e to &s;uppre&s;&s;e a greater or le&s;&s;er part of one, by cutting out, razing, blotting out, or by omitting the &s;ame &s;imply for the benefit of the Rea|der.</HI> And <HI>Po&s;&s;evine</HI> your Je&s;uit tells us,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ad i&s;tos enim quoque purga|tio pertinet. Po&s;&s;ev. l. <HI>1.</HI> Bib|lioth. &s;elect. c. <HI>12.</HI></NOTE> <HI>that Manu|&s;cript Books are al&s;o to be purged, as well as printed;</HI> which &s;hewes your good intention to the ancient Writers. I may adde to the&s;e, that you doe not onely purge, and corrupt the Fathers (as &s;hall ap|peare in matter of fact in &s;everall Ages) but you forge Ba&s;tard Epi&s;tles in the names of ancient Bi|&s;hops, and you thru&s;t counterfeits into the Chayre of the true and Catholike Doctors. <HI>Peter Warbeck</HI> is taken for <HI>Richard</HI> Duke of <HI>Yorke,</HI> and ob&s;cure Au|thors, as namely <HI>Dorotheus, Hormi&s;da, Hermes, Hypolitus, Martialis,</HI> and other counterfeits, for famous Writers, and all to &s;upply your defects of doctrine in the Orthodox Fathers. <HI>Severinus Bi|nius</HI> hath publi&s;hed certaine decretall Epi&s;tles in the names of <HI>Clemens, Anacletus, Evari&s;tus, Sixtus,</HI> and many others, to the number of thirty one, all Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome:</HI> In&s;omuch, as their Epi&s;tles are cited by <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> by <HI>Pere&s;ius,</HI> by <HI>Coccius,</HI> by <HI>Baronius,</HI> by your <HI>Rhemi&s;ts,</HI> for &s;everall proofes of your <HI>Trent</HI> Doctrine. <HI>Gratian</HI> &s;aith,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Grat. Di&s;t. <HI>20.</HI> Decretales.</NOTE> <HI>they are of equall Authority with Councels:</HI> nay more, he labours to prove out of St. <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Di&s;tinct. <HI>19.</HI> in Canonicis.</NOTE> that tho&s;e <HI>decretall E|pi&s;tles</HI> were reckoned by him among&s;t the <HI>Cano|nicall
<PB N="66" REF="42" MS="y"> Scriptures;</HI> and yet by the &s;everall Confe&s;&s;i|ons of your learned Writers, are adjudged to be all counterfeit: and without doubt, their leaden-&s;tile, the<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> deepe &s;ilence of Antiquity concerning them, the Scriptures alledged by them after St. <HI>Hieroms</HI> Tran&s;lation (being long before his time) doe ea&s;ily convince them of fal&s;hood. <HI>Antoninus Contius,</HI> the Kings Profe&s;&s;or of Law in the Univer&s;itie of <HI>Bruges,</HI> tells us that he brought many rea&s;ons in his Preface, and notes upon your Canon Law, which was printed at <HI>Antwerp,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>An.</HI> 1570.</NOTE> by which hee pro|ved, and &s;hewed manife&s;tly, that the Epi&s;tles of the Popes,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Silve&s;ter An. <HI>314.</HI></NOTE> who were before <HI>Silve&s;ter,</HI> were all fal&s;e and counterfeit. The Preface, with the rea&s;ons al|ledged again&s;t it, is now razed and purged; and <HI>Plantin</HI> the Printer gives this an&s;wer for it,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Raynold. &amp; Hart. Cap. <HI>8.</HI> Divi&s;. <HI>3.</HI> p. <HI>451.</HI></NOTE> <HI>The Cen|&s;or who was to over&s;ee the printed Bookes, would not &s;uffer it to pa&s;&s;e, and what became of it he remembred not, nor knew how to procure it.</HI> Thus your men are not onely a&s;hamed to publi&s;h their Ba&s;tard Epi&s;tles, and equall them to the Word of God, in behalfe of your new doctrine, but you cen&s;ure al&s;o and purge your owne men for condemning &s;uch lying inven|tions.</P>
<P>Whether to forge a fal&s;e deed, or to raze a true one, be the greater fault, it is not greatly materiall: for your owne men are guilty of both. And la&s;tly, when neither purging, nor fal&s;ifying will &s;erve the turne (which you have practi&s;ed in Bookes &s;et out the fir&s;t 800. yeares) you bring a Prohibition a|gain&s;t all Authors, Prie&s;ts, and Profe&s;&s;ors in the
<PB N="67" REF="42" MS="y"> bo&s;ome of your owne Church, which te&s;tifie the truth of our doctrine, and injoyne them &s;ilence by your <HI>Index Expurgatorius,</HI> by cutting out their tongues, and refining them with a new impre&s;&s;ion; and this hath beene your ordinarie practice, for the la&s;t 800. yeares. I will give you in&s;tances in both, and &s;o I come to the &s;econd Age.</P>
<P>In the &s;econd Age, <HI>Ignatius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch</HI> witne&s;&s;eth the antiquity of our Doctrine: he &s;hews that our Communion in both kindes was practi&s;ed in his dayes:<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Ignat. Ep. ad Philadelph.</NOTE> <HI>There is one Bread</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>broken for all, and one Cup di&s;tributed to all.</HI> In your Edi|tion printed at <HI>Colein,</HI> you have quite altered the &s;en&s;e by a corrupt Tran&s;lation, &s;aying: <HI>One Cup is di&s;tributed for all:</HI> and in the Margent,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Unus Calix, qui pro omni|nibus nobis di|&s;tributus e&s;t. Bibl. Pp. Tom. <HI>1.</HI> Colon. Agripp. An. <HI>1618.</HI> p. <HI>85.</HI> Bell. de Euch. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>26.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Una Eucha|ri&s;tia utendum.</HI> And that your corruption may not want an Advocate, your Cardinall <HI>Bellarmine</HI> tells us; <HI>There is not much credit to be given to the</HI> Greek <HI>Copies, for the</HI> Latine <HI>reades it otherwi&s;e:</HI> by which rea&s;on, a man may appeale from the Originall to a Tran&s;lation; which is a thing unheard of.</P>
<P>Again, whereas he &s;aith in the &s;ame Epi&s;tle, <HI>Oh yee Virgins in your prayers &s;et Chri&s;t (onely) before your eyes, and his Father, being enlightened by his &s;pirit:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ignat. ibid. ut &s;upr&agrave;.</NOTE> hereby teaching, that we ought to directour prayers to the <HI>Trinity</HI> only, and not to Saints &amp; Angels: your men in their late Edition printed at <HI>Lyons,</HI> by their corrupt tran&s;lation have left out the word <HI>Precibus,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ignat. Lugdun. impre&s;. An. <HI>1572.</HI></NOTE> and thru&s;t in <HI>Animabus,</HI> &s;oules for prayers; by which change of words, the &s;en&s;e &amp; meaning of the Father is cleane perverted. It followeth further in the &s;ame
<PB N="68" REF="43" MS="y"> Page, in &s;peaking of <HI>Peter</HI> and <HI>Paul,</HI> and other Apo|&s;tles, who betooke them&s;elves to a married life; <HI>Severinus Binius,</HI> in his Annotations upon this place, tells us that tho&s;e words <HI>(viz. Peter and Paul, and other Apo&s;tles, betook them&s;elves to a mar|ried life)</HI> ought to be razed out;<NOTE PLACE="marg">The third age. <HI>An.</HI> 200. <HI>to</HI> 300.</NOTE> becau&s;e (&s;aith he) <HI>it is probable the</HI> Grecians <HI>in honour of Marriage, corrupted the Text:</HI> A faire warning for us to take notice, that in after Editions that pa&s;&s;age may al&s;o be cleane left out.</P>
<P>In the third Age, <HI>Tertullian</HI> paraphra&s;ing upon the words of Chri&s;t,<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Caro nihil pro|de&s;t, ad vivifi|candum &s;cilicet. Tert. de Re&s;ur|rect. carnis, c. <HI>37.</HI> Caro nihil pro|de&s;t &s;ed ad vi|vificandum. Tertul. Pari&s;iis apud Michae|lem Julianum. An. <HI>1580.</HI> p. (Mihi) <HI>47.</HI></NOTE> <HI>The fle&s;h profiteth nothing:</HI> (&s;aith) <HI>It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the fle&s;h profi|teth nothing,</HI> (namely) <HI>to quicken:</HI> your <HI>Tertullian</HI> printed at <HI>Paris,</HI> hath quite perverted the meaning of the Father, and cau&s;eth him to &s;peake fl<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t contra|ry both to him&s;elfe, and to the &s;en&s;e of Chri&s;t, in the&s;e words: <HI>The fle&s;h profiteth nothing (but) to quicken.</HI></P>
<P>St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Carthage</HI> is fal&s;ified and corrupted, for the circumge&s;tation of your Sacra|ment, and the Popes Supremacie. In his Tract of pa|tience he tells us,<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Nec po&s;t gu|&s;tatam Euchari|&s;tiam, manus gladio &amp; cruo|re maculentur. Sic Cypr. Pari|&s;iis apud Petru~ Drovart. in vi|co Jacobaeo. An. <HI>1541.</HI> fol. <HI>89.</HI> Nec po&s;t ge&s;ta|tam Euchari&s;ti|am, &amp;c. Cypr. de bono Patien|tiae. Impre&s;&s;. Pari&s;iis apud Claudium Cha|pelet Via Jaco|baea An. <HI>1616.</HI> p. (Mihi) <HI>316.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Po&s;t gu&s;tatam Euchari&s;tiam, &amp;c. After the eating of the Euchari&s;t, the hands are not, or ought not to be defiled with bloud:</HI> In your <HI>Cyprian</HI> printed at <HI>Paris</HI> and <HI>Colein,</HI> your men have witting|ly altered the words, &s;aying, <HI>Po&s;t ge&s;tatam Eucha|ri&s;tiam;</HI> and &s;o by tran&s;mutation of one letter, doe cite this place for the circumge&s;tation of the Sacra|ment: whereas the Ceremonie of carrying about the Euchari&s;t, was not knowne in many hundred
<PB N="69" REF="43" MS="y"> yeares after <HI>Cyprians</HI> time. But <HI>Pamelius,</HI> a Canon of the Church of <HI>Bruges,</HI> and <HI>Licentiate</HI> in Divi|nity, returnes this an&s;wer in defence of it:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cum manu non gu&s;tetur Eucha|ri&s;tia, &s;ed olim ge&s;tari con&s;ueta &s;it, pror&s;us illud ex Cambren&s;i Codice &s;ub&s;titu|endum duxi, pro eo quod erat <HI>gu&s;tatam.</HI> Annot. in lib. de bono Patient. pag. (Mihi) <HI>321</HI></NOTE> <HI>Fora&s;|much as the Euchari&s;t cannot be ta&s;ted with the hand, but was wont anciently to be carried with the hand, I thought it be&s;t to change the word</HI> Ta&s;ting, <HI>into</HI> Car|rying; <HI>which I borrowed from an ancient Copie in</HI> Cambron Abbey. The word then we &s;ee was chan|ged by his owne Confe&s;&s;ion, and the <HI>Cambron</HI> Co|pie is brought for the defence of this forgerie: which differing from all other Copies may be ju&s;t|ly &s;u&s;pected. For his rea&s;on, that <HI>we ta&s;te not with our hand,</HI> it is frivolous: For St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> &s;aith not, <HI>gu&s;tatam manu,</HI> but &s;imply <HI>gu&s;tatam;</HI> which ta&s;te yet was not without taking the Sacrament into the hand.</P>
<P>You have heard <HI>Pamelius</HI> confe&s;&s;ion: Now let us heare what <HI>Manutius</HI> hath done in publi&s;hing of St. <HI>Cyprian;</HI> for <HI>Pamelius</HI> tells us, that St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> printed at <HI>Rome</HI> by <HI>Paulus Manutius,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Indiculus Co|dicum in Cy|priano.</NOTE> in the yeare 1563. is a much more bettered and corrected Edi|tion, than any other: and accordingly your learned Prie&s;t M^r. <HI>Hart</HI> a&s;&s;ures us, that <HI>Pope</HI> Pius the 4^t^h,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Hart <HI>&amp;</HI> Ray|nolds, <HI>c.</HI> 5. <HI>Di|vi&s;.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 167.</NOTE> <HI>being de&s;irous that the Fathers &s;hould be &s;et forth and corrected perfectly, &s;ent to</HI> Venice <HI>for</HI> Manutius <HI>a famous Printer, that he &s;hould come to</HI> Rome <HI>to doe it; and to furni&s;h them the better with all things ne|ce&s;&s;ary, be put foure Cardinals, wi&s;e and vertuous, in tru&s;t with the worke; and for the correcting of</HI> Cy|prian <HI>e&s;pecially above the re&s;t, &s;ingular care was ta|ken; by Cardinal</HI> Baromaeus, <HI>a Copie was gotten of
<PB N="70" REF="44" MS="y"> great antiquity from</HI> Verona, <HI>and the exqui&s;ite di|ligence of learned men was u&s;ed in it.</HI></P>
<P>The&s;e Te&s;timonies make a faire &s;hew of &s;in|cere and plaine dealing: and no doubt if there were not double diligence u&s;ed by them, the <HI>Roman Cy|prian</HI> doth exceed all the re&s;t, and is free&s;t from cor|ruption: That the truth thereof may appeare, let us looke into St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> in his booke <HI>touching the Unity of the Church.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">De Veritate Eccle&s;iae.</NOTE> Whereas the ancient and true <HI>Cyprian</HI> &s;ayth, <HI>The re&s;t of the Apo&s;tles were equall unto</HI> Peter <HI>both in honour and power;</HI> the <HI>Ro|man Cyprian,</HI> printed by <HI>Manutius,</HI> and your late <HI>Paris Cyprian,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Cypr. Pari&s;iis apud Clau<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ium Chapelet. An. <HI>1616.</HI></NOTE> hath added the&s;e words, <HI>The Pri|macie is given to Peter.</HI> And whereas the ancient <HI>Cyprian</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Chri&s;t did di&s;po&s;e the Originall of unitie beginning from one;</HI> the <HI>Roman</HI> and <HI>Paris</HI> have added,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Unam Cathedra~ con&s;tituit. p. <HI>254.</HI></NOTE> <HI>He appointed one Chayre.</HI> And whereas the ancient <HI>Cyprian</HI> &s;ayth, <HI>The Church of Christ may be &s;hewed to be one;</HI> the <HI>Roman</HI> and <HI>Paris</HI> have added,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cathedra una. con&s;tituitur ib.</NOTE> <HI>and the Chayre to bee one.</HI> And becau&s;e the <HI>Chayre</HI> may bee as well applyed to the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Carthage,</HI> as to the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> the <HI>Paris Cy|prian</HI> hath added <HI>Peters chayre.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Cathedram Pe|tri. Ibid.</NOTE> And whereas it was in <HI>Cyprian,</HI> even in the <HI>Roman</HI> print too, <HI>Hee who with&s;tandeth and re&s;i&s;teth the Church, doth he tru&s;t him&s;elfe to be in the Church?</HI> the <HI>Paris Cyprian</HI> addeth;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Qui Cathe|dram Petri, &s;u|pra quam fun|data e&s;t Ec|cle&s;ia, de&s;erit, in Eccle&s;ia &s;e e&s;|&s;e confidit? ibid.</NOTE> <HI>He who for&s;aketh</HI> Peters chayre, <HI>in which the Church was founded, doth he tru&s;t him&s;elfe to bee in the Church?</HI></P>
<P>Now as you have heard that <HI>Manutius</HI> hath added, and forged much in his <HI>Roman</HI> Edition, for
<PB N="71" REF="44" MS="y"> the Popes Supremacie, &s;o likewi&s;e you &s;hall ob|&s;erve, that he hath ra&s;ed and purged an ancient Re|cord and &s;peciall Evidence, again&s;t the univer&s;ality and &s;upremacie of the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome;</HI> It is an Epi&s;tle written by <HI>Firmilianus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Cae&s;area</HI> to St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> (which St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> tran&s;lated into <HI>Latin,</HI> as your <HI>Pamelius</HI> doth confe&s;&s;e) wherein he profe&s;&s;eth, that he is ju&s;tly moved with <HI>indignation, at the manife&s;t folly of Stephanus</HI> (then Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome) that boa&s;ting &s;o much of his Bi&s;hoprick,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Atque ego ha~c in parte ju&s;t&egrave; indignor, ad hanc tam aper|tam &amp; mani|fe&s;tam Stepha|ni &s;tultitiam. Firmilian. Cyp. S. Ep. <HI>75.</HI> p. <HI>203</HI> Noli te fallere, &s;iquidem ille e&s;t ver&egrave; &s;chi&s;mati|cus, &amp;c. p. <HI>204.</HI> In&s;uper &amp; Cy|prianum P&s;eu|do-Chri&s;tum, &amp; P&s;eudo-Apo&s;to|lum, &amp; dolo&s;um operarium dice|re, qui omnia in &s;e con&s;cius praevenit, &amp;c. p. <HI>205.</HI></NOTE> <HI>and that he hath the &s;ucce&s;sion of</HI> Peter, <HI>upon whom the foundation of the Church was &s;et; brings in many other Rockes, &amp;c.</HI> He bids him <HI>not deceive him&s;elfe, he hath made him&s;elfe a Schi&s;maticke by &s;eparating him&s;elfe from the Communion of the Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall unitie; for while he thinkes he can &s;eparate all from his Communion, he hath &s;eparated him&s;elfe onely from all.</HI> He taxeth him for calling St. <HI>Cyprian a fal&s;e Christ, a fal&s;e Apo&s;tle, and a deceitfull workeman; which he him&s;elfe being guilty of, and privie to him|&s;elfe, that tho&s;e termes of right belong to him&s;elfe; by way of prevention, he objected them to another.</HI></P>
<P>Touching the&s;e &s;everall Additions and Extracti|ons, <HI>Pamelius</HI> (by whom the <HI>Antwerp</HI> and <HI>Paris Cyprian</HI> were &s;et forth) fir&s;t excu&s;eth <HI>Manutius</HI> for adding the words in his <HI>Roman</HI> print; and tells us, they were found in a written Copie of the <HI>Cam|bron Abbey</HI> in <HI>Hannonia,</HI> which was the be&s;t of all the Copies he had; and therefore, &s;aith <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e, <HI>we were not afraid to in&s;ert that Reading into the Text.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Non &s;umus ve|riti in textum in&s;erere.</NOTE> Yet <HI>Manutius</HI> him&s;elfe profe&s;&s;eth, he peru&s;ed five and
<PB N="72" REF="45" MS="y"> twenty printed and Manu&s;cript Copies, which had none of tho&s;e Additions; and as touching the Epi|&s;tle to, or from <HI>Firmilianns</HI> (which proves a re&s;i|&s;tance anciently made again&s;t the u&s;urped power of the Pope) <HI>Pamelius</HI> thinkes it was left out purpo&s;e|ly by <HI>Manutius;</HI> and, &s;aith he, <HI>Perhaps it had beene more wi&s;edome it had never been &s;et out at all:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Argumentum Ep. <HI>75.</HI> p. <HI>198.</HI></NOTE> (but withall he addeth) <HI>becau&s;e</HI> Morelius <HI>did publi&s;h it before me, I thought it not fit to let it pa&s;&s;e, but print it.</HI></P>
<P>Now let us looke backe, and examine the rea|&s;on of the&s;e &s;everal Editions and fal&s;ifications. M^r. <HI>Hart</HI> &s;ayth, that the Additions were taken from a very ancient Copie gotten from <HI>Verona; Pamelius</HI> &s;aith, they were borrowed from a Manu&s;cript in the <HI>Cambron Abbey</HI> in <HI>Hannonia:</HI> but in 25. Co|pies the Additions were not to be found. Mr. <HI>Hart</HI> &s;aith, the true Copie was printed at <HI>Rome,</HI> by the Popes command, and with the advi&s;e of vertuous and wi&s;e men, to be perfectly corrected, and free from all &s;pots. <HI>Pamelius</HI> &s;aith, it was better than any other; but withall, it was not &s;o exact, but that the old Proverbe might take place, the <HI>latter is commonly the better.</HI> La&s;tly, touching the razing out the Epi&s;tle of <HI>Firmilianus, Pamelius</HI> conclu|deth that his Copie (which doth cite it) <HI>is &s;o per|fect,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Indiculus Codi|cum in initio Cypriani.</NOTE> <HI>that, be it &s;poken without envie, there will need no further recognition; yet happely</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>it had beene better it had never come forth.</HI></P>
<P>Thus you may di&s;cerne, what forgeries are u&s;ed by your men, to &s;upport the circumge&s;tation
<PB N="73" REF="45" MS="y"> of your Sacrament, and the Popes Supremacie; which is a maine Pillar of your Faith: And this may &s;erve to &s;hew your fal&s;ifications and forgeries in the third Age.</P>
<P>In the fourth Age.<NOTE PLACE="marg">The fourth age. <HI>An.</HI> 300. to 400.</NOTE> The fir&s;t Generall Coun|cell of <HI>Nice</HI> is forged by <HI>Zozimus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> in behalfe of his owne &s;upremacie. The pretended Canon is this;<NOTE PLACE="marg">In Concil. Car|thag. c. <HI>1.</HI> Binius</NOTE> <HI>Tho&s;e who in the</HI> Nicene <HI>Synod gave their &s;entence concerning Appeales of Bi&s;hops, &s;aid in this manner: If a Bi&s;hop &s;hall be accu&s;ed, and the Bi&s;hops of his owne Province &s;hall thereupon con|demne and degrade him, if he thinke fit to appeale, and thereupon flye to the mo&s;t holy Bi&s;hop of</HI> Rome, <HI>if he be plea&s;ed to have the hearing of it, the Bi&s;hop is to write to the Bi&s;hops adjoyning, and let it be at his plea|&s;ure to doe what he will, and as he in his judgement &s;hall thinke fitte&s;t to be done.</HI> This Canon is not to be found either in the <HI>Greeke</HI> or <HI>Latine</HI> Copies of the <HI>Nicene</HI> Councell; and tho&s;e Canons in all were but 20. It is true that you pretend, that there were in all 60. Canons, whereof 40. were burned by the <HI>Arabians,</HI> (among&s;t which this Canon was one:) But if they were extant, how were they bur|ned? And if they were burned, how came you to the knowledge of them? The truth is, <HI>their Ba&s;tar|die</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Contius</HI> your <HI>Lawyer) is proved even by this, that no man, no not</HI> Gratian <HI>him&s;elfe,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Raynold. chap. 9. <HI>Divi&s;.</HI> 2. <HI>pag.</HI> 575.</NOTE> <HI>dur&s;t al|ledge them.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Eu&s;ebius Cae&s;arien&s;is</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Cae&s;area</HI> is cor|rupted, to prove the Popes &s;upremacie: In the <HI>Ba|&s;il</HI> print tran&s;lated by <HI>Ruffinus,</HI> he &s;ayth, <HI>Peter,
<PB N="74" REF="46" MS="y"> James,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Eu&s;eb. impr. Ba&s;iliae ex Offi|cin&acirc; Henr. Pe|trina, Ruffino Aquilien&s;i In|terprete. Sed Jacobum, qui dicebatur Ju&s;tus, Apo&s;to|lorum Epi&s;copu~ &s;tatuerat. Eu&s;. l. <HI>2.</HI> Eccl. Hi&s;t. c. <HI>1<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">677.</HI> Petrum, Jaco|bum, &amp; Johan|nem, non de glo|ri&acirc; &amp; honore contendi&s;&s;e in|ter &s;e, &s;ed uno con&s;en&s;u Jaco|bum Ju&s;tu~ Hie|ro&s;olymonum Epi&s;copu~ de&s;ig|n&acirc;&s;&s;e. Coloniae Allobrogum, ex|cudebat Petrus de la Roviere. An. <HI>1612.</HI></NOTE> and <HI>John, after the A&s;&s;umption of our Savi|our, although they were preferred by him before all the re&s;t of the Apo&s;tles, yet did they not challenge the honor of Primacie to them&s;elves, but appointed</HI> James, <HI>which is called</HI> Ju&s;tus, <HI>to be Bi&s;hop of the Apo&s;tles:</HI> In your <HI>Coleine</HI> Edition, you have altered the &s;en&s;e, in this manner: <HI>Peter, James, and John, when they had obtai|ned of our Lord a high degree of dignity, they did not contend about glory and honor among&s;t them&s;elves, but with one con&s;ent made</HI> James <HI>Bi&s;hop of Jeru&s;alem:</HI> Thus the true and ancient <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> &s;aith <HI>Peter</HI> and the re&s;t did not challenge the honor of primacie; the latter &s;aith, they did not &s;trive about glory and ho|nour: the ancient &s;aith, they appointed <HI>James,</HI> which is called <HI>Ju&s;tus,</HI> to be Bi&s;hop of the Apo&s;tles; the o|ther &s;aith they nominated <HI>Ju&s;tus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Jeru&s;ale~.</HI></P>
<P>This Authority is &s;o pregnant again&s;t the Popes Juri&s;diction, claimed from <HI>Peter,</HI> that <HI>Bellarmine</HI> hath nothing to an&s;wer, but this: <HI>Although tho&s;e words be found in the</HI> Ba&s;il <HI>print, tran&s;lated by</HI> Ruffi|nus, <HI>yet in a</HI> Colein <HI>print, tran&s;lated and publi&s;hed by a</HI> Roman <HI>Catholike,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>26.</HI></NOTE> <HI>the word Primacie is not to bee found; and in &s;tead of the words [Bi&s;hop of the Apo|&s;tles] are in&s;erted, Bi&s;hop of Jeru&s;alem.</HI> The Car|dinall doth not complaine, that <HI>Ruffinus</HI> Tran&s;la|tion was fal&s;e and corrupt (for they are the words in the Originall of the ancient <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI>) neither could he &s;ay truly, that the <HI>Colein</HI> was tran&s;lated by a <HI>Catholike,</HI> for indeed it is the property of an Here|ticke to fal&s;ifie and corrupt the Text. And thus you have done in your <HI>Colein</HI> Edition, where you have altered the &s;en&s;e in that manner.</P>
<PB N="75" REF="46" MS="y">
<P><HI>Eu&s;ebius Emi&s;&s;enus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Eme&s;a</HI> in <HI>Syria</HI> is forged by <HI>Gratian</HI> for the doctrine of Tran&s;ub|&s;tantiation:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Grat. Di&s;t. <HI>2.</HI> de Con&s;ecrat. Quia corpus, fol. (Mihi) <HI>432.</HI></NOTE> his words are the&s;e; <HI>Chri&s;t the invi&s;ible Prie&s;t, turned the vi&s;ible creature into the &s;ub&s;tance of his body and bloud, with his word and &s;ecret power, &s;aying; Take, eate, this is my Body:</HI> whereas there are no &s;uch words to be found in all his Works.</P>
<P>The Councell of <HI>Laodicea</HI> is fal&s;ified in favour of your Invocation of Angels. The words of the Originall are the&s;e:<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. &amp;. c. Conc. Laod. Can. <HI>35.</HI> Bin. Tom. <HI>1.</HI> p. <HI>245.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Chri&s;tians ought not to for&s;ake the Church of God, and depart a&s;ide and invocate Angels, and make meetings, which are things forbid|den: If any man therefore be found to give him&s;elfe to this privie Idolatrie, let him be accur&s;ed.</HI> Now in the &s;ame Councell publi&s;hed by <HI>James Merlyn,</HI> and Fryer <HI>Crab,</HI> by tran&s;mutation of a letter, you are taught a le&s;&s;on contrary to &s;en&s;e and rea&s;on, &s;aying,<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Quod non o|porteat Eccle&s;ia~ Dei relinquere, &amp; abire, atque angelos nomi|nare, &amp; congre|gationes facere. Merlin Tom. <HI>1.</HI> Concil. edit. Col. An. <HI>1530.</HI> f. <HI>68.</HI> Crab. edit. An. <HI>1538.</HI> Colon. fol. <HI>226.</HI> Veritas non quaerit Angulos.</NOTE> <HI>It is not lawfull for Chri&s;tians to for&s;ake the Church of God, and goe and nominate or invocate Angels, or corners, and make meetings;</HI> and thus <HI>Angell</HI> are be|come <HI>Anguli,</HI> Angels are become Angles, or Cor|ners, as if truth did &s;eeke Corners, when &s;o faire an Evidence is brought again&s;t Invocation of An|gels.</P>
<P>St. <HI>Ba&s;il,</HI> the great Archbi&s;hop of <HI>Cae&s;area,</HI> was forged by Pope <HI>Adrian</HI> the fir&s;t, at the &s;econd Councell of <HI>Nice,</HI> for the wor&s;hip of <HI>Images;</HI> his words are the&s;e:<NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">Pro quo &amp; fi|guras Imaginu~ eorum honoro, &amp; adoro, &amp; veneror &s;pecia|lit&egrave;r, hoc enim traditum e&s;t &agrave; Sanctis Apo&s;to|lis, nec e&s;t prohi|bendum: ac ide&ograve; in omnibus Ec|cle&s;iis no&s;tris eo|rum de&s;ignamus Hi&s;torias. Ci|tat. ab Adriano. in Synod. Nic. <HI>2.</HI> Act. <HI>2.</HI> p. (Mihi) <HI>504.</HI></NOTE> <HI>For which cau&s;e I honor and open|ly adore the figures of the Images</HI> (&s;peaking of the Apo&s;tles, Prophets, and Martyrs) <HI>and this being de|livered us by the Apo&s;tles, is not prohibited; but in all
<PB N="76" REF="47" MS="y"> Churches we &s;et forth their Hi&s;tories.</HI> This Autho|rity was cited by Pope <HI>Adrian,</HI> in the name of <HI>Ba|&s;il the Great</HI> in his Epi&s;tles; when as in all his Epi|&s;tles, of which are extant 180. there are no &s;uch words to be found.</P>
<P>St. <HI>Hierome</HI> is likewi&s;e forged for the &s;ame do|ctrine, and by the &s;ame Pope: the words in the E|pi&s;tle are the&s;e;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Sicut permi&s;it Deus adorare omnem gentem manufacta &amp;c. Citatur ibid. Ep. Adr. p. (Mihi) <HI>506.</HI></NOTE> <HI>As God gave leave to the</HI> Gentiles, <HI>to wor&s;hip things made with hands, and to the</HI> Jewes <HI>to wor&s;hip the carved workes, and two golden Cheru|bins which</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>made; &s;o hath he given to us Chri|&s;tians the cro&s;&s;e, and permitted us to paint and reve|rence the Images of Gods workes, and &s;o to procure him to like of our labour.</HI> The&s;e words (you &s;ee) are cited by your owne Pope, at a generall Councell, as you pretend, for a point of your <HI>Romi&s;h</HI> faith; and yet there are no &s;uch words, nor the meaning of of them, to be found in either of tho&s;e Fathers; and without doubt there was great &s;carcity of true an|cient Fathers to bee found at that time, to prove your adoration of Images, when your Pope was driven to &s;hifts and forgeries: e&s;pecially, when your owne <HI>Polydore</HI> tells you,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Polyd. de Reru~ Invent.</NOTE> that the wor&s;hip of Ima|ges, not onely <HI>Ba&s;il,</HI> but almo&s;t all the ancient ho|ly Fathers condemned, for feare of Idolatrie; as S. <HI>Hierome</HI> him&s;elfe witne&s;&s;eth. This puts me in mind of <HI>Era&s;mus</HI> complaint, that the <HI>&s;ame mea&s;ure was afforded to</HI> Ba&s;il,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Era&s;. in Praefat. lib. de Spirit. Sanct. Ba&s;.</NOTE> <HI>which hee had otherwi&s;e ob&s;erved in</HI> Athana&s;ius, Chry&s;o&s;tome, Hierome, <HI>that in the middle of Treati&s;es, many things were &s;tuffed and for|ced in by others, in the name of the Fathers.</HI></P>
<PB N="77" REF="47" MS="y">
<P>St. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Millaine</HI> is fal&s;ified and corrupted. <HI>Franci&s;cus Junius</HI> as an eye witne&s;&s;e,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Junius Praefat. in Ind. Expurg. Belg.</NOTE> tells us, that at <HI>Leyden</HI> in the yeare 1559. being fa|miliarly acquainted with <HI>Ludovicus Saurius</HI> Cor|rector of the Printing hou&s;e, and going to vi&s;it him, hee found him revi&s;ing of St. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> workes which then <HI>Frelonius</HI> was printing: after &s;ome con|ference had betwixt them, <HI>Ludovicus</HI> &s;hewed him &s;ome printed leaves, partly cancelled and partly razed; &s;aying, <HI>this is the fir&s;t Impre&s;sion, which wee printed mo&s;t faithfully, according to the be&s;t Copies; but two</HI> Franci&s;can <HI>Fryers by command have blotted out tho&s;e pa&s;&s;ages, and cau&s;ed this alteration, to my great lo&s;&s;e and a&s;toni&s;hment.</HI></P>
<P>It may be the di&s;coverie of it by <HI>Junius</HI> might &s;tay their further printing of it, or el&s;e might be an occa&s;ion to call it in after the printing; for other|wi&s;e if that Impre&s;&s;ion may be had, it were worthy the examination.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bol&s;cus dicit &s;e in manibus Se|cretarii hoc te|&s;timonium vi|di&s;&s;e, &amp; in|&s;pexi&s;&s;e. In di&s;p. de Antichri&s;to in Apend. Nu. <HI>49.</HI> &amp;. <HI>53.</HI> Lau|rent. Rever. Rom. Eccl. p. <HI>190.</HI> Non habent Petri haeredi|tatem qui Petri &s;edem non ha|bent. Grat de Paenit. Di&s;t. <HI>1.</HI> c. Pote&s;t fieri.</NOTE> But for a proofe of this fal&s;ified <HI>Ambro&s;e, Le&s;&s;ius</HI> the Je&s;uit tells us, that <HI>Bol&s;eck</HI> doth confe&s;&s;e he &s;aw the Copie in the hands of a Se|cretary: how&s;oever their later Editions are &s;ufficient proofe of your manifold fal&s;ifications. But I will &s;peak of Impre&s;&s;ions (onely) that have been within my view. Fir&s;t, to prove your &s;ucce&s;&s;ion in doctrine in your owne Church, <HI>Gratian</HI> tells us from St. <HI>Ambro&s;e, They have not the &s;ucce&s;sion of</HI> Peter, <HI>who have not the Chayre of Peter;</HI> and thus he hath chan|ged <HI>Fidem</HI> into <HI>Sedem,</HI> Faith into Chaire. This forgery in time may creepe into the Body of <HI>Am|bro&s;e;</HI> but as yet the words of <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> are agree|able
<PB N="76" REF="48" MS="y"> to our doctrine; that is,<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Non habent Petri haeredi|tatem qui Petri fidem non ha|bent. Ambr. de Paenit. c. <HI>6.</HI> Tom. <HI>1.</HI> p. <HI>156.</HI> Ba&s;il. apud Joh. Frob. An. <HI>1527.</HI> Ambr. de Sacr. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>5.</HI> Tom. <HI>4.</HI> p. <HI>393.</HI> Ba&s;il. ut &s;upr&agrave;.</NOTE> <HI>they have not the &s;ucce&s;|&s;ion of</HI> Peter, <HI>which want the faith of</HI> Peter. The&s;e be the words of true and ancient <HI>Ambro&s;e,</HI> hereby de|claring unto us, and them, that they may have the See of <HI>Peter,</HI> and yet want the faith of <HI>Peter.</HI></P>
<P>Againe, in his Booke of the Sacrament St. <HI>Am|bro&s;e</HI> &s;aith,<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Fac nobis ha~c oblationem a&s;criptam, &amp;c. quod fit in fi|guram corporis &amp; &s;anguinis Je&s;u Chri&s;ti. Amb. Colon. A|gripp. An. <HI>1616</HI> Tom. <HI>4.</HI> p. <HI>173.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Make this Oblation to be a rea&s;onable &amp; acceptable one (quod e&s;t figura) which is a figure of the Body of our Lord Je&s;us Christ:</HI> Your <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> prin|ted at <HI>Colein,</HI> doth mince tho&s;e words, and &s;ayth, <HI>(quod fit in figuram)</HI> as if it might &s;tand for a figure, but were no figure; and more particularly in the Canon of your Ma&s;&s;e, you cite all tho&s;e former words of <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> to prove the Antiquity of your Ma&s;&s;e, but you leave out the latter <HI>(which is a figure of the Body)</HI> and &s;ay;<NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">Ut nobis corp&abus; &amp; &s;anguis fiat dilecti&s;&s;imi filii tui Domini no|&s;tri Je&s;u Chri|&s;ti. Mi&s;&s;ale Parv. An. <HI>1626</HI> p. (Mihi) <HI>82.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Grant that it may be to us the body and bloud of our Lord Je&s;us Christ.</HI> And la&s;tly, that <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> might &s;eemingly appeare to be yours, in the point of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, whereas he &s;hew|eth the power and wonders of God in creating all things of nothing by his word only, and from thence concludeth,<NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg">Si ergo tanta vis e&s;t in &s;ermo|ne Domini Je&s;u, ut inciperent e&s;&s;e quae non erant; quant&ograve; magis operato|rius e&s;t, ut &s;int quae erant &amp; in aliud commu|tentur? Idem de &s;acr. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>4.</HI> Ba&s;il ut &s;upr&agrave;, p. <HI>392.</HI></NOTE> <HI>If therfore there be &s;o great force in the &s;peech of our Lord Je&s;us, that the things which were not begun to be</HI> (namely, at the fir&s;t creation of all things) <HI>how much more is the &s;ame powerful, to make that tho&s;e things may &s;till be the &s;ame they were, and yet be chan|ged into another thing?</HI> Here St. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> &s;heweth plainly, that the Elements of Bread and Wine are the &s;ame in &s;ub&s;tance as they were before, although they are changed into another nature. Your Inqui&s;i|tours knowing well that &s;uch Doctrine is flat con|trary
<PB N="77" REF="48" MS="y"> to their <HI>Tenet,</HI> which teach that the Ele|ments are not the things in &s;ub&s;tance they were be|fore Con&s;ecration, have wi&s;ely left out in their late Edition two poore words, <HI>(Sint)</HI> and <HI>(et)</HI> and ac|cordingly the &s;en&s;e runneth after this manner; <HI>How much more is the &s;peech of our Lord powerfull to make that tho&s;e things which were,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ut quae erant in aliud commu|tentur. Pari&s;. An. <HI>1603.</HI> &amp; Colon. Agripp. An. <HI>1616.</HI> Tom. <HI>4.</HI> p. <HI>173.</HI></NOTE> <HI>&s;hould bee changed into another thing.</HI> And by this meanes St. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> a Prote&s;tant, is become a Ma&s;&s;e Prie&s;t; and with a clip|ped tongue li&s;peth Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation. Fryer <HI>Wal|den</HI> in writing again&s;t <HI>Wickliffe,</HI> cites this place by the halves <HI>(ut &s;int et in aliud commutentur)</HI> he would have the Elements one thing,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Wald. de &s;acr. Euch. Tom. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>82</HI> p. (Mihi) <HI>138.</HI> b.</NOTE> and changed into ano|ther, but excludes the principall words <HI>(quae erant)</HI> &s;hewing that they &s;hould be the &s;ame, which they were before; and <HI>Lanfranck</HI> long before him &s;tor|med at <HI>Berengarius,</HI> for citing this place out of St. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> in behalfe of our Doctrine, and cryes out again&s;t him, <HI>O mentem amentem! &amp;c. O mad mind! O impudent lyar! now truly there is no &s;uch words to be found in all St.</HI> Ambro&s;e <HI>his workes,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ed. Pari&s;iis <HI>1632.</HI> Ex editione Roman&acirc;: In qu&acirc; quae vel vi|tio vel incuri&acirc; erant adjecta, &s;unt rejecta; quae &s;ublata, re|&s;tituta; quae tran&s;po&s;ita, re|po&s;ita; quae de|pravata, emen|data, &amp;c. <HI>In the fift age.</HI> An. <HI>400.</HI> to <HI>500.</HI></NOTE> <HI>&amp;c.</HI> But there is an <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> lately printed at <HI>Paris,</HI> which makes a great promi&s;e of integrity and purity, and yet the words are corruptly printed, according to your o|ther of <HI>Paris</HI> and <HI>Colein</HI> print.</P>
<P>In the fift age, St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> Archbi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> is razed and purged, touching the doctrine of the Sacrament: his words bee the&s;e; <HI>If therefore it be &s;o dangerous a matter to transferre unto private u&s;es tho&s;e holy Ve&s;&s;els (in which the true Body of Christ is not, but the my&s;terie of his body is
<PB N="80" REF="49" MS="y"> conteyned.)</HI> The&s;e latter words comprehended in the <HI>Parenthe&s;is,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Chry&s;. Antwer|piae apud Jo|hannem Steel|&s;ium, An. <HI>1537.</HI> Pari&s;. apud Jo|hannem Roig|ny. An. <HI>1543.</HI> &amp; Pari&s;. apud Au|doenum Parvu~. Anno <HI>1557.</HI></NOTE> in the Editions of <HI>Antwerpe</HI> and <HI>Paris</HI> are wholly left out, there is not a &s;yllable of them to bee &s;eene: for indeed the Author of that worke &s;aith negatively, that <HI>(the true body of Christ is not)</HI> there, which overthrowes the very ground of your Popi&s;h pre&s;ence: and although your men make great brags of Antiquity, to prove your reall Sacrifice of the Altar out of St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome;</HI> yet in the 19. Homily upon St. <HI>Matthew,</HI> where hee termes it the <HI>Sacrifice of bread and wine,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Sacrificium panis &amp; vini.</NOTE> they being al&s;o privie to this evidence, as again&s;t their owne doctrine,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Sacrificium corporis &amp; &s;a~|guinis Chri&s;ti. Pari&s;. apud Au|doenum Parvu~. An. <HI>1557.</HI> in. c. <HI>7.</HI> Matt. Ho~. <HI>19.</HI> Nunc autem nullo modo cog|no&s;cere quae &s;it Ec|cle&s;ia Chri&s;ti, ni|&s;i (tantummod&ograve;) per &s;cripturas. Idem Homil. <HI>49.</HI> Tom. <HI>2</HI> p. mihi. <HI>858.</HI></NOTE> in their Edition at <HI>Paris</HI> have taught him to &s;peake the <HI>Trent</HI> language, in the&s;e words; <HI>It is the Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ.</HI></P>
<P>Touching the Te&s;timony of divine Scriptures, St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> is purged; he tells us in his 49. <HI>Ho|mily, That from the time that Here&s;ies invaded the Church, there can be no triall of Chri&s;tianity, nor re|fuge for Chri&s;tians, who are willing to know the true faith, but to the divine Scriptures; for at that time there is no way to know which is the true Church, but by the Scriptures onely:</HI> This authority is wholly agreeable to our doctrine, and thereupon the&s;e times of Controver&s;ies and Here&s;ies, that have over|&s;pread the face of the Church, wee &s;ay with St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome,</HI> tho&s;e that be in <HI>Judaea,</HI> let them flye to the <HI>Mountaines of the Scriptures.</HI> But what an|&s;wer can be made, thinke you, to the razing of &s;o faire an Evidence? Behold<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Totus hic lo|cus, tanquam ab Arrianis in&s;er|tus, &egrave; quibu&s;|dam Godicibus nuper emenda|tis &s;ublatus e&s;t. Bell de verbo Dei l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>11.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Bellarmine</HI> tells us, that this whole pa&s;&s;age (as if it had beene in&s;erted into
<PB N="81" REF="49" MS="y"> St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> by the <HI>Arrians) is blotted out of the late corrected Editions:</HI> and, as our learned Doctor <HI>Crakenthorpe</HI> in his an&s;wer to <HI>Spalatto</HI> ob&s;erved, there is above 70. lines in the <HI>Antwerpe</HI> Edition,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Crakenth. in Spalat. p. (mihi) <HI>59.</HI></NOTE> publi&s;hed 1537. purged in this <HI>Homily.</HI> It &s;eemes then it is hereticall doctrine, to have recour&s;e to the Scriptures <HI>onely</HI> for finding of the truth; But &s;ure I am, it is the part of Heretikes to raze ancient Re|cords, and to avoyd the triall of their cau&s;e by the &s;acred <HI>Scriptures.</HI></P>
<P>The fourth Councell of <HI>Carthage</HI> (where St. <HI>Au|&s;tin</HI> was pre&s;ent) is in part forged, in part razed: In the 100. Canon it was thus decreed:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mulier bapti|zare non prae|&s;umat. Concil. Carthag. c. <HI>100.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Let no woman pre&s;ume to baptize.</HI> What an&s;wer therefore may we expect to this Canon? <HI>Binius</HI> the publi&s;her of the Councels, expounds the meaning of it thus; <HI>The Councell</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>doth decree that a woman &s;hould not pre&s;ume to baptize, that is,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Binius ibid.</HI> in his Annot.</NOTE> <HI>when the Prie&s;t is pre|&s;ent:</HI> on the other &s;ide, <HI>Peter Lombard</HI> and <HI>Gratian,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Pet. Lomb. l. <HI>4.</HI> Sent. Di&s;t. <HI>6.</HI> Grat. Can. Mu|lier de Con&s;ecr. Di&s;t. <HI>4.</HI></NOTE> they have put in their exception, <HI>(ni&s;i nece&s;sitate cogente)</HI> except it be in ca&s;e of nece&s;&s;itie: &s;o that in the ab&s;ence of the Prie&s;t, and in ca&s;e of nece&s;&s;itie, women may baptize by the authority of your Church, notwith&s;tanding the Councels decree. And this is according to <HI>Bellarmines</HI> confe&s;&s;ion: <HI>Al|though</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>tho&s;e words of exception (ni&s;i ne|ce&s;sitate cogente) be not found in the Tomes of Coun|cels,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Bell. de Bapti&s;. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>7.</HI></NOTE> <HI>yet</HI> Peter Lombard <HI>and</HI> Gratian <HI>cite the Canon in that manner.</HI> And thus by your owne Cardinals profe&s;&s;ion, your Prie&s;ts have added that exception to the Canon, to di&s;pen&s;e with women for Admi|ni&s;tration
<PB N="82" REF="50" MS="y"> of the Sacrament, which is not found in the Councell.</P>
<P>Againe, the &s;ame Councell is razed both by the compiler of the decrees, and publi&s;her of the Coun|cels: for the Councell &s;aith in the 44. Canon,<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Clericus nec comam nutriat, nec barbam ra|dat. Concil. Carth. Can. <HI>44.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Let no Clerke weare long hayre, nor &s;have his Beard:</HI> The decretals, and your late Councels publi&s;hed by <HI>Binius,</HI> have left out the word <HI>(Radat)</HI> and have quite altered the &s;en&s;e of the decree, and &s;o you<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Church hath gone directly again&s;t the meaning of the Councell in &s;having of Prie&s;ts.</P>
<P>S. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Hippo</HI> is both purged, and fal&s;i|fied in favor of your doctrine. Fir&s;t, for the purging of him your own men make this declaration:<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Augu&s;tinus nuper Venetiis excu&s;us, in quo, praeter multo|rum locorum re&s;titutionem &s;ecundum colla|tionem veterum exemplarium, curavimus re|moveri illa om|nia quae fideliu~ mentes haeretic&acirc; pravitate po&s;|&s;ent inficere, aut a Catholica or|thodoxa fide deviare. Prae|fat. Ind. lib. pro|hibit. ad Lecto|re~, Genevae im|pre&s;&s;. an. <HI>1629.</HI></NOTE> St. <HI>Au&s;tin was lately printed at</HI> Venice, <HI>in which Edition, as we have re&s;tored many places according to the anci|ent Copies; &s;o likewi&s;e we have taken care to remove all tho&s;e things, which might either infect the mindes of the faithfull with Here&s;ies, or cau&s;e them to wander from the Catholike faith.</HI> This publike profe&s;&s;ion your men have made, and accordingly the<NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">In hunc modu~ e&s;t repurgatus, ut in libri in|&s;crip&s;ione te&s;ta~|tur qui editioni praefuerunt. Ibid. p. <HI>6.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Booke was purged, as tho&s;e who were pre&s;ent at that Edi|tion doe witne&s;&s;e in the In&s;cription of the Booke:</HI> but let us returne to the corrupted Editions in our view.</P>
<P>St.<NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg">De Civitate Dei lib. <HI>22.</HI> c. <HI>24.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> in his 22. booke of the <HI>Citie of God</HI> and 24. Chapter, is cyted by<NOTE N="e" PLACE="marg">Bell. de Purg. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>4.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Bellarmine</HI> for the proofe of Purgatory: yet in that Chapter (&s;aith<NOTE N="f" PLACE="marg">Lud. Vives in lib. de Civit. Dei. c. <HI>8.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Vives</HI>) in <HI>the ancient Manu&s;cript Copies, which are at</HI> Bruges <HI>and</HI> Colein, <HI>tho&s;e ten or twelve printed lines are not to be found:</HI> And in the 22. booke and 8.
<PB N="83" REF="50" MS="y"> Chapter he tells us, <HI>there are many additions in that Chapter, without que&s;tion, foy&s;ted in by &s;uch as make practi&s;e of depraving Authors of great Authority.</HI></P>
<P>Touching forgeries and fal&s;ifications in particu|lar: <HI>The humane nature of Chri&s;t is de&s;troyed, if there be not given it, after the manner of other bodies, a cer|taine &s;pace wherein it may be contained.</HI> In your Edi|tion of <HI>Paris,</HI> printed by <HI>Seba&s;tian Nivelle,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>An.</HI> 1571.</NOTE> this pa&s;|&s;age is wholly left out: This is ob&s;erved by Dr. <HI>Moulin,</HI> but the Authour &s;o printed I have not &s;eene. But when neither adding nor detracting could make good your Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, Fryer <HI>Walden</HI> thought it the &s;ure&s;t way to forge a whole pa&s;&s;age in the name of St. <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> which indeed &s;trongly proves the very name and nature of it: The words are the&s;e;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Wald. Tom. <HI>2.</HI> de Sacram. c. <HI>83.</HI> p. (mihi) <HI>141.</HI></NOTE> <HI>No man ought to doubt when Bread and Wine are con&s;ecrated into the &s;ub&s;tance of Christ, &s;o as the &s;ub&s;tance of bread and wine doe not remaine, whereas we &s;ee many things in the workes of God no le&s;&s;e marvellous. A woman God changeth &s;ub&s;tantially into a &s;tone, as</HI> Lots <HI>wife; and in the &s;mall workeman&s;hip of man, hay and ferne into gla&s;&s;e. Neither mu&s;t we beleeve that the &s;ub&s;tance of bread and wine remaineth, but the bread is turned into the Body of Christ, and the wine into his bloud, the quali|ties or accidents of bread and wine onely remaining.</HI> This forgery was judicially allowed by Pope <HI>Mar|tin</HI> the fift, and his Cardinals, in their Con&s;i&s;torie, and yet it &s;avours rather of a Gla&s;&s;e-maker, than an ancient Father: but what an&s;wer maketh <HI>Walden</HI> to this invention?<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ego enim repe|ri &amp; tra~&s;crip&s;i de vetu&s;ti&s;&s;imo exemplari &s;cripto antiqu&acirc; vald&egrave; manu format&acirc;. Idem Ibid.</NOTE> <HI>I found it</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>and tran&s;cribed
<PB N="84" REF="51" MS="y"> it out of a very ancient Copie written with a &s;et hand.</HI> Thus one while you adde, another while you de|tract, another while you fal&s;ifie the ancient Fathers, if either they make for us or again&s;t you; and yet you tell us, that we are guiltie of corrupting the Fa|thers. But above all, <HI>Gratian</HI> hath mo&s;t &s;hame|fully and lewdly fal&s;ified St. <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> whom he hath made to &s;ay;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Inter Canoni|cas Scripturas decretales Epi|&s;tolae connume|rantur. Di&s;t. <HI>29.</HI> In Canonicis. fol. <HI>19.</HI> A.</NOTE> <HI>The decretall Epi&s;tles of the Popes are accounted in the number of Canonicall Scrip|tures.</HI></P>
<P>The truth is, St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> in his booke of <HI>Chri&s;tian doctrine,</HI> informes a Chri&s;tian what Scripture hee &s;hould hold for Canonicall; and thereupon bids him follow the greater part of the Catholike Church: <HI>Among&s;t which tho&s;e Churches are, which had the happine&s;&s;e to injoy the &s;eates of the Apo&s;tles, and to re|ceive Epi&s;tles from them. Gratian</HI> in the Canon Law altereth the words thus: <HI>Among&s;t which Ca|nonicall Scriptures, tho&s;e Epi&s;tles are which the Apo|&s;tolicke See of Rome hath, and which others have de|&s;erved to receive from her;</HI> and accordingly the title of the Canon is, <HI>Inter Canonicas Scripturas, &amp;c.</HI> The decretall Epi&s;tles of Popes are counted by St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> for Canonicall <HI>Scriptures.</HI> Now judge you what greater forgerie, nay what greater bla&s;phemie can be devi&s;ed, or uttered again&s;t Chri&s;t and his Spirit, than that the Popes Epi&s;tles &s;hould bee ter|med canonicall Scriptures, and held of equall au|thority with the Word of God; e&s;pecially &s;ince by your owne men they are cen&s;ured as <HI>Apocryphall</HI> and counterfeit Epi&s;tles. Your owne <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> as
<PB N="85" REF="51" MS="y"> a man a&s;hamed of &s;uch gro&s;&s;e forgeries, would &s;eeme to excu&s;e it;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bell. de Concil. Author. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>12.</HI> Primo.</NOTE> <HI>That</HI> Gratian <HI>was deceived by a corrupt copie of St.</HI> Au&s;tin, <HI>which he had be&s;ides him, and that the true and corrected copies have not the words, as him&s;elfe reporteth.</HI> Thus <HI>Walden</HI> excu&s;eth his forgerie by an ancient Manu&s;cript, the Cardi|nall by a corrupt copie; and yet, by your Cardinals leave, this and many other &s;uch like forgeries &s;tand printed in the Canon Law, no <HI>Index Expurgato|rius</HI> layes hold on them, notwith&s;tanding hee profe&s;&s;eth <HI>the worke was purged and re&s;tored to his integrity, by mo&s;t learned men,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem de &s;cript Eccle&s;. An. <HI>1100</HI> de Gratiano. Alph. adver&s;. haere&s;es, l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>2.</HI> in fine. Ad tran&s;ma|rina qui puta|verint appel|landum, a nullo infra Africam in Communione &s;u&s;cipiatur. Bin. in Concil. Milevit. Ca~. <HI>22</HI> &amp; Codex Can. Eccl. Afric. Can. <HI>28.</HI> v. Ni&s;i forte ad Apo&s;tolicam &s;e|dem appellave|rint. Grat. cau|&s;a <HI>2.</HI> que&s;t. <HI>6.</HI> Placuit. fol. (Mihi) <HI>153.</HI> Haec exceptio non videtur quadrare. Bell. de Pont. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>24.</HI></NOTE> <HI>by the command of</HI> Gregory <HI>the</HI> 13. <HI>in the yeare</HI> 1580. Your <HI>Alphon|&s;us &acirc; Ca&s;tro</HI> tells us, that this &s;hamefull errour ought to be made knowne to all men, le&s;t others by this abu&s;e, take occa&s;ion to erre in like manner; as namely, <HI>Johannes de Turrecremata,</HI> and Cardinall <HI>Cajetan,</HI> who both cited this place out of <HI>Gratian</HI> for the <HI>Romi&s;h</HI> faith, and the Popes Supremacie, and yet no &s;uch thing is to be found in St. <HI>Au&s;tin.</HI></P>
<P>The Councel of <HI>Milevis, alias,</HI> the <HI>African</HI> Coun|cell, is fal&s;ified by <HI>Gratian</HI> for the Popes Supre|macie: The words of the Councell are the&s;e, <HI>Tho&s;e that offer to appeale beyond the Seas, let none within</HI> Africa <HI>receive them to Communion: Gratian</HI> ob|&s;erving that this was a &s;trong evidence and barre to the Popes Supremacie, according to his cu&s;tome, hath thru&s;t in the&s;e words into the Canon <HI>(Except it bee to the Apo&s;tolike See of Rome.)</HI> Now what &s;aith <HI>Bellarmine</HI> to this fal&s;ification? He confe&s;&s;eth that &s;ome &s;ay, <HI>This exception doth not &s;eem to &s;quare
<PB N="86" REF="52" MS="y"> with the Councell:</HI> I know not how the &s;quares goe with your men at <HI>Rome,</HI> but I finde that among&s;t your partie there is <HI>no rule without an exception;</HI> e&s;pecially if it make again&s;t your doctrine.</P>
<P>St. <HI>Cyrill</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Alexandria</HI> is purged in the Text it &s;elfe, and is forged by <HI>Aquinas,</HI> for two principal points of faith; <HI>viz.</HI> Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, and the Popes Supremacie: Touching the fir&s;t he &s;aith, <HI>That we might not feele horrour,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Aquin. in Cate|na in illud Luc. <HI>22.</HI> Accepto. pane, &amp;c.</NOTE> <HI>&s;eeing fle&s;h and bloud on the &s;acred Altar, the Sonne of God conde&s;cending to our infirmities, doth penetrate with the power of life into the things offered (to wit, Bread and Wine) converting them into the verity of his owne fle&s;h, that the body of life, as it were a quickening &s;eed, might be found in us.</HI> Here is a faire Evidence, or rather a foule fal&s;ification for your carnall pre&s;ence. But what &s;aith your owne <HI>Va&s;ques</HI> the Je&s;uit?<NOTE PLACE="marg">Citatur Cyril|lus Alex. in E|pi&s;tola ad Ca&s;y|rium, quae inter ejus opera non habetur, illius tamen te&s;timo|nium citat S. Thomas in Ca|tena. Aquinas in opu&s;culo contra errores Graeco|rum, ad Urba|num quartum Pontificem maximum.</NOTE> <HI>Cyrils te&s;timony is cyted by</HI> Thomas, <HI>but there is no &s;uch Tract to be found in all his workes.</HI></P>
<P>Againe, touching the Popes Supremacie, hee brings in St. <HI>Cyrill</HI> &s;aying, <HI>As Chri&s;t received power of his Father, over every power, a power mo&s;t full and ample, that all things &s;hould bowe to him; &s;o hee did commit it mo&s;t fully and amply, both to</HI> Peter <HI>and his Succe&s;&s;ors, and Chri&s;t gave his owne to none el&s;e &s;ave to</HI> Peter <HI>fully, but to him he gave it. And the Apo|&s;tles in the Go&s;pels and Epi&s;tles have affirmed in eve|ry doctrine,</HI> Peter <HI>and his Church to bee in &s;tead of God. And to him, even to</HI> Peter, <HI>all doe bowe their head by the law of God, and the Princes of the world are obedient to him, even as to the Lord Je&s;us. And
<PB N="87" REF="52" MS="y"> we, as being members, mu&s;t cleave unto our head the Pope, and the Apo&s;tolike See: That it is our duty to &s;eeke and enquire what is to be beleeved, what to bee thought, what to be held, becau&s;e it is the right of the Pope alone to reprove, to correct, to rebuke, to confirme, to di&s;po&s;e, to loo&s;e, and binde.</HI> Here is a large and ample te&s;timony cited in the name of an ancient Father for the honour and power of the univer&s;all Bi&s;hop. This pa&s;&s;age is alledged out of <HI>Cyrils</HI> worke intitu|led <HI>The Trea&s;urie again&s;t Heretiques;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The&s;aurus ad|ver&s;us haereti|cos. Tom. <HI>2.</HI> p. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> but whereas there are 14. Bookes written by him of that Title, there are no &s;uch words to be found in the whole Tract. But ob&s;erve the proceedings of your good Saint; hee conceived the authoritie of one Father (though rightly cited) was not a &s;ufficient proofe for an Article of faith, and thereupon, to make good his former A&s;&s;ertion, hee &s;ummons 630. Bi&s;hops, who (&s;aith hee) with one voice and con&s;ent made this generall acclamation in the Councell of <HI>Chal|cedon; God grant long life to</HI> Leo, <HI>the mo&s;t holy,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Aquinas in opu&s;culo, ut &s;u|pra.</NOTE> <HI>Apo|&s;tolike, and univer&s;all Patriarch of the whole World.</HI> He tels us further, it was decreed by the &s;ame Coun|cell, <HI>If any Bi&s;hop be accu&s;ed, let him appeale to the Pope of</HI> Rome, <HI>becau&s;e we have</HI> Peter <HI>for a rocke of refuge, and he alone hath right, with freedome of power, in &s;tead of God, to judge and try the cau&s;e of a Bi&s;hop accu&s;ed, according to the keyes which the Lord did give him.</HI> Without doubt this decree was a good inducement for the Church of <HI>England</HI> to &s;ub&s;cribe to the Popes Supremacie (if you could make good this proofe out of the Councell of
<PB N="88" REF="53" MS="y"> <HI>Chalcedon</HI>) for it is one of the fir&s;t foure generall Councels, which we &s;ub&s;cribe unto by our Acts of <HI>Parliament.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">An. <HI>1.</HI> Elizab.</NOTE> But where are tho&s;e words to bee found in that Councell? Your Pope <HI>Zozimus</HI> fal&s;i|fied a Canon in the fir&s;t Councell of <HI>Nice</HI> (as I have &s;hewed) and your Popes Champion St. <HI>Thomas</HI> hath fal&s;ified another, and both for the univer&s;ality of the Pope; by which you may ea&s;ily di&s;cerne, that you wanted antiquity to prove your faith, when your men are driven to forge and faine a con|&s;ent of many hundred Bi&s;hops, in an ancient and ge|nerall Councell,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>See</HI> Concil. Chalced. Can. <HI>28.</HI> Act. <HI>15.</HI></NOTE> for the &s;upporting of your Lord Paramount; when as in truth it decreed the flat con|trary doctrine.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Grat. de Con|&s;ecr. di&s;t. <HI>2.</HI> c. Comperimus. Gela&s;ius Papa Majorico &amp; Johanni Epi&s;|copis. Ibid.</NOTE><HI>Gela&s;ius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> is corrupted, where hee condemneth halfe Communion as &s;acrilegious: his words are the&s;e; <HI>We finde that &s;ome receiving a por|tion of Chri&s;ts holy Body, ab&s;taine from the Cup of his &s;acred Bloud, which becau&s;e they doe out of I know not what &s;uper&s;tition, we command therefore that ei|ther they receive the entire Sacraments, or that they be entirely with-held from them; becau&s;e the divi|&s;ion of one and the &s;elfe-&s;ame My&s;tery cannot be with|out grand Sacriledge.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Gratian,</HI> the compiler of the Popes Decrees, borrowed his chapter out of that Epi&s;tle of <HI>Gela&s;ius</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Bellarmine) &amp; withall prefixed this Title before it,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Bell. de &s;acr. Euch. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>26.</HI></NOTE> <HI>The Prie&s;t ought not to receive the Body of Chri&s;t without the Bloud;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ea Epi&s;tola Gela&s;ii, quae mo|d&ograve; fort<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;se non e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="4 letters">. Ibid.</NOTE> that is to &s;ay, without the con&s;e|crated Cup; and yet by <HI>Bellarmines</HI> confe&s;&s;ion, <HI>That Epi&s;tle peradventure is not now extant:</HI> and
<PB N="89" REF="53" MS="y"> which is more, your <HI>Non conficient Prie&s;ts</HI> doe ge|nerally commit that Sacriledge, by receiving the con&s;ecrated Bread without the Cup, flat contrary to the decrees of the ancient Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome.</HI></P>
<P>In the &s;ixth age, the &s;econd Councell of <HI>Orange</HI> is fal&s;ified in the behalfe of your merits; the words of the Councell are the&s;e:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Hoc etiam &s;alu|briter profite|mur &amp; credi|mus, quod in omni opere bo|no non nos in|cipimus, &amp; po&s;te&agrave; per Dei mi&s;ericordiam adjuvamur; &s;ed ip&s;e nobis, &amp;c. Concil. Arau&s;i|canum, Can. <HI>25.</HI> Bin. Tom. <HI>2.</HI> p. <HI>639.</HI></NOTE> <HI>We &s;olemnely profe&s;&s;e and beleeve, that in every good worke wee our &s;elves doe not fir&s;t begin, and are helped afterwards by the mer|cie of God; but he, Nullis praecedentibus bonis me|ritis, no good merits of ours going before, doth fir&s;t of all in&s;pire us with faith, and love towards him.</HI> This Councell condemned the <HI>Pelagians</HI> for their doctrine of <HI>Merits</HI> and <HI>Freewill;</HI> and accordingly declared that we have neither free will of our &s;elves to doe good, neither any fore-going workes to merit any thing of our &s;elves; and this is a &s;afe and humble confe&s;&s;ion both of our weakne&s;&s;e, and Gods good grace and mercy towards us. But ob|&s;erve your Church-men, for the defence of their merits, they have fal&s;ified the Canon, and quite perverted the &s;en&s;e and meaning of the Councell; and in the place of <HI>nullis meritis,</HI> no merits, have in&s;erted the word <HI>multis,</HI> many merits; &s;o that the Fathers of the Councell are taught to reade a new le&s;&s;on, flat contrary to the ancient Doctrine of the Church, <HI>viz. We &s;olemnely profe&s;&s;e that wee fir&s;t be|ginne (many) of our owne merits going before, &amp;c.</HI> than which a&s;&s;ertion what can be more arrogant, in a&s;&s;uming power to our &s;elves, and derogating from the goodne&s;&s;e of our God.</P>
<PB N="90" REF="54" MS="y">
<P>In the &s;eventh age, <HI>Gregory</HI> the great Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> is fal&s;ified: his words be the&s;e; <HI>The King of Pride is neare,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Greg. Ep. lib. <HI>4.</HI> Indict. <HI>13.</HI> Ep. <HI>38.</HI> p. (mihi) <HI>146.</HI> b. Edit. Antwerp. <HI>1515.</HI> &amp; Pari&s;. An. <HI>1521.</HI> fol. <HI>384.</HI> in Aedibus Franci&s;ci Reg|nault.</NOTE> <HI>and, which is a haynous thing to name,</HI> Exercitus Sacerdotum, <HI>a whole armie of Prie&s;ts is provided to attend his comming.</HI> In your Edition of <HI>Antwerpe</HI> and <HI>Paris,</HI> for the word <HI>(exer|citus)</HI> you thru&s;t in <HI>(exitus Sacerdotum)</HI> &s;o that whereas <HI>Antichri&s;t</HI> comming it is ob&s;erved that an ho&s;t of Prie&s;ts &s;hall belong unto him; now on the contrary it is read, that at <HI>Antichri&s;ts</HI> comming there &s;hall be an end of Prie&s;thood.</P>
<P>Now as you have detracted from Pope <HI>Grego|ries</HI> doctrine in one place, &s;o likewi&s;e you have ad|ded to him in another, for honour of his See, and the Canons of your Church: the words are the&s;e, <HI>Let not the reverence due to the Apo&s;tolike See bee trou|bled by any mans pre&s;umption;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Greg. l. <HI>11.</HI> In|dict. <HI>6.</HI> Ep. <HI>42.</HI> Citatur &agrave; Bel. in Ep. ad Black|well. contra jus regium. Vide Jacob. Re|gis opera. p. <HI>262.</HI> &amp; <HI>279.</HI></NOTE> <HI>for then the &s;tate of the members doth remaine &s;ound, when the head of the faith is not brui&s;ed by any injury, and the autho|rity of the Canons alwayes remaine &s;afe and &s;ound.</HI> This was urged to <HI>Blackwell</HI> the Prie&s;t, by your Cardinall <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> as a principall te&s;timonie <HI>Contra jus regium;</HI> and yet, as it is ob&s;erved by a learned <HI>Divine,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">M. Stephanus.</NOTE> the&s;e and many &s;uch particular pa&s;|&s;ages are in&s;erted into the printed <HI>Gregory,</HI> which are not to bee found in the ancient Manu&s;cripts.</P>
<P>Againe, in the former Epi&s;tle St. <HI>Gregorie</HI> is likewi&s;e fal&s;ified by <HI>Stapleton,</HI> in behalfe of the Popes Supremacie: the words of St. <HI>Gregorie</HI> are the&s;e,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Greg. Regi&s;t. l. <HI>4.</HI> Indict. <HI>13.</HI> Ep. <HI>38.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Certainly</HI> Peter <HI>is the fir&s;t member of the uni|ver&s;all Church;</HI> Paul, Andrew, <HI>and</HI> John, <HI>what are
<PB N="91" REF="54" MS="y"> they but heads of particular people? and notwith&s;tan|ding they are all members of the Church under one head.</HI> And le&s;t any &s;hould apply the name of head to <HI>Peter,</HI> in his 36. Epi&s;tle, being the &s;econd Epi&s;tle before this, he &s;aith,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Omnia &s;oli uni capiti cohaerent, viz. Chri&s;to. Ep. <HI>36.</HI> Stapl. de prin|cip. doctrin. l. <HI>6.</HI> c. <HI>7.</HI></NOTE> <HI>All the members are joyned to one head, Chri&s;t.</HI> Now ob&s;erve the addition and fal|&s;ification of your learned <HI>Stapleton;</HI> Andrew, James, <HI>and</HI> John (&s;aith he) <HI>were heads of &s;everall Congrega|tions, and all members of the Church under one head,</HI> Peter. And thus your Popes creature hath left out <HI>Peter</HI> in the fir&s;t place, where hee was made a member, and added the name of <HI>Peter</HI> in the la&s;t place, to make him a head.</P>
<P>Againe, <HI>Gratian,</HI> who was ever ready to &s;upply all defects for the Popes title, hath given us an in|excu&s;able forgerie, in the name of <HI>Gregorie,</HI> for the Papall power: the truth of it was this; When <HI>Ana|tolius</HI> Deacon of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> had written to Pope St. <HI>Gregory,</HI> that the Emperour commanded another Bi&s;hop to be cho&s;en in the place of the Bi|&s;hop of <HI>Ju&s;tiniana,</HI> by rea&s;on of his head-ache; St. <HI>Gregory</HI> made this an&s;wer, <HI>You wrote unto me,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Greg. l. <HI>9.</HI> Ep. <HI>41.</HI> Indict. <HI>4.</HI> p. <HI>370.</HI></NOTE> <HI>that our mo&s;t religious Lord the Emperour commanded another to be cho&s;en in the place of our reverend Bro|ther</HI> John <HI>Bi&s;hop of</HI> Ju&s;tiniana, <HI>becau&s;e of the paine of his head:</HI> by which tenour St. <HI>Gregory</HI> &s;hewes that the Popes obeyed the Princes lawes (&s;o they were not again&s;t their Canons.) Now ob&s;erve <HI>Gratian</HI> hee leaves out fir&s;t the words,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Grat. cau&s;a <HI>7.</HI> que&s;t. <HI>1.</HI> fol. (Mihi) <HI>186.</HI></NOTE> <HI>our mo&s;t religious Lord,</HI> and in &s;tead of the Emperours name, he a&s;|&s;umes the Popes per&s;on, &s;aying, <HI>Your lovingne&s;&s;e
<PB N="92" REF="55" MS="y"> wrote to me, that I &s;hould command another to be cho|&s;en,</HI> whereas in tho&s;e dayes, by the confe&s;&s;ion of Pope <HI>Gregory,</HI> the Emperors made Election of the Bi&s;hops, and not the Popes.</P>
<P>The &s;ixt Councell of <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> is fal&s;ified &amp; corrupted by <HI>Gratian;</HI> in the 36. Canon of the &s;aid Councell it was thus decreed: <HI>We determine that the See of</HI> Con&s;tantinople <HI>&s;hall have equall priviledges and honour with the &s;eat of elder</HI> Rome, <HI>and in Eccle|&s;ia&s;ticall matters be advanced as far forth as it, being next unto it: Gratian</HI> cites the former, <HI>non tame~ in Ec|cle&s;ia&s;ticis</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>but not in matters Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall;</HI> which is flat co~trary to the meaning of the Councel.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">The eight age. <HI>An.</HI> 700. <HI>to</HI> 800.</NOTE>In the eight age venerable <HI>Bede</HI> was living, and taught our doctrine touching the Sacrament, but was afterwards forged by Fryer <HI>Walden,</HI> to prove the doctrine of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation again&s;t <HI>Wickliffe;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibi forma pa|nis videtur, ubi &s;ub&s;tantia pa|nis non e&s;t, nec e&s;t ibi, inquit, panis ali<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> quam panis qui de coelo de&s;cen|dit. Wald. Tom. <HI>2.</HI> de &s;acr. c. <HI>82.</HI> fol. (mihi) <HI>138.</HI> b.</NOTE> his words are the&s;e: <HI>There the forme of Bread is &s;eene, where the &s;ub&s;tance of Bread is not, neither is any other Bread there, but that which de&s;|cends from heaven:</HI> This is alledged out of the Booke <HI>de my&s;teriis Mi&s;&s;ae,</HI> in the name of <HI>Bede,</HI> when as in all his 8. Tomes, hee never wrote or mentioned any &s;uch worke.</P>
<P>The Councell of <HI>Franckford</HI> is likewi&s;e corrup|ted and fal&s;ified, for the honour of your Images; for whereas <HI>Regino</HI> &s;aith,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Concil. Franck|ford. An. <HI>794.</HI> Bin. p. (mihi) <HI>141.</HI> Bin. Not. in Concil. Fra~c. p. (mihi) <HI>164.</HI> b.</NOTE> <HI>The fal&s;e Synode of the</HI> Grecians, <HI>which they made for the defence of their wor&s;hipping of Images, was e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ected by the Bi&s;hops a&s;|&s;embled at</HI> Frankford, <HI>under</HI> Charles <HI>the Great: Binius</HI> the publi&s;her of the Councels, declareth
<PB N="93" REF="55" MS="y"> that the Acts of the &s;econd Councell of <HI>Nice</HI> in the cau&s;e of Images was confirmed by it; which is &s;o farre from truth, that he is inforced to confe&s;&s;e that therein he doth di&s;&s;ent, though unwillingly,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Quam &s;enten|tiam optarem e&s;&s;e veram, &s;ed &s;u&s;picor e&s;&s;e fal&s;am. Bel. de Imag. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>14.</HI> &sect;. Multi.</NOTE> from <HI>Baronius</HI> and <HI>Bellarmine:</HI> and indeed <HI>Bellarmine</HI> profe&s;&s;eth; <HI>I could wi&s;h this opinion were true, but I &s;u&s;pect it to be fal&s;e.</HI> Againe, to make the world be|leeve that the Synod of <HI>Franckford</HI> condemned not the &s;econd Councell of <HI>Nice</HI> (the chiefe upholder of Images) your men have razed out <HI>Nice,</HI> and thru&s;t in <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> which altogether condem|ned Images: Now therefore take a &s;hort view of all the&s;e your forgeries and corruptions.</P>
<P>In the fir&s;t Age you have depraved the Scrip|tures by your fal&s;e tran&s;lations and corruptions; and when all could not &s;ave your turne, you place the <HI>Bible</HI> among&s;t the Bookes prohibited.</P>
<P>In the &s;econd Age you have forged Epi&s;tles in the names of 31. Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome,</HI> which were none of theirs; and to &s;uppre&s;&s;e our Doctrine touching the Communion in both kinds, and to uphold your invocation of Saints and Angels, you have corrup|ted <HI>Ignatius</HI> by a fal&s;e Tran&s;lation; and you would have the Record razed touching the marriage of Prie&s;ts.</P>
<P>In the third age you corrupt <HI>Tertullian</HI> for your Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation; you fal&s;ifie Saint <HI>Cyprian</HI> for your circumge&s;tation of the Sacrament, and your Popes &s;upremacie.</P>
<P>In the fourth Age you corrupt <HI>Eu&s;ebius Cae&s;ari|en&s;is</HI> for the Popes &s;upremacie; you forge <HI>Eu&s;ebius
<PB N="94" REF="56"> Emi&s;&s;enus</HI> for your corporall pre&s;ence; you fal&s;ifie the Councell of <HI>Laodicea</HI> for your invocation of Saints and Angels; you forge Saint <HI>Hierome</HI> and Saint <HI>Ba&s;ill</HI> the <HI>Great,</HI> for your wor&s;hip of Images; you fal&s;ifie Saint <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> for the Popes &s;ucce&s;sion in the <HI>Roman</HI> See, and mo&s;t corruptly for the Do|ctrine of the Sacrament.</P>
<P>In the fift Age you have razed two evidences in Saint <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome,</HI> both which confirme our Do|ctrine, the one concerning the Lords Supper, the other concerning our tryall by the Scriptures: you have fal&s;ified the Councell of <HI>Carthage</HI> for the bap|tizing of women, and for the &s;having of Prie&s;ts: you have fal&s;ified Saint <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> for your Purgatory, and for your Doctrine of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, and your Popes decretall Epi&s;tles: you have forged the Councell of <HI>Africa</HI> for the honour of your A|po&s;tolicke See: you have forged Saint <HI>Cyrill</HI> for your Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, and your Popes Suprema|cie.</P>
<P>In the &s;ixt Age you have corrupted the Coun|cell of <HI>Orange</HI> for your Doctrine of merits, and for the honour of your Prie&s;thood over &s;ecular powers.</P>
<P>In the &s;eventh Age you have razed <HI>Gregory</HI> the <HI>Great</HI> touching the comming of Antichri&s;t; you have purged him in an Epi&s;tle which maketh a|gain&s;t the Popes Supremacie: you have fal&s;ified the Councell of <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> in your Popes be|halfe.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, in the eighth Age you have forged vene|rable
<PB N="95" REF="56"> <HI>Bede</HI> in behalfe of your Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation; and you have fal&s;ified the Councel of <HI>Franckford</HI> in behalfe of your Image-wor&s;hip; and yet for all this you are not a&s;hamed to profe&s;&s;e, <HI>that for anci|ent Authors you note onely what is ami&s;&s;e, but you nei|ther raze nor blot out any thing; that corner-cor|recting</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>wee leave for &s;uch corner-compani|ons as &s;hunne the light,</HI> p. 144. What credit can be given to you or your Church, let the Reader judge, when as by your owne confe&s;sion, the <HI>Trent Coun|cell hath decreed it as a thing unlawfull to change any thing in the Bookes of ancient Catholikes,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Concil. Trid. in Ind. lib. prohib. de correct. <HI>4.</HI> p. (mihi) <HI>32.</HI></NOTE> <HI>except a manife&s;t error appeare to have crept in by the fraud of Hereticks or negligence of the Printer.</HI> Sure I am you will confe&s;&s;e that all the&s;e mentioned corrup|tions are not <HI>Errata,</HI> &s;lips of the Printer; And as touching the fraud of Heretickes which did corrupt them, your <HI>Trent</HI> Councell (which made the De|cree) could not meane the Prote&s;tants: for in tho&s;e dayes they had printed no Fathers, neither had they any Manu&s;cripts, but &s;uch as were kept pri|&s;oners in your Church: The name of Heretickes therefore doth properly reflect upon your Pope <HI>Adrian,</HI> upon <HI>Gratian,</HI> upon <HI>Stapleton,</HI> upon <HI>Tho|mas Aquinas,</HI> upon Cardinall <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> who ap|peare to be Authors of your fal&s;ifications; and in generall upon your <HI>Roman</HI> inqui&s;itors, who are the knowne Authors of your corrupting and altering the true Fathers. And this mu&s;t needes &s;eeme very probable to all, becau&s;e they are corrupted chiefely in tho&s;e main Articles of Faith which make again&s;t
<PB N="96" REF="57"> your Church. The ancient Records and Eviden|ces which you have had many hundred yeeres in your po&s;&s;e&s;sion, doe all witne&s;&s;e the&s;e forgeries and corruptions in the printed Fathers, and will you claime the Fathers for your Rule of Faith, when you make them &s;peake more like children than fa|thers? Shall a Guardian to an infant, having po&s;|&s;e&s;sion of his Lands, and keeping his Deeds and Evi|dences during his minoritie, raze and fal&s;ifie them, and thereby intitle him&s;elfe to the Wards Lands, becau&s;e hee was &s;ome time po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed of them, and can produce forged Evidences for them? This is our very ca&s;e: The Church of <HI>Rome</HI> in her infancie was a faithfull Guardian of her childrens right, &s;hee kept the Manu&s;cripts and the ancient Records of the Fathers, in that puritie as &s;he fir&s;t received the~; after the Pope had made an univer&s;all Title and claime to all Catholike Churches, hee intruded into other mens Rights by forgerie and corruptions, he made the Fathers &s;peake according to the <HI>Trent</HI> decrees, in an unknowne tongue, and now by forged cavilla|tion detaines the po&s;&s;e&s;sion again&s;t the right own|ers. But let me tell you, as the Kings Subject, you are lyable to puni&s;hment in &s;uch ca&s;es in temporall affaires.<NOTE PLACE="marg">See the title of Forger of fal&s;e deeds fol. <HI>(mihi)</HI> 180. <HI>b.</HI></NOTE> <HI>For if any per&s;on &s;hall by fal&s;e con&s;piracie, &s;ubtilty and fal&s;ity, forge any Deed, Charter, or Wri|ting, or &s;hall pronounce, publi&s;h and &s;hew forth in E|vidence any &s;uch fal&s;e or forged Deed or Writing as true, knowing the &s;ame to bee fal&s;e and forged, and &s;hall be thereof convicted, he &s;hall be &s;et upon the Pil|lory in &s;ome open Market Towne, and there to have
<PB N="97" REF="57" MS="y"> both his Eares cut off, and al&s;o his No&s;thrils to bee &s;lit and cut, and &s;eared with an hot iron, &s;o as they may remaine for a perpetuall note or marke of his fal&s;hood.</HI></P>
<P>Compare now this humane law with tho&s;e forgeries of divine Evidences, and tell me what you and your fellowes can &s;ay for your &s;elves, why the &s;ame judgment &s;hould not be pronounced again&s;t you. For if the lawes of Kings are &s;o &s;trict in behalfe of temporall records and a&s;&s;urances betwixt men, what may wee thinke the Law-giver him&s;elfe will require at their hands, who doe not onely raze and fal&s;ifie Evidences touching the greate&s;t my&s;teries of Salvation, who I &s;ay not onely doe the &s;ame, but have plea&s;ure in them that doe them?</P>
<P>Thus much touching the razing and corrupting of the Fathers for the fir&s;t 800. yeares. Now I proceed to your <HI>Index Expurgatorius,</HI> your pur|ging and blotting out the moderne Authours for the la&s;t 800. yeares.</P>
<P><HI>Fora&s;much</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>as concerneth the late Catho|like Authors of this la&s;t age, for this our Index (of which is al the difficultie) beginneth but from the yeere</HI> 1515. <HI>what&s;oever needeth correction, is to bee amen|ded or blotted out; yet for others going before that time, it is expre&s;ly &s;aid, that nothing may be changed, unle&s;&s;e &s;ome manife&s;t errors, through the fraud of He|retikes, or carele&s;ne&s;&s;e of the Printer, bee crept in:</HI> Thus you.</P>
<P>From your corrupting the ancient Councels and Fathers (which I have &s;howne) wee are at la&s;t
<PB N="98" REF="58"> come to the correcting of moderne Authors; and as I have led you through an Ho&s;pitall of maimed Souldiers, &s;o now I will &s;end you to the hou&s;e of correction, where I will leave you without Baile or Maine-prize, till you have cleared your &s;elfe and your a&s;&s;ociates, for wounding and cutting out the tongues, of your owne Authors, in &s;peaking truth again&s;t the corruptions of the Church.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 24. <HI>&amp;</HI> 144.</NOTE>But your correcting <HI>Index</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>began but from the yeare</HI> 1515. <HI>and nothing is changed of Ca|tholike Authors before that time.</HI></P>
<P>I a&s;&s;ure you, I have not heard as yet one &s;entence, nay &s;carce one word of truth fall from your pen, wherein you di&s;&s;ent from us; and this your a&s;&s;ertion will prove as true as the re&s;t. Yea, but (&s;ay you) <HI>it is expre&s;ly declared by the Church, that nothing may be changed;</HI> and if this be true (as true it is indeed) the le&s;&s;e credit is to be given you or your Church-men, who make decrees, and breake them at their plea&s;ure; for it &s;hall appeare that your <HI>Index</HI> doth extend it &s;elfe to the time of the Apo&s;tles: and how|&s;oever you pretend to purge the Fathers onely in the <HI>Index</HI> and Table of their Bookes; yet I &s;ay &s;ome you have purged in the Text it &s;elfe, others you have corrected in the <HI>Index,</HI> in the expre&s;&s;e words delivered in the bodie of tho&s;e Bookes. And as touching your A&s;&s;ertion, that you purge the latter writers onely from the yeare 1515. and not beyond that time, this is mo&s;t fal&s;e, and you had &s;aid more truly, if you had confe&s;&s;ed that for 1515. yeares together, your Church &s;pared no Authours,
<PB N="99" REF="58" MS="y"> ancient or moderne, if they &s;peake not <HI>Placentia,</HI> agreeable to your Popes faith and doctrine.</P>
<P>For the better manife&s;tation of this truth, looke fir&s;t upon your <HI>Correctorium</HI> (for &s;o <HI>Lucas Brugen|&s;is</HI> termes it) your worke of correction upon the Bible; and tell me if you have not altered, by your Popes command, above three thou&s;and &s;everall places in the Scripture, even in your vulgar Tran&s;la|tion, which you call St. <HI>Hieromes;</HI> and although you dare not lay a <HI>Deleatur</HI> upon the &s;acred word of God, yet upon the <HI>Commandements,</HI> upon the <HI>Lords Prayer,</HI> upon &s;everall places of Scripture (as I have &s;hewed) there is a <HI>Deletur,</HI> a leaving out, and a detracting from it.</P>
<P>Looke upon your <HI>Index Expurgatorius,</HI> prin|ted at <HI>Madrid,</HI> by Cardinall <HI>Quiroga,</HI> and tell me if you have not purged certain places in the <HI>Index</HI> of the Bible, which are <HI>ip&s;i&s;sima verba,</HI> the very words to a letter, in the Text it &s;elfe: as for in&s;tance;<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Ju&s;tificamur fide in Chri&s;tum, Galat. <HI>2.16.</HI></NOTE> <HI>We are ju&s;tified by faith in Christ:</HI><NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg"><HI>Ju&s;titia no&s;tra Chri&s;tus,</HI> 1. Cor. 1.30.</NOTE> <HI>Christ is our Righ|teou&s;ne&s;&s;e:</HI><NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg"><HI>Fide purifi|cantur corda,</HI> Act. 15.9.</NOTE> <HI>By faith our hearts are purified:</HI><NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg">Ju&s;tus coram Deo nemo, <HI>P&s;al. 143.2.</HI></NOTE> <HI>No man is righteous before God:</HI><NOTE N="e" PLACE="marg"><HI>Uxore~ habeat unu&s;qui&s;que.</HI> 1 Cor. 7.2.</NOTE> <HI>Let every man have his wife, &amp;c.</HI> All the&s;e pa&s;&s;ages I &s;ay are the very word of God, in the Body of the Scriptures, and yet they are commanded<NOTE N="f" PLACE="marg">Ind. Hi&s;p. Madr. f. (mihi) <HI>15.</HI> B.</NOTE> <HI>tanqua~ propo&s;itiones &s;u&s;pectae</HI> (for &s;o are the words of your <HI>Index</HI>) as if they were things que&s;tionable, to bee blotted out. A|gaine, when your glo&s;&s;es or marginall notes agree not to your doctrine, you cau&s;e your <HI>Index Expur|gatorius</HI> to lay hold on them: as for in&s;tance; in the 26. of <HI>Leviticus,</HI> we reade in your owne Tran&s;la|tion:
<PB N="100" REF="59" MS="y"> <HI>You &s;hall not make to your &s;elves an Idoll or thing graven;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Deleatur illud, Sculptilia pro|hibet fieri. Idem fol. <HI>7.</HI></NOTE> when the glo&s;&s;e in the Margent &s;aith, <HI>God forbiddeth graven Images,</HI> Let <HI>that pa&s;&s;age</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>be &s;trucken out.</HI> And whereas <HI>Samuel</HI> &s;aith: <HI>Prepare your hearts unto the Lord, and &s;erve him onely:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. fol. <HI>8.</HI> b.</NOTE> the glo&s;&s;e upon the Text, which is the &s;ame in &s;ub&s;tance, <HI>viz. wee mu&s;t &s;erve God onely,</HI> you command to be blotted out. The&s;e and the like places relating to the Scriptures, being contrary to your <HI>Trent</HI> doctrine, you have excluded from your late printed Bibles in the places afore&s;aid, as being too obvious to the eye of every Rea|der.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ind. Hi&s;p. Ma|drid. p. <HI>6. 7.</HI> &amp; f. <HI>138.</HI> (Mihi) <HI>62.</HI> Crakenthorp. adv. Spal. p. <HI>66.</HI> Bell. de verbo Dei, l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>11.</HI> &amp;c. Ind. Madrid. fol. <HI>62.</HI> a. Deleantur ex Textu illa ver|ba: Sed ubi non habuerit Dei timorem in &s;e|ip&s;is, nec Je&s;um per fidem inco|lam, &amp;c. Ibid. Eam ver&ograve; &s;o|lu~mod&ograve; natu|ram, quae incre|ata e&s;t, colere &amp; venerari didi|cimus. Ant. Me|li&s;&s; &s;erm. <HI>1.</HI> Bell. de &s;cript. Eccl. p. (mihi) <HI>184.</HI></NOTE></P>
<P>Looke upon the Fathers, and tell mee if your <HI>Index Expurgatorius</HI> doth not correct both St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome,</HI> and <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> and <HI>Hilarie,</HI> and <HI>Hierome,</HI> in their <HI>Index,</HI> touching the prime points of con|trover&s;ie betwixt us: Nay more, St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Vives</HI>) is purged ten or twelve lines in the body of his workes; St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> in his 49. <HI>Homily</HI> is purged 70. lines; &amp; by <HI>Bellarmines</HI> confe&s;&s;ion, other places are razed out of him and other Fathers, as I have &s;hewed before. Looke upon St. <HI>Cyrill</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Alexandria,</HI> who was living above 1200. yeares agoe, and tell me if your Inqui&s;itors have not com|manded a <HI>Deleatur</HI> upon his words, in the very Text it &s;elfe. Looke before his time upon <HI>Gregory Ny&s;&s;en,</HI> and tell me if through the &s;ides of <HI>Antonius Abbas</HI> (who was living, by <HI>Bellarmines</HI> accompt, neare 900. yeares agoe) you doe not wound that ancient Father in the body of his workes, in com|manding
<PB N="103" REF="59" MS="y"> this golden &s;entence to bee blotted out:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ind. Belg. p. <HI>270.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. Greg. Ni&s;sen. in Orat. <HI>4.</HI> Tom. <HI>2.</HI> Edit. Graeco-lat. p. <HI>146.</HI></NOTE> <HI>We have learned to wor&s;hip and adore that nature (onely) which is uncreated:</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Par&s;o~s</HI> warn-word to Sir <HI>Fran. Ha&s;tings</HI> wa&s;t-word. <HI>Enc.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 9. <HI>p.</HI> 69.</NOTE> your <HI>F. Par&s;ons</HI> takes great paines to little purpo&s;e to excu&s;e it; one while he tells us, <HI>that the &s;entence is not to bee <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">und in Gregory Ni&s;&s;en</HI> (which is mo&s;t fal&s;e:) another while he confe&s;&s;eth, <HI>that they cannot &s;tand to give a particular rea&s;on of every cen&s;ure or expurgation that is made</HI> (which is mo&s;t fooli&s;h.)</P>
<P>But tell mee in good &s;ooth, if tho&s;e places of Scriptures and Fathers did make for your Religion, would you purge them? Or mu&s;t we beleeve, that your Inqui&s;itors would take &s;uch infinite care and paines to review all Authours for 1600. yeares, and &s;punge them onely in the <HI>Index?</HI> Without doubt that man who doth willingly deface the Kings picture, &s;tamped in his coyne, would, if he dur&s;t, at|tempt it upon his per&s;on: the Tables of Authors, and Glo&s;&s;es, were e&s;pecially intended for the bene|fit of the Reader, both for his better under&s;tan|ding, and his more &s;peedie &s;earching of the truth.</P>
<P>They re&s;emble the <HI>Phylacteries</HI> of the Jewes, which had a Ribband of <HI>Blue</HI> upon the borders of their garments, that by them they might the better remember the Commandements of God: he that would have cut the fringes of tho&s;e garments in tho&s;e dayes, to prevent the remembrance of Gods law, would (no doubt) have offered violence to the Ta|bles, on which God him&s;elfe had written, if hee dur&s;t attempt it. The truth is, the words imprinted in the skirts and tables of your Bibles and Fathers,
<PB N="104" REF="60" MS="y"> are thornes in your eyes, and goades in your &s;ides: and from hence we may ea&s;ily di&s;cerne, why you leave out the &s;econd Commandement, and alter the fourth in your <HI>P&s;alters</HI> and <HI>Breviaries,</HI> which you dare not alter in your Bibles. And that your A&s;&s;ertion may more particularly appeare to bee mo&s;t untrue, <HI>viz.</HI> that <HI>you purge no Authours before the yeare</HI> 1515. I will begin from the ninth age, where I la&s;t left, and &s;hew your owne Authours purged, and forbidden in all the &s;ucceeding ages for this la&s;t 800. yeares.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t therefore the Reader &s;hall under&s;tand, that your <HI>Roman</HI> Inqui&s;itors have publi&s;hed an <HI>Index</HI> of prohibited Bookes, and in that <HI>Index</HI> they have divided the Authors into three &s;everall <HI>Cla&s;&s;es,</HI> or orders.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cla&s;sis.</HI> 1.</NOTE> In the fir&s;t they ranke all tho&s;e Bookes which are adjudged by your men for Heretikes; as namely, <HI>Berengarius, Wickliffe, Luther, Ca&s;&s;ander, Era&s;mus, Raynolds,</HI> and divers others; who&s;e Bookes not onely now written, but what&s;oever &s;hall be publi&s;hed in their names hereafter, are pro|hibited as Hereticall.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cla&s;sis.</HI> 2.</NOTE> In the &s;econd <HI>Cla&s;sis</HI> they have ranked all tho&s;e who&s;e doctrine is not very &s;ound, but &s;u&s;pected, and <HI>offen&s;ive,</HI> although the Authors them&s;elves never for&s;ooke the Church, and therefore not per&s;onally to bee noted: and of this &s;ort are <HI>Charles the great, Agobardus, Bertram, Huldericus, Cajetan,</HI> and divers others, who&s;e Bookes are now purged; and &s;ome of them lived 800.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cla&s;sis.</HI> 3.</NOTE> years &s;ince. The third is of namele&s;&s;e Authors, which (&s;ay they) deliver pernitious doctrine, and
<PB N="105" REF="60" MS="y"> are condemned by the <HI>Roman</HI> Church; and tho&s;e onely which have beene publi&s;hed without a name &s;ince the yeare 1584.</P>
<P>The&s;e three rankes of Cla&s;&s;icall Authors, ac|cording to our Adver&s;aries doome, may be de&s;ti|nated to the&s;e three &s;everall places. The fir&s;t &s;ort to <HI>Hell,</HI> which containes the Heretikes and dam|ned per&s;ons, never to be redeemed. The &s;econd &s;ort to <HI>Purgatory,</HI> which are &s;u&s;pended and re&s;trained upon &s;u&s;picion of fal&s;e doctrine, or veniall &s;inne, and mu&s;t not be freed till they be purged, and have payd the utmo&s;t farthing to the Pope. The third, to <HI>Limbus Infantum,</HI> and tho&s;e are <HI>Anonymoi,</HI> &s;uch as were unbaptized, and have beene publi&s;hed with|out a name, from the yeare 1584. Of the&s;e three &s;orts, I will produce onely the Authors of the &s;e|cond <HI>Cla&s;sis,</HI> which lived and died members of your Church, &s;uch as were never condemned for here&s;ie, but (tou&s;e your own words) have <HI>Su&s;pectam Doctrinam,</HI> that is to &s;ay in plaine Engli&s;h, <HI>Prote|&s;tant Doctrine:</HI> whereof &s;ome you have purged in your new Editions, others you have forbidden to be read till they be purged:<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>The ninth age.</HI> An. <HI>800.</HI> to. <HI>900 See</HI> Craken|thorp, p. <HI>56.</HI> Carolo magno fals&ograve; ad&s;criptu~, de Imaginibus, cujus Titulus e&s;t, Opus illu|&s;tri&s;simi, &amp;c. Ind. l. prohib. p. (Mihi) <HI>18.</HI></NOTE> and this (as &s;hall appeare) was many ages before the time prefixed, 1515.</P>
<P>I proceed: In the ninth age <HI>Charles</HI> the <HI>Great</HI> wrote foure Bookes concerning Images; he profe&s;|&s;eth that hee began the worke in his owne King|dome; and your owne <HI>Ecchius,</HI> and <HI>Luzenburgus,</HI> both witne&s;&s;e that this Emperour wrote all tho&s;e Bookes: yet your <HI>Index Expurgatorius</HI> layes hold on him, and forbids the worke; pretending that it
<PB N="106" REF="61" MS="y"> <HI>is fal&s;ely a&s;cribed to him,</HI> when as the true rea&s;on is, becau&s;e he condemned Image-wor&s;hip, and forbids the 7^t^h. Councell to be called either a generall, or lawfull Councell: for otherwi&s;e your owne <HI>Hinc|marus</HI> Archbi&s;hop of <HI>Rhemes,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Hinckm. Rhe~. contr. Hinchm. Jandun. Epi&s;c. c. <HI>20.</HI></NOTE> who was living when the&s;e things were fre&s;h in memorie, profe&s;&s;eth, that a generall Synod was kept in <HI>Germany</HI> by the con|vocation of the Emperour <HI>Charles,</HI> and there, by the Rules of Scripture and doctrine of the Fathers, the fal&s;e Councell of the <HI>Grecians,</HI> was confuted and utterly rejected; of who&s;e confutation there was a good bigge Booke &s;ent to <HI>Rome</HI> by certaine Bi&s;hops from <HI>Charles the Great,</HI> which in my youn|ger yeares I read in the Palace.</P>
<P>Now admit that <HI>Charles</HI> were not the Authour of tho&s;e Bookes (although your owne men wit|ne&s;&s;e he was) yet the Authour you &s;ee was anci|ent, and living in that age; hee condemned your Image-wor&s;hip, hee confuted the rea&s;ons of the <HI>Nicene Councell,</HI> and by this it appeares that your Church hath tran&s;gre&s;&s;ed her limits above 700. yeares; and therefore your <HI>Trent</HI> decree was made &s;utable to your <HI>Spectacles,</HI> which makes that &s;eeme to be, which is not.</P>
<P>Agobardus <HI>Bi&s;hop</HI> of <HI>Lyons (An.</HI> 840.) is pur|ged, <HI>propter non &s;anam &amp; &s;u&s;pectam doctrinam;</HI> becau&s;e he delivers our Prote&s;tants doctrine, which you account <HI>non &s;anam,</HI> in the&s;e words; <HI>If the workes of Gods hands be not to be adored and wor&s;hip|ped,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Si opera manu|um Dei, &amp;c. Bibl. Pp. Tom. <HI>9.</HI> p. (mihi) <HI>590.</HI></NOTE> <HI>no not in honour of God, how much more the workes of mens hands are not to be adored and wor|&s;hipped,
<PB N="107" REF="61" MS="y"> in honour of tho&s;e whom they repre&s;ent?</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Titulo de Ima|ginibus expur|gantur omnia quae &s;ub hoc titulo continen|tur, u&s;que ad titulum. <HI>2.</HI> Cla&s;|&s;is Ind. lib. pro|hib. pag. (mihi) <HI>711.</HI></NOTE> This pa&s;&s;age is yet extant in your late <HI>Bibliotheque</HI> of Fa|thers, under the title of Images: but your <HI>Spani&s;h</HI> Inqui&s;itors have commanded all the things which are contained under that <HI>Title</HI> to bee blotted out, <HI>u&s;que ad Titulum, to the very title.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Papirius Ma&s;&s;onus,</HI> the publi&s;her of <HI>Agobardus</HI> workes, delivered the argument touching Images and Pictures in this manner; <HI>Detecting mo&s;t mani|fe&s;tly the errours of the Grecians</HI> (that is, the Fathers of the &s;econd Nicene Councel) <HI>touching Images and Pictures, he denyeth that they ought to be wor&s;hipped; which opinion all wee Catholikes doe allow, and follow the te&s;timony of</HI> Gregory <HI>the Great concerning them.</HI> This pa&s;&s;age, together with more ample authorities are already purged according to command, by the Divines of <HI>Cullen,</HI> in their late corrupt Edition of the great <HI>Bibliotheque</HI> of the ancient Fathers:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bibl. P P. Tom. <HI>9.</HI> par. <HI>1.</HI> edit. Colon. Anno <HI>1618.</HI> p. <HI>548.</HI> &amp; p. <HI>551.</HI></NOTE> but <HI>Gretzer</HI> your fellow Je&s;uite <HI>extremely wondreth that this judgement of the Booke of Agobardus &s;hould proceed from a Catholike; for Agobardus in that whole Book doth nothing el&s;e but indevour to demon|&s;trate, although with vaine labour, that Images are not to be wor&s;hipped:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">U&s;her p. <HI>463.</HI></NOTE> and yet I &s;ay it is more to be wondred that your men &s;hould purge &s;uch Authors of Antiquitie contrary to your <HI>Trent</HI> Decree; and when by purging them they have made our Faith and Doctrine invi&s;ible in them to the Reader, you call upon us to &s;hew where our Church and Religi|on was vi&s;ible before <HI>Luther.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Johannes Bertram,</HI> a Prie&s;t of the Mona&s;tery of
<PB N="108" REF="62" MS="y"> <HI>Corbey</HI> in <HI>France,</HI> wrote a Booke of the Body and Bloud of Chri&s;t: This Booke is forbidden to bee read by command of your inqui&s;itors, and condem|ned by the Councell of <HI>Trent.</HI> But the Divines of <HI>Doway,</HI> perceiving that the forbidding of this Book gave an occa&s;ion to many to &s;eeke more earne&s;tly after it, thought it better policie to allow it, and ac|cordingly they publi&s;h it with this Declaration, <HI>Although we care not greatly whether this Booke of</HI> Bertrams <HI>be extant or no;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ind. Expurg. Belg. p. <HI>5.</HI> edit. Antwer. Anno <HI>1571.</HI></NOTE> <HI>yet &s;eeing we beare with many errors in others of the old Catholike Writers, and extenuate them, and by inventing &s;ome devi&s;e, oftentimes deny them, and faine &s;ome commodious &s;en&s;e for them when they are objected in di&s;putations or conflicts with our Adver&s;aries; we doe not &s;ee why</HI> Bertram <HI>may not de&s;erve the &s;ame equity and diligent revi&s;all, lest the Heretikes cry out, that we burne and forbid &s;uch antiquity as maketh for them.</HI> This is a free and faire confe&s;sion of your men in our behalf, that the Fathers are but pretended for your Do|ctrine, when as oftentimes they make again&s;t you; and indeed accordingly you have framed a commo|dious &s;en&s;e for the better under&s;tanding of this Au|thor: as for In&s;tance, where he &s;aith the <HI>&s;ub&s;tance</HI> of the Bread was to be &s;eene <HI>vi&s;ibly,</HI> wee mu&s;t read it (&s;ay they) <HI>invi&s;ibly:</HI> and where he &s;aith, the <HI>&s;ub|&s;tance of the creature which was before con&s;ecration, remaineth after con&s;ecration;</HI> by <HI>&s;ubstance,</HI> &s;ay they, <HI>you mu&s;t under&s;tand accidents:</HI> The&s;e devi&s;es, how&s;oever at fir&s;t they &s;eemingly made &s;ome &s;hew of an&s;wer to the vulgar people, yet they proved
<PB N="109" REF="62" MS="y"> har&s;h &amp; untunable to the eares of your learned Pro|&s;elytes, and thereupon your <HI>Romanists</HI> wi&s;ely by way of prevention at length gave up this verdict; <HI>It were not ami&s;&s;e, nor unadvi&s;edly done,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ind. Belg. p. <HI>421</HI> &amp; Quiroga p. (mihi) <HI>140.</HI> B.</NOTE> <HI>that all the&s;e things &s;hould be left out.</HI> But it &s;eemes the&s;e &s;mall pills did not &s;ufficiently purge the Authour; and thereupon, after more mature deliberation, it was at la&s;t concluded, <HI>Totus liber penit&ugrave;s auferatur;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ind. Belg. p. <HI>17.</HI></NOTE> let the whole Booke be &s;uppre&s;&s;ed. Now what an|&s;wer doe you thinke can be made in ju&s;tification of this proceeding? Your Je&s;uite <HI>Gretzerus</HI> brief|ly re&s;olves it: <HI>Dum prohibetur Bertramus,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Gretz. de jure prohib. libr. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>10.</HI></NOTE> <HI>while</HI> Bertram <HI>is forbidden, I deny that a Father is forbid|den; for the Father is no naturall Father, but a Step|father, who nouri&s;heth not the Church with whole&s;ome food, but with darnell and pernitious graine together with the Wheate: wherefore as the Popes have dealt with &s;ome writings in</HI> Origen <HI>and</HI> Tertullian, <HI>by the &s;ame right may they now, according to their wi&s;dome, aboli&s;h any writing of others, either in whole or in part by cutting or blotting them out.</HI> Thus fir&s;t they di&s;|pen&s;ed with this ancient Author and our Doctrine; then they correct him in &s;ome pa&s;&s;ages, by &s;peaking flat contrary to his owne meaning; and when all would not &s;erve the turne, they ab&s;olutely forbid him to be read, or rather command him to be ut|terly blotted out, and totally &s;uppre&s;&s;ed.</P>
<P>In the tenth Age (975.<NOTE PLACE="marg">The tenth Age Ann. 900. to 1000. <HI>Aelfrichs</HI> Ser|mon on Ea&s;ter day.</NOTE>) <HI>Aelfricus</HI> Abbot of <HI>Malmesbury</HI> wrote an <HI>Homily</HI> touching the Sacra|ment of the <HI>Euchari&s;t,</HI> which was then read through|out all our Churches on <HI>Ea&s;ter day,</HI> and con&s;onant
<PB N="110" REF="63" MS="y"> to the Doctrine of our Articles. This Booke is ex|tant in the <HI>Saxon</HI> tongue in many Libraries: but what is the rea&s;on he is not numbred among&s;t your Bookes prohibited? Why &s;urely you have foi&s;ted in a <HI>Parenthe&s;is,</HI> which by a miracle inferres your corporall pre&s;ence, which makes &s;ome &s;hew for your Religion; and yet becau&s;e it is contrary to the whole &s;cope of his Booke, you confe&s;&s;e that <HI>Harpsfield</HI> in his Hi&s;tory &s;hewes, <HI>That the</HI> Beren|garian <HI>Here&s;ie began &s;omewhat to bee taught and maintained out of certaine writings fal&s;ely attribu|ted to Aelfricke:</HI> and thus for one rea&s;on you will not prohibit him, or lay a <HI>deleatur</HI> upon his works; but for the other rea&s;on there is a <HI>deletur</HI> upon him, and he is a man cleane out of your Bookes.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">The eleventh Age, An. 1000. to 1100. <HI>Ind. lib. prohib. pag.</HI> 47. <HI>&amp; p.</HI> 93.</NOTE>In the eleventh Age, <HI>Huldericus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Au|&s;purg</HI> wrote an Epi&s;tle touching the &s;ingle life of the Clergie, wherein he taxeth Pope <HI>Nicholas</HI> for re&s;training Prie&s;ts from marriage, and therefore is rejected by your Inqui&s;itours; his words be the&s;e: <HI>A&s;&s;uredly you are not a little out of the way,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Hulder. Epi&s;c. ep. de caelibatu Cleri.</NOTE> <HI>when you doe compell Clerks by force to keepe them&s;elves from marriage, which you &s;hould admoni&s;h to forbeare; for it is violence when any man is con&s;trained to keepe a particular decree again&s;t the in&s;titution of the Go&s;pell and the Doctrine of the Holy Gho&s;t; wherefore wee coun&s;ell you, by the fidelity of our &s;ubjection, that with all diligence you will remove &s;uch a &s;candall, and by your di&s;cipline root out that Phari&s;aicall Doctrine from the flocke of Chri&s;t.</HI> And whereas it was obje|cted, that <HI>Gregory</HI> the Great long before that time
<PB N="109" REF="63" MS="y"> had made a Decree for the re&s;traint of Prie&s;ts mar|riage, in his fir&s;t Epi&s;tle to Pope <HI>Nicholas,</HI> hee tells him,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><P>Ibid. p. (mihi) <HI>482.</HI></P>
<P>Orthodoxagra|phia Patrum, Tom. <HI>1</HI> p. (mihi) <HI>481.</HI></P>
<P>Plu&s;quam &s;ex millia infantum capita viderit, p. (mihi) <HI>1482.</HI></P></NOTE> <HI>There be &s;ome which take</HI> Gregory <HI>for a main|tainer of their Sect, who&s;e ignorance I lament; for they doe not know this perillous Decree was afterwards purged by him, when as upon a day out of his ponds were drawne above</HI> 6000. <HI>childrens heads; which after he beheld, he utterly condemned his Decree, and prai&s;ed the coun&s;ell of Saint</HI> Paul, <HI>It is better to mar|ry than to burne; adding this al&s;o of his owne, It is better marry than be an occa&s;ion of death.</HI> Here you &s;ee our Doctrine was taught, touching the marriage of Prie&s;ts; and becau&s;e it is a plaine evidence for our Church, your Inqui&s;itours have ranked this Epi|&s;tle among&s;t the Bookes prohibited.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;elme</HI> Archbi&s;hop of <HI>Canterbury</HI> taught our Doctrine in the mo&s;t &s;ub&s;tantiall point, touching faith and good workes. The forme of preparing men for their death, was delivered to the &s;icke man in this manner:<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Credis no~ pro|priis meritis, &s;ed pa&s;sionis Do|mini no&s;tri Je|&s;u Chri&s;ti vir|tute &amp; merito, ad gloriam per|venire? &amp;c. Ind. lib. prohib. p. <HI>696.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Do&s;t thou beleeve to come to glory, not by thine owne merits, but by the vertue and merit of the Pa&s;sion of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t? Do&s;t thou beleeve that our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t did dye for our &s;al|vation, and that none can be &s;aved by his owne merits, or by any other meanes, but by the merits of his Pa&s;si|on?</HI> then for a conclu&s;ion it followes (fol. 35.)<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">No~ erit de&s;pe|randum vel du|bitandum de &s;alute illius, &amp;c. Ordo bap|tizandi cu~ mo|do vi&s;itandi. Imp. Venet. Ind. Belg. p. <HI>419. 1575.</HI> Ind. Madrid. p. <HI>149.</HI> Ind. lib. prohib. p. ut &s;upra.</NOTE> <HI>We ought not to doubt or de&s;paire of the &s;alvation of that man, who beleeveth with his heart, and confe&s;&s;eth with his mouth the forenamed propo&s;itions.</HI> The&s;e &s;e|verall pa&s;&s;ages are commanded by three &s;everall <HI>Indices</HI> to be blotted out: Nay more, the Booke
<PB N="110" REF="64" MS="y"> which containes this Doctrine, you thru&s;t it into the third <HI>Cla&s;sis,</HI> among&s;t tho&s;e namele&s;&s;e Authors, which deliver Doctrine (&s;ay you) in &s;ome &s;ort per|nitious to the Catholike faith; as if the foundati|on of all comfort in Chri&s;t were pernitious to the Chri&s;tian faith: But let me tell you, your Inqui&s;i|tors have much forgot them&s;elves; for they forbid that Booke, which, &s;ay they, was printed at <HI>Venice</HI> (1575.) when as by their owne rules they profe&s;&s;e openly, that they never meant to condemne any namele&s;&s;e Authors, but &s;uch onely as have beene publi&s;hed &s;ince the yeere (1584.) nor any Author what&s;oever (by their <HI>Trent</HI> Decree) but from the yeere (1515.) How&s;oever this namele&s;&s;e Author was both printed at<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">See Bi&s;hop <HI>U&s;hers</HI> an&s;wer to the Je&s;uites Challenge, <HI>cap.</HI> Of Merits, p. 513.</NOTE> <HI>Venice,</HI> at <HI>Antwerp,</HI> at <HI>Coleine,</HI> at <HI>Paris, juxta ritum S. Romanae Eccle&s;iae</HI> (for &s;o be the words) according to the rites of the Romane Church.<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Ca&s;&s;an. in Ap|pend. ad opu&s;c. Jo. Roff. de fi|ducia &amp; mi&s;e|ricordia Dei.</NOTE> <HI>Ca&s;&s;ander</HI> tells us the <HI>Book was to be had in all Libraries, and particularly was found in&s;erted among the Epi&s;tles of</HI> An&s;elme, <HI>who was commonly accounted to be the Author of it:</HI> and the like is con|fe&s;&s;ed by Cardinall<NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">Ho&s;ius in con|fe&s;sione Petri, cap. <HI>73.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Ho&s;ius</HI> him&s;elfe. But this was the time wherein the Devill was let loo&s;e, and wherein your Pope <HI>Hildebrand</HI> did not onely<NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg">Non &s;olum fabulas commi|ni&s;citur, annales corrumpit, res ge&s;tas invertit, &s;ed etiam coele|&s;tia oracula a|dulterat. Aven. Annal. l. <HI>4.</HI> pag. <HI>455.</HI></NOTE> <HI>in|vent Fables, corrupt Chronicles, and inverted things that were done, but did al&s;o adulterate the Scriptures them&s;elves;</HI> and therefore Cardinall <HI>Ben<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">,</HI> who wrote of the life of <HI>Hildebrand,</HI> and was living in that age, is<NOTE N="e" PLACE="marg">Ind. lib. pro|hib. p. <HI>11.</HI> vide Illyric. de vita Hildebrand. p. <HI>1322.</HI></NOTE> <HI>forbidden</HI> al&s;o to be read, becau&s;e he tou|cheth to the quicke your <HI>Caput fidei,</HI> the head of your Church.</P>
<PB N="111" REF="64" MS="y">
<P>In the twelfth age<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Sigeberti liber contra Papam Gregorium, &amp; contra Epi&s;t. Pa&s;chalis Papae. Ind. lib. prohib. p. <HI>85.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Sigebertus Monachus Gembla|cen&s;is</HI> wrote a Booke again&s;t Pope <HI>Gregory,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The twelfth Age, An. 1100. to 1200.</NOTE> and a|gain&s;t the Epi&s;tle of Pope <HI>Pa&s;chalis;</HI> hee lived and dyed a member of the Roman Church, yet his Booke is prohibited, becau&s;e it complaineth of the &s;tate of your declining Church;<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Sigebertus Ab. ep. p. <HI>188.</HI> in lib. Golda&s;ti Replic. Hactenus inter|pretatur, ideo docui&s;&s;e Petru~ per Babylonem &s;ignare Romam, quia tunc tem|poris Roma confu&s;a erat I|dololatri&acirc; &amp; omni &s;purtitie At nunc dolor meus mihi in|terpretatur, qu&ograve;d Petrus prophetico &s;pi|ritu dicens Ec|cle&s;iam in Ba|bylone colle|ctam, praevidis confu&s;ionem di&s;&s;entionis qu&acirc; hodie &s;cin|ditur Eccle&s;ia. Ibid.</NOTE> <HI>For what greater confu&s;ion</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>was there in times pa&s;t in Babylon than there is now in the Church? In Babylon there was a confu&s;ion of languages among the Gentiles, in the Church of Rome the tongues are divided, and the minds of the faithfull. Saint</HI> Peter <HI>&s;aith, the Church which is Babylon &s;alutes you; hitherto hee did inter|pret that</HI> Peter <HI>by Babylon did &s;ignifie Rome, becau&s;e Rome at that time was confounded with Idolatry and all uncleanne&s;&s;e: But my griefe doth now interpret unto mee, that</HI> Peter <HI>by a propheticke &s;pirit, by the Church at Babylon, fore&s;aw the confu&s;ion of di&s;&s;en|tion, which doth now rent the Church of Rome.</HI></P>
<P>If this te&s;timonie had made for our Church, (as it doth again&s;t yours) certainly you would ne|ver forbid the Record to be read nor to be blotted out; but this &s;hewes that there was a revolt, a de|fection from the faith (after the loo&s;ing of Sathan) which were proper for your men to permit to bee read and &s;eene in after ages, that the truth might appeare in all and every age of the alteration of the Church.</P>
<P><NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">Arnol de villa. Novaopera ni|&s;i repurgentur. Ind. lib prohib. p. <HI>5.</HI> &amp; <HI>36.</HI> &amp; <HI>37.</HI></NOTE><HI>Arnoldus Carnoten&s;is (Abbas bonae vallis)</HI> his <HI>workes are forbidden till they be purged,</HI> and for no other rea&s;on, as I can conceive, but becau&s;e he di&s;co|vers the errours of your Church. He tells us, that
<PB N="112" REF="65" MS="y"> <HI>Cloy&s;ter Monkes are damned, becau&s;e they fal&s;ifie the doctrine of Christ, and leade &s;oules to Hell.</HI> He tells us, that your <HI>Clergie-men did mo&s;t perfidiou&s;ly mingle Philo&s;ophicall dreames with the &s;acred Scriptures.</HI> He tells us, that <HI>Ma&s;&s;es did neither profit the living, nor the dead;</HI> and for the&s;e and the like Prote&s;tations a|gain&s;t the abu&s;es of his time, he is now condem|ned by your expurgatory <HI>Indices.</HI></P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Anno 1215. <HI>Ur&s;pergen&s;is in</HI> Anno 793.</NOTE>In the thirteenth Age, <HI>Ur&s;pergen&s;is Abbas</HI> is both corrupted and purged by the Inqui&s;itours. <HI>The Sy|nod</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>which not long before was a&s;&s;embled under</HI> Irene <HI>and</HI> Con&s;tantine <HI>his &s;onne at</HI> Con&s;tan|tinople, <HI>called by them the &s;eventh generall Coun|cell, was therein the Councell of</HI> Franckford <HI>rejected by them all, as voyd and not to be named the &s;eventh, nor any Councell at all.</HI> This Councell was a&s;&s;em|bled at <HI>Nice</HI> and not at <HI>Con&s;tantinople;</HI> but the word <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> is forged in &s;tead of <HI>Nice,</HI> that the honour of that Councell for Images might not &s;eeme to be impeached or condemned, when as the Synod at <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> bani&s;hed Images. Now what an&s;wer I pray is made in defence of this forge|rie?<NOTE PLACE="marg">Augu&s;t. Stench. de Donat. Con|&s;tant. l. <HI>2.</HI> nume|ro <HI>60.</HI></NOTE> Behold your <HI>Augu&s;tine Stenchius,</HI> Keeper of the Popes <HI>Librarie,</HI> tells us that wee have forged tho&s;e Bookes, and <HI>conveyed them into the Popes Li|brary, where they lye written in ancient hands.</HI> How probable this an&s;wer may &s;eeme, that wee &s;hould forge Authours in defence of your cau&s;e, and con|vey them into the <HI>Vatican</HI> at <HI>Rome,</HI> I leave it to be judged; &s;ure I am it &s;tands corrupted in your Co|pie, printed by command of your Inqui&s;itours and Superiours.</P>
<PB N="113" REF="65">
<P>Againe, there be certaine additions to the Hi&s;to|rie of <HI>Ur&s;pergen&s;is,</HI> which treate of divers memo|rable things, from the time of <HI>Fredericke</HI> the &s;econd,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ind. lib. prohib. p. <HI>94.</HI></NOTE> unto the time of the Emperour <HI>Charles</HI> the fifth; that is, from the yeare 1230. to the yeare 1537. all which are forbidden to be read; wherein are con|tained the proceedings of the Councell of <HI>Con&s;tance</HI> again&s;t <HI>Hierome</HI> of <HI>Prague,</HI> and <HI>John Hu&s;&s;e;</HI> where the decree is mentioned for the 19. Se&s;&s;ion of the Councell of <HI>Con&s;tance, viz.</HI><NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Se&s;&s;. <HI>19.</HI> de|cernitur, Hae|reticis non e&s;&s;e &s;ervandam fi|dem, quam vo|cant Salvum conductum. Pa|ralip. p. <HI>378.</HI></NOTE> <HI>That faith is not to bee kept with Heretikes,</HI> which is wholly omitted and purged in your printed Councels.</P>
<P><HI>Honorius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Anthum</HI> in <HI>France,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Anno 1220.</HI> Honorio Angu|&s;todunen&s;i (fal&s;o ut credi|tur) ad&s;criptus liber de praede|&s;tinatione &amp; libero arbitrio. Ind. lib. prohib. p. <HI>47.</HI></NOTE> wrote a Booke of Prede&s;tination and Free-will, but &s;o different from your doctrine, that your Inqui&s;itors forbid him to be read untill hee be purged. <HI>What good &s;oever the Elect doe, it is God that workes it in them, (as it is written) God doth worke in us both the will and the deed, according to his good plea&s;ure; if therefore God doe worke in us, what reward is impu|ted to man? God doth worke, and the Elect do worke; God doth worke his Elect by his preventing Grace to be willing, and by his &s;ub&s;equent Grace to bee able, and both co-operate by Free-will, by con&s;enting with a good will, this good will is rewarded in them, as it is written, We have received Grace for Grace; wee have received Grace when God prevented us to be wil|ling, and followed us to make us able.</HI></P>
<P>Looke into his forbidden Dialogues: <HI>Turne thee</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>to the Citizens of</HI> Babylon, <HI>con&s;ider the principall per&s;ons there, and thou &s;halt finde the
<PB N="114" REF="66" MS="y"> See of the Bea&s;t; for they neglect the &s;ervice of God, pollute his Prie&s;thood, &s;educe his people, and reject all Scriptures which belong unto &s;alvation.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Vide Illyr. p. <HI>1426.</HI> in Dialog. de Prae|de&s;tin. &amp; lib. arbitrio.</NOTE> For the&s;e and the like di&s;coveries of the corruptions in your Church, he is forbidden, and under this pretence al&s;o, that the Booke of <HI>Dialogues</HI> is fal&s;ely a&s;cribed to him.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>An. 1320.</HI> Bell. de &s;cript. Eccl. p. <HI>269.</HI> de Gulielmo Ocham.</NOTE>In the fourteenth age flouri&s;hed <HI>William O|cham</HI> a Fryer Minorite and a learned man, &s;aith <HI>Bellarmine;</HI> but being <HI>too earne&s;t a favourer of</HI> Lu|dovike <HI>the Emperour, by that meanes hee fell into &s;ome errours, and therefore de&s;erved to have his name regi&s;tred among&s;t the Bookes prohibited.</HI> Now ob|&s;erve tho&s;e errors;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ocham. Com|pend. Error. Joh. <HI>22.</HI></NOTE> He complained that many in his dayes <HI>perverted the holy Scriptures, denyed the &s;ay|ings of the holy Fathers, and rejected the Canons of the Church, and civill Con&s;titutions of the Emperours;</HI> He profe&s;&s;ed, according to St. <HI>Hieromes</HI> and the do|ctrine of <HI>Gregory</HI> the <HI>Great,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem. Dial. par. <HI>3.</HI> Tract. <HI>1.</HI> l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>16.</HI></NOTE> that the Bookes of <HI>Judith, Tobit,</HI> the <HI>Machabees, Eccle&s;ia&s;ticus,</HI> and the Booke of <HI>Wi&s;dome,</HI> were not to bee received for confirmation of <HI>any matter of faith;</HI> He profe&s;|&s;ed that the Pope and Cardinals <HI>were no rule of faith;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem Tract. <HI>2.</HI> part. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>10.</HI> Dial. part. <HI>1.</HI> l. <HI>5.</HI> c. <HI>25.</HI> p. (Mihi) <HI>494.</HI></NOTE> He profe&s;&s;ed that <HI>a Generall Councell,</HI> al|though <HI>it be a part of the militant univer&s;all Church, yet is not the univer&s;all Church:</HI> and con&s;equently (&s;aith he) <HI>It is ra&s;hne&s;&s;e to &s;ay that a Generall Coun|cell cannot erre again&s;t the faith;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem Dial. l. <HI>3.</HI> prim. Tract. <HI>3.</HI> part. c. <HI>8.</HI></NOTE> He profe&s;&s;eth that <HI>it cannot be proved manife&s;tly by Scripture, that</HI> Pe|ter <HI>was Bi&s;hop of</HI> Rome, <HI>or that he removed his &s;eat from</HI> Antioch <HI>to</HI> Rome, <HI>or that the Bi&s;hop of</HI> Rome
<PB N="115" REF="66" MS="y"> <HI>&s;ucceeded St.</HI> Peter,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem. Dial. part. <HI>1.</HI> l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>3.</HI> p. <HI>413.</HI></NOTE> <HI>or that the Church of</HI> Rome <HI>hath the Primacie, or that hee governed the Church of</HI> Rome, <HI>or anything touching the Papacie thereof;</HI> He profe&s;&s;eth with us,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem Dial. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>1.</HI> part. <HI>3.</HI> p. <HI>788.</HI></NOTE> <HI>that though it be expedient there &s;hould be one Bi&s;hop over &s;ome part of the Church and People of God; yet there is not the &s;ame rea&s;on there &s;hould be one over the whole Chri&s;tian world:</HI> And la&s;tly, touching Pope <HI>John</HI> the 22. he reports from the mouthes of them that heard it, that in the yeare 1333. on <HI>Munday being the third of</HI> January,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem <HI>2.</HI> part. proem. p. <HI>740.</HI> Guliel. Ocham. opus <HI>90.</HI> die|rum. Item Dia|logi &amp; &s;cript. omnia contra Johannem <HI>22.</HI> Ind. l. prohib. p. <HI>4. Anno 1420.</HI> Nicholai Cle|mangis opera quamdiu ex|purgata non prodierint. Ind. lib. proh. p. <HI>71.</HI> Clemangis de corrupto &s;tatu Eccle&s;iae.</NOTE> <HI>Pope</HI> John <HI>held a publike Con&s;i&s;torie, wherein by word of mouth, with great earne&s;tne&s;&s;e he indeavoured to prove that the &s;oules of Saints being purged, &s;ee not God face to face till after the day of judgement.</HI> The&s;e are the &s;uppo&s;ed errors which cau&s;ed his Dialogues and other of his workes to be prohibited.</P>
<P>In the fifteenth age, <HI>Nicholas Clemangis</HI> Doctor of <HI>Paris,</HI> Archdeacon of <HI>Bayeux,</HI> &s;o long as his works remaine unpurged (&s;aith your <HI>Index</HI>) are forbid|den. Now ob&s;erve the rea&s;ons why hee is put to &s;ilence. The truth is, he wrote a Booke <HI>Of the Cor|rupt e&s;tate of the Church;</HI> he declared that the Pope was the cau&s;e of all the calamities and di&s;orders of the Church; he &s;hewes that <HI>he was not contented with the fruits and profits of the Bi&s;hopricke of</HI> Rome <HI>and St.</HI> Peters <HI>Patrimonie,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem. c. <HI>4.</HI></NOTE> <HI>though very great and Royall; he layd his greedie hands on other mens flocks, repleni&s;hed with milke and wooll:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 5. <HI>&amp;</HI> 7.</NOTE> and <HI>u&s;urped the right of be&s;towing Bi&s;hoprickes and livings Eccle&s;i|a&s;ticall throughout all Chri&s;tendome:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 5.</NOTE> and <HI>di&s;annul|led the lawfull elections of Pa&s;tors, by his re&s;ervations,
<PB N="116" REF="67" MS="y"> provi&s;ions and advow&s;ons,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 6. <HI>Cap.</HI> 7. <HI>Cap.</HI> 8.</NOTE> <HI>and oppre&s;&s;ed Churches with fir&s;t fruits of one yeere, of two yeeres, of three yeeres, yea &s;ometimes of foure yeeres; with tithes, with exactions, with procurations, with &s;poiles of Prelates, and infinite other burthens,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 9.</NOTE> <HI>and ordained Collectors to &s;eize upon the&s;e taxes and tributes throughout all Pro|vinces, with horrible abu&s;ing of &s;u&s;pen&s;ions, interdict|ments and excommunications, if any man refu&s;ed to pay them:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 10. <HI>Cap.</HI> 11. <HI>Cap.</HI> 12.</NOTE> <HI>and u&s;ed &s;uch merchandi&s;e with &s;uites in his Court, and rules of his Chancery,</HI> that the hou&s;e of God was a denne of Theeves, and <HI>rai&s;ed his Cardi|nalls as complices of his pompe from Clergie men of low e&s;tate,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 13.</NOTE> <HI>to be the Peeres of Princes, and enriched them with his di&s;pen&s;ations to have and to hold Offices and Benefices,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 14.</NOTE> <HI>not two or three, or ten or twenty, but a hundred or two hundred, yea &s;ometimes foure hun|dred or five hundred, or more, and tho&s;e not &s;mall or leane ones, but even the be&s;t and fatte&s;t:</HI> To bee &s;hort, in that he filled the Sanctuary of the Lord <HI>with dumbe dogges, and evill bea&s;ts, even from the highe&s;t Prelates to the ba&s;e&s;t hedge-Prie&s;ts,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 19. <HI>&amp;</HI> 20. <HI>Cap.</HI> 7. <HI>&amp;</HI> 14. <HI>Cap.</HI> 29. <HI>Cap.</HI> 42. <HI>Cap.</HI> 18. <HI>Cap</HI> 3.4. 5 9.</NOTE> <HI>through u&s;urpations, exemptions, compo&s;itions, &s;ymony, pro&s;ti|tution and fornication committed with Princes of the earth, and all to maintaine the pride, and lu&s;t, and riot of his wordly &s;tate, which he hath lifted up above Kings and Emperours.</HI> La&s;tly, he complaines that the <HI>Study of Divinity is made a mocking &s;tocke, and that which was mo&s;t mon&s;trous for the Popes them|&s;elves, they preferred their owne traditions before the Commandements of God.</HI> The&s;e bee the pretended errors (Mr. <HI>Floyd</HI>) which cau&s;eth your <HI>Index ex|purgatorius</HI>
<PB N="117" REF="67" MS="y"> to &s;pare no Author for his age; and yet you tell us, <HI>&s;uch corner-correcting you leave for &s;uch corner-companions as &s;hunne the light,</HI> p. 144.</P>
<P><HI>Aeneas Sylvius</HI> (who was afterwards Pope <HI>Pius</HI> the &s;econd) is forbidden by your <HI>Index:</HI> and the rea&s;on is given for it; <HI>Aeneas wrote in behalfe of the Councell of</HI> Ba&s;il, <HI>when he was a young man (&s;aith</HI><NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Bell. de &s;cript. Eccle&s;. de Aenea Sylvio. p. <HI>289.</HI> An. <HI>1450.</HI></NOTE> Bellarmine) <HI>but when he was an old man, and Pope, he retracted it, and &s;o his Bookes are de&s;ervedly for|bidden.</HI> But what &s;ay you then to his Retractations? are you plea&s;ed with them? No,<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Caut&egrave; legenda opera Aeneae Sylvii; ip&s;e enim in Bulla Re|tractationis nonnulla quae &s;crip&s;erat, da~|navit, &amp;c. Ind. lib. prohib. Cla&s;&s;. <HI>2.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word">. p. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> <HI>you mu&s;t</HI> yet <HI>wa|rily read the Workes of</HI> Aeneas Sylvius, <HI>for in his Bull of Retractations hee hath condemned &s;omething him&s;elfe which he had written; and therefore when a new Edition &s;hall come out, let that Bull al&s;o be pur|ged in the beginning of his Workes.</HI> It &s;eemes then, neither that which hee wrote as a private man in his younger dayes, nor that which he retracted as Pope in his latter dayes, are well plea&s;ing to your Church: Let us therefore compare the difference of his Doctrine with the difference of his degrees, and then you &s;hall ob&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rve, whether according to the ancient &s;aying, <HI>Honours have changed manners. Aeneas Sylvius</HI> as a private man, prote&s;ted that<NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">Ant&egrave; Nicena~ Synodum unu&s;|qui&s;que &s;ibi vi|xit, &amp; parvus re&s;pectus ad Eccle&s;ia~ Roma|nam habebatur. Aene. Sylv. in Epi&s;t. <HI>288.</HI></NOTE> <HI>be|fore the Councell of</HI> Nice <HI>each Bi&s;hop lived &s;everally to him&s;elfe, and little regard was there then had to the Church of Rome:</HI> Pope <HI>Pius</HI> the &s;econd (being the &s;ame man, but onely that hee was now become a Pope) doth exhort and<NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg">Suadete om|nibus, ut id &s;oli|um prae caeteris venerentur, in quo &s;alvator Dominus &s;uos vicarios collo|cavit, &amp;c. Bulla Retract. Pii, <HI>2.</HI> Tom. Concil. <HI>4.</HI> po&s;t Concil. Floren. p. <HI>739.</HI></NOTE> per&s;wade all, that they would reverence the See of <HI>Rome,</HI> or that <HI>Throne</HI> of Maje&s;ty above all. <HI>Aeneas Sylvius</HI> &s;aith, They
<PB N="118" REF="68" MS="y"> <HI>thinke them&s;elves well armed with authority, that &s;ay, no Councell may be kept without the con&s;ent of the Pope:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ex hi&s;ce au|thoritatibus mirum in mo|dum &s;e putant armatos, qui Co~cilia n<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">gant fieri po&s;&s;e &s;i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e con&s;en&s;u Papae: Quoru~ &s;enten|tia, &s;i ut ip&s;i vo|lunt inviolata per&s;i&s;tat, ruina~ &s;ecum Eccle&s;iae trahet. Quid enim remedii erit, &s;i crimi|no&s;us Papa perturbet Ec|cle&s;iam, &s;i ani|mas perdat, &s;i pervertat ma|lo exemplo po|pulos, &s;i deni|que contraria fidei praedicet, haeretici&s;que dogmatibus in|buat &s;ubditos? &s;inemu&s;que cum ip&s;o cuncta ruere? At e|go dum veteres l<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">go hi&s;torias, dumactus p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">r|&s;picio Apo&s;tolo|rum, hunc e|quidem morem non invenio, ut &s;o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">i Papae Concilia convocaverit, nec po&s;t; tempore Con&s;tantini magni, &amp; alioru~ Augu&s;toru~ ad congreganda Concilia quae&s;itus e&s;t magnopere Romani con&s;en&s;us Papae. Idem de Concil. Ba&s;il. l. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Who&s;e judgement, if it &s;hould &s;tand as they would have it, would draw with it the decay and ruine of the Church. For what remedy were there then, if the Pope him&s;elfe were vitious, de&s;troyed &s;oules, overthrew the people with evill example, taught Doctrine contrary to the faith, and filled his &s;ubjects full of Here&s;ies? &s;hould wee &s;uffer all to goe to the Devill? Verily when I read the old Stories, and con&s;ider the acts of the A|po&s;tles, I finde no &s;uch order in tho&s;e dayes, that onely the Pope &s;hould &s;ummon Councels: And afterward the time of</HI> Con&s;tantine <HI>the Great, and of other Em|perours, when Councels &s;hould be called, there was no great accompt made of the Popes con&s;ent.</HI> On the contrary, Pope<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Bulla Pii <HI>2.</HI> Retractat. p. (mihi) <HI>739.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Pius</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Order requireth that in|feriours &s;hould be governed by their &s;uperiours, and all &s;hould appertaine to one, as the Prince and Gover|nour of all things which are below him: As Gee&s;e follow one for a leader; and among&s;t the Bees there is but one King; even &s;o in the Church militant, as al&s;o in the Church triumphant, there is one Go|vernour and Judge of all, which is the Vicar of Chri&s;t Je&s;us; from whence, as from a head, all power and authoritie is derived into the &s;ubordinate members.</HI> Thus when he was young, and had read the old Stories, and <HI>con&s;idered the acts of the Apo+&s;tles,</HI> hee found no &s;uch Authority and re&s;pect given
<PB N="119" REF="68" MS="y"> to the Pope: but when he was Pope, and old, it &s;eemes he forgat the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> and ancient Writers; then hee attributes all power and reverence to the Pope of <HI>Rome.</HI> Briefly, <HI>Aeneas Sylvius</HI> &s;aith,<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">De Romanis Pontificibus liceret exempla admodum mul|ta adferre, &s;i tempus fineret, quoniam aut haeretici, aut aliis imbuti vi|tiis &s;unt re|perti. Idem de Concil. Ba&s;il. lib. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Of the Popes of</HI> Rome <HI>wee might &s;hew forth very many examples (if time would permit) that they have beene found either Hereticks, or el&s;e defiled with other vi|ces.</HI> But Pope <HI>Pius</HI> &s;aith (&s;peaking of the&s;e and the like a&s;&s;ertions)<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Pude<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> erroris, poenitet mal&egrave; feci&s;&s;e, &amp; male dictoru~, &s;crip|torumque ve|hementor poeni|tet, &amp;c. Bull Retract. ut &s;upra.</NOTE> <HI>I am a&s;hamed of my error, I earne&s;t|ly repent both of my words and deeds, and I &s;ay, Lord remember not the faults and ignorance of my youth:</HI> And thus being Pope (&s;aving all advantages to his See) he hath condemned him&s;elfe and his Writings, as publi&s;hed by him when he was a private man; and yet notwith&s;tanding, the Inqui&s;itors profe&s;&s;e hee hath retracted that, as Pope, which afterwards hee condemned; and therefore by their doome hee mu&s;t have a new purgation, and from thenceforth, <HI>Tum Pius Aeneas.</HI> But tell mee I pray, was hee <HI>Pius Aeneas,</HI> when he complained that at <HI>Rome</HI> the<NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">Nam &amp; ip&s;e manus impo&s;i|tiones, &amp; Spi|ritus &s;ancti do|na venduntur. Aene. Sylv. Ep. <HI>66.</HI></NOTE> <HI>impo&s;ition of hands, and the gifts of the Holy Gho&s;t were &s;old</HI> for money? Was hee <HI>Pius Aeneas</HI> when he complained that the Court of<NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg">Quid e&s;t Ro|mana curia hi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> qui &s;ummam tenent, ni&s;i tur|pi&s;simum pe|lagus ventis undi&abque; duri&s;si|mis, &amp; te~pe&s;ta|ribus agitatu~. dem. Ep. <HI>188.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Rome,</HI> in the <HI>chief among&s;t them, was but a mo&s;t filthy Sea to&s;&s;ed on every &s;ide with winds and &s;trong tempe&s;ts?</HI> Was hee <HI>Pius Aeneas</HI> when he prote&s;ted with griefe, that<NOTE N="e" PLACE="marg">Jacet &s;preta religio, ju&s;titiae nullus honos, fides pen&egrave; in|cognita. Ep. <HI>398.</HI></NOTE> <HI>religi|on was de&s;pi&s;ed, righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e di&s;honoured, faith in a manner unknowne?</HI> Or was hee <HI>Pius Aeneas</HI> when he retracted, as Pope, that which he had written, or when he condemned that which hee had retracted? No &s;urely, he was <HI>Pius</HI> in nothing (in the opinion
<PB N="120" REF="69" MS="y"> of your Church) but in his Bull of <HI>Retractations;</HI> and he was <HI>Aeneas</HI> in nothing more than in condemning that which he retracted. And accordingly he him|&s;elfe beggs of your Church,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bulla Retra|ctat. Pii <HI>2.</HI> Illud Gentile nomen, parentes indidere na&s;|centi; hoc Chri|&s;tianum, in Apo|&s;tolatu &s;u&s;cepi|mus. Ibid.</NOTE> <HI>Pium recipite, Aeneam rejicite, Receive you</HI> Pius, <HI>but reject</HI> Aeneas; and he gives his rea&s;on for it; Aeneas <HI>is a heatheni&s;h Name, which our Parents gave us at our Birth; but</HI> Pius <HI>is a Chri&s;tian name, which we a&s;&s;umed in our Apo&s;tolike calling.</HI></P>
<P>You may adde to this, <HI>Aeneas</HI> was a private man, and &s;ubject unto errour, but <HI>Pius</HI> was a Pope, and therefore in his determinations infallible; or rather you may truly &s;ay with him, that <HI>Aeneas</HI> before he was Pope,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Nihil mentiti &s;umus, nihil ad gratiam, nihil ad odium retu|limus. Bulla Re|tractat.</NOTE> <HI>delivered the truth neither for feare nor hatred,</HI> and yet he was forced to retract it: but <HI>Pius</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Cum doctrina~ non &s;anam, &amp; &s;u&s;pectam, &amp; quae offen&s;ionem parere pote&s;t, contineant, &amp;c. Cla&s;&s;. <HI>2.</HI> in Ind. lib. prohibit.</NOTE> when he was Pope, delivered <HI>fal&s;e and &s;u&s;pected doctrine, and &s;uch as was offen&s;ive to your Church,</HI> and for that cau&s;e is commanded to bee purged.</P>
<P><HI>Quid</HI> Pius Aeneas, <HI>in te committere tant&ucirc;m?</HI></P>
<P>What ill hap had good <HI>Aeneas,</HI> or rather what ill fortune had Pope <HI>Pius,</HI> that he could neither &s;a|tisfie your Church, either as he was <HI>Aeneas,</HI> or as he was <HI>Pius?</HI> neither as a private Doctor, nor as an infallible Pope? or rather I may &s;ay with your owne <HI>Canus,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Rivet. Criticu~ Sacr. Specimen. c. <HI>7.</HI> p. <HI>49.</HI></NOTE> <HI>What doth it availe men who de&s;ire to know the truth, to raze Records out of their Bookes, when they cannot blot it out of their mindes?</HI></P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Anno 1450.</NOTE><HI>Petrus Crinitus</HI> was a Romi&s;h Prie&s;t, and is commanded to be purged; and if we &s;hall examine the rea&s;on, we &s;hall finde it for no other cau&s;e, but
<PB N="121" REF="69" MS="y"> that he &s;peakes the truth again&s;t your Pope, and Po|pi&s;h Doctrine. To in&s;tance in particulars: <HI>Let both the Title and the Chapter be razed</HI> (&s;ay your In|qui&s;itors, touching Pope <HI>Boniface</HI> the 8.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Petr. Crinit. l. <HI>7.</HI> c. <HI>13.</HI> de dom. Di&s;ciplin&acirc;.</NOTE>) and the rea&s;on is pregnant: that Chapter &s;hewes the in&s;o|&s;olencie and pride of the Pope in particular, in mat|ter of fact; and it further declares, that <HI>under pre|tence of Religion, the Popes in generall thinke they may doe what they li&s;t.</HI> Againe,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem. l. <HI>14.</HI> c. <HI>5.</HI></NOTE> when he &s;peakes of ancient Lawes, made in generall for <HI>Marriage</HI> and propagation of Children, they command that page to be &s;trucken out; and there can be no other rea&s;on, but becau&s;e on the contrary it is a po&s;itive law of your Church to forbid Marriage. La&s;tly, whereas he &s;hewes that <HI>Leo</HI> the Emperour made an Edict,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem. l. <HI>9.</HI> c. <HI>9.</HI></NOTE> that all <HI>Images in Churches and hou&s;es of the Chri&s;tians &s;hould be razed;</HI> and hee declares in his opinion, that <HI>it doth not appertaine to Religion to adore any mans Image;</HI> and that <HI>Valens</HI> and <HI>Theodo|&s;ius</HI> made Proclamation to all Chri&s;tians, that <HI>they would &s;uffer no man to fa&s;hion, to grave, or paint the Image of our Saviour, either in colours, or in &s;tone, or in any other kinde of metall or matter; and that where&s;oever any &s;uch Image &s;hould bee found, they commanded it to be taken downe:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Index Belgic. p. <HI>421.</HI> Index Madrid. p. <HI>150.</HI> Ind. lib. prohi|bit. p. <HI>79.</HI> &amp; <HI>718.</HI> Bulla Pii <HI>4.</HI> Art. <HI>9.</HI> Art. <HI>22.</HI></NOTE> The&s;e and the like pa&s;&s;ages, your Inqui&s;itors in three &s;everall <HI>Indices</HI> command to be razed out; and what cau&s;e can you pretend, but that it makes again&s;t a &s;peciall Arti|cle of your faith, <HI>viz.</HI> that Images &s;hould be &s;et up in Churches, and wor&s;hipped? and by this meanes you &s;trike likewi&s;e at the <HI>Articles</HI> of our Church,
<PB N="122" REF="70" MS="y"> and when you have made &s;uch Doctrines and Evi|dences invi&s;ible, by razing the records, then you bid us &s;hew where the Church was vi&s;ible before <HI>Luther.</HI></P>
<P>Now what credit &s;hall the Reader give unto you and to your <HI>Trent</HI> Councell, that would a&s;&s;ure us that your Church intended the purging of no Au|thors, but from the yeare 1515. when as it appeares plainely that you have &s;pared neither the writings of the Apo&s;tles nor the Fathers, in razing and fal&s;i|fying their owne very words and &s;entences? And as touching other Authors in the latter ages, you have gone beyond your Commi&s;&s;ion, hundreds of years, in fal&s;ifying, corrupting, forbidding, and purging them; and this was long before your prefixed yeare of 1515.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Anno 1517. <HI>Bell. Chronol. p.</HI> 3. <HI>pag.</HI> 117.</NOTE>In the &s;ixteenth age <HI>Luther</HI> began his Here&s;ie (&s;aith <HI>Bellarmine) Anno</HI> 1517. and your Church, to make &s;ome &s;hew that your <HI>Index Expurgatorius</HI> had a relation onely to <HI>Luther</HI> and his followers, tooke her ri&s;e from the yeare 1515. (which was but two yeares before his comming) as if all the members of your Church before his comming had lived in the unity of one faith and doctrine. This <HI>deceivablene&s;&s;e</HI> of your <HI>unrighteou&s;ne&s;&s;e,</HI> I have in part di&s;covered. Now I come to your Authors of this la&s;t age (for I will cite none but your owne Au|thors) and therein lieth another my&s;terie not infe|riour to the fir&s;t; and that is this: your <HI>Index Ex|purgatorius</HI> was fir&s;t proclaimed generally again&s;t all Heretickes (meaning the Prote&s;tants) but when
<PB N="123" REF="70" MS="y"> it comes to examination, it points e&s;pecially at the particular members of your owne Church; and that which is mo&s;t remarkable, after that your <HI>Trent</HI> Councel had di&s;tingui&s;hed with <HI>Anathema's</HI> her <HI>Roman</HI> faith from the faith of Prote&s;tants, after &s;he had forbidden and condemned by her <HI>Index</HI> divers of your owne Authors, as &s;avouring of <HI>&s;u&s;pected,</HI> and <HI>fal&s;e,</HI> and <HI>&s;candalous</HI> doctrine; nay more, after &s;he had declared all to be Heretickes, and their Doctrine Hereticall, who would dare to teach or publi&s;h any contrary beliefe to that which was once e&s;tabli&s;hed by a Generall Councell; yet I &s;ay, the members of your owne Church, and tho&s;e not of the meane&s;t ranke, both Bi&s;hops and Cardi|nals, have delivered in print many points of Do|ctrine agreeable to the Articles of our Church; and yet you &s;ay they never left the Church, they are not per&s;onally to be noted nor ranked among&s;t He|retickes; when for the very &s;ame Tenets we are ac|cu&s;ed, accur&s;ed, forbidden, and utterly condemned as Heretickes and Reprobates: and thus the head of your Church being divided from the members, in points of &s;aving faith, may &s;ay unto the <HI>tongue,</HI> I have no need of thee, and con&s;equently may cut it out. How&s;oever, this u&s;e we may &s;afely make of your <HI>Index,</HI> that if in after ages by new Impre&s;&s;ions the true doctrine of Prote&s;tants &s;hall be razed and ut|terly aboli&s;hed in your <HI>Roman</HI> Authors, yet your very <HI>Index</HI> will appeare as a &s;trong Evidence, to &s;hew that &s;uch doctrines were taught in former A|ges: and how&s;oever the faction in the Papacie for|merly
<PB N="124" REF="71" MS="y"> prevailed, yet it is more than evident by the Te&s;timonies and Records of your owne men, that we had not two Churches before <HI>Luther,</HI> but that we had alwayes <HI>Te&s;tes Veritatis,</HI> witne&s;&s;es of Gods truth and our owne Religion in all Ages, in the bo|&s;ome of the <HI>Roman</HI> Church.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Anno 1500.</NOTE>I proceed to particulars in this la&s;t age.</P>
<P><HI>Cardinall Cajetan</HI> is purged in &s;everall and maine points of doctrine, being different from your owne Church: Touching the ground of Tran&s;ub&s;tantia|tion, he denies that the words of Scripture <HI>(This is my body)</HI> are availeable to prove it of them&s;elves, and thereupon your Je&s;uit <HI>Suarez</HI> complaineth, <HI>Ex Catholicis, &amp;c.</HI><NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Ex Catholicis &s;olus Cajetanus, in Commentario hujus Articuli, qui ju&s;&s;u Pii <HI>5.</HI> in Romana edi|tione expunctus e&s;t, docuit, &s;e|clu&s;&acirc; Eccle&s;iae authoritate ver|ba illa (Hoc e&s;t corpus meum) ad veritatem hanc confirma~|dam non &s;uffi|cere Suarez. Tom <HI>3.</HI> Di&s;p. <HI>46.</HI> Sect. <HI>3.</HI> quae&s;t. <HI>75.</HI> Art. <HI>1.</HI> p. <HI>515.</HI> Impre&s;&s;. Mog. <HI>An. 1509.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Among&s;t the Catholikes,</HI> Cajetan <HI>onely teacheth that the words,</HI> This is my Body, <HI>bee not &s;ufficient, without the authoritie of the Church, to confirme the truth of it: And therefore by the com|mand of Pope</HI> Pius <HI>the</HI> 5. <HI>this pa&s;&s;age is blotted out in the</HI> Roman <HI>Edition.</HI> Touching ju&s;tification by faith <HI>(onely)</HI> whereas hee &s;aith,<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Ab&s;que excep|tione aliqua co~|ditionis, &s;exus, qualiatis, &amp;c. dicitur omni credenti, &s;ola fi|des exigitur ad &s;alutem. Cajet. Ep. Pauli &amp;c. Pari&s;iis <HI>1571.</HI> fol. <HI>4.</HI> Ind. lib. prohibit. p. <HI>876.</HI></NOTE> <HI>without any exception of per&s;on, of any Sexe, or quality, or condition, It is &s;aid of every Beleever, faith alone is required to &s;alvation:</HI> your <HI>Index</HI> commands tho&s;e latter words to bee blotted out. La&s;tly, in &s;peaking of the Cro&s;&s;e and the like, he &s;aith; <HI>The&s;e are altogether unlawfull, and not to be embraced, becau&s;e they are part of an ill wor&s;hip:</HI> you cau&s;e the&s;e words to be &s;trucken out, and in lieu of them, you &s;ubjoyne the&s;e words fol|lowing (which are flat contrary:)<NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">Idem. p. <HI>805.</HI></NOTE> <HI>The&s;e are altoge|ther lawfull, and are to be embraced, becau&s;e they are part of the divine wor&s;hip:</HI> and the better to colour
<PB N="125" REF="71" MS="y"> the&s;e mi&s;erable &s;hifts and fal&s;ifications, you give this Caveat to the Reader:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem ibid. p. <HI>805.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Be warie if you finde any &s;uch Doctrine, for it is to bee feared the Heretikes have &s;ugge&s;ted it.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Alphon&s;us &agrave; Ca&s;tro</HI> wrote a large Booke again&s;t Here&s;ies,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Anno 1500.</NOTE> and in particular he charged <HI>Luther</HI> with many. Yet in his fir&s;t Booke and fourth Chapter hee attributeth the &s;ame title of Heretike to the Pope, and &s;hewes the Pope as Pope is &s;ubject to Here&s;ie; but behold the record &s;tands publi&s;hed again&s;t <HI>Luther,</HI> but is wholly razed touching the Pope. The words in my Edition are the&s;e; <HI>Where|as &s;ome &s;ay that he which erreth wilfully in the faith,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Quod autem alii dicunt eum quierraverit in fide ob&s;tinat&egrave; jam non e&s;&s;e Papam, ac per hoc affirmant Papam non po&s;|&s;e e&s;&s;e haereti|cum, &amp; in re &s;eria verbis velle jocari. Ad hunc enim mo|dum quis po&s;|&s;et citra impu|dentiam a&s;&s;e|rere, nullum fi|delem po&s;&s;e in fide errare? nam cum haereticus fuerit, jam definit e&s;&s;e fidelis. Non enim dubitamus an haereticum e&s;&s;e &amp; Papam e&s;&s;e coire in unum po&s;&s;int; &s;ed id quaerimus, an hominem qui alias in fide errare po|tui&s;&s;et, dignitas Pontificalis efficiat &agrave; fide inde viabilem. Non enim credo aliquem e&s;&s;e adeo impudentem Papae a&s;&s;entatorem, ut ei tribuere hoc velit, ut nec errare, aut in inter|pretatione &s;acrarum literarum hallucinari po&s;sit. Nam c&ugrave;m con&s;tet plures eorum adeo il|literatos e&s;&s;e, ut Grammaticam penitus ignorent, qu&icirc; fit ut &s;acras literas interpretari po&s;&s;ent? Alph. &agrave; Ca&s;t. adver&s;. haer. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>4.</HI> p. (mihi) <HI>6.</HI> b. Coloniae excudebat Melchior Noue&s;ianus, <HI>Anno 1543.</HI></NOTE> <HI>is now no longer Pope, and thereupon concludes the Pope cannot be an Heretike, they &s;eeme in a &s;ad mat|ter to dally with words: For</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>wee make no doubt whether the Pope and an Heretike may agree in one per&s;on; but this is our que&s;tion, Whether a man that otherwi&s;e might have erred in the Faith, by vertue of the Papall dignity, be made &s;uch as he cannot erre. For I doe not beleeve that there is any &s;o impudent a flatterer of the Pope, that will give him this prehemi|nence, to &s;ay, that he can neither be deceived nor mi&s;&s;e in the expounding of the Scriptures; for &s;eeing it is well knowne that many Popes be &s;o utterly void of lear|ning,
<PB N="126" REF="72" MS="y"> that they know not the Principles of their Gram|mer, how may it be that they &s;hould be able to expound the Scriptures?</HI> The&s;e words I have cited at large out of my Edition 1543. for if you looke into <HI>Al|phon&s;us,</HI> printed within the&s;e la&s;t three&s;core yeares, I beleeve you will finde them razed in this particu|lar without an <HI>Index Expurgatorius;</HI> which plain|ly &s;hewes that as the Pope was and may be an He|retike, &s;o likewi&s;e fal&s;ifying of Records is a proper marke of Heretikes.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">An. 1500. <HI>U&s;her p.</HI> 162.</NOTE><HI>Johannes Ferus</HI> a Frier Minorite, and prime Prea|cher at <HI>Mentz</HI> in <HI>Germany,</HI> is purged and fal&s;ified in many points of controver&s;ie which he held with us. Touching the power of Prie&s;thood in remitting of &s;innes, it was the doctrine of <HI>Ferus:</HI><NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Non qu&ograve;d homo propri&egrave; remittat pecca|tum, &s;ed qu&ograve;d o&s;tendat ac certificet &agrave; Deo remi&s;&s;um. Ne&abque; enim aliud e&s;t ab&s;olutio quam ab homine acci|pit qu&agrave;m, &s;i di|cat, En fili, cer|tifico te tibi re|mi&s;&s;a e&s;&s;e pec|cata, annuncio tibi te habere propitium De|um, &amp; quaecun|que Chri&s;tus in Bapti&s;mo &amp; Evangelio nobis promi&s;it, tibi nunc per me annunciat &amp; promittit. Fer. Comment. in Matth. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>9.</HI> Mogunt. An. <HI>1559.</HI> Lugdun. apud Johannem &agrave; S. Paulo. An. <HI>1609.</HI> Contr.</NOTE> <HI>Man did not properly remit &s;inne, but did declare and certifie that it was remitted by God: &s;o that the ab&s;olution recei|ved from man is nothing el&s;e, than if hee &s;hould &s;ay, Behold my &s;onne, I certifie thee that thy &s;innes are for|given thee, I pronounce unto thee that thou ha&s;t God favourable unto thee, and what&s;oever Chri&s;t in Bap|ti&s;me, and in his Go&s;pell hath promi&s;ed unto us, hee doth now declare and promi&s;e unto thee by me. Of this thou &s;halt have me to be a witne&s;&s;e; goe in peace and in quiet of con&s;cience.</HI> This declarative power of remitting &s;innes was <HI>Ferus</HI> doctrine; this is ours. But behold the ca&s;e is altered; for in <HI>Ferus</HI> printed at <HI>Lyons</HI> 1609. all tho&s;e words are razed out, and on the contrary &s;aith, that<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Sacerdos enim Dei mini&s;ter ver&egrave; remittit peccata, ac certificat &agrave; Deo remi&s;&s;a. fol. (mihi) <HI>160.</HI> b. In Matth. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>9.</HI></NOTE> <HI>the Prie&s;t doth truely
<PB N="127" REF="72" MS="y"> remit &s;innes, and, as the Mini&s;ter of God, doth al&s;o cer|tifie that they are remitted of God.</HI></P>
<P>Touching our ju&s;tification by faith onely: the true <HI>Ferus</HI> &s;aith,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Nempe qu&ograve;d &s;ol&acirc; fide in Chri|&s;tum, &amp; nullis meritis no&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">is, ju&s;tificamur. In Ep. Pauli ad Rom. c. <HI>16.</HI> In verba illa de|leatur. Ind. lib. prohibit. p. (mi|hi) <HI>629.</HI> &amp; Ind. Madrid. fol. <HI>133</HI> &amp; Ind. Belg. p. (mihi) <HI>393.</HI></NOTE> <HI>That we are ju&s;tified by faith alone in Christ, and by none of our merits; That our owne workes, what&s;oever they be, are not of that value that they &s;hould merit a reward of condignitie or con|gruitie, but &s;o farre forth as God in his mercie doth accept them.</HI> The&s;e and the like pa&s;&s;ages are com|manded to be blotted out.</P>
<P>And whereas hee &s;ayth,<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Sic ver&egrave; nul|lum hominum genus e&s;t quod minim&egrave; move|tur verbo Dei, qu&agrave;m hi qui in &s;ua ju&s;titia confi|dunt. Idem. in Joh. c. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> <HI>There is no kinde of men that are le&s;&s;e moved with the word of God, than tho&s;e which tru&s;t in their owne righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e;</HI> your men, as being guilty of their tru&s;t in their merits of workes, command this and the like pa&s;&s;ages to bee &s;tricken out.</P>
<P>Your <HI>Index</HI> of prohibited Bookes, publi&s;hed by the<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Opera tamdiu prohibentur qua~di<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> expur|gatio no~ pro die|rit. Ind. l. pro|hibit. p. <HI>56.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Cardinall</HI> of <HI>Sandonall</HI> and <HI>Roxas,</HI> tells us, that the workes of <HI>Ferus</HI> are forbidden to be read till &s;uch time as they &s;hall be purged; and &s;ure I am when they are purged they are none of his. For I appeale to you and your fellow <HI>Je&s;uites</HI> (Mr. <HI>Floyd</HI>) whether the&s;e pa&s;&s;ages following be his or yours; I meane, either the Prote&s;tant doctrine, which he publi&s;hed before <HI>Luthers</HI> dayes, or the Popi&s;h tenets which are &s;ince altered by the <HI>In|qui&s;itors,</HI> and taught by the <HI>Trent</HI> Fathers.</P>
<P>In the third of St. <HI>Matthew,</HI> the true <HI>Ferus</HI> &s;ayth,<NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">Qu&ograve;d &s;i ali|quando merce|dem audis pol|liceri, &s;cias non ob aliud e&s;&s;e de|bitam qu&agrave;m ex promi&s;&s;ione di|vina. Ferus in Math. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> <HI>If at any time thou heare of a reward promi|&s;ed, know that it is not due for any thing el&s;e, but for the divine promi&s;e &s;ake.</HI> Your Inqui&s;itors com|mand
<PB N="128" REF="73" MS="y"> it to be altered thus;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Qu&ograve;d &s;i ali|quando merce|dem audis polli|ceri, &s;cias non &s;ine promi&s;sio|ne e&s;&s;e debitam Ind. Madrid. fol. (mihi) <HI>125.</HI></NOTE> <HI>If thou heare of a reward promi&s;ed, know that it is not due without the promi&s;e.</HI> The one &s;aith, it is not due for any re&s;pect, but for the divine promi&s;e, <HI>ex promi&s;sione divina;</HI> the o|ther &s;aith, <HI>it is not due without the promi&s;e:</HI> when the true <HI>Ferus</HI> addes <HI>Gratis promi&s;it, gratis reddidit, He promi&s;ed freely, and he hath given freely;</HI> you command the&s;e words to be &s;tricken out. And whereas <HI>Ferus</HI> commenting upon the words of Chri&s;t,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ind. Belg. p. (mi|hi) <HI>372.</HI> Ind. lib. prohib. p. <HI>627.</HI> Qui hanc fidem ne&s;cit, ad Eccle|&s;ia~ non pertinet, etiam&s;i videtur primus e&s;&s;e in Eccle&s;ia. Idem in Mat. l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>16.</HI> p. (mihi) <HI>25.</HI> Ind. Madrid. p. <HI>125.</HI> Ind. Belg. p. <HI>370.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Tu es Petrus,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Thou art Peter, and upon this Rocke I will build my Church,</HI> &s;hewing that this Rocke was meant of Chri&s;t by the confe&s;&s;ion of <HI>Peters</HI> faith; <HI>And</HI> (&s;aith hee) <HI>who&s;oever is ignorant of this Faith, belongs not to the Church, although hee &s;eeme to be the chiefe in the Church.</HI> The&s;e words are otherwi&s;e read in your generall <HI>Indices,</HI> and are commanded to bee &s;tricken out. And upon the words, <HI>Si quis natus fuerit,</HI> &amp;c. he &s;aith,<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">In Joh. c. <HI>3.</HI> p. (mihi) <HI>69.</HI> Ind. lib. proh. p. <HI>625.</HI></NOTE> <HI>The Preachers of Gods Word ought fir&s;t to teach faith by which a man is ju&s;tified, and afterwards good workes;</HI> there the words <HI>(by which a man is ju&s;tified)</HI> are commanded to be &s;tricken out.</P>
<P>Now as you have purged many places, &s;o like|wi&s;e you have forged and fal&s;ified others by addi|tion or retraction: Looke upon his Commentary on the fir&s;t Epi&s;tle of Saint <HI>John,</HI> and you &s;hall be|hold &s;trange additions, and the true Prote&s;tant Do|ctrine wre&s;ted to flat Popery; as for in&s;tance,<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Scriptura &s;a|cra data e&s;t no|bis &s;eu certa quaedam regula Chri&s;tianae do|ctrinae. Idem in <HI>1</HI> Ep. Joh. c. <HI>2.</HI> edit. Antwerp. An. <HI>1556.</HI></NOTE> <HI>The holy Scriptures</HI> (&s;aith the true <HI>Ferus) are given us as a certaine &s;ure rule of Chri&s;tian Doctrine.</HI> In <HI>Ferus</HI> printed at <HI>Rome,</HI> he is taught to &s;ay, <HI>The holy Scrip|tures
<PB N="131" REF="73" MS="y"> (and</HI><NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Romana edit. An. <HI>1577.</HI></NOTE> <HI>traditions) are given us as a cer|taine &s;ure rule of Chri&s;tian Doctrine.</HI> The true <HI>Fe|rus</HI> &s;aith,<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Ju&s;tus lic&egrave;t in Chri&s;to manet, tamen &s;ine pec|cato nec e&s;&s;e pote&s;t; &s;epties enim in die eti|am ju&s;tus cadit. Idem in cap. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Though the ju&s;t man remaineth in Chri&s;t, yet he is not, neither can be without &s;inne; for even the ju&s;t doe fall &s;even times a day:</HI> your Roman <HI>Ferus</HI> addeth,<NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">Sine peccato originali.</NOTE> <HI>not without veniall &s;innes.</HI> The true <HI>Ferus</HI> &s;aith,<NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg">Fide~ &amp; chari|tate~ conjungit Apo&s;tolus, ita tamen ut fidem praeponat. Ibid.</NOTE> <HI>The Apo&s;tle conjoyneth faith and chari|ty, yet &s;o as hee preferreth faith:</HI> your Roman <HI>Ferus</HI> addeth, he preferreth faith<NOTE N="e" PLACE="marg">Additur, or|dine, non per|fectione.</NOTE> <HI>in order, not in perfection.</HI> The true <HI>Ferus</HI> &s;aith,<NOTE N="f" PLACE="marg">Charitas ti|morem expellit, quia fidem qu&acirc; Chri&s;tum, vita~, propitiationem &amp; &s;alvato|rem no&s;trum apprehendimus, probat &amp; con|firmat, cert&aacute;m|que reddit. Ib. c. <HI>4.</HI> Alite r.</NOTE> <HI>Charity driveth out feare, becau&s;e it trieth, confirmes, and makes a&s;|&s;ured our faith, whereby we apprehend Chri&s;t, our life, propitiation and &s;alvation:</HI> your Romane <HI>Ferus</HI> &s;aith,<NOTE N="g" PLACE="marg">Charitas ti|morem expellit, quia peccata remittit, &amp; Spiritus &s;a~ctus eam con&s;olatur te&s;timonium perhibens qu&ograve;d filii Dei &s;u|mus. Ibid.</NOTE> <HI>Charity drives out feare, becau&s;e it forgiveth our &s;innes, and the Holy Gho&s;t doth comfort it, giving te&s;timony that we are Gods children.</HI> The true <HI>Ferus</HI> &s;aith,<NOTE N="h" PLACE="marg">Ibid. cap. <HI>5.</HI></NOTE> <HI>There be &s;ome, who after faith doe earne&s;tly urge good workes, but becau&s;e they teach not withall, to what end they are to be directed, and how much is to be a&s;cribed unto them, they give cau&s;e that almo&s;t all the common people doe tru&s;t in their owne workes, and &s;o they build upon the &s;and:</HI> the Roman <HI>Ferus</HI> &s;aith, <HI>There were &s;ome, who after faith, and with faith, did earne&s;tly urge good workes; but becau&s;e they ca&s;t away their nece&s;sity, and others a&s;cribed too much to them, they all did build upon the &s;and.</HI> La&s;tly, in the true <HI>Ferus,</HI> &s;ometimes by changing of a word, or by taking away of a word, you pervert the &s;en&s;e and meaning of the Author: As for in&s;tance; where|as the true <HI>Ferus</HI> &s;aith, Saint <HI>John</HI> condemned all glorying in our workes <HI>(omnem gloriam;)</HI> your Ro|man
<PB N="132" REF="74" MS="y"> Edition hath turned <HI>omnem</HI> into <HI>inanem,</HI> and &s;aith, Saint <HI>John</HI> condemned <HI>(inanem gloriam)</HI> vaine glory, &amp;c. And whereas the true <HI>Ferus</HI> &s;aith, <HI>It is ri|diculous that &s;ome will have Cephas for the head:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ridiculum e&s;t quod quidam h&icirc;c volunt, Ce|phas idem e&s;&s;e quod caput. Idem. in Joh. c. <HI>1.</HI> p. mihi <HI>(43)</HI></NOTE> your Roman <HI>Ferus</HI> hath left out the word <HI>(ridicu|lum e&s;t)</HI> and &s;aith, <HI>That &s;ome will have Cephas taken for the head,</HI> which is mo&s;t ridiculous.</P>
<P><HI>Claudius E&s;pencaeus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Paris,</HI> lived and dyed a member of the Roman Church; yet is pur|ged, becau&s;e hee &s;peakes not <HI>Placentia,</HI> &s;utable to your <HI>Trent</HI> Doctrine. In his Commentary on the Epi&s;tle to <HI>Titus,</HI> in his fir&s;t digre&s;&s;ion, hee is com|manded to be purged <HI>(per quinque paginas)</HI> <Q>five leaves together; in which hee complaines of the abu&s;es and corruptions growne into the Roman Church and See; he &s;hewes that their greedine&s;&s;e of gaine, and love of money cau&s;ed them to di&s;|pence with all kindes of wickedne&s;&s;e; as namely, with unlawfull and forbidden marriages, with Prie&s;ts keeping of Concubines, with ince&s;ts, mur|ders, rapes, witchcraft, killing of Fathers, of Mo|thers, of Brothers, and things not to be named; and under the name and title of the <HI>Taxes of the Apo&s;tolicke Chamber</HI> (for &s;o they terme them) in which Booke (&s;aith hee) being publikely and daily printed,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Taxae Camerae Apo&s;tolicae.</NOTE> you may learne more wickedne&s;&s;e than in all the &s;ummes and catalogues of vices.</Q> Then hee &s;hewes that the Councell of <HI>Trent</HI> was a third time a&s;&s;embled by the command of <HI>Pius</HI> the fourth;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Adeo tamen Romanam cu|ria~ repurgare non permi&s;it.</NOTE> yet by no meanes would hee permit that the Court of <HI>Rome</HI> &s;hould be reformed. And
<PB N="133" REF="74" MS="y"> thus in &s;everall pages,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ind. Madrid. f. <HI>60.</HI> &amp; Belg. p. <HI>74.</HI> Delean+tur illa verba in Ep. ad Tit. c. <HI>1.</HI> p. <HI>74</HI> p. <HI>76, 77, 78.</HI> &amp; <HI>82, 83, 84.</HI></NOTE> where hee complaines of the like abu&s;es in the See and Court of <HI>Rome,</HI> the In|qui&s;itors command to be blotted out.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, hee proves out of <HI>Gregory</HI> the <HI>Great,</HI> and Saint <HI>Bernard,</HI><NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Ibid. p. <HI>526.</HI> In Tit. c. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> <HI>That every &s;oule is &s;ubject to the higher power;</HI> that is, <HI>the Prie&s;thood to the &s;ecular power, the Bi&s;hops and Archbi&s;hops to Emperours and Kings:</HI> and in conclu&s;ion, when it is que&s;tio|ned (&s;aith hee) <HI>touching the reformation of the Cler|gie, and orders of Monkes, for &s;ending the Shepheards to their owne folds, and compelling them to feed their owne flocks, they &s;ay it is a thing that belongs to a Synod, and the Bi&s;hop of Rome:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Res e&s;t &s;ynodi|ca &amp; pontificia Ibid. p. (mihi) <HI>526.</HI></NOTE> <HI>But was there any Reformation at the Councell of Trent? Did the Pope and Councell cau&s;e them to bee more diligent in their calling? &amp;c.</HI> This and much more to the like purpo&s;e they command to be blot|ted out.</P>
<P><HI>Polydore Virgil,</HI> a member of your Church, is purged in many points of Doctrine which make a|gain&s;t you. <HI>Po&s;&s;evine</HI> tells us,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Po&s;&s;en. Appar. p. (mihi) <HI>294.</HI> Tom. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> that his Booke <HI>De inventionibus rerum</HI> is permitted to be read, if it be &s;uch as Pope <HI>Gregory</HI> the <HI>thirteenth</HI> comman|ded to be purged at <HI>Rome</HI> (1576.) Now if any man li&s;t to compare that and <HI>Polydore</HI> printed at <HI>Paris</HI> 1528.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Pari&s;iis ex Of|ficin&acirc; Roberti Stephani, Anno <HI>1528.</HI></NOTE> hee &s;hall finde that the true Doctrine of <HI>Polydore</HI> is not allowed, which prote&s;teth again&s;t many points of Popery; but by the Inqui&s;itors command hee is inforced contrary to him&s;elfe to &s;peake the <HI>Trent</HI> language. As for in&s;tance;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Polyd. de In|vent. Rerum l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>23.</HI> in initio p. (mihi) <HI>41.</HI></NOTE> whereas the true <HI>Polydore</HI> &s;aith, <HI>When God is every
<PB N="134" REF="75" MS="y"> where pre&s;ent, certainly there is nothing more fooli&s;h than to counterfeit his image:</HI> in your later Editi|ons you have added the&s;e words, <HI>In the beginning after the fir&s;t creation there was nothing more fooli&s;h;</HI> as if it were wi&s;dome to repre&s;ent God the Father in the&s;e dayes, which in the beginning of the world was fooli&s;hne&s;&s;e.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. l. <HI>5.</HI> c. <HI>4.</HI> p. <HI>84.</HI> u&s;que ad p. <HI>87.</HI></NOTE>In his fifth Booke and fourth Chapter, your <HI>Inqui&s;itors</HI> command &s;even whole pages to bee &s;tricken out; and the rea&s;on is pregnant: The mar|riage of Prie&s;ts, which is prohibited by a po&s;itive Law of your Church, is proved to be lawfull, yea and in &s;ome ca&s;e commanded by the Apo&s;tles Do|ctrine, and ju&s;tified by the examples of Saint <HI>Paul,</HI> of <HI>Peter,</HI> of <HI>Philip,</HI> and other Apo&s;tles, that had wives; and he addeth, that according to Saint <HI>Pauls</HI> Doctrine, the Bi&s;hops and Deacons, and con&s;e|quently all orders of Prie&s;thood, had them; and this cu&s;tome (&s;aith hee) continued long in the Church: and withall concludes;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Porro, dum &s;a|cerdotes gene|rabant legiti|mos filios, Ec|cle&s;ia faelici prole viru~m vi|gebat; tum &s;an|cti&s;&s;imi erant Po~tifices, Epi&s;|copi innocenti&s;|&s;imi, Presbyteri Diacon&iacute;que in|tegerrimi ca|&s;ti&s;sim&iacute;que. Ib. p. <HI>86, 87.</HI> Ibid. c. <HI>9.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Furthermore, whil&s;t the Prie&s;ts did beget lawfull &s;onnes, the Church flouri&s;hed with a happy off-&s;pring of men; then your Popes were mo&s;t holy, your Bi&s;hops mo&s;t innocent, your Prie&s;ts and Deacons mo&s;t hone&s;t and cha&s;te.</HI> Then he proves from Pope <HI>Pius</HI> the &s;econd, that as <HI>Marriage upon good cau&s;e was taken from the Prie&s;ts, &s;o it ought to be re&s;tored upon better.</HI> This and much more con|cerning the marriage of Prie&s;ts, is commanded to be &s;tricken out.</P>
<P>In his ninth Chapter, hee &s;aith, <HI>Wor&s;hip thou one true and eternall God; but wor&s;hip thou no Image of
<PB N="133" REF="75" MS="y"> any living creature,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ind. Belg. p. <HI>175</HI></NOTE> <HI>deleatur</HI> (&s;ay your <HI>Inqui&s;i|tors) let it be &s;trucken out.</HI></P>
<P>In his &s;ixth Booke,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem. l. <HI>6.</HI> c. <HI>13.</HI></NOTE> and beginning of his thir|teenth Chapter, he te&s;tifies from St. <HI>Hierome, That almo&s;t all the holy ancient Fathers did condemne the wor&s;hip of Images, for feare of Idolatrie.</HI> He proves from the Law of <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> that nothing made with hands &s;hould be wor&s;hipped; and from the Prophet <HI>David, Confounded bee all they that wor&s;hip graven Images.</HI> Hee &s;hewes further, that <HI>Gregorie</HI> the <HI>Great,</HI> albeit hee reprehended <HI>Serenus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Mar&s;ilia</HI> for breaking downe of Images, yet hee commends him for forbidding the wor&s;hipping of them. The&s;e and the like pa&s;&s;ages are commanded to be &s;trucken out, <HI>per octodecem lineas,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ind. Belg p. <HI>177.</HI> Ind. lib. expurg. p. (mihi) <HI>725.</HI></NOTE> <HI>for eighteen lines together.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Ludovicus Vives</HI> a Prie&s;t of your &s;econd <HI>Cla&s;|&s;is</HI> is purged, and namely by the Divines of <HI>Lovan,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Plantins</HI> print at <HI>Antwerpe,</HI> 1576.</NOTE> in their Edition of St. <HI>Au&s;tins</HI> workes at <HI>Antwerp, Anno</HI> 1576.</P>
<P>In his Epi&s;tle to King <HI>Henry</HI> the 8^t^h, where he &s;aith, that <HI>Princes are &s;upreme Governours on earth next under God,</HI> this is commanded to be blotted out: And where he &s;aith, <HI>The Saints are wor&s;hipped and e&s;teemed by many, as were the Gods among the Gentiles;</HI> this pa&s;&s;age without a command, in the afore&s;aid Edition is razed out.</P>
<P>Againe, in his Comment on the 8^t^h. Booke of the <HI>Citie of God,</HI> he tells us how your <HI>Romi&s;h Prie&s;ts</HI> upon good <HI>Friday</HI> doe celebrate <HI>Chri&s;ts</HI> pa&s;&s;ion up|on the &s;tage. <HI>There</HI> Judas (&s;aith he) <HI>playeth the
<PB N="134" REF="76" MS="y"> mo&s;t ridiculous Mimick,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Lud. Viv. in Au|gu&s;t. de Civit. Dei, l. <HI>8.</HI> c. <HI>27.</HI></NOTE> <HI>even then when he betrayes Chri&s;t; there the Apo&s;tles runne away, and the Soul|diers follow, and all re&s;ounds with laughter; then comes</HI> Peter <HI>and cuts off</HI> Malchus <HI>eare, and then all rings with applau&s;e, as if the betraying of</HI> Chri&s;t <HI>were now revenged; and by and by this great Fi&s;her</HI> Peter <HI>for feare of a Girle, denies his Ma&s;ter, all the people laughing at her que&s;tion, and hi&s;sing at his deniall; and in all the&s;e revels and ridiculous &s;tirs, Chri&s;t onely is &s;erious and &s;evere; but &s;eeking to move pa&s;sion and &s;orrow in the audience, he is &s;o farre from that, that he is cold even in the divine&s;t matters, to the great guilt, &s;hame, and &s;inne both of the Prie&s;ts that pre&s;ent it, and the people that behold it.</HI> The&s;e words and bla&s;phemous actions,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ind. l. expurgat. p (mihi) <HI>41.</HI></NOTE> as being a&s;hamed of them, you doe well to command them to bee blotted out; but yet they are reprinted, and your men are not a&s;hamed to continue the practice of it in your owne Religion.</P>
<P>And la&s;tly, where he &s;ayes, <HI>That tho&s;e who pre|ferre the</HI> Latin <HI>Tran&s;lation before the</HI> Greeke <HI>and</HI> Hebrew <HI>fountaines,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem in Aug. l. <HI>15.</HI> c. <HI>13.</HI> p. <HI>83.</HI></NOTE> <HI>are men of evill mindes and cor|rupt judgements;</HI> that pa&s;&s;age is left out in the <HI>An|twerpe</HI> print. And whereas he &s;aith, that the &s;tory of <HI>Su&s;anna,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem. l. <HI>18.</HI> c. <HI>31</HI></NOTE> of <HI>Bell</HI> and the <HI>Dragon,</HI> are <HI>Apocryphall</HI> Scriptures, and <HI>not received of the Jewes, nor tran|&s;lated by the Septuagint:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ind. l. expurg. p. (mihi) <HI>41.</HI></NOTE> all tho&s;e words are com|manded to be &s;tricken out.</P>
<P><HI>Jacobus Faber Stapulen&s;is,</HI> a member of the <HI>Roman</HI> Church, taught the Prote&s;tant doctrine in many points, and therefore he is purged by your &s;everall Indices.</P>
<PB N="135" REF="76" MS="y">
<P>Whereas the <HI>Rhemi&s;ts</HI> tran&s;late the Greek word <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Penance,</HI> he defined it <HI>Repentance,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Jac. Fab. in Evang. Matth. c. <HI>3.</HI> fol. (mihi) <HI>13.</HI> b. Ibid. c. <HI>5.</HI> fol. <HI>24.</HI> in initio.</NOTE> and makes a di&s;tinction betwixt <HI>Repentance</HI> and <HI>Pe|nance,</HI> &s;uch as the Prote&s;tants doe; and therefore it is commanded to be &s;tricken out.</P>
<P>Againe, &s;peaking of the <HI>Scribes</HI> and <HI>Phari&s;ees,</HI> who did attribute righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e to them&s;elves and their owne workes;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. c. <HI>6.</HI> f. <HI>30.</HI> a. Ind. Madr. fol. <HI>112.</HI></NOTE> <HI>The faithfull</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>which are of the Law of grace, doe worke mo&s;t di|ligently, but doe attribute nothing to them&s;elves, or their owne workes; but all of them doe impute their righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e to the grace of God; All con&s;i&s;teth with the one in the merit of workes, with the other in grace: the one re&s;pect them&s;elves and their workes, and are delighted therein; the other regard not them|&s;elves, but the grace of God; they admire his good|ne&s;&s;e, and therein is their chiefe delight.</HI> Againe, <HI>if any man &s;hall doe good in this world, hee mu&s;t not doe it becau&s;e it is his will, but becau&s;e God comman|deth it; For he which is perfect hath not a will peculiar to him&s;elfe, but his will mu&s;t be the will of God; and this is the third Petition of the Lords Prayer.</HI></P>
<P>In the &s;ixteenth Chapter of St. <HI>Matthew,</HI> up|on the words, <HI>Thou art Peter, &amp;c.</HI> he &s;hewes, that according to St. <HI>Pauls</HI> doctrine,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. fol. c. <HI>16.</HI> (mihi) <HI>74.</HI> b.</NOTE> the <HI>Rocke was Christ;</HI> Hee &s;hewes that <HI>Peter</HI> was &s;o farre from being a firme rocke, that Chri&s;t him&s;elfe did inti|mate the contrarie, when he &s;aid, <HI>Get thee behinde me Sathan, for thou &s;avoure&s;t not the things of God, but of men:</HI> He &s;hewes us further, that our Lord Chri&s;t promi&s;ed to <HI>Peter</HI> the Keyes of binding
<PB N="136" REF="77" MS="y"> and loo&s;ing, but withall te&s;tifies, that tho&s;e <HI>Keyes</HI> were not <HI>Peters,</HI> but <HI>Chri&s;ts,</HI> whereby <HI>Peter</HI> doth not binde or loo&s;e by his power, but by the will of <HI>Chri&s;t.</HI> He addeth moreover, that not onely <HI>Peter</HI> received tho&s;e <HI>Keyes,</HI> but al&s;o all the re&s;t of the A|po&s;tles: <HI>But</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>there be &s;ome which under|&s;tand by the Keyes of binding and loo&s;ing, the Popes power, as Chri&s;t &s;pake of that faith, witne&s;sing that he was the Sonne of the living God, which is one of the Keyes of the heavenly Doctrine, upon which the Church is founded, and Peters faith, as upon the true Rocke Chri&s;t, was builded.</HI><NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Deleatur ab illis verbis, Ne quis putet Pe|trum, &amp;c. u&s;|que ad, Aeterni Patris infu&s;io. Ind. Madr. fol. (mihi) <HI>113.</HI> &amp; Ind. Belg. p. <HI>51.</HI></NOTE> This and much more to the &s;ame purpo&s;e, for thirty lines together, is comman|ded to be &s;trucken out.</P>
<P>In his 20. Chapter he &s;aith,<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Verum qui o|peribus &s;uis a|liquo modo fi|dunt, minus Deo fidunt, mi|nu&s;que amant Deum: qui au|tem nullo mo|do, &s;ed pacto, &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d promi&s;sioni imo omnia Deo tribuunt plus Deo fidunt, cu|jus ineffabili bonitate qui novi&s;simi fue|runt operando, facti &s;unt pri|mi gratiam re|cipiendo; &amp; qui primi ope|rando, novi&s;si|mi gratiam re|cipie~do: Quare bonum, &amp;c. deleatur u&s;&abque; ad Dei autem omnia. Ind. ut &s;upra.</NOTE> <HI>Tho&s;e which any wayes tru&s;t in their workes, have the lea&s;t affiance in God, and love him the le&s;&s;e; but tho&s;e which give all to his promi&s;e, and to God him&s;elfe, they tru&s;t mo&s;t in God; by who&s;e ineffable bounty, tho&s;e which are la&s;t in wor|king, are made fir&s;t by receiving grace; and tho&s;e that are fir&s;t in working, are become la&s;t in receiving: What&s;oever therefore a man doth, it is good for him to tru&s;t wholly to God his goodne&s;se, for it is the will of God, and of his &s;peciall grace, that wee are &s;aved, and not of our will or workes:</HI> The&s;e words, and much more to the &s;ame purpo&s;e in the &s;ame chapter, are commanded to be blotted out.</P>
<P>Touching his Commentaries upon Saint <HI>John,</HI> your Inqui&s;itors have pronounced this definitive &s;entence,<NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">Ind. Madr. fol. (mihi) <HI>115.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Becau&s;e they cannot be hand&s;omely purged, let them all be &s;punged and blotted out.</HI></P>
<PB N="137" REF="77" MS="y">
<P>Touching his Commentaries upon <HI>Timothy,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">In Tim. c. <HI>3.</HI> fol. (mihi) <HI>205.</HI></NOTE> hee &s;hewes, <Q>that it was lawfull for Prie&s;ts to marry a Virgin till the time of <HI>Gregory</HI> the &s;eventh, (which was nine hundred yeeres after Chri&s;t:) hee &s;hewes likewi&s;e that the <HI>Grecians</HI> kept the Apo&s;tolicall Tradition in marrying of Wives, and could not change them, and that other Chur|ches which vowed &s;ingle life, by their inconti|nencie fell into the &s;nares of the Devill:</Q> And la&s;tly, in his Commentary upon the <HI>Galathians,</HI> at large he proves,<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Per &s;olam fi|dem Chri&s;ti in|funditur ju&s;ti|ficatio. In Gal. c. <HI>2.</HI> fol. <HI>154.</HI></NOTE> <HI>That by the Faith of Chri&s;t alone we are ju&s;tified, and that he which</HI><NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Idem c. <HI>3.</HI> fol. <HI>156.</HI> Qui au|tem confidit in operibus, in &s;e|ip&s;o confidit, &amp; baculo inniti|tur arundineo, qui frangitur in &s;eip&s;o, &amp; &s;upernum lu|men non videt, unde de&s;cendit Ju&s;tificatio.</NOTE> <HI>tru&s;teth in his works, tru&s;teth in him&s;elfe, and leanes upon a &s;taffe of Reed, which is broken in it &s;elfe; whereby he doth not di&s;cern the heavenly light, from whence our ju&s;tification doth de&s;cend:</HI> The&s;e and many other like pa&s;&s;ages in &s;eve|rall places of his Workes, which are con&s;onant to our Prote&s;tant Doctrine, are commanded by the<NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">Ind. Madr. f. (mihi) <HI>118, 119.</HI></NOTE> Inqui&s;itors to be &s;trucken out.</P>
<P><NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg">Friderici Furii Cenolani Valentini Bo|nonia; &s;ive, De libris &s;acris in vernaculam linguam con|vertendis.</NOTE><HI>Fridericus Furius</HI> writes a whole Book of tran|&s;lating the <HI>Bible</HI> into the vulgar tongue, for the be|nefit of the Lay people; hee dedicates his Booke to Cardinall <HI>Bovadillius,</HI> and he tells him that wee e&s;teeme it an excellent thing to reade the workes of Greeke and Latine Philo&s;ophers; and therefore much more ought wee to &s;earch and know the will of God out of his &s;acred Scriptures: for the one is a matter of plea&s;ure, and the other is a matter of ne|ce&s;&s;ity; the not knowing of the one may hurt little or nothing at all, but to bee ignorant of the other brings a grievous mi&s;chiefe, be&s;ides eternall de&s;tru|ction
<PB N="138" REF="78" MS="y"> of the &s;oule. Againe, what is it (&s;aith hee) to forbid the Scriptures to bee read in the vulgar tongue, than to forbid God his owne purpo&s;e, and as it were to command God, which doth declare him&s;elfe to all by his Word, that hee &s;hould not be manife&s;ted unto us? This is the whole &s;cope of the Author, and for this cau&s;e, le&s;t the reading of the Scripture in a knowne tongue &s;hould di&s;cover An|tichri&s;tian Doctrine by frequent reading,<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Ind. lib. proh. p. (mihi) <HI>36.</HI></NOTE> the Book it &s;elfe is forbidden, till it bee purged in this and the like places witne&s;&s;ing again&s;t your Romane Doctrine.</P>
<P><HI>Johannes Langus</HI> is numbred among&s;t your He|retiques in the fir&s;t <HI>Cla&s;sis,</HI> pag. 51. Yet his Annotations upon<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Permittuntur ver&ograve; eju&s;dem in D. Ju&s;tinum an oratio~es, ite~ in Nicephorum &s;cholia, &s;i ex|purgentur. Ind. l. proh. p. mihi <HI>51.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr,</HI> and his Com|mentaries upon <HI>Nicephorus,</HI> are allowed if they bee purged. Now let the Reader ob&s;erve for what cau&s;e you would have him purged: Fir&s;t touching his Annotations upon <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr;</HI><NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">Multa conti|net parum Ca|tholicae Religi|oni con&s;ona, in|ter ea autem il|lud e&s;t praecipu|um, qu&ograve;d tran|&s;ub&s;tantiatio|nem non agno&s;|cit, &s;ed opert&egrave; contendat, cum corpore &amp; &s;an|guine Chri&s;ti remanere ve|ram panis &amp; vini &s;ub&s;ta~tia~.</NOTE> <HI>They containe many things di&s;agreeing to the Catholike Religion; but among tho&s;e, that is chiefe, that hee doth not ac|knowledge Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, but doth openly main|taine, that the true &s;ub&s;tance of bread and wine doth remaine with the body and bloud of Christ.</HI> Againe,<NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg">Pervers&egrave; ad|modum inter|pretatur illud Malachiae, In omni loco offer|tur &s;acrificium nomini meo, de doxologia, be|nedictione, lau|dibus, &amp; hym|nis. Sic Ind. ut &s;upra.</NOTE> <HI>He doth very maliciou&s;ly interpret that place of</HI> Ma|lachy, <HI>In every place a &s;acrifice &s;hall be offered to my name, that is</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>in giving of glory, ble&s;sing, laud, and prai&s;e to the Name of God.</HI></P>
<P><NOTE N="e" PLACE="marg">Gerardi Lo|richii Adama|rii collectio tri|u~ libroru~, &amp;c. de mi&s;&s;a publi|ca proroganda. Ind. l. proh. p. <HI>11.</HI></NOTE><HI>Gerardus Lorichius</HI> is prohibited till he be purged for the reproving and condemning your private Ma&s;&s;e, and Communion in one kinde; his words be
<PB N="139" REF="78" MS="y"> the&s;e, <HI>There be fal&s;e Catholikes, that are not a&s;hamed by all meanes to hinder the Reformation of the Church; they, to the intent that the other kinde of the</HI><NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">De Mi&s;&s;a pub. Racemati|onum, lib. <HI>2.</HI> Canonis pars <HI>7.</HI> p. (mihi) <HI>177.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Sacrament may not be re&s;tored to the Lay people, &s;pare no kinde of bla&s;phemy.</HI><NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Excu&s;um an. <HI>1536.</HI></NOTE> <HI>For they &s;ay, Chri&s;t &s;aid onely to his Apo&s;tles, Drinke yee all of this; but the words of the Canon of the Ma&s;&s;e, are, Take and eate you all of this: Here I be&s;eech them let them tell mee, whether they will have this word (All) to pertaine onely to the Apo&s;tles?</HI><NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg"><HI>See more,</HI> lib. <HI>2.</HI> pars Cano|nis <HI>17.</HI> p. mihi. <HI>210.</HI> &amp;c.</NOTE> <HI>Then mu&s;t the Lay people ab&s;taine from the other kinde, of the bread al&s;o; which thing to &s;ay is an Here&s;ie, and a pe&s;tilent and dete&s;table bla&s;phemie.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Ambro&s;ius Catharinus</HI> Archbi&s;hop of <HI>Comp&s;a</HI> wrote again&s;t <HI>Cajetan;</HI><NOTE N="e" PLACE="marg">Opu&s;cula ve|r&ograve; &s;imiliter prohibentur, ni|&s;i corrigantur, Ind. l. prohib. p. <HI>4.</HI></NOTE> and (&s;aith<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Bellar. de Ec. Scrip. p (mihi) <HI>312.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Bellarmine</HI>) hee wrote likewi&s;e again&s;t <HI>Luther: Yet &s;omething hee wrote is di&s;allowed of the Church, as namely, touching the words of con&s;ecration: other things are commonly refuted by the Doctours of the Church, viz. the cer|tainety of Grace, of Prede&s;tination, &amp;c. therefore his Workes are warily to be read.</HI> Thus you have <HI>Caje|tan</HI> again&s;t <HI>Luther,</HI> and <HI>Catherinus</HI> again&s;t <HI>Cajetan,</HI> and <HI>Luther</HI> &amp; both again&s;t the Tenets of their own Church; in&s;omuch as the Inqui&s;itors have com|manded a <HI>deleatur</HI> upon <HI>Cajetan</HI> and <HI>Catharinus</HI> in the &s;econd <HI>Cla&s;sis,</HI> and again&s;t<NOTE N="f" PLACE="marg">Commentaria in Lucam, ni&s;i fuerint ex repurgat<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &amp; impre&s;sis ab an. <HI>1581.</HI> vel ni&s;i ante&agrave; edita, expur|gentur. Ind. l. prohib. p. <HI>26.</HI> &amp; p. <HI>318.</HI> Ind. Belg. p. <HI>317.</HI> Ind. Hi&s;p. p. <HI>63.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Luthers</HI> whole Workes in the fir&s;t <HI>Cla&s;sis.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Didacus Stella</HI> is prohibited to bee printed be|fore hee be purged. The places which are purged are &s;uch wherein hee teacheth Prote&s;tant Doctrine, as may be &s;een in<NOTE N="g" PLACE="marg">See Appendix to the Romi&s;h <HI>Fi&s;her</HI> caught in his owne net.</NOTE> Mr. <HI>Cra&s;haw,</HI> and D^r. <HI>James,</HI> and <HI>D.F.</HI> Ob&s;ervations.</P>
<PB N="140" REF="79" MS="y">
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ad &s;olam vitae ben&egrave; actae imi|tationem, non etiam ad religi|o&s;um cultum, quem adoratio|nem vocant Theologi, Di|voru~ monumen|ta con&s;ervare fas e&s;t. In Comment. Jo&s;. hi&s;t. c. ult. Ind. l. expurg. p. <HI>31.</HI></NOTE><HI>Andreas Ma&s;ius</HI> in his Commentarie upon <HI>Jo|&s;uah</HI> is purged for this Prote&s;tant doctrine; <HI>Wee ought to pre&s;erve the Monuments of Saints onely for the imitation of their godly life, not for Religious wor|&s;hip, which Divines call Adoration.</HI> Againe, hee &s;aith,<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Idem in Jo&s;. c. <HI>22.</HI></NOTE> <HI>The Church &s;ets before our eyes the figure of Chri&s;ts Cro&s;&s;e, (not that wee &s;hould wor&s;hip it;)</HI> which latter words are commanded to bee razed out.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, Cardinall <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> who was the fir&s;t and be&s;t that ever handled all controver&s;ies in diffe|rence betwixt us, was in danger of a prohibition, or rather of an ab&s;olute &s;uppre&s;&s;ion of all his workes.<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Ind. Belg. p. <HI>269.</HI></NOTE> Your owne <HI>Barclay</HI> witne&s;&s;eth of him,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Barclay</HI> of the authoritie of the Pope. <HI>c.</HI> 13. <HI>p.</HI> 66. <HI>Engl.</HI></NOTE> <HI>That there is not one of the Popes partie, who hath either gathe|red more diligently, or propounded more &s;harply, or concluded more briefly or &s;ubtilly, than the worthy Di|vine</HI> Bellarmine; <HI>who although he gave as much to the Popes authority in temporalties, as hone&s;tly hee might, and more than he ought, yet could he not &s;ati&s;|fie the ambition of the mo&s;t imperious man</HI> Sixtus <HI>the</HI> 5^t^h^. <HI>(who affirmed that he had &s;upreme power over Kings and Princes of the whole Earth, and all People, Countries, and Nations committed unto him, not by humane, but by divine Ordinance:) and therefore he was very neare by his Pontificiall cen&s;ure (to the great hurt of the Church) to have aboli&s;hed all the writings of that Doctour (which doe oppugne Here&s;ies with great &s;ucce&s;&s;e at this day) as the Fathers of that order (whereof</HI> Bellarmine <HI>was then) did &s;eriou&s;ly report un|to me.</HI> How probable this may &s;eeme, his worke
<PB N="141" REF="79" MS="y"> of <HI>Recognitions</HI> doth witne&s;&s;e to the world; where|in he was inforced to recant that doctrine, which he had both &s;incerely taught and publi&s;hed according to the truth. As for in&s;tance; whereas he profe&s;&s;ed that the Pope was &s;ubject to the Emperour in tem|porall affaires; on the contrarie hee recants it, &s;ay|ing,<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Bel. Recognit. de &s;ummo Pont. p. <HI>16.</HI></NOTE> <HI>I allow not that which I &s;aid (with</HI> Albertus Pighius) <HI>that</HI> Paul <HI>appealed to</HI> Cae&s;ar <HI>to be his law|full Judge.</HI> Againe, whereas it was &s;aid the Popes u&s;ed to be cho&s;en by Emperours, the word <HI>Emperor (potest, &amp; fort&egrave; debet deleri)</HI><NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Idem de Cler. p. (mihi) <HI>52.</HI></NOTE> <HI>it mu&s;t, and peradven|ture ought to be blotted out.</HI> And when I &s;ayd that <HI>Paul</HI> was &s;ubject to <HI>Cae&s;ar,</HI> as to his temporall Lord, I meant it was &s;o<NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">De facto, non de jure. Ib. p. <HI>17.</HI> Sapendo M. Paolo cha&s;otto Si&s;to Quinto u&s;ci un Indice de libri prohibi|ti, il quale &s;e ben &s;ubito &s;i oc|culto, non fu pero cio co&s;i pre&s;to fatto che non ne re&s;ta&s;&s;e|ro gli e&s;&s;empla|ri. Et in que&s;to erano compre&s;&s;e le opere del Bel|larmino. In lib. Confirmatione del con&s;iderati|oni del M. Paulo di Venetia, di M. Fulgentio Bre&s;tiano &s;er|vita. In Venetia appre&s;&s;o Ruber|to Mejetti <HI>1606.</HI> Con li|centia de &s;upe|riori. in <HI>4^t^o.</HI></NOTE> <HI>in fact,</HI> but <HI>not of right.</HI></P>
<P>And in truth it &s;eemes, that neither the Pope, nor his <HI>Inqui&s;itors</HI> were well plea&s;ed with this Ca|tholike doctrine: For Frier <HI>Paul</HI> of <HI>Venice</HI> acknow|ledged Cardinall <HI>Bellarmine</HI> and <HI>Baronius</HI> for lear|ned men; and further &s;aith, that he hath knowne the one and the other in <HI>Rome;</HI> but he could wi&s;h with|all, that they had written that which they &s;incerely thought, without being forced to recant any thing that they had &s;poken. For <HI>Frier</HI> Paul <HI>knew well that under</HI> Sixtus Quintus <HI>there came out an Index of prohibited Bookes, which though it were &s;uddainly &s;tayed and called in, yet it was not &s;o clo&s;ely acted, but that there remained Copies of it; and in that</HI> Index <HI>the workes of</HI> Bellarmine <HI>were comprehended.</HI> If this learned Cardinals Booke had beene forbidden, you and your fellowes would have beene to &s;eeke of an an&s;were for many objections made again&s;t you;
<PB N="142" REF="80"> for it is u&s;uall with you to referre me for an an&s;wer to <HI>Bellarmine.</HI> But as it is ob&s;erved, they recanted many things in their writings:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Dum plurima Annalibus dige|rendis pervocu|tanda fuere, ag|novit ingenu&egrave; quae primis edi|tionibus aut ma~|ca, aut non om|nino ad plenam veritatem abs &s;e fuera~t &s;crip|ta, id quod in Annalibus non &s;emel te&s;ta|tus e&s;t.</NOTE> For <HI>Baronius</HI> con|fe&s;&s;eth, that in his fir&s;t Editions many things <HI>were imperfect, and not altogether true, which were cor|rected in the other impre&s;sions.</HI> And I am per&s;waded, ere long wee &s;hall have an <HI>Index</HI><NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Defe~&s;io Joha~|nis Mar&s;ilii in favorem re&s;po~|&s;i <HI>8.</HI> propo&s;itio|nes continentis, adver&s;us quod &s;crip&s;it illu|&s;tri&s;simus Car|dinalis Bellar|minus. Venetiis. <HI>1606.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Expurgatorius</HI> lay hold on him; For (&s;aith <HI>Johannes Mar&s;ilius) I have heard that as he hath taken a liberty to mend the Fathers, Canons, and Hi&s;torians, &s;o he will cor|rect the Councels after his manner, and for his owne purpo&s;e, and &s;o a&s;&s;ume unto him&s;elfe a licence here|unto; which God forbid.</HI> Againe (&s;aith he)<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg"><HI>Mar&s;il. p.</HI> 357. See <HI>B. Mortons</HI> encounter a|gain&s;t <HI>M. Par|&s;ons</HI> reckoning, <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 10, 11</NOTE> <HI>the An|&s;wers of Cardinall</HI> Baronius <HI>are not unlike the an|&s;wers of Cardinall</HI> Bellarmine, <HI>who whilst he cannot finde an objected argument to be a&s;&s;oiled by Hi&s;torie, he &s;aith, that tho&s;e words have beene in&s;erted into the Bookes:</HI> much like to Mr. <HI>Floyd,</HI> when there is no an&s;were to be made to &s;ome particular objections out of the Authors, you reject them all as condem|ned by your Inqui&s;itors: And this an&s;were I am &s;ure may &s;erve for all objections that can bee made from mo&s;t Cla&s;&s;icall Authors.</P>
<P><HI>The la&s;t thing which I here meane to &s;peake of, is a certaine di&s;tinction of explicite and implicite faith, which the Knight and his Mini&s;ters cry out again&s;t, and are plea&s;ed &s;ometimes to make them&s;elves merry withall, as if they would laugh out; but it is too well and &s;olidly grounded to bee blowne away with the breath of any &s;uch mini&s;teriall Knight, as he is.</HI> Thus you.</P>
<PB N="143" REF="80">
<P>You profe&s;&s;ed formerly to teach mee for my learning; now it &s;eemes you would in&s;truct me for my manners: you tell me I make my &s;elfe merrie with your doctrine, as if I would laugh out: truly I am &s;orry to thinke you teach &s;uch ridiculous do|ctrine, as &s;hould de&s;ervedly cau&s;e laughter. Shall I make you my Confe&s;&s;or? I cannot chu&s;e but &s;mile when I con&s;ider what great paines you have taken in this whole Chapter, to uphold the Articles of your Faith with &s;ixe pretended rules, and all infal|lible, as namely, Scripture in the plaine and literall &s;en&s;e; Tradition or common beliefe and practice of the whole Church; Councels either generall or particular, confirmed by the See Apo&s;tolike; the authoritie of that whole See it &s;elfe defining <HI>Ex Ca|thedra,</HI> though without either generall or particu|lar Councell; the common and uniforme con&s;ent of ancient Fathers or moderne Doctours and Schoole-men, delivering any thing unto us as mat|ter of Faith: All the&s;e &s;ixe rules (&s;ay you) <HI>we ac|knowledge, and are ready to make good what&s;oever is taught any of the&s;e wayes.</HI></P>
<P>When I &s;ay you a&s;&s;ume confidently, that all the&s;e are infallible rules to leade men to the knowledge of your Faith, and at la&s;t you conclude, and as it were &s;hut up all tho&s;e rules of knowledge, with the do|ctrine of an implicite faith. This I confe&s;&s;e is &s;uch a my&s;tery of fooli&s;hne&s;&s;e, as de&s;erveth rather laugh|ter than an an&s;wer: For, as <HI>Cato</HI> &s;aid, <HI>He marvelled that a Sooth&s;ayer did not laugh when he &s;aw a Sooth|&s;ayer:</HI> So I am verily per&s;waded that your &s;elves
<PB N="144" REF="81" MS="y"> doe &s;mile when you meet each other, to thinke how you cou&s;en the poore ignorant people with a blind obedience, and an implicite Faith. To let pa&s;&s;e your <HI>Golden Legends</HI> and leaden miracles, (which occa&s;ion &s;ufficient mirth in long winter nights for all &s;orts of people) what I pray is that implicite Faith, that you condemne me and our Mini&s;ters for laughing at? Mi&s;take us not, I know no Pro|te&s;tant doth laugh at an implicite Faith, which is directed to the proper object, the holy Scripture; we laugh not at an implicite Faith, which cannot be well unfolded or comprehended by rea&s;on, as name|ly, the un&s;earchable my&s;terie of the <HI>Trinitie,</HI> of Chri&s;ts conception by the holy Gho&s;t, and the like; but we di&s;claime and condemne your <HI>Catho|like Colliers</HI> Faith, which is canonized for your Popi&s;h Creed; that is, to pin our Faith upon the Churches &s;leeve, and to a&s;&s;ent to every thing the Church propoundeth to be beleeved, without exa|mination whether it be agreeable to the Scripture, or be&s;ides it. We laugh, or rather wee pitie that Merchant of <HI>Placentia,</HI> who cho&s;e rather to bee a Papi&s;t than a Prote&s;tant,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Laurent. Di|&s;cept. Theolog. p. <HI>5.</HI></NOTE> <HI>becau&s;e</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>I can briefly learne the Roman faith; For if I &s;ay what the Pope &s;aith, and deny what the Pope denyes, and if he &s;peake and I hearken unto him, this is alone &s;ufficient for me.</HI> And wee cannot choo&s;e but &s;mile at the judgement pronounced by your <HI>Gregorie de Valen|tia,</HI> upon this poore ignorant Merchant; <HI>God</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>will have nothing to lay to this mans charge at the dreadfull day of Judgement:</HI> His meaning, it may
<PB N="145" REF="81" MS="y"> be is, God can charge him with nothing, becau&s;e this man knew nothing.</P>
<P>This doctrine of Obedience doth well agree with Cardinall <HI>Bellarmines</HI> expo&s;ition upon that place of <HI>Job, The Oxen did plow and labour,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Bell. de Ju&s;tif. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>7.</HI></NOTE> <HI>and the A&s;&s;es fed by them. By the Oxen</HI> (&s;aith hee) <HI>are meant the learned Doctors of the Church, by the A&s;&s;es are meant the ignorant people, which out of &s;imple beliefe re&s;t &s;atisfied with the under&s;tanding of their Superiors.</HI> And accordingly your Cardinall <HI>Cu&s;anus</HI> per&s;wades his <HI>Pro&s;elytes</HI> to relye upon the Church, without further inquirie of the truth;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cu&s;an. exercit. l. <HI>2.</HI> &amp; l. <HI>6.</HI></NOTE> <HI>For</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>Obedience without rea&s;on is a full and perfect obedi|ence, that is, when thou obeye&s;t, without enquiring of rea&s;on, as a hor&s;e is obedient to his Ma&s;ter.</HI> He that &s;hall make a que&s;tion in your Church, whether the Pope can erre, mu&s;t re&s;igne up his under&s;tanding with this beliefe,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bellar. de Pont. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>5.</HI></NOTE> <HI>If the Pope &s;hould &s;o farre forth erre, as to command vices, and forbid vertues, the Church were bound to beleeve that vices are good, and vertues are evill, unle&s;&s;e &s;he will &s;inne again&s;t her owne con&s;cience.</HI></P>
<P>This is <HI>Bellarmines</HI> le&s;&s;on, and that mu&s;t bee your Faith. Nay more, Cardinall <HI>Tollet</HI> will a&s;&s;ure you, that <HI>if one beleeve his Bi&s;hop,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Toll. de In&s;truct. &s;acerd. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> <HI>although it be con|trary to the faith, yet in beleeving that fal&s;hood, hee &s;hall performe an act meritorious.</HI></P>
<P>I under&s;tand you are a Je&s;uite, and therefore I doe not much wonder, that you &s;o much in&s;i&s;t upon the ju&s;tification of an implicite faith; for you had it from your founder, and are injoyned to make it
<PB N="146" REF="82"> good by your owne Order. There is a little Pam|phlet entituled <HI>Regulae Societatis Je&s;u,</HI> which your &s;elves have cau&s;ed to be printed at <HI>Lyons,</HI> in which <HI>Ignatius Loyala,</HI> the Spani&s;h Souldier, and Patron of your Sect,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Anticotton,</HI> or a refutation of <HI>Cottons</HI> letter to the Queene Regent, <HI>p.</HI> 24. printed at <HI>Ly|ons</HI> by <HI>Jaques Rou&s;sin.</HI> Anno. 1607.</NOTE> hath laid downe the&s;e rules to your Societie: <HI>Entertaine the command of your Superiour in the &s;ame &s;ort, as if it were the voice of Chri&s;t.</HI> A|gaine, <HI>Hold this undoubtedly, that all which a Supe|riour commands, is no other than the commandement of God him&s;elfe; and as in beleeving tho&s;e things which the Catholike faith propo&s;eth, you are pre&s;ently carried with all the &s;trength of your con&s;ent; &s;o for the performance of all tho&s;e things which your Supe|riour commands, you mu&s;t be carried with a certaine blinde impetuo&s;ity of will, de&s;irous to obey without fur|ther inquiring why or wherefore.</HI> <Q>And le&s;t that &s;uch command might &s;eeme &s;ometimes unju&s;t and ab&s;urd, he commands your <HI>Je&s;uits</HI> &s;o to capti|vate their under&s;tanding, that they &s;ift not the commands of their Superiours; but that they may follow the example of <HI>Abraham,</HI> who prepared even to &s;acrifice his &s;onne at the commandement of God: and of Abbot <HI>John,</HI> who watered a drie log of wood a whole yeare together, to none other purpo&s;e, but to exerci&s;e his obedience; and another time put him&s;elfe to thru&s;ting downe of a great Rocke, which many men together were not able to move, not that hee held them things either u&s;uall or po&s;&s;ible, but onely that hee would not di&s;obey the command of his Supe|riour.</Q></P>
<PB N="147" REF="82" MS="y">
<P>This is that blind obedience and implicite faith which wee laugh at, and this is the ridiculous Do|ctrine which your <HI>Rhemists</HI> teach. <HI>He &s;aith enough,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Rhem. Annot. in</HI> Luc. 12.11.</NOTE> <HI>and defendeth him&s;elfe &s;ufficiently, who an&s;wereth he is a Catholike man, and that his Church can give a rea&s;on of all the things which they demand of him.</HI> But we have not &s;o learned Chri&s;t; wee are ready alwayes, according to the Apo&s;tles in&s;truction, to <HI>give an an&s;wer to every man that asketh us a rea&s;on of the hope that is in us.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Pet. 3.15.</NOTE> And for the better fulfil|ling of the Law and the Prophets, wee te&s;tifie with <HI>Mo&s;es, Secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and our children,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Deut. 29.29.</NOTE> <HI>that we may doe all the words of the Law.</HI> We &s;ay there|fore, particular knowledge is to be joyned with the a&s;&s;ent of faith; for no man can a&s;&s;ent to that which hee never heard, and therefore I thinke no man of under&s;tanding, with a blind obedience and implicite faith, will re&s;igne up his eie-&s;ight, and looke through &s;uch &s;pectacles as you have tempe|red for them. For without doubt it was the con|&s;tant and uniforme Doctrine of the ancient Church, that how&s;oever faith apprehends my&s;teries not to bee inquired into, yet the propo&s;ition and do|ctrine of all the Articles of Faith were di&s;tinctly taught and conceived by all: and thereupon <HI>Theodoret,</HI> who was then living, gives us to under&s;tand, that in his dayes <HI>You might &s;ee every where the points of our Faith to bee held and knowne,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. Theod. Graec. Serm. <HI>5.</HI></NOTE> <HI>not onely to them who are Ma|&s;ters in the Church and Teachers of the people,
<PB N="148" REF="83" MS="y"> but even of Coblers, Smiths, and Weavers, and all kinde of Artificers, of all &s;orts of women; and all the&s;e you may finde</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>di&s;cour&s;ing of the Trinitie, and the creation of all things.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. II.</HI> The &s;umme of his An&s;wer to my first Section.</HEAD>
<P><Q>THe Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> not without cau&s;e, bitter again&s;t the Reformed Churches, becau&s;e they are Heretikes: <HI>Theodoret</HI> is impertinently alledged: <HI>Bellarmine</HI> is fal&s;ified: The Catholike Church cannot be depraved be|cau&s;e of her promi&s;es.</Q> And this (&s;etting a&s;ide your reproches and impertinencies) is the &s;ub&s;tance of your &s;econd Chapter, in an&s;wer to my fir&s;t Section.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="response to chapter">
<HEAD>The Reply.</HEAD>
<P>Fir&s;t you &s;ay in your Title, <HI>The Church of</HI> Rome <HI>not bitter again&s;t Heretikes.</HI></P>
<P>It is true, the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> is not bitter again&s;t Heretikes (as you under&s;tand them for Pro|te&s;tants) for they are no Heretikes: but if the termes of <HI>Luthers whelpes, Hell hounds</HI> of <HI>Zwing|lius, damned per&s;ons, and wor&s;e than Infidels;</HI> if &s;uch termes (I &s;ay) be Catholike complements (which your fellow <HI>Je&s;uits</HI> have given us) I &s;hall freely con|fe&s;&s;e your <HI>Charitie is mi&s;taken.</HI></P>
<PB N="149" REF="83">
<P>But (&s;ay you) <HI>the word Heretike, which is the wor&s;t of all, hath ever gone with &s;uch as have held new particular doctrines,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">1 John 2.</NOTE> <HI>and &s;uch St.</HI> John <HI>calleth Antichri&s;ts.</HI></P>
<P>Surely you have my a&s;&s;ent and wi&s;hes with you, that is, that the name of Heretike may alwayes goe as it hath gone, with &s;uch as teach new and Anti|chri&s;tian doctrine. But let me tell you, this de&s;crip|tion of yours is a perfect Character of the <HI>Roman</HI> Church; and I verily beleeve that if all the pictures and patternes of a Papi&s;t were lo&s;t in the world, they might all againe be recovered, and a Papi&s;t painted to the life in the de&s;cription of &s;uch an He|retike as you here define.</P>
<P>Looke upon the particular doctrines of private Ma&s;&s;e, your halfe Communion, your Prayer in an unknowne Tongue, and tell me if the&s;e be not new: why el&s;e doe you and your a&s;&s;ociates confe&s;&s;e that the contrary Tenets were taught and revived by the Ancients? And as touching the name of Antichri&s;t, if that be appropriate to Heretikes, it cannot touch the members of our Church; for we make Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles the &s;ole rule of our Faith. On the other &s;ide, if you con&s;ider the Pope, either as he &s;its in the place of Chri&s;t, as his Vicar Generall, or as he and his adherents teach and uphold a doctrine again&s;t Chri&s;t (for the word <HI>Antichri&s;t</HI> imports both) without doubt they beare the markes of <HI>Antichri&s;t,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign"> is again&s;t Chri&s;t, &amp; in the place of Chri&s;t as his Vicar.</NOTE> and con&s;equently the word <HI>(Here|tike)</HI> reflects upon your &s;elves.</P>
<P><HI>Ca&s;&s;ander</HI> tells us, <HI>there be &s;ome who make the
<PB N="150" REF="84"> Pope of</HI> Rome <HI>almo&s;t a God,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ca&s;&s;and. de officio Piiviri.</NOTE> <HI>preferring his authori|tie not onely above the whole Church, but above the &s;acred Scriptures, holding his judgement equall to the divine Oracles, and for an infallible rule of Faith. I &s;ee no rea&s;on</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>but that the&s;e men &s;hould be called P&s;eudo-Catholikes or Papi&s;ts.</HI> Indeed I mu&s;t confe&s;&s;e I much wonder, that any Prote|&s;tant &s;hould give you that honourable title of <HI>Ca|tholike,</HI> e&s;pecially when you terme them by the name of <HI>Heretikes.</HI></P>
<P>Tho&s;e that have the marke of the Bea&s;t imprin|ted in their foreheads, have borrowed both the Name and Nature from him; and therefore your Cardinall tells us,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bell. de Not. Eccle&s;. c. <HI>4.</HI></NOTE> <HI>The word Papi&s;t is derived from the Pope, &s;uch as was</HI> Peter, And more particularly your <HI>Gregory Martin</HI> and the <HI>Rhemi&s;ts</HI> give you to under&s;tand,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Rhem. Annot. in</HI> Acts. 11.26.</NOTE> that <HI>to be a Papi&s;t, is to bee a Chri&s;tian man, a childe of the Church, and &s;ubject to Chri&s;ts Vicar.</HI> You that are &s;o inqui&s;itive after other mens pedigrees, &s;ee if with all your Heraldrie you can make good your nominal de&s;cent from Chri&s;t, and, as you &s;tile him, Pope <HI>Peter.</HI></P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Bri&s;tow. De|mand. <HI>8.</HI></NOTE>Your Father <HI>Bri&s;tow,</HI> as a knowne <HI>Antiquarie</HI> in this point, gives your Father <HI>Bellarmine</HI> the lye; for he avowes it for certaine, that your name <HI>(Pa|pi&s;t)</HI> was never heard of till the dayes of Pope <HI>Leo the Tenth,</HI> and this was 1500. yeares after <HI>Christ;</HI> and this opinion I am &s;ure is mo&s;t probable, and more &s;utable to the Noveltie of your Reli|gion.</P>
<P>But (&s;ay you) <HI>we Catholikes &s;tile the Knight
<PB N="151" REF="84" MS="y"> and the Reformers, by the common name of Here|ticks.</HI></P>
<P>You told me formerly the title of <HI>(Sir)</HI> would be left for me: now you have added to the title the name of <HI>Hereticke,</HI> and you profe&s;&s;e it is the wor&s;t word of all. It &s;eemes the wor&s;t word you have is good enough for me: But I pardon you, and I mu&s;t let you know that the <HI>name of Catholike is as comely with the Profe&s;&s;ors of your new doctrine, as a golden ring in a &s;wines &s;nout.</HI> And as touching the name of Hereticke wherewith you charge me, you rightly re&s;emble <HI>Athalia,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">4 Kings 11.</NOTE> who when &s;hee under|&s;tood that <HI>Joas</HI> the right inheritour of the Crowne of <HI>Judah,</HI> was proclaimed King, ranne in her furie to the Temple, and cryed out, <HI>Trea&s;on, Trea|&s;on,</HI> when the trea&s;on was not in King <HI>Joas,</HI> but in her &s;elfe that wrought it. Your <HI>Alphon&s;us &agrave; Ca|&s;tro</HI> hath written a Booke again&s;t the Heretickes in all ages; and in his <HI>Index haereticorum,</HI> I have &s;ear|ched diligently, and I finde the names of certaine <HI>Popes</HI> among them, but mine owne name I doe not finde: For I profe&s;&s;e with St. <HI>Au&s;tin, Errare po&s;sum, haereticus e&s;&s;e nolo,</HI> I may erre, but I will not bee an Hereticke. Shall I make my confe&s;&s;ion unto you? <HI>I beleeve all things which are contained in the Scrip|tures,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Cum hoc credi|mus, Priuscre|dimus, nihil am|plius credendum e&s;&s;e. Tertul. Ibid.</NOTE> <HI>and nothing contrary or be&s;ides them as matter of faith nece&s;&s;ary to &s;alvation: I beleeve the holy Ca+tholicke Church.</HI> This is an Article of my Faith, and this I fir&s;t received from the Apo&s;tles Creed. Next, I undoubtedly beleeve the <HI>Nicene</HI> Creed; and this was called Catholicke by tho&s;e holy Fathers, to
<PB N="152" REF="85"> di&s;tingui&s;h the Heretikes from the Orthodoxe Chri&s;tians in the Primitive Church; or, according to your owne words,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Chap. 1. p. 2.</NOTE> <HI>appointed to be publikely pro|fe&s;&s;ed by all &s;uch as meant to bee counted Catholikes;</HI> and for the &s;ame cau&s;e your Councell of <HI>Trent</HI> de|creed it to be received (as <HI>a Shield again&s;t Here&s;ies</HI>) and therefore by your owne confe&s;&s;ion,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Concil. Trid. Se&s;&s;. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> the Coun|cels decree, and your Creed it &s;elfe, I am free from the name of Heretike. La&s;tly, I profe&s;&s;e and be|leeve <HI>Athana&s;ius Creed,</HI> and that Holy and ancient Father witne&s;&s;eth of that confe&s;&s;ion, <HI>Haec e&s;t fides Catholica, This is the Catholike Faith.</HI></P>
<P>If therefore I beleeve the Scriptures, and Ca|tholike Church, which teacheth the true Faith; If I beleeve the Articles of the <HI>Nicene Creed,</HI> which di&s;tingui&s;heth the right Beleevers from the <HI>Here|tikes;</HI> If I receive <HI>Athana&s;ius Creed,</HI> which con|taines the &s;umme and &s;ub&s;tance of all <HI>Catholike</HI> Faith and doctrine, what remaines then why I &s;hould not be exempted from the name of <HI>Heretike,</HI> unle&s;&s;e I &s;hall acknowledge with you the fourth <HI>Creed</HI> publi&s;hed by Pope <HI>Pius</HI> the fourth, and con|&s;equently &s;ub&s;cribe to new particular doctrines, which (as you confe&s;&s;e) doth ever accompanie the nature of Here&s;ie?</P>
<P><HI>But the Reformers are Heretikes.</HI></P>
<P>He that &s;hall heare but the word <HI>(Reformers)</HI> in all probability will conceive that they were men which oppo&s;ed &s;ome errors or here&s;ies crept into the Church, and for that cau&s;e de&s;ired a <HI>Reforma|tion.</HI> In the Churches of <HI>Corinth, Galatia, Perga|mus</HI>
<PB N="153" REF="85" MS="y"> and <HI>Thyatira</HI> there were &s;ome of the <HI>Sadduces</HI> opinion, who denied the Re&s;urrection, others that joyned Circumci&s;ion and the workes of the Law with Chri&s;t, and the worke of &s;alvation. The A|po&s;tles you know did reprove tho&s;e errors in their dayes, and no doubt many accordingly did reforme them&s;elves: Now will you condemne tho&s;e reformed per&s;ons for Heretikes, becau&s;e they differed from the re&s;t with an utter di&s;like of tho&s;e errors which the &s;educed partie retained? Surely this is the true &s;tate and condition of our Church; and accordingly your <HI>Trent</HI> Fathers made a decree for Reformation in the Councell, and pretended that it was &s;ummoned to redre&s;&s;e Here&s;ies which were crept into the Church; and will you &s;ay, if they had redre&s;&s;ed them, the <HI>Reformers</HI> had beene <HI>Heretikes?</HI></P>
<P>The <HI>Rogatian</HI> Heretikes would have made the world beleeve that they were the onely <HI>Catholikes;</HI> and the <HI>Arrian</HI> Heretikes called the true Chri&s;tians, &s;ometimes <HI>Ambro&s;ians,</HI> &s;ometimes <HI>Athana&s;ians,</HI> &s;ometimes <HI>Homou&s;ians.</HI> And in this manner St. <HI>Paul</HI> him&s;elfe was called before the Judges to make an&s;wer to matter of Here&s;ie, and <HI>according to this way which you call Here&s;ie, &s;o wor&s;hip we the God of our Fathers,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Acts 24.</NOTE> <HI>beleeving all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets.</HI></P>
<P>They that &s;o ra&s;hly pronounce and call every thing Here&s;ie, are <HI>often &s;tricken with their owne dart,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Alph. de Here&s;. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>7.</HI></NOTE> (&s;aith your owne <HI>Alphon&s;us) and fall into the &s;ame pit which them&s;elves have digged for others:</HI> Hee
<PB N="154" REF="86"> &s;hewes therefore by way of conclu&s;ion what hee would have called Here&s;ie. <HI>This would I rather call Here&s;ie</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>to accompt mens writings among the Scriptures of God;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE> <HI>and &s;o doe they that thinke it a wicked matter to di&s;&s;ent from the writings of man, no le&s;&s;e than it were the judgements of God.</HI> Now that your men are guilty of &s;uch Here&s;ies in the highe&s;t degree, appeares by his owne confe&s;|&s;ion; for he complaines of <HI>Gratian,</HI> who did in&s;ert the Popes <HI>decretall Epi&s;tles</HI> among&s;t the holy Scrip|tures,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>2.</HI> p. <HI>14.</HI></NOTE> as if they were of equall authoritie with them: and he &s;peakes as an eare witne&s;&s;e of others, who in their publicke Sermons have declared, that <HI>who&s;oever &s;hall di&s;&s;ent from the opinion of St.</HI> Tho|mas, <HI>is to be cen&s;ured for an Hereticke. O fortes verbi Dei Praecones! O powerfull Preachers of the word of God</HI> (&s;aith he;) <HI>or rather I may truly &s;ay of St.</HI> Thomas <HI>doctrine,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 7.</NOTE> <HI>for by this meanes it will come to pa&s;&s;e, that ble&s;&s;ed</HI> Bonaventure <HI>mu&s;t be cen&s;ured of here&s;ie,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. p. (mihi) <HI>31.</HI></NOTE> <HI>for he cro&s;&s;eth St.</HI> Thomas; <HI>and ble&s;&s;ed</HI> An|&s;elme <HI>mu&s;t be &s;u&s;pected of Here&s;ie, becau&s;e contrary to</HI> Thomas <HI>opinion, he thinketh him not a lover of our ble&s;sed Virgin who refu&s;eth to celebrate the Fea&s;t of her Conception.</HI></P>
<P>As this Author wrote a tract again&s;t Hereticks, &s;o likewi&s;e he profe&s;&s;eth that the head of the <HI>Ro|man</HI> Church, as well as the members are &s;ubject to that capitall accu&s;ation whereof you accu&s;e the Re|formers, and particularly he doth in&s;tance from <HI>Platina</HI> in Pope <HI>Liberius</HI> for an Arrian Hereticke, and Pope <HI>Ana&s;ta&s;ius</HI> for a favourer of the <HI>Ne&s;torian</HI>
<PB N="155" REF="86"> Heretickes, and withall hee re&s;olves the que&s;tion (which without all que&s;tion is &s;o to bee re&s;olved) that the Pope (which you make one of the infal|lible Rules of your Faith) may become an Here|ticke.</P>
<P>You &s;hall doe well therefore to forbeare your name <HI>[Catholicke]</HI> till you can free your Pope and his adherents from the markes of Heretickes. In the meane time I might more ju&s;tly retort your owne words, <HI>cum faenore,</HI> into your owne bo&s;ome, and &s;ay, <HI>We Reformed Catholickes, not onely &s;tile, but prove</HI> J. R. <HI>and the Romani&s;ts to be rightly &s;tiled by the common name of Heretickes.</HI></P>
<P>I proceed to the re&s;t of your accu&s;ations; <HI>Theo|doret</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>it wholly impertinent.</HI> Bellarmine <HI>his meaning is abu&s;ed, and his words corrupted.</HI> Fir&s;t touching <HI>Theodoret:</HI> his proofe (notwith&s;tanding your exception) &s;tands good; for if the agreement of both parties in the <HI>Nicene Councell,</HI> in his judge|ment, ought to have allayed the heate of contention in the Church of <HI>Antioch,</HI> I might well conclude much more, that the three Creeds, and the fir&s;t foure Generall Councels (wherein both &s;ides agree) ought to have abated the edge of your &s;harpe and bitter Invectives again&s;t our Church. And as for abu&s;ing of <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> I a&s;&s;ure you it was farre from my thoughts; and you cannot be ignorant that the inference, according to true meaning, &s;tandeth thus. If Prote&s;tants beleeve and hold all things nece&s;&s;arie for all Chri&s;tians, then are they not to be accomp|ted <HI>damned per&s;ons, and wor&s;e than Infidels:</HI> But
<PB N="156" REF="87"> they beleeve the Apo&s;tles Creed, they teach the ten Commandements, and admini&s;ter &s;ome few Sa|craments, which in your Cardinals opinion are tho&s;e things which are &s;imply nece&s;&s;arie for all to know and beleeve; and to this argument you an|&s;were nothing, but you quarrell about words. When I tran&s;late <HI>[nonnulla] a few Sacraments,</HI> you &s;ay I fal&s;ifie <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> for the word <HI>(few)</HI> is not there; and yet you know well, that by <HI>nonnulla</HI> hee doth not meane <HI>omnia,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Nonnulla</HI> is a diminutive terme &s;ignify|ing not none, that is, &s;ome, be they never &s;o few.</NOTE> and therefore tho&s;e which he meaneth are but few. The word <HI>utilia</HI> is in the &s;ame place of <HI>Bellarmine;</HI> and as for other words added or left out, they alter not the &s;en&s;e, nor are wee bound preci&s;ely to the words, but to the &s;en&s;e, in tran&s;lating a pa&s;&s;age out of any Au|thor.</P>
<P><HI>But</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>what man ever tooke</HI> Babylon <HI>for a true Church?</HI></P>
<P>If by <HI>Babylon</HI> you under&s;tand literally the anci|ent Citie of <HI>Chaldea,</HI> or that famous City in <HI>Aegypt,</HI> once called by the name of <HI>Memphis,</HI> and now of <HI>Cair,</HI> you know well that it is not my meaning &s;o to take it; (for you confe&s;&s;e that I otherwi&s;e ex|pre&s;&s;e my &s;elfe:) but that a particular Church (as namely your Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> which was &s;ome|times a &s;ound, that is, a right-beleeving Church) may afterwards fall into Here&s;ie, and become &s;pi|rituall and my&s;ticall <HI>Babylon,</HI> this is not onely my a&s;&s;ertion, but your <HI>Romani&s;ts</HI> and fellow Je&s;uites in the Church of <HI>Rome.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Ribera</HI> your fellow Je&s;uite of <HI>Salamanca</HI> in
<PB N="157" REF="87" MS="y"> <HI>Spaine,</HI> tells us by way of prevention; <HI>If</HI> Rome <HI>&s;hall commit the &s;ame things hereafter which &s;he com|mitted in the time of</HI> John, <HI>&s;he &s;hall be called</HI> Baby|lon <HI>againe; as it was in the ca&s;e of</HI> Hieru&s;alem <HI>which of a faithfull City once, became afterwards a Har|lot.</HI> And according to the Prophe&s;ie of St. <HI>John,</HI> he prote&s;teth in this manner; <HI>We know this truth &s;o per&s;picuou&s;ly by the words of the Revelation,</HI> Ut ne &s;tulci&s;&s;imus quidem negare po&s;&s;it, <HI>that the verie&s;t foole cannot deny the &s;ame.</HI> Then he concludes,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Riberae Com|ment. in Apoc. <HI>14.</HI> v. <HI>8.</HI> in c. <HI>14.</HI> num. <HI>31.</HI> n. <HI>32.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Since</HI> Babylon <HI>&s;hall be the &s;hop of all</HI> Idolatrie, <HI>and of all impieties, therefore it cannot be doubted, but that this &s;hall be the condition of</HI> Rome <HI>hereafter.</HI></P>
<P>I will come nearer to you: Your Monke <HI>Sige|bert</HI> about 500. yeares agoe interpreting the words of St. <HI>Peter (The Church at</HI> Babylon <HI>&s;alutes you</HI>) delivereth this doctrine:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Sigeb. Ep. p. (mihi) <HI>188.</HI> in . l. Golda&s;ti Re|plic.</NOTE> Hitherto <HI>Peter</HI> by <HI>Baby|lon</HI> did &s;ignifie <HI>Rome,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>Rome</HI> at that time was confounded with Idolatrie and all uncleanne&s;&s;e; but my griefe doth now interpret unto mee, that Peter <HI>by a Propheticke &s;pirit, by the Church of</HI> Baby|lon, <HI>fore&s;aw the confu&s;ion of di&s;&s;ention with which the Church of</HI> Rome <HI>at this day is rent in pieces.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Honorius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Anthun</HI> in <HI>France,</HI> &s;peaking of the fall of the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> not long after the &s;ame time, cryes out to the members of his Church, <HI>Turne to the Citizens of</HI> Babylon,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Honor. Augu&s;t. in Dial. de Prae|de&s;t. &amp; l. arbit.</NOTE> <HI>and &s;ee what they are; behold the buildings of that damned Citie, con&s;ider the principall per&s;ons there, and thou &s;halt finde the See of the Beast.</HI> Thus you &s;ee the fir&s;t <HI>Babylonian</HI> tels what he feared would come to pa&s;&s;e
<PB N="158" REF="88" MS="y"> in the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> hereafter; but the&s;e two la|ter proclaimed openly that <HI>Rome</HI> was become <HI>Ba|bylon</HI> many hundred yeares &s;ince, and for their loud cries their tongues are now cut out by the command of your Inqui&s;itors.</P>
<P>How unde&s;ervedly were the&s;e men puni&s;hed and forbidden to &s;peake the truth, let the Reader judge; but that which is ob&s;ervable, you raze the Records which te&s;tifie for us; you forbid them to &s;peake, if it make again&s;t your Church, and then you demand of us, What man ever tooke <HI>Babylon</HI> for <HI>Rome?</HI></P>
<P>I will give you one witne&s;&s;e more, who is an|cient and beyond exception, who &s;pake (as it were prophetically) of the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> in her mo&s;t flouri&s;hing &s;tate. St. <HI>Hierome</HI> writing to <HI>Marcella,</HI> a noble Lady, exhorteth her to depart from <HI>Rome,</HI> which he compares to <HI>Babylon.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Hier. ad Mar|cel. Ep. <HI>17.</HI> To~. <HI>1.</HI> p. (mihi) <HI>156.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Reade</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>the Revelation of St.</HI> John, <HI>and con&s;ider that which is there &s;aid of the woman clothed in purple, of the bla&s;phemy written in her forehead, of the &s;even Moun|taines, of the great waters, of the fall of</HI> Babylon: <HI>Goe out from thence my people,</HI> Babylon <HI>is falne, and is become the habitation of Divels, and the hold and cage of every foule &s;pirit.</HI></P>
<P>Now that wee might under&s;tand this was not &s;poken by him of <HI>heathen Rome,</HI> he adjoyneth the&s;e words following: <HI>E&s;t quidem ibi &s;ancta Eccle&s;ia: There is a true or holy Church, there are the Tro|phies of the Saints and Martyrs, there is the true confe&s;sion of Chri&s;t publi&s;hed by the Apo&s;tle. Ludo|vicus
<PB N="159" REF="88" MS="y"> Vives</HI> your very friend, in commenting upon this place, tells us, that St. <HI>Hierome</HI> thinketh there is no other <HI>Babylon</HI> de&s;cribed by St. <HI>John</HI> in the Revelation than the City of <HI>Rome;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Lud. Vives in Augu&s;t. de Civ. Dei, l. <HI>18.</HI> c. <HI>22.</HI></NOTE> <HI>But now</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>it hath put off the name of</HI> Babylon, <HI>there is no confu&s;ion now; you cannot buy any thing now in mat|ter of Religion, without a faire pretence of holy Law for &s;elling it, yet may you buy or &s;ell almo&s;t any kinde of cau&s;e holy or helli&s;h for money.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">In D. Augu&s;t. Annot. Ludov. Vives prohi|bentur ni&s;i cor|rigantur. Ind. l. prohibit. Cla&s;&s;. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> For this and the like pa&s;&s;ages, your <HI>Vives</HI> is forbidden till hee be purged.</P>
<P>I mu&s;t confe&s;&s;e I doe not thinke that the <HI>Rhemi&s;ts</HI> would have interpreted <HI>Babylon</HI> for <HI>Rome,</HI> if it had not beene to prove <HI>Peters</HI> being at <HI>Rome:</HI> It is hap|py therefore for you that <HI>Peter</HI> wrote his Epi&s;tle from <HI>Babylon,</HI> for otherwi&s;e your &s;ucce&s;&s;ion from <HI>Peter</HI> had beene que&s;tioned; and it is as well for us that you are contented to allow <HI>Babylon</HI> for <HI>Rome,</HI> for by this meanes your <HI>Antichri&s;tian</HI> Doctrine is di&s;covered, and your &s;ucce&s;&s;ion of <HI>Peters</HI> faith is quite aboli&s;hed.</P>
<P><HI>But</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>if you meane as you expre&s;&s;e your &s;elfe, that a true Church may bee depraved, I know not what to &s;ay, but to &s;top my eares again&s;t that mouth of bla&s;phemie:</HI> And is it bla&s;phemie to &s;ay, a true Church may be depraved? Sure I am it is not bla&s;phemie again&s;t the holy Gho&s;t; for the mouth of St. <HI>Paul</HI> hath &s;poken it in particular to the <HI>Roman Church,</HI> even at that time when &s;he was a mo&s;t in|corrupt Church; <HI>Towards thee goodnes,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. 11.22.</NOTE> <HI>if thou conti|nue in his goodne&s;&s;e, otherwi&s;e thou al&s;o &s;halt be cut off:</HI>
<PB N="160" REF="89"> And may not a Church (thinke you) be depraved, that is in po&s;&s;ibility of being cut off? What thinke you of the Church of <HI>Hieru&s;alem?</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s;alm. 48.19.</NOTE> Did not the Prophet <HI>David</HI> terme it the <HI>City of God?</HI> and was it not afterwards termed a <HI>Harlot</HI> by the Prophet <HI>E&s;ay?</HI> What &s;ay you to the Temple of <HI>Solomon?</HI> was it not termed by him,<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Kings. 8.20.</NOTE> <HI>the hou&s;e of Prayer?</HI> and in Chri&s;ts time was not that hou&s;e of Prayer be|come <HI>a denne of Theeves?</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Mat. 21.14.</NOTE> He that &s;ayes <HI>Antichri&s;t &s;hall &s;it in the Temple of God,</HI> doth plainely intimate, that the true Church may be depraved, and that be|fore his comming there was a true Church. <HI>What Babylon is</HI> (&s;aith learned <HI>Ca&s;aubon) thus much the matter it &s;elfe doth plainly &s;hew,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">In his an&s;wer to Card. <HI>Peron. p.</HI> 9. <HI>Eng.</HI></NOTE> <HI>that whether &s;ome private Church be under&s;tood in that place by the name of</HI> Babylon, <HI>or the greater part of the whole, it was before this a true Church, with which the religion might religiou&s;ly communicate; but after it was more depraved, the religious are commanded to goe out, and to breake off communion with her.</HI> And as touching the authority you cite, that <HI>he would be with them to the worlds end,</HI> that the <HI>Church is built upon a Rocke,</HI> that <HI>the gates of Hell &s;hould not prevaile again&s;t it;</HI> the&s;e promi&s;es (I &s;ay) concerne no more the particular <HI>Roman</HI> Church, than the &s;even Chur|ches of <HI>A&s;ia</HI> that are falne away. The bla&s;phemie then you lay to my charge (if any &s;uch be) is but again&s;t your <HI>Roman</HI> Church, and of &s;uch bla&s;phe|mie many of your be&s;t learned are guilty, in ac|knowledging a depravation of their faith, (not|with&s;tanding all the promi&s;es of Chri&s;t to the
<PB N="161" REF="89"> Catholicke and univer&s;all Church.)</P>
<P>Your Bi&s;hop of <HI>Bitonto</HI> by way of prevention cryes aloud in your Councell of <HI>Trent,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Cornel. in Con|cil. Trident.</NOTE> <HI>Would to God they were not wholly with generall con&s;ent gone from religion to &s;uper&s;tition; from faith to infidelitie, from Christ to Antichri&s;t.</HI> I could bring you a world of complaints again&s;t the falling away and depravation of your <HI>Roman</HI> Faith, but that your eares will not endure &s;uch bla&s;phemie. How&s;o|ever, &s;ince your be&s;t learned have acknowledged <HI>Babylon</HI> to bee meant by <HI>Rome,</HI> and that <HI>Rome</HI> is falne from her fir&s;t faith,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Jerem. 51.6.9.</NOTE> I &s;ay with the Prophet <HI>Jeremie, Fly out of the mid&s;t of</HI> Babylon, <HI>and deliver every man his &s;oule; we would have healed</HI> Babylon, <HI>but &s;he is not healed; for&s;ake her, and let us goe eve|rie one into his owne Country, for her judgement rea|cheth unto Heaven, and is lifted up even unto the skies.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. III.</HI> The &s;umme of his An&s;wer to my &s;econd and third Sections.</HEAD>
<P>IN the &s;econd Section he &s;aith I labour to prove the contention betwixt the Churches to proceed originally from them. The third Section is to prove the corruption both in faith and manners: Both which are ea&s;ily an&s;wered; Fir&s;t
<PB N="162" REF="90"> by asking, what is this to the purpo&s;e for the vi&s;i|ble Church? Secondly, with the contradiction of a former lye, he telleth a new one; for the Refor|mation was &s;ought for manners onely, and not for doctrine. This is the &s;ub&s;tance of your third Chap|ter, in an&s;wer to my &s;econd and third Sections.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="response to chapter">
<HEAD>The Reply.</HEAD>
<P>You have an&s;wered two Sections almo&s;t in two words; the fir&s;t, in denying it to be to the purpo&s;e; the latter, in giving me the lye: And thus like ano|ther <HI>Cae&s;ar</HI> you have briefly expre&s;&s;ed the expedi|tion of your victory in few words,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Veni, vidi, vici.</NOTE> <HI>I came, I &s;aw, I overcame.</HI></P>
<P>Fir&s;t, you demand, <HI>what is this to the purpo&s;e of a vi&s;ible Church?</HI> But I rather wonder to what purpo&s;e you make &s;uch a demand; For my Booke is entitled <HI>The Safe Way,</HI> not the vi&s;ibility of the Church. Yet let me tell you, the Authors which I cite are for the mo&s;t part members of your Church, and their authorities tend much to the proofe of a vi&s;ible Church, if your <HI>Index Expur|gat<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rius</HI> did not &s;punge them, and cau&s;e their te&s;ti|monies to be often invi&s;ible. For in&s;tance; in our behalfe I cite <HI>Ca&s;&s;ander:</HI> To <HI>Ca&s;&s;ander</HI> you an&s;wer, <HI>he is like your &s;elfe, an Hereticke, or next doore to them:</HI> and yet el&s;ewhere you &s;ay, <HI>with much adoe he may pa&s;&s;e for a Catholike.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Pag. <HI>21.</HI> Oportet e&s;&s;e memorem.</NOTE> I cite <HI>Cecenas</HI> Generall of the order of <HI>Franci&s;cans,</HI> as witne&s;&s;ing the vi&s;ibili|tie of our Church above 300. yeares agoe; you an|&s;wer, <HI>he was condemned for di&s;obedience and rebel|lion; for he &s;aid Pope</HI> John <HI>the</HI> 22. <HI>was an Apo&s;tata
<PB N="163" REF="90"> and an Hereticke, and therefore not true Pope:</HI> And in this manner you can ea&s;ily re&s;olve all doubts, and reject all Authors that &s;peake not <HI>Placentia,</HI> accor|ding to your pallate; onely (&s;ay you) St. <HI>Bede</HI> is a Catholicke. Now if you plea&s;e, take a review of the&s;e Authors. <HI>Ca&s;&s;ander</HI> (you know) was a lear|ned man, he was highly favoured for his wi&s;edome by two Emperours, <HI>Maximilian</HI> and <HI>Ferdinand;</HI> he was moderate in all his writings, he &s;ought to ex|tenuate the palpable errors and here&s;ies of your Church, he indevoured to accord, and (if it had beene po&s;&s;ible) to reconcile the differences on both &s;ides; and la&s;tly, he lived and died in the communion of the <HI>Roman</HI> Church. <HI>Cecenas</HI> was a Frier, and Generall of the Order of <HI>Franci&s;cans,</HI> he was con|demned <HI>de facto</HI> by the Pope; but it doth not ap|peare <HI>quo jure,</HI> by what right, for if the accu&s;ation were true, the Pope de&s;erved the puni&s;hment, and not the innocent Frier: li&s;ten therefore to the re|bellion and di&s;obedience for which he was accu&s;ed. <HI>Cecenas</HI> &s;hewes in particular that Pope <HI>John</HI> was a &s;chi&s;maticke and an heretike, in his peremptorie oppo&s;ition again&s;t the Word of God and the Ca|tholicke Church;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mich. de Cece|na tractat. con|tra errores Pa|pae p. (mihi) <HI>1314.</HI> &amp; <HI>1336</HI> in Tom. <HI>2.</HI> Gul. Occham. de Ju|ri&s;dictione Im|periali. Naucter. Ge|ner. <HI>45.</HI> Anno <HI>1324.</HI></NOTE> he charged him with twelve &s;e|verall errors, which you may reade at large in the place cited; and for tho&s;e and the like accu&s;ations he was excommunicated and depo&s;ed by the Pope. I confe&s;&s;e the accu&s;ation was capitall, but it was no other than was ju&s;tly laid to his charge. For <HI>Nau|clerus</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Many great and famous Divines of great learning and good life proclaimed Pope</HI> John <HI>(by the
<PB N="164" REF="91" MS="y"> name of Pope) to be an Hereticke for certaine errors; which errors notwith&s;tanding it is &s;aid that he</HI> (cold|ly) <HI>revoked at the time of his death;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Tepid&egrave;.</NOTE> and hee addes withall, that Pope <HI>Benedict</HI> his immediate &s;ucce&s;&s;or <HI>openly condemned the &s;ame errors.</HI> You &s;ee then it was not the <HI>Franci&s;can Frier</HI> onely, but many Di|vines both good and learned did condemne him of Here&s;ie; and not they alone, but the Pope him&s;elfe who &s;ucceeded him, publikely condemned him for an Hereticke. And thus much touching Pope <HI>John</HI> the 21. called by &s;ome the 22. There was ano|ther Pope <HI>John,</HI> by the name of 22. otherwi&s;e cal|led 23. who was living one hundred yeares after; he was cho&s;en Pope at<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Plat. in Joh. <HI>24.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Bononia, by the con&s;ent of all the Cardinals.</HI> Again&s;t this <HI>John,</HI> it was &s;pecially objected at the Councel of <HI>Con&s;tance,</HI><NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Quinimo dixit, &amp; perti|nacit&egrave;r credi|dit, animam hominis cum corpore humano mori, &amp; extin|gui ad in&s;tar animalium bru|torum. Concil. Con&s;tant.</NOTE> <HI>That he ob|&s;tinately held that the &s;oule of man dieth together with the body, and is con&s;umed to nothing, as the &s;oule of brute bea&s;ts:</HI> Neither did he hold this Tenet as a private man (which is your generall An&s;wer) for <HI>Antoninus</HI> &s;aith plainely, <HI>Pope</HI> John <HI>held this error in the time of his Popedome,</HI><NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">Johannes &s;er|mone~ faciens in publico con&s;i|&s;torio, dixit quadam haere|&s;in &s;apientia. Anton. part. <HI>3.</HI> tit. <HI>21.</HI> c. <HI>6.</HI></NOTE> <HI>and pronounced words &s;avouring of here&s;ie openly in the Con&s;i&s;torie.</HI> Nei|ther was this accu&s;ation of the&s;e men accounted rebellion and di&s;obedience in them, as it was in <HI>Ce|aenas;</HI> for (&s;aith <HI>Ger&s;on</HI>)<NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg">Fal&s;itas do|ctrinae Papae Jo|ha~nis, vice&s;si|mi, quae da~nata fuit cum &s;ono buccinarum vel tubarum coram Rege Philippo per Theologos Pari&s;ien&s;es. Ger&s;. &s;erm. in Fe&s;to Pa&s;chae Tom. <HI>4.</HI> pag. (mihi) <HI>491.</HI></NOTE> <HI>his fal&s;e doctrine was con|demned by the Divines of</HI> Paris, <HI>and proclaimed with &s;ound of trumpets in the pre&s;ence of King</HI> Philip; and withall the Councell it &s;elfe deprived him of his Popedome (which &s;hewes plainly, the authority of a Councell is above the Pope.) And to his depo|&s;ition
<PB N="165" REF="91" MS="y"> &s;ub&s;cribed 4. Patriarkes, 29. Cardinals, 47. Archbi&s;hops, 270. Bi&s;hops, 564. Abbots and Doctors, in all above 900. depo&s;ed both <HI>Benedict</HI> the 12. and <HI>John</HI> the 23. and yet the&s;e men are re|puted by you for an infallible Rule of the <HI>Roman</HI> Faith. And thus not onely <HI>Ceaenas</HI> was depo&s;ed for his di&s;obedience towards an Hereticke, and is now thru&s;t into your fir&s;t <HI>Cla&s;sis</HI> of <HI>damned Au|thors,</HI> but the whole <HI>Councell</HI> of <HI>Con&s;tance</HI> touching that Se&s;sion (where they decred the <HI>Councell</HI> to be above the <HI>Pope</HI>) is rejected, and di&s;avowed by your Church.</P>
<P>It is no difficult thing then to prove your infalli|ble Pope may bee an Hereticke; but if any man of your owne Church &s;hall &s;ay &s;o, and manife&s;tly prove it, yea although it be a generall Councell, it mu&s;t therefore be cen&s;ured and condemned by your Church: And this may briefly &s;erve in an&s;wer to what you &s;ay again&s;t my &s;econd Section.</P>
<P>The third Section (&s;ay you) is of corruption both in Faith and manners,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 50.</NOTE> which the Knight pro|veth out of the <HI>Councell</HI> of <HI>Pi&s;a,</HI> and out of the <HI>Councell</HI> of <HI>Trent; To which I an&s;were: For matter of manners wee willingly acknowledge a reforma|tion to be needfull, but for doctrine with the contra|diction of his owne former lye, hee telleth a new one.</HI></P>
<P>It is a true &s;aying of <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome, A lyar thinkes no man &s;peakes the truth;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Qui mendax e&s;t neminem verum putat dicere. Chry&s;. in Matth. Hom. <HI>19</HI></NOTE> But that the truth of my a&s;&s;ertion may appeare, looke upon the Letters of &s;ummons; they declare that the <HI>Councell</HI> was cal|led to <HI>reforme errors that concerned Faith;</HI> they
<PB N="166" REF="92"> &s;hew there was a due and whole&s;ome reformation to be made, a&s;well of the Church doctrine, as of the manners of men, for quieting the con&s;ciences of the faithfull: And accordingly Pope <HI>Alexander</HI> did a&s;&s;emble the mo&s;t learned of all Nations;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem dixit, quod ip&s;e vole|bat vacare cir|ca Reformatio|nem Eccle&s;iae, &amp;c. Acta Con|cil. Pi&s;. Se&s;&s;. <HI>20.</HI> Bin. Tom. <HI>3.</HI> Pars <HI>2.</HI> p (mihi) <HI>837.</HI></NOTE> the <HI>Cardi|nals</HI> did binde them&s;elves with an <HI>A&s;&s;ump&s;it,</HI> that they would not proceed to the election of a new Pope (when his predece&s;&s;ors <HI>Gregorie</HI> the 12. and <HI>Benedict</HI> the 13. were depo&s;ed) unle&s;&s;e the Pope would agree to a reformation in the <HI>Head</HI> and <HI>Members;</HI> and will you &s;ay the Pope did a&s;&s;emble the mo&s;t learned of all Nations to teach good man|ners onely? Cardinall <HI>de Aliaco</HI> was living in his dayes:<NOTE PLACE="marg">De &s;quallor. Rom. Eccle&s;. p. <HI>34.</HI> in Biblioth. We&s;tmona&s;teri|en&s;i. Ger&s;. declaratio defect. viroru~.</NOTE> he complaines that <HI>Pagan abu&s;es, and dia|bolicall &s;uper&s;titions were &s;o many in the Church, that they could not be imagined.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Ger&s;on</HI> (Chancellor of <HI>Paris</HI>) complained of particular errors, that <HI>Images in Churches occa&s;io|ned Idolatrie; Apocryphall Scriptures were brought into the Church, to the great damage of Chri&s;tian Faith.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Occham compe~|dium contr. er|rores Papae p. <HI>957.</HI> Incipit Prologus.</NOTE> Looke into the age before him; <HI>Occham</HI> (a Frier Minorite) cries out, <HI>Alas the time of which the ble&s;&s;ed Apo&s;tle prophe&s;ied (when men will not &s;uf|fer whole&s;ome doctrine) is altogether fulfilled in our eares; For behold there are many that pervert the holy Scriptures, deny the &s;ayings of the holy Fathers, reject the Canons of the Church, and civill Con&s;titu|tions of the Emperors.</HI> Looke into the age before him;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Matth. Pari&s;. p. <HI>843.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Gro&s;thead</HI> (Bi&s;hop of <HI>Lincolne</HI>) complaines that <HI>there was a defection, a revolt, an Apo&s;ta&s;ie from the true Faith.</HI> Looke into <HI>Bernards</HI> time, and there
<PB N="167" REF="92"> you &s;hall finde by his owne confe&s;&s;ion,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bernard. in Cant. Serm <HI>33.</HI> p. (mihi) <HI>673.</HI></NOTE> <HI>The wound of the Church was inward, and pa&s;t recoverie.</HI> The&s;e former complaints and grievances in the Church did &s;ound aloud in the eares of the later ages, and &s;he made great mourning and lamentation for her children, becau&s;e they were not &s;uch as &s;he fir&s;t bred them; and accordingly no doubt they wi&s;hed for a reformation of errors in doctrine, as well as Di&s;ci|pline in the Church.</P>
<P>Looke after Pope <HI>Alexanders</HI> time, and before the Councell of <HI>Trent,</HI> and your Bi&s;hop of <HI>Bitonto</HI> will &s;hew you the &s;tate and mi&s;erable condition of your Church, as it were in a Gla&s;&s;e.<NOTE PLACE="marg">In Ep. ad Ro|man. c. <HI>6.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Alas</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>how were the Scriptures neglected in the later Ages, to the detriment of all people!</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Rivet. Sum. Controv. p. (mi|hi) <HI>98.</HI></NOTE> <HI>There was then in re|que&s;t a tedious and crabbed Divinitie about Relati|ons, about quiddities and formalities; and all tho&s;e things were handled and wre&s;ted with Syllogi&s;mes and humane Sophi&s;trie, which (without doubt) by the &s;ame authority as they were received, might be refelled. The whole Age was &s;pent about the decrees of men, which were contradictory among&s;t them&s;elves, and ir|reconcilable, and nouri&s;hed perpetuall contention. He was accounted the be&s;t Divine, that knew be&s;t how to devi&s;e the greate&s;t wonders for his Traditions. It was a part of their honour and vaine glory to &s;peake bigge words with great lookes among women, not to be un|der&s;tood when they di&s;puted of the Scriptures. The Preachers of the word were all &s;worne to the word of their Ma&s;ters: and from hence &s;prung &s;ixe hundred Sects; as namely,</HI> Thomi&s;ts, Scoti&s;ts, Occhami&s;ts,
<PB N="168" REF="93"> Alexandrians, &amp;c. <HI>O heinous wickedne&s;&s;e! The Go&s;|&s;pels and Epi&s;tles of the Apo&s;tles were laid a&s;ide, true Divinitie lay hid, and was handled of very few; but coldly, I will not &s;ay, unfaithfully.</HI></P>
<P>In what &s;tate the Church remained in tho&s;e dayes, when <HI>Papall Traditions</HI> and cunning <HI>Sophi|&s;try</HI> prevailed again&s;t the &s;acred Scriptures, let the Reader judge:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Onus Eccle&s;iae c. <HI>16.</HI> p. (mihi) <HI>79</HI></NOTE> Your owne St. <HI>Francis</HI> foretold <HI>that the times were at hand, wherein many differences &s;hould ari&s;e in the Church, when charitie &s;hould waxe cold, iniquity &s;hould abound, and the Divell &s;hould be let loo&s;e, and that the purity of his Roman Religion &s;hould be depraved;</HI> and accordingly (&s;aith my Au|thor) the Image of the Cro&s;&s;e in the Church of St. <HI>Damian</HI> &s;pake unto him;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Vade, repara domum meam, quae ut cernis, tota labitur.</NOTE> <HI>Goe and repaire my hou&s;e which you &s;ee is altogether decayed.</HI> Thus Bi|&s;hops, and Friers, and Images, &s;tocks and &s;tones cried out of the falling away of your Church (if we may credit your owne Authors) and yet by no meanes you will a&s;&s;ent to a reformation of doctrine or manners.</P>
<P>At <HI>Luthers</HI> fir&s;t ri&s;ing, which was almo&s;t 30. yeares before the Councell of <HI>Trent,</HI> your <HI>Guicciar|dine</HI> tells us,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Guicciard. Hi&s;t. lib. <HI>13.</HI></NOTE> that there were that yeare many mee|tings at <HI>Rome,</HI> to con&s;ult what was be&s;t to be done. The more wi&s;e and moderate &s;ort wi&s;hed the Pope to reforme things apparently ami&s;&s;e, and not to per&s;ecute <HI>Luther. Hieronymus Savanarola</HI> told the French King, <HI>Charles</HI> the 8. he &s;hould have great pro&s;peritie in his voyage into <HI>Italie, to the end hee &s;hould reforme the &s;tate of the Church, which if he did
<PB N="169" REF="93"> not reforme, he &s;hould returne with di&s;honour; and &s;o</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>it fell out.</HI></P>
<P>I come to the Councell of <HI>Trent</HI> it &s;elfe, where you may reade many decrees for reformation, and yet neither doctrine nor manners reformed. But let us heare your owne confe&s;&s;ion. <HI>It is true, the Councell indeed complaineth with great rea&s;on of the avarice of &s;uch whom the Knight calleth the Popes Collectors, though the Councell &s;peaketh not of the Pope: but fal&s;e it is which he &s;aith, that the Councell complaineth of Indulgences, an Article of faith (as his words are.) The Councell likewi&s;e complaineth of many things crept into the celebration of the Ma&s;&s;e, and the words of the Councell are right cited by him in Latin in the Margent, but in the Engli&s;h he foully corrupteth them: For in &s;tead of</HI> many things, <HI>hee tran&s;lated</HI> many errors, <HI>which is a gro&s;&s;e errour and corruption in the Knight.</HI></P>
<P>The&s;e be your grand exceptions to the gro&s;&s;e corruptions laid unto my charge; but all this while you doe not di&s;charge the accu&s;ations laid ju&s;tly to your Church. And in this I mu&s;t needs &s;ay, you play the Hypocrite, <HI>who can di&s;cerne a mote in your Brothers eye, and cannot &s;ee a beame in your owne:</HI> Fir&s;t therfore ca&s;t the beame out of your own eye, and then you &s;hall ea&s;ily di&s;ccrne without Specta|cles, that the <HI>Collectors</HI> of <HI>Indulgences</HI> are the <HI>Popes Collectors,</HI> although the Pope is not mentio|ned in that place; and <HI>Indulgences</HI> are an Article of Faith created by that Councell, although the Councell proclaime it not an Article of Faith: &s;o
<PB N="170" REF="94"> that <HI>(multa)</HI> many things, might well &s;tand for ma|ny errors and corruptions, &s;ince they were errors in practi&s;e. Neither would I have &s;et the Latin in the Margent if I had meant to corrupt them in Engli&s;h; and withall, if you had taken the la&s;t edition (as you ought to have done) you &s;hould have found them in another <HI>Character,</HI> and then all your wa&s;te words of <HI>foule corruptions,</HI> had beene needle&s;&s;e. But in this you re&s;emble <HI>Palladius</HI> a lewd fellow, who in like manner charged St. <HI>Hierome</HI> with fal&s;ifications and fal&s;e tran&s;lations: <HI>He preacheth and publi&s;heth abroad</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Hierome) that I am a fal&s;arie,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Hieron. ad Pa~|mich. de optimo genere inter|pret. Tom. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> <HI>that I have not preci&s;ely tran&s;lated word for word, that I, in &s;tead of the word</HI> Honourable, <HI>have written the&s;e words,</HI> Deerely beloved: <HI>The&s;e things and &s;uch trifles</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>are laid unto my charge.</HI> Now heare what An|&s;wer St. <HI>Hierome</HI> makes; <HI>Whereas the Epi&s;tle it &s;elfe declareth, that there is no alteration made in the &s;en&s;e, and that there is neither matter of &s;ub&s;tance ad|ded, nor any doctrine devi&s;ed by me, verily by their great cunning they prove them&s;elves fooles, and &s;ee|king to reprove other mens unskilfulne&s;&s;e, they betray their owne.</HI> Let us heare therefore the re&s;t of your <HI>Things</HI> (for &s;o you will have me terme them) which are crept into your Church, and need a Refor|mation.</P>
<P><HI>The Councell</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>&s;eemeth to acknowledge the avarice of Prie&s;ts in &s;aying Ma&s;&s;e for mony, was not farre from Symonie. It &s;peaketh of the u&s;e of Mu|&s;icke, wherewith &s;ome wantonne&s;&s;e was mixed, as al&s;o of certaine Ma&s;&s;es or Candles u&s;ed in certaine num|ber,
<PB N="171" REF="94"> proceeding rather from &s;uper&s;tition than true Religion.</HI> This you confe&s;&s;e is true in your Coun|cell, but to the&s;e you an&s;wer nothing.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Concil. Trid. Se&s;&s;. <HI>22.</HI> Can. <HI>9.</HI></NOTE> You might have added to the&s;e abu&s;es both <HI>Super&s;tition</HI> and <HI>Idolatry</HI> in the Ma&s;&s;e, for your <HI>Councell</HI> confe&s;&s;eth them both: and I thinke it toucheth your errors in Doctrine. But have you reformed all or any of the&s;e things? Is your &s;uper&s;titious number of <HI>Ma&s;&s;es</HI> and lights in the Church abated? Are your la&s;civious and wanton &s;ongs, &s;et to the Organs, and mingled with other Church mu&s;icke, redre&s;&s;ed? Is your covetou&s;ne&s;&s;e in Prie&s;ts, with their <HI>Super&s;ti|tion</HI> and <HI>Idolatry</HI> in the <HI>Ma&s;&s;e,</HI> aboli&s;hed? The&s;e cor|ruptions are <HI>things</HI> and <HI>things</HI> (as you call them) and &s;uch as I wonder your <HI>Councell</HI> was not a&s;hamed to confe&s;&s;e, much more to tolerate,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mirae mirae en|tis Res. Juve|nal.</NOTE> or rather to pra|ctice in the daily &s;acrifice of your <HI>Ma&s;&s;e.</HI> I ha&s;ten to the <HI>Reformation in doctrine:</HI> but you tell me <HI>it is a Lye,</HI> the Councell never intended it; I in&s;tance in private <HI>Ma&s;&s;e,</HI> Latin <HI>Service, &amp;c.</HI> You an&s;wer it <HI>is mo&s;t fal&s;e, for the doctrine is the &s;ame &s;till, and ever was.</HI></P>
<P>I perceive your pa&s;&s;ion makes you much forget your &s;elfe: for your doctrine (I confe&s;&s;e) which is commonly received, is the &s;ame now, that was de|creed in the <HI>Councell</HI> of <HI>Trent;</HI> but that is was ever the &s;ame, as now it is, all the Colledge of Cardi|nals and Je&s;uits cannot prove. Looke upon your owne confe&s;&s;ion in tho&s;e two particular in&s;tances: Your <HI>private Ma&s;&s;e,</HI> where the Prie&s;t communi|cates alone, is not the &s;ame now, as it was hereto|fore;
<PB N="172" REF="95"> For (&s;ay you) <HI>it was the practi&s;e of the Primi|tive Church for the people to communicate every day with the Prie&s;t.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Spectacl. pag. <HI>191.</HI></NOTE> Your Prayer in an unknowne tongue is not the &s;ame now as it was heretofore, for (&s;ay you) <HI>Prayer and Service in the vulgar Tongue was u&s;ed in the fir&s;t and be&s;t Ages;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 271.</NOTE> and now the vul|gar is become the Latin unknown tongue. Take heed therefore of the&s;e confe&s;&s;ions, for by &s;uch palpable contradictions you may lo&s;e your <HI>Pro&s;elytes,</HI> and bring the Lye upon your &s;elfe.</P>
<P>Againe, you confe&s;&s;e that the <HI>Councell</HI> wi&s;heth that the &s;tanders by <HI>did communicate, not onely &s;pi|ritually,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 53.</NOTE> <HI>but al&s;o &s;acramentally:</HI> and doth not your Church in this wi&s;h a reformation in doctrine? Doth it not in this preferre the practice of the re|formed Churches before their owne, and in a man|ner confe&s;&s;e an error in the allowed practice of the <HI>Roman Church?</HI> Your Councell commands Pa&s;tors that have care of &s;oules, to expound that to the peo|ple, which is delivered in the Ma&s;&s;e in an unknowne tongue; and doe not tho&s;e that require the Prie&s;ts to expound it to the people, &s;hew likewi&s;e that without &s;uch expo&s;ition the people are little better for the Ma&s;&s;e, and that the Church intended the people &s;hould under&s;tand it? What is this el&s;e, but to joyne hands with the Prote&s;tants, and to acknow|ledge a reformation needfull in your Church, for requiring Service to bee celebrated in a knowne tongue, that the people may under&s;tand it? But that I may make good my a&s;&s;ertion, and that the Reader may know I have &s;aid nothing but the
<PB N="173" REF="95" MS="y"> truth, in affirming the <HI>Councell</HI> of <HI>Trent</HI> did make decrees for Reformation for doctrine as well as manners, looke upon the &s;econd <HI>Se&s;sion,</HI> and tell me if they did not profe&s;&s;e a reall intention in both. The words of the Se&s;sion are the&s;e;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Concil. Trid. Se&s;&s;. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Whereas it is the &s;peciall care and intention of the Councell, that (the darkene&s;&s;e of Here&s;ie being expelled, which &s;o many yeares hath covered the earth) the light and purity of the Catholicke truth may &s;hine, through the helpe of Chri&s;t which is the true light; and that tho&s;e things which need reformation may be reformed; the Synod exhorteth all Catholickes a&s;&s;embled, or to be a&s;&s;embled, and e&s;pecially tho&s;e who are skilful in the &s;acred Scrip|tures, that with continuall meditation they may dili|gently con&s;ider with them&s;elves how the&s;e things may bee effected; that they may condemne tho&s;e things which are to be condemned, and approve tho&s;e things which are to be approved, that the whole world with one mouth, and confe&s;sion of one and the &s;ame faith, may glorifie God the Father, and our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</HI> Take a review of the words of your Coun|cell; Fir&s;t, <HI>Praecipua cura &amp; intentio, ut propul&s;a|tis errorum tenebris, quae per tot annos operiarunt terram;</HI> the chiefe care to di&s;pell the darkene&s;&s;e of errour which covered the earth: which words cannot be meant of the Prote&s;tant doctrine. For our light is pretended by you to be lately come in, and but in a part or corner of the world. Secondly, <HI>peritiam habeant &s;acrarum literarum, ut &s;edul&acirc; me|ditatione &s;ecum ip&s;i cogitent, &amp;c. ut probare proban|da, &amp; damnare damnanda queant.</HI> There needed
<PB N="174" REF="96"> not this diligence and skill in Scriptures for <HI>Luthers</HI> Religion, for they were condemned before by the Pope. Thirdly, <HI>Nullus debeat &amp;c. ob&s;tinatis di&s;cep|tationibus contendere,</HI> which &s;hould not be about <HI>Lutheran</HI> points, but about doctrines of their owne. Fourthly, in the third Section, <HI>de extirpandis hae|re&s;ibus, &amp;c.</HI> which (&s;ay they) is <HI>adver&s;us &s;piritua|les nequitias in caele&s;tibus,</HI> which heavenly places are meant by their owne Church, not by <HI>Luthers,</HI> as is mo&s;t evident. For they would never acknow|ledge our Churches heavenly places.</P>
<P>Now I pray, what thinke you of your Coun|cels Decrees? Will not they extend to a Reforma|tion in doctrine? or will you &s;ay that Here&s;ies in manners crept into the Church, and the mo&s;t lear|ned in the Scriptures were chiefly to be imployed for reforming them, that thereby there might be one Faith of Papi&s;ts and Prote&s;tants through the Chri&s;tian world?<NOTE PLACE="marg">De extirpan|dis haere&s;ibus, &amp; moribus re|formandis, quo|rum cau&s;a prae|cipue e&s;t con|gregata. Se&s;&s;. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> Looke upon the <HI>third Se&s;sion,</HI> and there likewi&s;e you &s;hall finde a Decree for roo|ting out of <HI>Here&s;ies</HI> in doctrine, a&s;well as rectifying of manners and the di&s;cipline of the Church; and for <HI>both tho&s;e cau&s;es</HI> (&s;aith your Decree) <HI>the Councell was principally called.</HI> It is a mo&s;t evident truth then (how&s;oever you redouble the lie upon me) that the Councell did intend a Reformation in do|ctrine; for otherwi&s;e, to what end &s;hould the Pope &s;ummon all Chri&s;tian Bi&s;hops out of all Nations, even at that time when the Prote&s;tants were in number infinite, and had di&s;covered and proclai|med the errors of the <HI>Roman</HI> Church? Be&s;ides, to
<PB N="175" REF="96"> what purpo&s;e were tho&s;e di&s;putes and oppo&s;itions in the Councell again&s;t particular points of Do|ctrine, if they had not beene adjudged erroneous, and needed a reformation? But herein the Reader &s;hall ea&s;ily di&s;cerne the policie of your Church. At the fir&s;t calling of the Councell (when the&s;e fir&s;t Se&s;&s;ions were made) the number of Bi&s;hops were but few, (about 40.) but after the faction of the Popes creatures in multitude prevailed, all hope of reformation was abandoned; And thereupon the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Apulia</HI> publikely declared, that the <HI>Trent</HI> Fathers <HI>were nothing el&s;e but the Popes crea|tures, and his bond&s;laves;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">See <HI>Craken|thorpe.</HI></NOTE> and accordingly there was an oath propo&s;ed &s;everally to be taken in this manner;</P>
<P><HI>I vow and &s;weare true obedience to the Bi&s;hop of</HI> Rome, <HI>&amp;c.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Bulla Pii <HI>4.</HI></NOTE> <HI>And all other things likewi&s;e doe I un|doubtedly receive and confe&s;&s;e, which are delivered, defined, and declared by the &s;acred Canons, and gene|rall Councels, and e&s;pecially the holy Councell of Trent; and withall, I condemne, reject, and accur&s;e all things that are contrary hereunto, and all Here&s;ies what&s;oever, condemned, rejected, and accur&s;ed by the Church; and that I will be carefull this true Ca|tholike faith (out of the which no man can be &s;aved, which at this time I willingly profe&s;&s;e and truly hold) be con&s;tantly (with Gods helpe) retained and confe&s;|&s;ed whole and inviolate to the la&s;t ga&s;pe; and by tho&s;e that are under me, or &s;uch as I &s;hall have charge over in my calling, holden, taught and preached, to the uttermost of my power: I the &s;aid</HI> N. <HI>promi&s;e, vow,
<PB N="176" REF="97"> and &s;weare, So God me helpe, and his holy Go&s;pels.</HI></P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Andr. Dudi|thius in Ep. ad Maximil. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE><HI>Now what good</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Dudithius) could be done in that Councell, which onely numbred, but never weighed &s;uffrages? Though our cau&s;e was never &s;o good, we could not come off with victory; for to every one of us, the Pope was able to oppo&s;e an hundred of his owne.</HI> This Author was &s;ent as Amba&s;&s;ador to the Councell from the &s;tate and Clergy of <HI>Hungarie,</HI> and he confirmes what I have te&s;tified of their pro|ceedings. But ob&s;erve the my&s;terie of iniquitie di&s;played in your Councell, after it had continued eighteen years, and during the lives of eight Popes, in conclu&s;ion they declared in their la&s;t Se&s;sion,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Se&s;&s;. <HI>25.</HI> c. <HI>1.</HI> Decret. de Refor. p. <HI>312.</HI></NOTE> contrarie to their former decree of Reformation, that the Synod was (chiefly) called <HI>for re&s;toring of Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall di&s;cipline;</HI> and hereby is plainly di&s;|covered their <HI>deceivablene&s;&s;e of unrighteou&s;ne&s;&s;e;</HI> in&s;omuch as I may truly &s;ay with that learned Gentleman and Tran&s;lator of the <HI>Trent</HI> Hi&s;torie, <HI>The Bi&s;hops of</HI> Rome,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Sir <HI>Nathaniel Brent</HI> in Ep. to the Hi&s;torie of <HI>Trent.</HI></NOTE> <HI>in &s;tead of being Chri&s;ts holy Vicars, as they pretend, have beene the greate&s;t, and mo&s;t pernicious quack&s;alving Juglers that ever the earth did beare.</HI> Tho&s;e Bi&s;hops therefore that boa&s;t of the Law of God, and make as it were a covenant with him, to renew the ancient Faith, and re&s;tore it to her fir&s;t integritie (as your <HI>Trent</HI> Bi&s;hops pro|fe&s;&s;ed) let them con&s;ider with them&s;elves how neare that Prophe&s;ie of <HI>David</HI> doth concerne them, who deny a Reformation; For <HI>unto the ungodly</HI> (&s;aid <HI>God) why do&s;t thou preach my Lawes,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s;al. 50.16, 17.</NOTE> <HI>and take&s;t my Covenant in thy mouth, whereas thou hate&s;t to bee
<PB N="177" REF="97"> reformed, and ha&s;t ca&s;t my words behinde thee.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. IV.</HI> The &s;umme of his An&s;wer to my Fourth Section.</HEAD>
<P>TO this Section, the title whereof is, <HI>That many learned Romani&s;ts have falne from the Catholike Faith to be Prote&s;tants,</HI> he &s;aith, the Catholike Faith is indivi&s;ible, and they that re|nounce it in part, renounce it in all: Hee affirmeth that in Prie&s;ts, who cannot conteine, to marry, it is a greater &s;inne than to keepe a concubine. This is the &s;ub&s;tance of his fourth Chapter, in an&s;wer to my fourth Section.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="response to chapter">
<HEAD>The Reply.</HEAD>
<P>I &s;hewed in my fourth Section, that many learned <HI>Romani&s;ts,</HI> convicted by evidence of truth, either in part, or in whole, renounced Poperie be|fore their death.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 58.</NOTE> <HI>That &s;ome have renounced the &s;ame in part</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>is fooli&s;hly &s;aid, for no man can re|nounce the Catholike Faith in part, it being indi|vi&s;ible.</HI></P>
<P>If I &s;hall prove your a&s;&s;ertion to bee a &s;trange Paradoxe, the fooli&s;hne&s;&s;e will returne into your owne bo&s;ome. For the better illu&s;tration therefore of your Tenet,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Oratio in lau|dem Athana&s;ii.</NOTE> heare what divi&s;ion <HI>Gregory Nazi|anzen</HI> makes upon that ground: <HI>When one taketh
<PB N="178" REF="98" MS="y"> up water in his hand</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>not onely that which he taketh not up, but that al&s;o which runneth forth, and findeth pa&s;&s;age betweene his fingers, is divided and &s;eparated from that which he holdeth and inclo&s;eth in his hand: &s;o not onely the open and profe&s;&s;ed enemies of the Catholike Faith, but they al&s;o that &s;eeme to be her be&s;t and greate&s;t friends, are &s;ometimes divided one from another.</HI> What thinke you of this ancient Father? Is your Faith indivi&s;ible by his Doctrine? or will you &s;ay it is fooli&s;hly &s;poken of him? But (&s;ay you) <HI>he that cea&s;eth to beleeve one point, cea&s;eth to beleeve any one as he &s;hould:</HI> And is this wi&s;ely &s;poken thinke you? Is not this your latter error greater than the fir&s;t? For proofe therefore of your a&s;&s;ertion, &s;hew mee that man, who before the Councell of <HI>Trent</HI> held all the points of your Faith, as they are now taught and received in your Church; I &s;ay, give me but one &s;ince the Apo&s;les time, who within the compa&s;&s;e of fifteene hundred yeares beleeved all your doctrines of Faith, en|tirely in all points, and for that one mans &s;ake, I will confe&s;&s;e your Faith is <HI>indivi&s;ible,</HI> and &s;ubmit my obedience to your Church.</P>
<P>Your <HI>Index Expurgatorius</HI> di&s;covers the weak|ne&s;&s;e of your opinion: I &s;peake not of Authors which were condemned in your fir&s;t and third <HI>Cla&s;sis</HI> for Heretikes, but of tho&s;e <HI>Romani&s;ts</HI> who in the &s;econd <HI>Cla&s;sis</HI> are purged for their <HI>&s;u&s;pected doctrine</HI> (as you terme it) and yet never for&s;ooke your Church;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Propter &s;u&s;pe|ctam doctrinam Ind. lib prohibit.</NOTE> I dare confidently avow, that there are above foure hundred of tho&s;e Cla&s;sicall Au|thors,
<PB N="179" REF="98" MS="y"> all members of the Roman Church, never excommunicated, never condemned for here&s;ie in your Church, and yet are commanded by your In|qui&s;itors to be blotted out in &s;ome particular points of doctrine, which make again&s;t your <HI>Trent</HI> Faith. If the&s;e men therefore have renounced your Faith in part, how is your Faith indivi&s;ible? Or If they cea&s;e to beleeve one point, why doth your Church cite their te&s;timonies, and allow their opinions in other doctrines con&s;onant to your Church, when as (by your Tenet) he that cea&s;eth to beleeve one point, cea&s;eth to beleeve any one as he &s;hould? If you &s;hould for&s;ake all Authors that for&s;ake your doctrine in part (or in &s;ome particular points) you will generally &s;uffer a <HI>Recoverie</HI> again&s;t your owne Church. I will give you but one in&s;tance. It is the common Tenet of the <HI>Roman</HI> Church at this day, that the ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Virgin</HI> was conceived without originall &s;inne: yet the contrarie Tenet is likewi&s;e maintained by the members of your owne Church. <HI>Ludovicus Vives</HI> tells us, that <HI>two orders of Friers,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ludov. Vives in lib. <HI>20.</HI> de Ci|vit. Dei. cap. <HI>26.</HI> p. <HI>828.</HI></NOTE> <HI>both fierce, and both led with undaunted Generals, &s;et this que&s;tion a foote; the</HI> Dominicans <HI>by</HI> Thomas Aquinas, <HI>and the</HI> Franci&s;cans <HI>by</HI> Duns Seotus: <HI>the Councell of</HI> Ba&s;ill <HI>decreed, that &s;hee was wholly pure without all touch of &s;inne, but the</HI> Dominicans <HI>obje|cted that it was no lawfull Councell, and the</HI> Mino|rites <HI>of the other &s;ide avowed that it was true and ho|ly, and called the</HI> Dominicans <HI>Heretikes for &s;tande|ring the power of the Church; &s;o that the matter had come to a &s;hrewd pa&s;&s;e, but that Pope</HI> Sixtus <HI>forbad
<PB N="180" REF="99" MS="y"> this Theame to be any more di&s;puted.</HI></P>
<P>To proceed to the re&s;t of your ob&s;ervations. I produced for a witne&s;&s;e <HI>Paulus Vergerius,</HI> who re|nounced Poperie, being a <HI>Romi&s;h</HI> Bi&s;hop, by the te&s;timonies of <HI>Sleidan,</HI> and <HI>O&s;iander;</HI> I cited the Councell of <HI>Ba&s;il,</HI> for di&s;pen&s;ing with the cup to the Lay people; <HI>Aeneas Sylvius</HI> for Mariage of Prie&s;ts; Mr. <HI>Harding</HI> again&s;t your private <HI>Ma&s;&s;e;</HI> Mr. <HI>Ca|&s;aubon</HI> for your tran&s;lating of the Scriptures; Lord <HI>Cooke</HI> for the Papi&s;ts frequenting our <HI>Churches,</HI> till the 11^t^h. of Qu. <HI>Eli&s;abeth:</HI> Now let the Reader judge of your moderate and learned confutation: Fir&s;t,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 59.</NOTE> <HI>Sleidan</HI> and <HI>O&s;iander</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>are notorious fellowes both for lying and here&s;ie;</HI> Paulus Verge|rius, <HI>when he dyed, ca&s;t forth a horrible &s;tench, and roared mo&s;t fearefully like an Oxe; The Councell of</HI> Ba&s;ile <HI>(you know) is of little or no authoritie with Catholikes, as being reproved by the Sea Apo&s;tolicke;</HI> Aeneas Sylvius, <HI>what hee wrote in the time of that Councell, is revoked by him in his Bull of Retractati|ons;</HI> Touching <HI>Ca&s;aubon,</HI> you &s;ay <HI>there is &s;hame enough in &s;tore for us both;</HI> Touching the Lord <HI>Cooke, he was &s;oundly an&s;wered by a Catholicke Di|vine, and &s;o expo&s;ed to the &s;corne of the world for his notorious fal&s;hoods.</HI></P>
<P>The&s;e be your &s;everall an&s;wers, and this is a confutation of their authorities: but I &s;ay to you, if the&s;e men have &s;poken untruth, beare witne&s;&s;e of their fal&s;hood, if otherwi&s;e they delivered the truth, why do you reproach them? Either let their proofs bee plainly and moderately confuted, or <HI>let the
<PB N="181" REF="99" MS="y"> lying lips</HI> (&s;aith <HI>David) be put to &s;ilence,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s;alm. 31.20.</NOTE> <HI>which cru|elly, di&s;dainfully, and de&s;pightfully &s;peake again&s;t the righteous.</HI></P>
<P>Such as is your charitie, &s;uch is your cha&s;titie: for when I cite your Je&s;uite <HI>Co&s;terus</HI> for a witne&s;&s;e,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Co&s;ter. Enchir. cap. <HI>17.</HI> propo. <HI>9.</HI> Pag. <HI>64.</HI></NOTE> that a <HI>Prie&s;t doth &s;inne more grievou&s;ly in marrying a wife, than keeping a concubine,</HI> you &s;coffingly re|turne me this an&s;were: <HI>You &s;eeme to take this for a great error, but in Prie&s;ts who cannot marrie, it is a greater &s;inne to marrie, for it is not marriage.</HI> Thus you.</P>
<P>And is the marriage of Prie&s;ts no marriage? Was there no marriage in all the Tribe of <HI>Levi?</HI> What will become of all the &s;onnes of <HI>Aaron?</HI> were they all ba&s;tards?<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ignatius ad Philadelph.</NOTE> <HI>I wi&s;h</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Ignatius) that I may be found meet before God to follow their &s;teps which raigne in his Kingdome; as namely,</HI> Abra|ham, I&s;aac, Jacob, Jo&s;eph, <HI>and</HI> E&s;ay, <HI>and other Prophets; of</HI> Peter <HI>and</HI> Paul, <HI>and other Apo&s;tles, who lived in matrimonie, and u&s;ed conjugall rites.</HI> And in conclu&s;ion hee an&s;weres your a&s;&s;ertion in the&s;e words; <HI>If any man call lawfull copulation and procreation of children,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem, ibid.</NOTE> <HI>corruption and unclean|ne&s;&s;e, that man hath a &s;erpent, the Devill (that fell from God) dwelling in him.</HI></P>
<P>Againe,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Grat. Par. <HI>1.</HI> di&s;t. <HI>56.</HI> fol. <HI>67.</HI> O&s;ius Palea.</NOTE> your owne <HI>Gratian</HI> tells us from Pope <HI>Dama&s;us,</HI> that many Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome</HI> were Prie&s;ts &s;onnes, as namely Pope <HI>Ho&s;ius, Bonifacius, Agape|tus, Theodorus, Silverius, Deusdedit, Faelix, Gela|&s;ius,</HI> all the&s;e were Popes, and Prie&s;ts &s;onnes: and then he concludes;<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Co~plures eti|am alii inveni|antur, qui de &s;acerdotibus nati, Apo&s;tolicae &s;edi praefueru~t. Ibid.</NOTE> <HI>There were many others al&s;o to
<PB N="180" REF="100" MS="y">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="181" REF="100" MS="y">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="182" REF="101" MS="y"> be found, who were begotten of Prie&s;ts, and governed in the Apo&s;tolike See.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Athana&s;. ad Dracontium. p. (mihi) <HI>518.</HI></NOTE> And <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> writing to Bi&s;hop <HI>Dracontius,</HI> tells him, <HI>that in his dayes ma|ny Monkes were Parents of children, and Bi&s;hops likewi&s;e were Fathers of Sonnes;</HI> and this was 340. yeares after Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>But I pre&s;ume you will not &s;ay, that the mar|riage of tho&s;e Prie&s;ts was no marriage, and their brood was &s;purious and illegitimate. Tho&s;e who account it a Capitall offence for a Prie&s;t to marrie, and a veniall &s;inne to keepe a concubine, doe right|ly re&s;emble the old Heretike <HI>A&euml;rius,</HI> who u&s;ed to &s;ay,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Epiph. haere&s;. <HI>76.</HI></NOTE> <HI>To have the company of a woman out of marri|age, is no more &s;inne, than for a man to claw his eare.</HI> St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> puts the que&s;tion,<NOTE PLACE="marg">De bono Ma|trim. di&s;t. <HI>27.</HI> Quoniam.</NOTE> and re&s;olves it in this manner; <HI>Some &s;ay they be adulterous that mar|rie after they have made a vow; but I tell you</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>they &s;in grievou&s;ly that put &s;uch a&s;under.</HI> And el&s;ewhere more particularly hee concludes again&s;t your Tenet;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Augu&s;tinus de bono viduitatis cap. <HI>10.</HI></NOTE> <HI>They that &s;ay the marriage of &s;uch men or women as have vowed continencie, is no marriage, but rather adulterie, &s;eeme unto mee not to con&s;ider di&s;creetly and advi&s;edly what they &s;ay.</HI> And in his Tract of holy virginitie he plainly &s;hewes the Anti|quitie of your error,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Augu&s;t. de &s;an|cta Virgin. c. <HI>34.</HI></NOTE> and refutes it, where &s;peaking of vowed per&s;ons, he tells us; that <HI>many of them are kept from marriage, not for love of their godly purpo&s;e of Virginitie, but for feare of open &s;hame; which &s;hame proceedeth of Pride, for that they are more afraid to di&s;plea&s;e men than God: they will not marry, becau&s;e they cannot without rebuke, yet better
<PB N="183" REF="101" MS="y"> were it for them to marrie, than to burne, that is to &s;ay, with the flame of their concupi&s;cence to be wa&s;ted; they are &s;orrie for their profe&s;sion, and yet it grieveth them to confe&s;&s;e it.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Chry&s;. contra Judaios Gentil. &amp; haeret. &s;erm. de nuptiis Cana in Galil.</NOTE> In like manner <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> in the &s;ame age doth elegantly illu&s;trate the honour of marriage in Spirituall per&s;ons. <HI>Our Lord honoured Marriage with his pre&s;ence, and &s;aye&s;t thou that Marriage is a hindrance unto godline&s;&s;e? I tell thee Marriage is no hinderance. Had not</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>a wife and children?</HI> Helias, <HI>was not hee a virgin?</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>brought downe Manna from Heaven, &s;o did</HI> Helias <HI>fire:</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>cau&s;ed Quailes to flie in the heaven, and</HI> Helias <HI>&s;hut it with a word. What hurt did virginity to the one? what impediment was wife and children to the other? See</HI> Helias <HI>coached in the ayre, and</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>travelling through the Sea. Behold</HI> Peter <HI>a Pillar of the Church, he had a wife, therefore finde no fault with Marriage.</HI></P>
<P>Looke into the Ages following; your Angelicall Doctor <HI>Thomas Aquinas</HI> re&s;olves the que&s;tion flatly again&s;t you &amp; your fellow Je&s;uits. <HI>If an Aco|lothyte</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>doe confe&s;&s;e to a di&s;creet Prie&s;t,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">The <HI>Acolo|thytes</HI> were tho&s;e that ligh|ted the Tapers at the reading of the Go&s;pel in the Ma&s;&s;e.</NOTE> <HI>that by no meanes he can containe, the Prie&s;t doth not much offend in giving him this coun&s;ell, that he &s;hould marry privately, and clo&s;ely blinde the eyes of the Bi&s;hop. And if afterwards he be willing to take Orders, we hold it le&s;&s;e &s;inne for him to u&s;e his wife, than to commit forni|cation; for it is a le&s;&s;e offence to accompany with his wife, than to commit fornication again&s;t the Divine Precept.</HI> They who pretend cha&s;titie, and make a vow to keepe it, when they enter into holy Orders,
<PB N="184" REF="102" MS="y"> doe breake it even in this, when they allow a con|cubine. <HI>Aeneas Sylvius</HI> was con&s;cious to him&s;elfe of the danger of that &s;inne, and therefore he wi&s;hed that marriage were re&s;tored to Prie&s;ts; yea, whil&s;t he was a Cardinall he had his concubine, to whom at la&s;t he gave <HI>three&s;core Florens</HI> for her Dowrie: and it &s;eemes when he was well in yeares, in or a|bout the time of his Popedome, he confe&s;&s;ed; <HI>I cannot boa&s;t of any merit in my cha&s;tity,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Magis me Ve|nus fugitat, quam ego illa~ horreo. Ep. <HI>92.</HI></NOTE> <HI>for to tell the truth, venerie doth rather flie from me, than I from it.</HI> Neither was it his particular ca&s;e alone; for the Booke called <HI>Taxae Camerae Apo&s;tolicae,</HI> which your Bi&s;hop <HI>E&s;pencaeus</HI> complained of, doth &s;ufficiently witne&s;&s;e the damnable effects of &s;uch divelli&s;h doctrine. The grave&s;t Cardinals in <HI>Rome,</HI> who were appointed by &s;peciall Commi&s;&s;ion, and pre&s;ented their information to Pope <HI>Paul</HI> the third, doe &s;ufficiently witne&s;&s;e the forbidden fruits of &s;uch an evill tree: The words are the&s;e; <HI>In this City of</HI> Rome <HI>the Curtezans pa&s;&s;e through the &s;treets,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Wolph. Lect. Memor. Anno <HI>1535</HI> p. <HI>403.</HI></NOTE> <HI>or ride on their mules, like hone&s;t Matrons, and in the mid&s;t of the day, Noblemen and Cardinals deare friends attend upon them. We never &s;aw &s;uch cor|ruption, but onely in this Citie, which is the example and patterne of all other: moreover, they dwell in faire and goodly hou&s;es.</HI></P>
<P>On the other &s;ide, you would make us beleeve, that your Curtezans goe altogether on foote; that they have a &s;peciall badge of di&s;hone&s;tie, whereby they may be knowne; that they are de&s;pi&s;ed and reviled of the people, but e&s;pecially by Cardinals
<PB N="185" REF="102" MS="y"> and the Nobles; that they dwelt in out-hou&s;es and back lanes: but to ride on hor&s;ebacke, to be attyred as hone&s;t Matrons and Noble Ladies, to be atten|ded by Prie&s;ts and Cardinals friends, and to dwell in faire and beautifull hou&s;es, this &s;hewes that your di&s;pen&s;ation for &s;tewes is occa&s;ioned chiefly by the forbidding of marriage; and by this meanes <HI>marriage, which is honourable in all,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Heb. 13.4.</NOTE> <HI>and the bed un|defiled,</HI> by the Apo&s;tles doctrine, is now become a &s;inne, and your Apo&s;tolike See the Mother of Fornications. This occa&s;ioned your owne <HI>Agrip|pa</HI> to complaine of your ca&s;ting up of the Bawds rents with the revenew of your Church.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Agrip. de va|nit. &s;cient. c. <HI>64.</HI> de Lenonia.</NOTE> <HI>I have heard</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>the accompts ca&s;t up in this &s;ort; he hath two Benefices, one cure of twenty Ducats, a Priorie of forty Ducats, and three whores in a bro|thell hou&s;e.</HI></P>
<P>I li&s;t not any longer to &s;tirre this filthie puddle,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Camerinam movere. Era&s;. Adag.</NOTE> which &s;tinkes in the no&s;thrils of God and good men; the coun&s;ell of your Canoni&s;t is &s;afe and good in this particular.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Panor. de Cler. Conjug. Cap. Cu~ Olim.</NOTE> <HI>The Church</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>&s;hould di&s;|charge the part of a good Phy&s;itian, who when by ex|perience he findes one medicine rather hurt than helpe, he removeth it, and applieth another:</HI> and there hee gives the rea&s;on, <HI>Becau&s;e we finde by experience, that the Law of &s;ingle life hath brought forth contrarie effects:</HI> and the rather, becau&s;e it is re&s;olved by your learned Cardinall:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cajet. in quod|libet contra Lutherum.</NOTE> <HI>It cannot bee proved either by rea&s;on, nor yet by authority, to &s;peake ab&s;olutely, that a Prie&s;t doth &s;inne in marrying a wife; for neither the Order of Prie&s;thood, in that it is Order, nor the
<PB N="186" REF="103" MS="y"> &s;ame Order, in that it is holy, is any hindrance to matrimonie; for Prie&s;thood doth not di&s;&s;olve matri|monie, whether it be contracted before Prie&s;thood or afterwards, if we (&s;etting apart all other Eccle&s;ia&s;ti|call Lawes) &s;tand onely to tho&s;e things which we have received of Christ and his Apo&s;tles.</HI></P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Panorm. extr. de Elect. C. Li|cet. de Vit. Ab.</NOTE>Againe, your owne <HI>Panormitan</HI> tells us, that <HI>the Prie&s;ts of</HI> Grecia, <HI>being within Orders, doe marrie wives; and we &s;ee they doe it</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>&s;ine peccato, without &s;inne, or breach of Law, either of God or man:</HI> And thus by your owne Tenet you &s;tand with the po&s;itive law of man again&s;t the law of God; you &s;tand in oppo&s;ition again&s;t the <HI>Greeke</HI> Church, which ever u&s;ed it; and la&s;tly, you are at difference among your &s;elves,<NOTE PLACE="marg">E&s;pencaeus de Continentia. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>11.</HI> p. <HI>116.</HI></NOTE> when many prime members of your owne Church utterly condemne it. The doctrine of St. <HI>Paul</HI> is evident and plaine, <HI>It is bet|ter marrie than burne.</HI> This Law is cleane perver|ted by your Je&s;uits doctrine;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Utrumque e&s;t malum, nu|bere &amp; uri, imo pejus e&s;t nubere, quicquid excla|mant adver&s;a|rii: prae&s;ertim ei qui habet vo|tum &s;olenne. Bell. de Mo|nach. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>30.</HI> Hi&s;t. of Trent. l. <HI>5.</HI> fol. <HI>400.</HI> &amp; <HI>680.</HI></NOTE> for (&s;aith <HI>Bellarmine) Let our adver&s;aries &s;ay what they will, it is wor&s;e to marrie than burne, e&s;pecially for him that hath made a &s;olemne vow:</HI> So that the Law of God mu&s;t give way to the Law of man, and chiefly for rea&s;on of &s;tate and policie. <HI>For</HI> (&s;aith Cardinall <HI>Rodolpho) if the marriage of Prie&s;ts were tolerated, this inconvenience would follow, the Prie&s;ts having hou&s;e, wife, and children, would not depend upon the Pope but on the Prince, and their love to their children would make them yeeld to any prejudice of the Church: they will &s;eeke al&s;o to make their Benefice hereditarie, and in a &s;hort &s;pace the authoritie of the Apo&s;tolike See will be
<PB N="187" REF="103" MS="y"> confined within the walles of Rome.</HI> And to the&s;e rea|&s;ons you may truly adde this, as appendant to the re&s;t; the di&s;pen&s;ation of Stewes would be neglected, and con&s;equently the great Revenue of the <HI>Roman</HI> See would be utterly lo&s;t; and therefore the <HI>Index Expurgatorius</HI> will not lay hold of any &s;uch do|ctrine.</P>
<P>For a conclu&s;ion of this point. If you &s;ay mar|riage of Prie&s;ts be <HI>malum in &s;e,</HI> evill in it &s;elfe, you comply with the Devilli&s;h doctrine of <HI>Tatianus;</HI> If it be evill <HI>quia prohibetur,</HI> becau&s;e it is forbid|den onely, then fornication, which is evill of it &s;elfe, and in it &s;elfe, mu&s;t needs bee the greater &s;inne.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. V.</HI> The &s;umme of his An&s;wer to my Fifth Section.</HEAD>
<P><Q>OF this Section (&s;aith he) there is not much to be &s;aid, for there is nothing in it, but a li|tle of the Knights own raving. <HI>Maldonat</HI> approveth and commendeth St. <HI>Au&s;tins</HI> explica|cation, but addeth another of his owne. After this, the Knight hath a great deale of fooli&s;h &s;tuffe, which needs no an&s;wer.</Q></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="response to chapter">
<HEAD>The Reply.</HEAD>
<P>Your an&s;wer is &s;hort, by your words be &s;ome|what
<PB N="188" REF="104"> &s;harpe: and you can finde nothing in that Se|ction but raving and fooli&s;hne&s;&s;e? If it be raving to cite Texts of Scripture again&s;t your maimed Com|mandements, your Invocation of Saints, your Prayer in an unknowne tongue, your wor&s;hip of Images, and the like: If it be raving to &s;ay Purgatorie is created a point of Faith, &amp; that Faith is confirmed by Councels, meerely for the benefit of the Pope and Clergie; that you doe not exerci&s;e the power of your Prie&s;thood in binding as well as loo&s;ing, by rea&s;on no man will give monie to be bound, but to be loo&s;ed in Purgatorie: If it be raving to &s;ay your Je&s;uite <HI>Maldonat</HI> preferres his owne explication of Scripture before St. <HI>Au&s;tins,</HI> onely becau&s;e it more cro&s;&s;eth the &s;en&s;e of the <HI>Calvini&s;ts;</HI> and with|all confe&s;&s;eth that St. <HI>Au&s;tins</HI> opinion is more pro|bable; If this I &s;ay may bee deemed raving, then will I confe&s;&s;e your railing is a good an&s;wer. <HI>But he de&s;paires</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>of his cau&s;e, who &s;eeth</HI> Maldo|nats <HI>&s;aying practi&s;ed by the Church of</HI> Rome <HI>again&s;t his Church and doctrine.</HI></P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Acts 5.38, 39.</NOTE>I confe&s;&s;e with the ble&s;&s;ed Apo&s;tle, <HI>If our coun|&s;ell or worke be of men, it will come to nought,</HI> and then I might de&s;paire of it, <HI>but if it be of God, yee cannot overthrow it, le&s;t happely yee be found even to fight again&s;t God.</HI> We have no cau&s;e (ble&s;&s;ed be God) to de&s;paire of our Religion, which in one Age hath &s;pread over the better part of <HI>Chri&s;ten|dome.</HI> But I conceive there is little hope of you or your cau&s;e, who have &s;old your &s;elves either with <HI>Ahab</HI> to worke wickedne&s;&s;e, and maintaine
<PB N="189" REF="104"> Idolatrous wor&s;hip for your owne advantage; or like <HI>Maldonat,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>See</HI> Maldonat. Col. <HI>1536.</HI> Unum &egrave; duo|bus intelliga|tur nece&s;&s;e e&s;t, aut tunc non &s;candaliz abimi|ni, c&ugrave;m videri|tis filium homi|nis a&s;cendente~ ubi erat prius: aut (contra) tunc magis &s;candaliz abimi|ni: priorem &s;en|&s;um plerique &s;equu~tur, Chry|&s;o&s;t. Augu&s;tin. &amp;c. <HI>Yet</HI> Mal|donat <HI>follow|eth the latter.</HI></NOTE> openly to profe&s;&s;e greater hatred to Prote&s;tants, than love to the truth it &s;elfe. For it is apparent, <HI>ex profe&s;&s;o,</HI> he preferreth his owne o|pinion without any authoritie, before St. <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> nay contrarie to St. <HI>Austin,</HI> and hee gives this rea|&s;on for it; <HI>Becau&s;e this &s;en&s;e of mine doth more cro&s;&s;e the &s;en&s;e of the Calvini&s;ts.</HI> But I may &s;ay to you, as &s;ometimes<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Ludov. Viv. de Civ. Dei. l. <HI>13.</HI> c. <HI>24.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Ludovicus Vives</HI> &s;pake upon the like occa&s;ion: St. <HI>Austin is now &s;afe, becau&s;e of his age, but if he were alive againe, he &s;hould be &s;ha|ken off as a bad Rhetoritian, or a poore Gramma|rian.</HI> And yet this good Saint was &s;o farre from defending any opinion again&s;t the knowne truth, that on the contrarie, he preferreth the in|terpretation of<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Augu&s;t. contr. Cre&s;c. Gram|mat. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>32.</HI> &amp; l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>32.</HI> p. (mihi) <HI>218.</HI> &amp; <HI>241.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Cre&s;conius</HI> a Grammarian, before St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> the Martyr, becau&s;e it &s;eemed to him more probable and agreeable to the truth.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. VI.</HI> The &s;umme of his An&s;wer to my Sixth Section.</HEAD>
<P><Q>THe Knight (&s;aith he) &s;eemes to acknow|ledge that he cannot a&s;&s;igne the time and per&s;ons when and by whom the errors of the <HI>Roman</HI> Church came in. Good Phy&s;itians u&s;e to enquire of the cau&s;es, effects, and other circum|&s;tances,
<PB N="190" REF="105" MS="y"> and upon the circum&s;tance dependeth the knowledge of the di&s;ea&s;e. We pleade pre&s;crip|tion for our doctrine from the beginning. The difference betwixt Here&s;ie and Apo&s;ta&s;ie. The Church cannot fall away, without &s;ome &s;peciall note and ob&s;ervation.</Q></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="response to chapter">
<HEAD>The Reply.</HEAD>
<P>It is to be wondered what art and policie your Church doth u&s;e to put off the triall of her cau&s;e, when it &s;hould come to hearing. If we &s;peake of a depravation of your Faith, you crie out it is bla&s;|phemie; If we &s;hew your owne mens complaints for a reformation of your doctrine, you &s;ay they meant a reformation onely of Di&s;cipline; If we plainly prove the noveltie of your <HI>Trent</HI> Articles, by comparing them with the Tenets of ancient Re|ligion, you threaten to bring an <HI>action</HI> of the <HI>Ca&s;e</HI> again&s;t us for &s;landering and defaming of your Church, except we can a&s;&s;igne the preci&s;e time and per&s;on when tho&s;e errors came in. Let us u&s;e the words of your fellow <HI>Campian; Can I imagine any to be &s;tuffed in the no&s;e,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Camp. Rat. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> <HI>that being forewarned can|not quickly &s;mell out this &s;ubtle juggling?</HI> Why doe you not rather complaine of the Noveltie of our doctrine, and bid us &s;hew the time when, and the Authors who fir&s;t broached our two Sacraments, our Communion in both kindes, our Praier in a knowne tongue, our &s;pirituall pre&s;ence, and the like; if I faile in the&s;e, then &s;ay, <HI>The Knight &s;ee|meth to acknowledge he cannot doe it.</HI></P>
<P>The errors in your Church which wee com|plaine
<PB N="191" REF="105" MS="y"> of, are negative Articles among&s;t us, and the proofe lies on your &s;ide: If you cannot &s;hew Apo&s;tolicall Authors for your owne doctrine, mu&s;t we be therefore condemned, becau&s;e we doe not prove the Negative? Or otherwi&s;e it mu&s;t needes follow by your Logick, that it is the &s;ame doctrine which was once delivered to the Saints, becau&s;e we cannot &s;hew the fir&s;t Author of it.</P>
<P>You cannot denie that there are many particu|lar errors in the Church, who&s;e fir&s;t Authors can|not be named by you nor us, and therefore will you conclude they are no errors? The cu&s;tome of communicating little children in the Sacrament of the Lords bodie and bloud was an error, and con|tinued long in the ancient Church, yet the fir&s;t Au|thor of it was not knowne. There were many did hold there was a mitigation and &s;u&s;pen&s;ion of the puni&s;hment of the damned in hell, by the &s;uffrages of the living; this error was anciently received, yet the fir&s;t Author was not knowne. The opinion that all Catholike Chri&s;tians, how wicked &s;oever, &s;hall in the end be &s;aved, as by fire, was an ancient error, but the Author is not knowne. Againe,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Alph. contr. hae|re&s;. verbo In|dulgentia. p. (mihi) <HI>354.</HI></NOTE> <HI>there are many things</HI> (&s;aith your <HI>Alphon&s;us) knowne to la|ter writers, which the Ancients were altogether igno|rant of. There is &s;eldome any mention of Tran&s;ub|&s;tantiation among&s;t the Ancients; almo&s;t none of Pur|gatorie; what marvell if it &s;o fall out with Indulgen|ces, that there &s;hould bee no mention of them by the Ancients?</HI> If therefore &s;uch errors crept into the Church in the fir&s;t and be&s;t Ages, which are now
<PB N="192" REF="106"> condemned by your &s;elves and us, without enquiring after the time, and Authors that fir&s;t broached them. Nay more, if your points of Faith, as name|ly, <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, Purgatorie,</HI> and <HI>Indulgences,</HI> were altogether unknowne to the Ancients (as your men confe&s;&s;e) why &s;hould you require us to &s;hew the fir&s;t Authors of your doctrines, which were utterlie unknowne to the ancient Fathers? Or ra|ther, why do you not condemn them with us, as you do the errors which were received for true doctrines among&s;t the Ancients? If St. <HI>Peter</HI> were at <HI>Rome,</HI> no doubt the Church received &amp; beleeved his Prophe|&s;ies;<NOTE PLACE="marg">2 Pet. 2.1.</NOTE> <HI>There &s;hal be fal&s;e Teachers among you, who (pri|vily) &s;hall bring in damnable here&s;ie.</HI> If the Apo|&s;tle both forewarned you and us, that errors and he|re&s;ies mu&s;t &s;teale in privily, <HI>&s;en&s;im &s;ine &s;en&s;u,</HI> &s;ecretly and by degrees into the true Church, and yet would not reveale the Authors of the here&s;ies, what mad|ne&s;&s;e were it in you or us to pa&s;&s;e by tho&s;e damna|ble Here&s;ies, or rather to pleade for them, becau&s;e wee cannot learne the name of the fal&s;e Tea|chers?</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Vincent. Lyr. de haere&s;. c. <HI>15.</HI></NOTE><HI>Vincentius Lyrinen&s;is,</HI> who was living 400. yeeres after the Apo&s;tles time, complaines that cer|taine in his dayes did <HI>bring in errors &s;ecretly, which a man</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>cannot &s;oone finde out, nor ea&s;ily con|demne.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Tertull. adver&s;. Valent. c. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> <HI>The Serpent hides him&s;elfe as much as hee can</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Tertullian) and &s;heweth his chiefe skill in wreathing him&s;elfe into folds, and in thru&s;ting him|&s;elfe into dark and blinde holes:</HI> Such is the nature of fal&s;e teachers, <HI>they &s;eeke nothing more</HI> (&s;aith the &s;ame
<PB N="193" REF="106"> Author) <HI>than to hide that which they preach,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem c. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> <HI>if yet they may be &s;aid to preach that they hide.</HI></P>
<P>But good <HI>Phy&s;icians</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>u&s;e to enquire of the cau&s;es, effects, and circumstances;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 73.</NOTE> <HI>for upon the&s;e circum&s;tances dependeth the knowledge whether it be a di&s;ea&s;e or no.</HI> It is mo&s;t true that Phy&s;icians will enquire of the cau&s;es of the di&s;ea&s;e, but will they deny the Patient to be &s;icke, or refu&s;e to mini&s;ter Phy&s;icke to him, unle&s;&s;e he tell them preci&s;ely how or when he fir&s;t tooke his di&s;ea&s;e or infection? For this is our ca&s;e, and the point in que&s;tion touching a reformation. Neither doth the knowledge of the di&s;ea&s;e of the body depend upon the circum|&s;tances of time, place, and per&s;on. I thinke you never read &s;uch Aphori&s;mes either in <HI>Gallen</HI> or <HI>Hyppocrates;</HI> neither doth your knowledge of er|rors and here&s;ie in your Church depend on the cir|cum&s;tances of time, place, and per&s;ons: For &s;ome Authors, at the &s;ame time, and in the &s;ame place, might have broached truth, when another &s;et his here&s;ie abroach; as namely, Saint <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> preci&s;ely in the time and place, delivered the Orthodox Do|ctrine of grace, when and where <HI>Pelagius</HI> &s;pread his here&s;ie.</P>
<P>From your Rules of <HI>Phy&s;icke</HI> you returne to the Rules of <HI>Divinity,</HI> and tell us from Saint <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> that<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Quod univer|&s;a tenet Eccle|&s;ia, nec Conci|liis in&s;titutum, &s;ed &s;emper re|tentum e&s;t, non ni&s;i authorita|te Apo&s;tolic&acirc; traditu~ recti&s;|&s;im&egrave; creditur. De Bapti&s; contr. Donat. l. <HI>5.</HI> c. <HI>24.</HI> in ini|tio. Tom. <HI>7.</HI> p. mihi <HI>433.</HI></NOTE> <HI>what&s;oever the Catholike Church doth generally beleeve or practi&s;e, &s;o as there can be no time a&s;signed when it began, it is to be taken for an Apo&s;tolicall tradition.</HI> This place of <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> you neither quoted in your An&s;wer, neither have you recited his words
<PB N="194" REF="107"> faithfully, for hee &s;peakes not of a&s;&s;igning the time when the Doctrine begins, but <HI>what&s;oever the uni|ver&s;all Church doth hold, not being ordained by Coun|cels, but hath beene ever held, that is mo&s;t rightly be|leeved for an Apo&s;tolicall tradition.</HI> This is his Te|net, and this is ours: but you have put in the word <HI>(Catholike)</HI> in your &s;en&s;e for <HI>univer&s;all,</HI> you have ad|ded <HI>(generall beleefe and practi&s;e)</HI> you have thru&s;t in the&s;e words <HI>(&s;o as no time can be a&s;signed when it began)</HI> and you have omitted the principall verb <HI>[that hath been ever held]</HI> which makes me &s;u&s;pect you omitted the citing of this place, le&s;t your fraud &s;hould be de&s;cried: But I pardon you; let us heare the re&s;t;<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 73.</NOTE> <HI>But &s;uch</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>are all tho&s;e things which you are plea&s;ed to call errors.</HI> If this were as ea&s;ily proved as &s;poken, you &s;hould not neede to put us to the &s;earch of times and Authors for the fir&s;t Founder of your Faith; For if your Popi&s;h Doctrines were alwayes held by the univer&s;all Church, and not ordained by Councels, we &s;hould not need to looke into your Councell of <HI>Lateran</HI> for your Doctrine of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, nor into your Councell of <HI>Con&s;tance</HI> for Communion in both kindes, nor into your Councell of <HI>Elorence</HI> for your &s;even Sacraments, nor into your &s;econd Councell of <HI>Nice</HI> for your wor&s;hip of Images: for the&s;e and many &s;uch traditions were fir&s;t ordained by Councels, and were not the generall beliefe and practice of the Church. Againe, if the univer&s;all Church had alwayes held your Doctrines from the Apo&s;tles times, why doe you your &s;elfe confe&s;&s;e,
<PB N="195" REF="107" MS="y"> that your prayer in an unknowne tongue,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Pag. praeceden|ti.</NOTE> your pri|vate Ma&s;&s;e, your halfe Communion, were taught otherwi&s;e in the primitive Churches? Nay, if they be Apo&s;tolicall, how comes it that they are flat contrary to the Doctrine of the Apo&s;tles? And thus much of your two rules of <HI>Phy&s;icke</HI> and <HI>Divi|nity;</HI> let us heare the re&s;t of your authorities.</P>
<P><HI>Tertullian</HI> (&s;ay you) hath this Rule for di&s;cer|ning here&s;ie from truth,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Tertul. prae|&s;crip. <HI>31.</HI> p. mihi <HI>78.</HI></NOTE> <HI>That which goeth before is truth, and that which commeth after is errour.</HI> This Rule is mo&s;t true, but the&s;e words you cite by the halves; for hee &s;aith expre&s;ly,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Id autem ex|traneum &amp; fal&s;um quod &s;it po&s;terius im|mi&s;&s;um.</NOTE> <HI>Id Domini|cum &amp; verum quod &s;it prius traditum:</HI> That was fir&s;t delivered, which was true, and came from the God of truth; and this was the Doctrine of Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles; for that which commeth after (&s;aith he) is farre different: where hee &s;hewes like|wi&s;e in the&s;e words following, that after Chri&s;ts time, and in the dayes of the Apo&s;tles, there might be here&s;ies,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ut aliquem ex Apo&s;tolicis vi|ris (qui tamen cum illis per&s;e|vereverint) habent autho|rem. Ibid.</NOTE> for the my&s;tery of iniquitie began then to worke; and therefore hee will not have it enough to derive a Doctrine from a man which lived with the Apo&s;tles, unle&s;&s;e it can be proved that he con|tinued with them: and the rea&s;on (as I conc<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ive) was given by <HI>Nicephorus; After the &s;acred compa|ny of the Apo&s;tles was come to an end,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Niceph. l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>16.</HI></NOTE> <HI>and that their generation was wholly &s;pent, which had heare with their eares the heavenly wi&s;dome of the Sonne of God, then that con&s;piracie of dete&s;table errour, through the deceipt of &s;uch as delivered &s;trange Doctrine, tooke rooting; and becau&s;e that none of the Apo&s;tles &s;urvi|ved,
<PB N="196" REF="108" MS="y"> they publi&s;hed boldly with all might po&s;sible the doctrine of fal&s;hood, and impugned the manife&s;t and knowne truth.</HI></P>
<P><HI>But wee plead</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>pre&s;cription from the be|ginning.]</HI> It is not &s;ufficient to plead it, you mu&s;t prove it. The <HI>Mahometi&s;ts</HI> at this day a&s;&s;ume the name of <HI>Saracens</HI> (as your men doe the name of <HI>Catholikes</HI>) as if they came from <HI>Sara</HI> the free wo|man, <HI>Abrahams</HI> true and lawfull wife, when in truth they tooke their fir&s;t beginning from <HI>Agar</HI> the bond-woman; neither can there be any pre&s;crip|tion again&s;t the ancient Records and Evidences of the Word written by Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles. In|deed you have found a right and ea&s;ie way to claime a pre&s;cription from the time of the Apo&s;tles; for you have razed many prime Evidences of the Fa|thers for the fir&s;t 800. yeeres, which make for our Doctrine, and you have pro&s;cribed many learned Authors and their Records (as I have &s;hewed be|fore) for the la&s;t 800. yeeres, which te&s;tified again&s;t your errors: And now I come to your Churches apo&s;tacie or falling from the truth, which occa&s;i|oned the&s;e errors.</P>
<P><HI>Apo&s;tacie</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>is a defection, or for&s;aking of the Name of Chri&s;t, and profe&s;sion of Chri&s;tianity, as all men under&s;tand it.</HI></P>
<P>I &s;hewed in this Section, that in the primitive Church, when any here&s;ie did ari&s;e that indangered the foundation (&s;uch as was the here&s;ie of the <HI>Ar|rians,</HI> of the <HI>Pelagians,</HI> and the like) the Authors were ob&s;erved, the times were knowne, the place
<PB N="197" REF="108" MS="y"> was pointed at, and forthwith letters of Premoni|tion were &s;ent to all the &s;ound members of the Ca|tholike Church; by which publike adverti&s;ement the <HI>&s;teale-truth</HI> was di&s;covered, and herein the Au|thor, the time, and place was ob&s;erved and knowne to all: but in the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> it was other|wi&s;e; there was fir&s;t an <HI>Apo&s;tacie,</HI> a falling away from the truth, which was fir&s;t cau&s;ed by an error &s;ecretly &s;tolne into the Church; and therefore it is &s;ometimes called a <HI>my&s;tery</HI> of <HI>iniquity,</HI> becau&s;e my|&s;tically, covertly, &s;ecretly hee &s;hall winde his abo|minations into the Church of God: and accor|dingly the Apo&s;tle gives <HI>Timothy</HI> to under&s;tand, that <HI>in the la&s;t times &s;ome &s;hall depart from the faith,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.1.</NOTE> <HI>giving heed to &s;educing &s;pirits, and doctrines of De|vils, and &s;uch as &s;peake fal&s;hood in Hypocri&s;ie:</HI> which place plainely &s;hewes (&s;aith a learned Divine) that Antichri&s;t him&s;elfe &s;hall not profe&s;&s;edly renounce Chri&s;t, and his Bapti&s;me;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mr. <HI>Bedel</HI> a|gain&s;t <HI>Wad&s;|worth. p.</HI> 40.</NOTE> that his kingdome is a revolt, not from the outward profe&s;&s;ion, but in|ward &s;inceritie and power of the Go&s;pel. And therefore <HI>all</HI> doe not under&s;tand <HI>Apo&s;tacie,</HI> a for&s;a|king of Chri&s;t and Chri&s;tianity: <HI>Not all,</HI> no not the &s;ame Apo&s;tle, where hee u&s;eth the &s;ame word <HI>Apo&s;tacie</HI> to the <HI>The&s;&s;alonians:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 2 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 2.3.</NOTE> <HI>Let no man deceive you by any meanes, for that day &s;hall not come, except there come</HI> (an Apo&s;tacie) <HI>a falling away fir&s;t:</HI> Hee &s;peakes of the departing from the orthodox Faith, not from Chri&s;tianitie. <HI>Not all,</HI> no not your <HI>Rhe|mi&s;ts</HI> in their Annotations upon this place:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Rhem. Annot. in <HI>2</HI> The&s;&s;. <HI>2.3.</HI></NOTE> For <HI>it is very like</HI> (&s;ay they) <HI>be it &s;poken under correction,
<PB N="198" REF="109" MS="y"> that Gods Church, and all learned Catholikes, that this great defection and revolt &s;hall not be onely from the Roman Emperour, but e&s;pecially from the Roman Church, and withall from mo&s;t points of Chri&s;tian Re|ligion, or</HI> (as they interpret in their Margin) <HI>from mo&s;t Articles of the Chri&s;tian faith. Not all,</HI> no not <HI>Campian</HI> your fellow Je&s;uite, who termes <HI>Luther</HI> an Apo&s;tata, for falling from your Church, not from Chri&s;tianity. <HI>Not all,</HI> no not your <HI>Decretals,</HI> who terme a Monke, for leaving his Order, or a Clarke for&s;aking his habit, an <HI>Apo&s;tata. Not all,</HI> no not <HI>Gregory</HI> the <HI>Great,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Greg. l. <HI>6.</HI> Ep. <HI>24.</HI></NOTE> who called <HI>John</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con|stantinople,</HI> an <HI>Apo&s;tata,</HI> for a&s;&s;uming the title of uni|ver&s;all Bi&s;hop. La&s;tly, <HI>Not all,</HI> no not your Coun|cell of <HI>Ba&s;il,</HI> where 900. condemned and depo&s;ed your Pope <HI>Eugenius for a Symoni&s;t,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Concil. Ba&s;il. &s;e&s;&s;. <HI>34.</HI></NOTE> <HI>a for&s;worn man, a man incorrigible, a Schi&s;maticke</HI> (an Apo&s;tata) <HI>a man fallen from the faith, and a wilfull Hereticke.</HI> I &s;ay therefore, <HI>not all,</HI> nor any of the&s;e did under|&s;tand an <HI>Apo&s;tacie</HI> to be a for&s;aking of the name of Chri&s;t and Chri&s;tianity; and therefore I hope you will confe&s;&s;e, that your a&s;&s;ertion is neither Catho|like nor univer&s;all.</P>
<P>When therfore we lay <HI>Apo&s;tacie</HI> to your Church, we doe not charge you with a totall falling from Chri&s;tian Religion, like that of <HI>Julian</HI> the Apo&s;ta|ta, with an ob&s;tinate pertinacie, in denying the principles of the faith nece&s;&s;arie to &s;alvation, or a renouncing your Bapti&s;me, and con&s;equently the name of Chri&s;tianitie: Wee charge you not with Apo&s;tacie in &s;uch a fearefull and horrible &s;en&s;e, un|le&s;&s;e
<PB N="199" REF="109" MS="y"> you will a&s;&s;ume it to your &s;elves;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Lyra in <HI>2.</HI> The&s;&s;. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> but wee thinke with <HI>Lyra,</HI> that as <HI>there was an Apo&s;tacie or revolt of many Kingdomes from the Roman Empire, and of many Churches from the Communion of the Roman Church; &s;o there hath beene an Apo&s;tacie from the Catholike faith in the mid&s;t of the Church, not for that all at any time did for&s;ake the true Faith, but for that many fell from the &s;inceritie of the Faith.</HI></P>
<P>After your definition of <HI>Apo&s;tacie,</HI> you proceed in this manner; <HI>How then can we be Apo&s;tatas? in no wi&s;e certainely: but if wee erre, wee erre as here|tikes, and if wee be heretikes, you confe&s;&s;e you mu&s;t a&s;|&s;igne the per&s;ons, time and place.</HI></P>
<P>I have cleared you from the hainous title of <HI>Apo|&s;tata</HI> in your owne &s;en&s;e, but not in ours;<NOTE PLACE="marg">D. Potter p. <HI>19.</HI> &amp; <HI>60.</HI></NOTE> yet let me tell you (with griefe and pitty be it &s;poken) your profane and wicked application of the Apo&s;tles Creed, as you pretend, in je&s;ts, is a fearefull &s;igne of falling from Chri&s;t and Chri&s;tianitie it &s;elfe: and therfore, although I may free your Church in ge|nerall of that name, and in that &s;en&s;e, yet it behoves you to acquit your &s;elfe in that particular. But this by way of friendly admonition.</P>
<P><HI>If we erre</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>wee erre as heretikes</HI>] I &s;hall ea&s;ily conde&s;cend unto you in that: For the errors in the Roman Church cau&s;ed an <HI>Apo&s;tacie</HI> at fir&s;t, and was my&s;ticall and &s;ecret; now after long pra|cti&s;e and u&s;age in the Church, is become an here&s;ie; and &s;o wee may truely a&s;&s;ent unto you, that you <HI>erre as heretikes:</HI> And although I am not bound upon this acknowledgment, forthwith to a&s;&s;ign you
<PB N="200" REF="110" MS="y"> the Authors of your here&s;ies, becau&s;e they came in by degrees, and at &s;everall times, privily, and in&s;en&s;ibly; yet becau&s;e you are &s;o inqui&s;itive after you predece&s;&s;ors, if you will have but patience, I will draw your pedigree in the next Section.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Eccle&s;ia &s;ua de|finitione non facit talem a&s;|&s;ertionem e&s;&s;e haere&s;in, cum etiam&s;i ip&s;a non definivi&s;&s;et, e&s;|&s;et haere&s;is; &s;ed id efficit Ec|cle&s;ia, ut nobis per &s;uam cen|&s;uram pateat illud e&s;&s;e here|&s;in. Alph. &agrave; Ca&s;tr. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>8.</HI> D. Potter &s;ect. <HI>4.</HI> p. <HI>101.</HI> &amp; <HI>97.</HI></NOTE> In the meane time let me tell you, it is another errour in you to &s;ay, <HI>They come to have the name of here&s;ie, onely by the condemnation of the Church.</HI> For the Church condemnes them, becau&s;e they are here|&s;ies; contrariwi&s;e, they are not here&s;ies, becau&s;e the Church condemnes them. The Doctrines of <HI>Arrius, Macedonius, Ne&s;torius, Eutyches, Eunomi|us,</HI> and <HI>Dio&s;curus,</HI> were them&s;elves hereticall, even before they were &s;olemnly condemned in the foure generall Councels: but woe to us and all the refor|med Churches, if this Tenet were true and Catho|like, for then are wee condemned already. But I pray, what if your Pope (whom you Je&s;uites now make the onely Church) admit, I &s;ay, your Pope were an Heretike, &s;uch as was your Pope <HI>Eugeni|us,</HI> or your <HI>John</HI> the 23. or Pope <HI>Vigilius,</HI> or Pope <HI>Honorius,</HI> were they able to judge of here&s;ies in others, that were tainted with them them&s;elves? or mu&s;t their definitive &s;entence <HI>in Cathedra</HI> &s;tand for a Law,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Si autem Papa erraret prae|cipiendo vitia vel prohibendo virtutes, &amp;c. Bell. de Pont. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>5.</HI> Sand. de vi&s;ibili Monarch. l. <HI>7.</HI> An. <HI>1541.</HI> p. mihi <HI>595.</HI></NOTE> and make that here&s;ie which is no here|&s;ie? Indeed your Cardinall &s;ayes, <HI>The Pope hath power to make that no &s;inne which is &s;inne,</HI> and accor|dingly he hath placed that Tenet among&s;t the <HI>Here|tikes,</HI> and by the &s;ame Law he makes that to be he|re&s;ie, which is no here&s;ie. Your learned <HI>Sanders</HI> tells us, it is here&s;ie to tran&s;late the Scriptures into
<PB N="201" REF="110" MS="y"> the vulgar Tongue, and accordingly he hath placed that Tenet among&s;t the <HI>Heretikes.</HI> Your Chancel|lor of <HI>Paris</HI> and Director of the Councell of <HI>Con|&s;tance</HI> tells us, it is here&s;ie to communicate in both kindes; and accordingly he hath wrote a Tract, <HI>De haere&s;i communicandi &s;ub utr&acirc;que &s;pecie.</HI> And to pa&s;&s;e by all the <HI>Trent</HI> Articles (the deniall of all or any of which makes a man an Heretike) your infallible Pope <HI>Nicholas</HI> proclaimeth,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Qui Romanae Eccle&s;iae privi|legium auferre conatur, hic pro|culdubio labitur in haere&s;in.</NOTE> that <HI>who&s;o|ever goeth about to abrogate the priviledges of the Church of</HI> Rome, <HI>he is no doubt an Heretike.</HI></P>
<P>If the deniall of all or any of the&s;e make an He|retike, there is no doubt, all the Reformed Chur|ches &s;tand guilty of that capitall crime, by the law of your Church, and your Popes doome. Yet let me tell you; the Scriptures were tran&s;lated into all Languages in the Primitive times, and Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles did communicate in both kindes; and your fir&s;t foure generall Councels did bound and limit tho&s;e priviledges of the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> which are now extended into all parts of the Chri|&s;tian world; and were all the&s;e <HI>Heretikes?</HI> If you call this Here&s;ie, goe on, and fill up the mea&s;ure of your wrath, untill the time come that Chri&s;t and his Saints acquit us, or condemne us of that impu|tation. In the meane time you &s;hall doe well to reflect upon your &s;elfe, and con&s;ider rather the ca&s;e at this day betwixt the <HI>Sorboni&s;ts</HI> and the <HI>Je&s;uites,</HI> which meerely toucheth your owne particular.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Aurel. in vindi|ciis, pag. <HI>383.</HI> Idem in libro &s;ine titulo.</NOTE> <HI>Hermannus Laemelius,</HI> that is to &s;ay, <HI>John Floyd,</HI> termes the propo&s;itions of the <HI>Pari&s;ians, de&s;tructive to the Church, and hereticall;</HI> on the other &s;ide, they
<PB N="202" REF="111"> accu&s;e him of <HI>here&s;ie,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">H<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ulier in ad|monit. ad Lect. p. <HI>8. 9. 16. 24.</HI></NOTE> <HI>bla&s;phemie,</HI> and <HI>impietie,</HI> and the like. Are you all members of one Church, un|der one head the Pope, and are your propo&s;itions different and hereticall on both &s;ides, and mu&s;t I &s;ay, that you and the re&s;t have the name of here&s;ie onely by the condemnation of the Church? But you are &s;ure the Pope will not condemne his owne members, and without his judgment they are but words of cour&s;e, or at be&s;t but cour&s;e phra&s;es deli|vered in heate again&s;t an adver&s;ary: For (&s;ay you) <HI>The Fathers did forbeare ab&s;olutely to condemne things for here&s;ies, till they had acquainted the Bi&s;hop of</HI> Rome, <HI>and had his judgement, as is cleere by St.</HI> Cyrill of <HI>Alexandria, in the ca&s;e of</HI> Ne&s;torius. Neither doe we denie, that in this and the like ca&s;e the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> ought to be acquainted; For <HI>Ne&s;torius</HI> was Patriarch of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> and there|fore good rea&s;on the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> as another Patriarch, &s;hould be acquainted with it, that hee might be judged by his Peeres; but in other ca|&s;es they &s;ent Letters without acquainting the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome:</HI> neither ought you to require or expect that we &s;hould produce any &s;uch letters of premoni|tion again&s;t the points of <HI>Trent</HI> doctrine, for which we now condemne you, becau&s;e tho&s;e errors which then began to &s;pring in the Church, by cu&s;tome and pertinacies became here&s;ies in many ages after. About that time, and in that very Age St. <HI>Au|&s;tin</HI> condemned the &s;uper&s;tition of &s;ome in wor|&s;hipping Sepulchers and Images (which at this day is an Article of your Faith:) but you an&s;wer that he <HI>condemned the heatheni&s;h and &s;uper&s;titious wor&s;hip
<PB N="203" REF="111" MS="y"> of dead, perhaps wicked mens tombs and pictures:</HI> and for a &s;olution of this place you referre me to <HI>Bellar|mine.</HI> It &s;eems you could give me no &s;atisfactory an|&s;wer of your own, and therefore you returne me to your Cardinal; but I wonder why you do not recite his an&s;wer to this place. I conceived that you were a&s;hamed of it, or there was &s;ome mi&s;pri&s;ion that made you conceale it; &amp; thereupon I have peru&s;ed it, and find that he hath fal&s;ified both the place and meaning of it. As for in&s;tance: whereas <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> &s;aith,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><P>Aug. de mori|bus Eccle&s;. Ca+thol. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>34.</HI> p. (mihi) <HI>774.</HI> To~. <HI>1.</HI></P>
<P>Bell. de Reli|quiis Sanct. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>4.</HI></P></NOTE> <HI>I know many wor&s;hippers of tombes and pictures,</HI> your Cardinall leaves out the <HI>word pictures,</HI> and &s;aith, <HI>I know many wor&s;hippers of tombes;</HI> and for his full &s;olution he &s;ubjoyneth, <HI>Au&s;tin wrote this in the be|ginning of his fir&s;t conver&s;ion.</HI> Again, he cites another place of S. <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> as it were to illu&s;trate the former, without any re&s;pect or mention of the wor&s;hippers of pictures, and tells us,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE> that <HI>the Emperour did pray at the Sepulcher of St.</HI> Peter, yet proves not the point in que&s;tion, that he did wor&s;hip the <HI>Sepulcher</HI> it &s;elfe; for who doubts but that we al&s;o may wor&s;hip God at St. <HI>Peters</HI> &s;hrine, and yet not wor&s;hip the &s;hrine it &s;elfe. Nay, hee goeth on further, and &s;hewes that <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> did not reprehend <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome,</HI> and <HI>Hie|rome,</HI> but the ignorant &s;ort of people: for <HI>Chry&s;o|&s;tome</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Let us adore the Tombes of Martyrs;</HI> when as there are no &s;uch words in <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome,</HI> but rather, Let us adorne them.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ut Tumulos Martyrum de center curari. Chry&s;.</NOTE> And whereas he &s;aith further, that <HI>Hierome</HI> wi&s;heth <HI>Marcella,</HI> a Ladie, to wor&s;hip the a&s;hes of the Prophets in <HI>Bethlem;</HI> &s;o likewi&s;e I &s;ay, he doth wi&s;h her in the &s;ame place to lick their du&s;t; and therefore it was not to be un|der&s;tood
<PB N="204" REF="112" MS="y"> as a thing &s;poken properly, but figurative|ly. For el&s;ewhere he &s;aith expre&s;ly again&s;t <HI>Vigilan|tius, I &s;ay not, we wor&s;hip not nor adore the reliques of Martyrs, but neither the Sunne, nor the Moone, nor Angels, nor Archangels, nor Cherubin, nor Seraphin.</HI> Neither did S.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Andr. re&s;p. ad Card. Bell. pag. (mihi) <HI>49.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> &s;peak as you &s;ay of the heathe|ni&s;h and &s;uper&s;titious wor&s;hipping of wicked mens Tombes, but of them which <HI>in ip&s;a vera Religione,</HI> in true Religion were wor&s;hippers of pictures and &s;hrines. For he &s;hewes, that <HI>his owne mother</HI> Moni|ca <HI>did u&s;ually bring to the &s;hrines of Saints certaine Bread and Wine,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Augu&s;t. Confe&s;. l. <HI>6.</HI> c. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> <HI>and other provi&s;ion; but becau&s;e the celebrating after the manner of the memory of the dead, did very much re&s;emble the &s;uper&s;tition of the heathen, &s;he was forbidden it by St.</HI> Ambro&s;e; <HI>which forbidding</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>&s;hee did &s;o piou&s;ly and obedi|ently embrace, as that my &s;elfe did wonder to &s;ee her made (with &s;uch ea&s;e) rather a condemner of her owne ancient cu&s;tome, than a que&s;tioner of the pre&s;ent prohibition.</HI> For a conclu&s;ion; whereas you would excu&s;e it, that St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> did condemne onely the &s;uper&s;titious wor&s;hip of wicked mens Tombes, your men are likewi&s;e guiltie of the &s;ame wor|&s;hip:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bell. de Sanct. Beat. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>7.</HI></NOTE> For your owne Cardinall will tell you, <HI>that the people</HI> (of the <HI>Roman</HI> Church) <HI>did for a long time celebrate</HI> Sulpitius <HI>for a Mqrtyr, who after|wards did appeare and told them, that he had beene a theefe and was damned;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem, ibid.</NOTE> And that <HI>Alexander the third reprehended certaine men for wor&s;hipping one as a Martyr, that was killed in his drunkenne&s;&s;e:</HI> and thus (to u&s;e your owne words) for the&s;e, I &s;end you backe againe to <HI>Bellarmine</HI> for an an&s;wer.</P>
<PB N="205" REF="112">
<P>I come to the re&s;t of your an&s;wers. Fir&s;t I cited out of <HI>Ferus,</HI> that <HI>Ma&s;&s;es, Mona&s;teries, Ceremo|nies, Fea&s;ts, Images, are otherwi&s;e now u&s;ed than they were in the beginning:</HI> I produced likewi&s;e <HI>Po|lydore Virgil, Era&s;mus, Scotus, Agrippa, Ca&s;&s;ander, Gregorie de Valentia,</HI> in &s;everall points again&s;t your new doctrine; now let us heare your &s;everall an|&s;wers to them. Touching <HI>Ferus, he is a Frier</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>in your Bookes, but not in ours, &s;ave onely in the</HI> Roman Index <HI>of forbidden Bookes.</HI> Touching <HI>Polydore, he &s;aith as the Knight telleth us, and as much as any Heretike can &s;ay, but it booteth not, for his Booke is forbidden.</HI> Touching <HI>Era&s;mus, he is no Authour for us to an&s;wer, he is branded in the</HI> Ro|man Index. Touching <HI>Scotus,</HI> you neither con|demne him, nor an&s;wer him: he tells you plainly, that <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation was not received for a point of Faith till the Councell of</HI> Lateran, above 1200. yeares after Chri&s;t; but of this pa&s;&s;age <HI>Ne gry qui|dem:</HI> And yet you might have an&s;wered with <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> this opinion of his is no way to be al|lowed; or with <HI>Gregorie de Valentia,</HI> for this &s;ay|ing he ought to be corrected. As touching <HI>Agrippa</HI> and <HI>Ca&s;&s;ander,</HI> you will not vouch&s;afe them an an|&s;were, but reject them <HI>inter damnatos authores,</HI> as men to be ca&s;t out of your Synagogue. La&s;tly, tou|ching <HI>Gregorie de Valentia,</HI> you &s;ay <HI>his authoritie doth make again&s;t the Knight, why el&s;e &s;hould he cor|rupt and mangle it?</HI> But whether I or you have corrupted it, let the Reader judge; my words were the&s;e, <HI>The Communion in one kind, when it got fir&s;t footing in the Church, minim&egrave; con&s;tat, it doth not
<PB N="206" REF="113"> appeare</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Greg. de Valentia:</HI>) You to prove my corruption, cite the words in this manner; <HI>When that cu&s;tome began in &s;ome Churches, it appeareth not; but that there hath been &s;ome u&s;e of one kind ever from the beginning, I &s;hewed before;</HI> &s;o <HI>Valentia;</HI> and thus you.</P>
<P>But in truth, this is none of <HI>Valentia's</HI> own period, but one of your owne making, who cunningly joyne the latter words which follow in <HI>Valentia,</HI> 4. or 5. lines after, to the former, with a <HI>But,</HI> which is none of <HI>Valentia's;</HI> &amp; the former part of the period is no|tably mangled by you: For thus it &s;tands, <HI>When that cu&s;tome began in &s;ome Churches,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Augu&s;tana Confe&s;sio.</NOTE> <HI>it appeares not, as is acknowledged by the</HI> Augu&s;tane <HI>Confe&s;sion.</HI> Now in that Confe&s;&s;ion, the words are the&s;e, <HI>The cu&s;tome of both kindes remained long in the Church, neither doth it appeare when, or by what Author it was changed;</HI> &s;o that he plainly &s;peaketh of the Church in gene|ral, &amp; &s;heweth the corruption here pretended by M. <HI>Floyd</HI> to be but a cavill, <HI>viz.</HI> That <HI>Valentia</HI> &s;aith this, not of the Church in generall, but of &s;ome particular Churches. Thus either you blot &amp; prohibit all Au|thors that make for us, although they be members of your own Church, or el&s;e you vouch&s;afe them no an&s;wer, or el&s;e you quarrell without any ju&s;t occa&s;i|on offred; and this wil prove an ea&s;ie way for the weake&s;t &s;cholar in your Church to an&s;wer all that can be produced again&s;t your faith and doctrine.</P>
<P>Now as the Reader hath heard your an&s;wer in the generall, &s;o let him &s;ee your exceptions to the parti|culars: For whereas I &s;aid with St. <HI>Paul, Forbidding of marriage is a doctrine of Devils,</HI> you an&s;wer as if you were angrie with St. <HI>Paul,</HI> that <HI>he hath been an|&s;wered
<PB N="207" REF="113"> more often than the Knight hath fingers and toes;</HI> and it &s;eems, for that rea&s;on you will vouch&s;afe him no an&s;wer at all. This puts me in minde of the &s;aying of <HI>Ludovicus Vives,</HI> a member of your owne Church, who a&s;&s;ures us, <HI>If St.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Lud. Vives de Civ. Dei. l. <HI>13.</HI> c. <HI>24.</HI></NOTE> Paul <HI>were living in the&s;e dayes, he would be held either a mad man, or an heretike.</HI> And &s;ince you will not re&s;olve me of St. <HI>Pauls</HI> meaning in that place, I will appeale to St. <HI>Bernard,</HI> an Abbot who was re&s;trained from marri|age by the law of your Church; who &s;peaking of that re&s;traint, gives us the true &s;en&s;e and expo&s;ition of St. <HI>Paul</HI> in the&s;e words: <HI>All here&s;ies have an here|tike for their founder; the</HI> Maniches <HI>had</HI> Manes,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bernard. in Cant. Serm. <HI>66.</HI></NOTE> <HI>the</HI> Sabellians <HI>had</HI> Sabellicus, <HI>the</HI> Arrians <HI>had</HI> Arrius, &amp;c. <HI>&s;o that we know the Authors of tho&s;e plagues; but by what name will you terme the Author of tho&s;e that for|bid marriage? Surely it is not of man, or by man, and far be it from the &s;pirit of God, but it is foretold (by the Apo&s;tle St.</HI> Paul) <HI>to be the fraud &amp; doctrine of devils.</HI></P>
<P><HI>But marriage</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>is not a thing evil in it &s;elfe, but becau&s;e it le&s;&s;e agreeth with the holine&s;&s;e which is required for the exerci&s;e of Prie&s;tly function.</HI> I pray then what thinke you of a concubine? Doth com|panie with her better agree for exerci&s;e of your fun|ction, than with a wife? Sure I am, this is the doctrine of your Church: nay more, your Pope <HI>Siricius</HI> would inferre by authoritie of Scripture, that mar|riage is unholy in it &s;elfe, for he cites the Text for <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t, <HI>They that live in the fle&s;h cannot plea&s;e God.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Qui in carne &s;unt Deo place|re non po&s;&s;unt.</NOTE> Now I pray you what difference is there betwixt the anci|ent heretikes, and the members of your Church? The <HI>Montani&s;ts,</HI> the <HI>Tatiani,</HI> the <HI>Eucratitae,</HI> did not
<PB N="208" REF="114"> prohibite marriage to all, no more than you doe, but onely to their <HI>perfecti,</HI> as being a di&s;paragement to their perfect e&s;tate; or as you interpret, <HI>not agreeing to the holines of Prie&s;thood.</HI> Again, whereas I proved out of <HI>Polydore,</HI> that the marriage of Prie&s;ts was not altogether forbidden till the time of <HI>Gregorie</HI> the 7. that is to &s;ay, above a thou&s;and yeares after Chri&s;t; you an&s;wer, that which <HI>Polydore</HI> cites is mo&s;t evi|dently fal&s;e, as appeareth particularly by a Canon of the fir&s;t Councell of <HI>Nice,</HI> and the &s;econd Coun|cell of <HI>Carthage.</HI> Now if <HI>Polydore</HI> were mi&s;taken, it concernes not me, for I cited him truly, and he is a member of your Church; but the truth is, you are much mi&s;taken touching tho&s;e two Councels. For the Councell of <HI>Nice</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Sozomen) commended</HI> Paphnutius <HI>judgement,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Sozom. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>22.</HI></NOTE> <HI>and touching this matter of mariage, made to decree an all, but left it to each mans owne will, without any force of nece&s;sity;</HI> And the Councell of <HI>Carthage</HI> forbiddeth not marriage in Prie&s;ts, but commandeth ab&s;tinence from marriage rites for a certaine time, as St. <HI>Paul</HI> doth, <HI>that they may more freely give them&s;elves to prayer, and the of|fices of their &s;acred function.</HI> Which plainly &s;hewes, that both Prie&s;ts were married in tho&s;e dayes, and con&s;equently, that tho&s;e two Councels make flatly again&s;t you. But <HI>Marius</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>cannot find the be|ginning of this prohibition;</HI> Polydore <HI>findeth it, and yet both make for the Knights purpo&s;e.</HI> And without doubt they doe, for they contradict not one the o|ther: <HI>Polydore</HI> &s;peaketh of publike, ab&s;olute, and re|all prohibition; <HI>Marius</HI> of the fir&s;t condemning it in any Prie&s;t; and the&s;e confe&s;&s;ions may well &s;tand to|gether.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="217" REF="114">
<HEAD>CHAP. VII. The &s;umme of his An&s;wer to Sect. 7.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P N="1"><HI>1.</HI> That the imputations of ancient Haere&s;ies are fal&s;e.</P>
<P N="2"><HI>2.</HI> That Succe&s;sion be&s;ides Antiquity importeth con|tinuance, and perpetuity without intermi&s;sion.</P>
<P N="3"><HI>3.</HI> That Prote&s;tants have no &s;haddow of &s;ucce&s;si|on in per&s;on or doctrine.</P>
<P N="4"><HI>4.</HI> That Papi&s;ts have a mo&s;t cleare per&s;onall Succe&s;si|on, being able to &s;hew <HI>200.</HI> and odde Popes &s;ucceeding the other in place and office.</P>
<P N="5"><HI>5.</HI> That per&s;onall Succe&s;sion is a firme argument of &s;ucce&s;sion in faith.</P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>IT is my promi&s;e in my &s;eventh Section, to &s;hew a de&s;cent of both Religions (as namely) that the Romi&s;h faith was derived from ancient Haeretikes, and the Prote&s;tant faith was drawne downe from Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles. But (&s;ay you) <HI>It is one thing to prove a thing to have beene anciently taught, another to have beene &s;ucce&s;sively taught:</HI> It is true, Antiquity and Succe&s;&s;ion differ; neither did I undertake to prove that tho&s;e Haere|tikes, or your Church, had a perpetuall &s;ucce&s;&s;ion in per&s;on and doctrine; but for the truths &s;ake I have acknowledged the antiquity of your <HI>Trent</HI> faith, although de&s;cended from ancient Haere|tikes, and I made the fir&s;t in&s;tance in Latin Ser|vice,
<PB N="208" REF="115">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="217" REF="115">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="218" REF="116" MS="y"> and prayer in a &s;trange tongue brought in by Pope <HI>Vitalian</HI> (as is witne&s;&s;ed by <HI>Wolphius:</HI>) but you cry out, <HI>It is a mo&s;t &s;trange ab&s;urdity to averre &s;uch a knowne fal&s;ehood upon no other autho|rity,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 87.</NOTE> <HI>then a profe&s;&s;ed Haeretike.</HI></P>
<P>And is he an Haeretike that &s;peaketh the truth of your Religion? What &s;ay you to your prime Champion M^r. <HI>Harding?</HI> He &s;aith expre&s;ly, <HI>About nine hundred yeares pa&s;t, it is certaine the people in &s;ome Countries had their &s;ervice in an un|knowne tongue,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Iuel in his <HI>3.</HI> Article, Divi&s;. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> <HI>as it &s;hall be proved of our owne Country of</HI> England. Now ob&s;erve the difference, <HI>Wolphius</HI> &s;aid, the Latin Service came in after Chri&s;t about the yeare (666.) M^r. <HI>Harding</HI> (who wrote the&s;e (67.) yeares &s;ince) as appeares by Bi&s;hop <HI>Iuels</HI> Epi&s;tle, tells us it came in (900.) yeares pa&s;t: compute <HI>Wolphius</HI> (666.) with M^r. <HI>Hardings</HI> time of (967.) and you &s;hall finde that they agree about one and the &s;ame time, and therefore it was neither ab&s;urd, nor fal&s;e, which <HI>Wolphius</HI> uttered.</P>
<P>Neither doe you di&s;prove the rea&s;on of <HI>Wol|phius,</HI> but you make a <HI>quaere</HI> upon his a&s;&s;ertion; <HI>During his</HI> (600.) <HI>and odd yeares) what other Ly|turgies were there in the Latin Church, but Latin?</HI> And I may a&s;well &s;ay, what were there in the <HI>Greeke Church</HI> but <HI>Greeke?</HI> But this demand ma|keth again&s;t your Service in an unknowne tongue, not again&s;t <HI>Wolphius,</HI> who affirmeth not that the Latin Service was not in the Latin Church before the yeare (666.) but that the Pope obtruded it
<PB N="219" REF="116" MS="y"> upon all Churches, even there where the Latin was not under&s;tood, as (in <HI>England</HI> &s;aith M^r. <HI>Har|ding</HI>) and el&s;ewhere. For <HI>Origen</HI> tells us before that time,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Orig. contra Cel&s;um. lib. <HI>8.</HI></NOTE> <HI>the Greekes call upon God in the Greeke tongue, and the Latins in the Latin tongue, and all &s;everall Nations pray unto God, and prai&s;e him in their owne naturall and mother tongues, for he that is the Lord of all tongues, heareth men praying in all tongues, none otherwi&s;e then if it were one voice pro|nounced by divers tongues; for God that ruleth the whole world, is not as &s;ome one man, that hath got|ten the Greeke or Latin, and knoweth none other.</HI> The ancient Primitive Churches therefore taught the Doctrine in a knowne tongue,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><LIST>
<ITEM>&Lgr;. 30. 666</ITEM>
<ITEM>&Agr;. 1. 666</ITEM>
<ITEM>&Tgr; 300. 666</ITEM>
<ITEM>&Egr; 5. 666</ITEM>
<ITEM>&Igr; 10. 666</ITEM>
<ITEM>&Ngr; 50. 666</ITEM>
<ITEM>&Ogr; 70. 666</ITEM>
<ITEM>&Sgr; 200. 666</ITEM>
</LIST></NOTE> agreeable to the profe&s;&s;ion at this day. But the truth is, the <HI>Latin</HI> Service, and the name of the <HI>Latin</HI> Church is one of the mo&s;t e&s;&s;entiall markes of the Roman <HI>Hierarchie.</HI> And I know not whether it were by conjecture, or by in&s;piration, that <HI>Irenaeus</HI> above foureteene hundred yeares agoe,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Sed &amp; <GAP DESC="foreign"> nomen &s;ex|centinum &s;exa|ginta &s;ex, nume|ru~ habens valde veri&s;imile e&s;t quoniam veri&s;si|mum nomen hoc habet vocabu|lum. Latini e|nim &s;unt qui nunc regna~t, &s;ed non in hoc nos gloriabimur.] Irenae. l <HI>5.</HI> cap <HI>25.</HI> p mihi. <HI>355.</HI></NOTE> in the word <HI>La|teinos,</HI> found out the name of <HI>Antichri&s;t,</HI> and the number of (666.) The name <HI>Lateinos</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>conteining the number of &s;ix hundred &s;ixty &s;ix is ve|ry likely, becau&s;e the true&s;t kingdome hath that name; for they are the Latines that now raigne,</HI> but (&s;aith he) <HI>we will not glory in this.</HI></P>
<P>You proceede to the Haeretikes <HI>O&s;&s;em,</HI> and you &s;ay fir&s;t, <HI>I am notably mi&s;taken in placing them to|wards the Apo&s;tles time, and withall, you have read the Chapter there twice over, and the &s;econd time more attentively then the fir&s;t, and
<PB N="220" REF="117"> yet you find not any &s;uch word &s;o cited by mee.</HI></P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Trajan, Anno <HI>100.</HI> Bel. de &s;cript. Eccle&s;. pag. mihi.</NOTE>Fir&s;t, this Sect continued till <HI>Trajans</HI> time, not an hundred yeares after the Apo&s;tles; and there|fore it was no errour in me to place them towards the Apo&s;tles time: and if you plea&s;e to peru&s;e the place a third time with your Spectacles, you &s;hall find the&s;e words,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Epiph. here&s;. <HI>19</HI></NOTE> <HI>Nemo quaerat interpretationem, &s;ed &s;olum in oratione haec dicat;</HI> and there hee re|peats a Prayer, which (if you peru&s;e the <HI>Greeke</HI> text) is more expre&s;&s;e. Let no man inquire after the meaning, only in his Prayer, <HI>Let him &s;ay &s;uch words,</HI> (viz.) <HI>&s;uch Hebrew words which</HI> Epipha|nius <HI>there &s;etteth downe.</HI> Are not the&s;e Heretikes (thinke you) neere kinne to them who &s;ay, <HI>Heare Latine Ma&s;&s;e,</HI> and &s;ay after the Prie&s;t, it mattereth not whether you under&s;tand what hee &s;aith, or not.</P>
<P>From <HI>Epiphanius</HI> you flie to Saint <HI>Ambro&s;e,</HI> and there you make a great complaint, that I put in words of my owne in the &s;ame Character with Saint <HI>Ambro&s;e,</HI> which are none of his (as namely) <HI>There were certaine Iewes amongst the Graecians,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ambr. in <HI>1</HI> Cor. <HI>14.</HI></NOTE> <HI>as namely, the</HI> Corinthians, <HI>who did celebrate the Divine Service, and Sacraments, which the com|mon people under&s;tood not.</HI></P>
<P>I confe&s;&s;e ingenuou&s;ly, it is an errour in the print, and I &s;hall willingly alter the letter, but not the words, at the next impre&s;&s;ion. But I con|fidently profe&s;&s;e, it is agreeable to the true &s;en&s;e and meaning of the Author; and the &s;trength of the argument is not in the words, but in the &s;en&s;e:
<PB N="221" REF="117"> and therfore I may truly an&s;wer you with S. <HI>Au|&s;tine, What folly is it to contend about words,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Aug. Ep. <HI>174.</HI></NOTE> <HI>when there is the certainty of the thing it &s;elfe?</HI></P>
<P>It cannot be denied, that <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> taxeth the <HI>Hebrewes,</HI> who among&s;t the <HI>Corinthians, in Tra|ctatibus &amp; oblationibus,</HI> u&s;ed &s;ometimes the Sy|riack, and &s;ometimes the Hebrew tongue, which without doubt, the <HI>Greeks</HI> under&s;tood not. And therefore, in his Commentarie on this place, hee gives the <HI>Hebrew</HI> to under&s;tand; <HI>If you meet toge|ther to edifie the Church,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ambr. in <HI>1</HI> Cor. <HI>14.</HI></NOTE> <HI>tho&s;e things mu&s;t be deli|vered which the hearers under&s;tand: for to what purpo&s;e, or profit is it, that any one &s;peake a tongue which hee him&s;elfe onely under&s;tands, and whereof hee that heareth can reape no fruit?</HI> And a little after; <HI>The Apo&s;tle &s;aith, I had rather &s;peake five words in the Church, according to the Law, that I may edifie others, than any long and large di&s;cour&s;e in ob&s;curitie.</HI> Againe, by <HI>[oblationibus]</HI> (which you interpret, <HI>Offrings</HI>) Saint <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> cannot meane, the peoples gifts or offrings; (for there was no need of any &s;peech, much le&s;&s;e a long &s;peech at the&s;e offrings.) It mu&s;t therefore fol|low, that either he meanes the celebration of the Sacrament, or &s;ome &s;pirituall &s;acrifices of Prai&s;e and Thank&s;giving.</P>
<P>You proceed from one here&s;ie to another, <HI>(viz)</HI> from your unknown Service, to your Tran|&s;ub&s;tantiation. This Doctrine I &s;hewed, had his de&s;cent from the Heretikes, <HI>Helce&s;aitae,</HI> from <HI>Marcus,</HI> from the <HI>Capernaites.</HI> Touching the
<PB N="222" REF="118"> <HI>Helce&s;aitae,</HI> (you &s;ay) <HI>It is an hereticall fable: for tho&s;e Heretikes make two Chri&s;ts,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 92.</NOTE> <HI>wee acknowledge but one, and the &s;ame both in heaven, and in the con|&s;ecrated Ho&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>It is true, this particular In&s;tance is cited a|mong&s;t the Tables of <HI>Theodoret;</HI> but yet you have affinitie with their Tenets, as neere as co&s;en Germans once removed. For as you acknow|ledge but one Chri&s;t in the heavens, and in the Ho&s;t, no more did tho&s;e Heretikes in words; for they rehear&s;ed the Apo&s;tles Creed, <HI>Et in Ie&s;um Chri&s;tum,</HI> and not <HI>in Chri&s;tos:</HI> and as they made a two-fold Chri&s;t, one in heaven, another in earth; &s;o likewi&s;e you teach, that Chri&s;t in the Sacrament (here on earth) is invi&s;ible and indi|vi&s;ible, but in heaven at the &s;ame time vi&s;ible, and with dimen&s;ions of quantitie, and di&s;tin|ctions of Organs. And what is this, but con|&s;equently to make two Chri&s;ts, or at lea&s;t, to make contradictories true at the &s;ame time, of one and the &s;ame Chri&s;t, in re&s;pect of his humane na|ture to be vi&s;ible and invi&s;ible?</P>
<P>Touching <HI>Marcus</HI> the Heretike, (you &s;ay) <HI>Hee changed the colour; but you teach, that the co|lour and accidents remaine, and the &s;ub&s;tance is changed.</HI></P>
<P>It is true; and your opinion in this, is more ab|&s;urd than that of <HI>Marcus:</HI> for he changed the Colour, to make the people beleeve it was true blood; and you make them beleeve it is blood, when there is neither ta&s;t, nor colour of blood.</P>
<PB N="223" REF="118">
<P>La&s;tly, touching the <HI>Capernaites;</HI> you deny there is any likene&s;&s;e of Doctrine. <HI>For</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>the Capernaites thought they &s;hould eate Christs body piece-meale, but wee receive Chri&s;t whole and entire, not in the forme and &s;hape of fle&s;h, but of bread, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>But I pray, which of the Evangeli&s;ts ever charged them with any &s;uch conceit? The truth is, they under&s;tood the words of Chri&s;t as you doe, in a gro&s;&s;e and carnall manner: and therfore Chri&s;t in reproving them, &s;aith not, Fle&s;h eaten piece-meale, profiteth nothing; but ab&s;olutely, <HI>The fle&s;h profiteth nothing.</HI> As touching your eating of Chri&s;t, <HI>whole and intire;</HI> it is all one with their eating of him by piece-meale: for there may be many differences in eating, but all eating the fle&s;h of Chri&s;t with teeth and jawes, is <HI>Caperniticall.</HI> But you neither &s;ee, nor ta&s;te the fle&s;h of Chri&s;t, which they dream'd they &s;hould; for you receive it, <HI>Not</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>in the forme of fle&s;h, but of bread.</HI> I will returne you an An&s;wer from a learned Divine on our &s;ide:<NOTE PLACE="marg">B. <HI>Bil&s;on,</HI> in the difference between Chri&s;t &s;ubject, and un|chri&s;tian Rebel|lion. <HI>pag. 748.</HI></NOTE> <HI>You chaw the fle&s;h of Chri&s;t actually with your teeth, and &s;wallow the &s;ame downe your throats, and the&s;e be proper actions, and right in&s;truments of externall and Ca|perniticall eating; your eyes and your ta&s;te be not; el&s;e blind men, and &s;uch as by rea&s;on of Sickne&s;&s;e can ta&s;te nothing, by your Divinitie can eate no|thing. Since then you concurre with the Capernaites (in eating and &s;wallowing) notwith&s;tanding you vary from them in &s;ight and ta&s;te, yet your opinion
<PB N="224" REF="119"> e&s;tabli&s;heth a corporall eating of Chri&s;ts fle&s;h, and a perverting of the meaning of Chri&s;ts words, no le&s;&s;e than theirs did.</HI></P>
<P>Let mee paralell them together with the mo&s;t favorable con&s;truction I can, yet your Church mu&s;t have her Antiquitie and de&s;cent from tho&s;e <HI>Capernaites.</HI> For, &s;uppo&s;e the <HI>Capernaites</HI> did be|leeve that Chri&s;t would kill him&s;elfe, and give his body to be eaten; yet the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> teacheth, that Chri&s;t did eate his owne fle&s;h, a thing no le&s;&s;e barbarous (being meant litterally) than to kill him&s;elfe. Admit the <HI>Capernaites</HI> did beleeve that Chri&s;t would give his fle&s;h to be mangled by pieces, or by halves; yet your Chur|ches opinion is no le&s;&s;e cruell, to beleeve that in the Sacrament, Chri&s;ts fle&s;h is &s;wallowed up whole at one mor&s;ell. La&s;tly, let it be granted that the <HI>Capernaites</HI> did believe, that Chri&s;ts fle&s;h &s;hould be eaten when hee was dead; yet the opi|nion of the <HI>Romani&s;ts</HI> is more bruti&s;h, to imagine his fle&s;h to be eaten when he was alive (being a higher degree of crueltie to devoure men alive,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Aperti&s;simi lo|quimur, corpus Chri&s;ti veri &agrave; nobis att<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ectari, manducan, cir|cumge&s;tari, den|tibus atteri, &s;en&s;ibiliter &s;a|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rificari, non min<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters">s quam anie con&s;ecra|tionem panis. <HI>Alanus, lib. 3. de Euchar. cap. 37.</HI></NOTE> than when they are dead.) Sure I am, they both agree in this, that according to the letter they &s;hould eate the fle&s;h of Chri&s;t, Orally, Corpo|rally, and Sub&s;tantially: they both agree in the &s;en&s;ible handling of his body, in devouring him with the mouth, and in grinding him with the teeth. <HI>Alanus</HI> the <HI>Romani&s;t</HI> profe&s;&s;eth openly in the name of the Church, <HI>Aperti&s;simi loquimur, Wee affirme plainly, the body of Chri&s;t is truly
<PB N="225" REF="119" MS="y"> handled of us, carried about, ground with the teeth; and &s;en&s;ibly &s;acrificed.</HI> Long before him Pope <HI>Nicholas</HI> confirmed this doctrine in a Councell at <HI>Rome,</HI> and taught it for a le&s;&s;on to <HI>Berengarius,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Verum Corpus Domini no&s;tri Ie&s;u Chri&s;ti &s;en&s;ualit&egrave;r non &s;olum in Sacra|mento, &s;ed in ve|ritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari, frangi, ac fideli&ugrave;m dentibus atteri. <HI>Grat.</HI> de <HI>con|&s;ecr. d. 2. c. 4. 2.</HI> Ego <HI>Beren|garius.</HI></NOTE> to let him know the great difference betwixt Papi&s;t and Prote&s;tant in the &s;ame Church, <HI>I beleeve that the body of our Lord Ie&s;us is &s;en&s;ibly and in very deede touched with the hands of the Prie&s;t, and bro|ken, and rent, and ground with the teeth of the faith|full.</HI> This confe&s;&s;ion &s;tands a Record in the <HI>Ro|man Decrees,</HI> and unle&s;&s;e you mince the words &s;trangely, you mu&s;t needs acknowledge that you eate the fle&s;h of Chri&s;t peice-meale, and then you &s;ympathize in all things with your fir&s;t Parents the <HI>Capernaites.</HI></P>
<P>From Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation you proceede to the Popes Supremacy, wherein you &s;ay,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 93.</NOTE> <HI>I am mi&s;ta|ken in &s;aying that</HI> Phocas <HI>gave that authority to the Bi&s;hop of</HI> Con&s;tantinople. It is true this is a mi&s;take of the Printer, but no corruption,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Rogatu Bonifa|cij Phocas co<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">|&s;tituit &s;edem Romanae &amp; A|po&s;tolicae Eccle|&s;iae caput e&s;&s;e omnium Eccle|&s;iarum, nam an|te&agrave; Con&s;tanti|nopolitana Ec|cle&s;ia &s;e &s;cribe|bat primam om|nium. <HI>V&s;perg. in Phoc.</HI> fol. mihi.</NOTE> and in the la&s;t Impre&s;&s;ion (which you &s;hould have taken you &s;hall finde <HI>(Rome)</HI> for <HI>Con&s;tantinople:</HI> and this you might well under&s;tand to be an error in the print, becau&s;e my purpo&s;e was to &s;hew a de&s;cent of the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Romes</HI> Supremacy, not of the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople:</HI> And this authority &s;tands good again&s;t you (notwith&s;tanding all your exceptions) <HI>viz.</HI> that the <HI>Pope</HI> of <HI>Rome,</HI> and <HI>that the See of Rome &s;hould be the head of all Churches;</HI> for before that time (&s;aith <HI>V&s;pergen&s;is) the Church of</HI> Con&s;tantinople <HI>did write her &s;elfe chiefe of all
<PB N="226" REF="120" MS="y"> Churches;</HI> &s;o that <HI>(ante&agrave;)</HI> before that time, the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> had no Supremacy: and this a|grees to Pope <HI>Gregories</HI> owne confe&s;&s;ion, <HI>None of my Praedece&s;&s;ors did ever u&s;e that prophane Title.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Nullus unquam praedece&s;&s;orum meorum hoc tam prophano vocabulo uti con&s;uevit. <HI>Greg. ep. 36. l. 4.</HI></NOTE> Nay more, you had two Bi&s;hops of <HI>Con&s;tantino|ple, (viz.) Iohn</HI> and <HI>Cyriacus,</HI> who both &s;ucce&s;|&s;ively a&s;&s;umed the title of <HI>Vniver&s;all</HI> Bi&s;hops, before ever the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> had any: and tho&s;e Bi&s;hops were &s;uborned by <HI>Mauritius,</HI> a bloody Emperour, like unto <HI>Phocas,</HI> who at that time made <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> the chiefe place of his aboade, and by meanes of advancing the Bi&s;hops dignity, &s;ought to winne the greater credit to the City. <HI>Gregory</HI> the Great, writes unto them both &s;everally, as they lived in their Sees, and doth accu&s;e them of <HI>Pride,</HI> of <HI>Singularity,</HI> of <HI>error,</HI> of <HI>vanity,</HI> and <HI>bla&s;phemy</HI> in that new title; neither doth he make claime to it him&s;elfe, being then Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome, For mine owne part</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>I &s;eeke to encrea&s;e in vertues, and not in vanitie of titles;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Greg. lib. <HI>1.</HI> ep. <HI>30.</HI></NOTE> <HI>for if you call me univer&s;all Bi&s;hop, you de|ny your &s;elves to be that which indeede you are.</HI> And when <HI>Mauritius</HI> the Emperour did countenance the Supremacy in the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople, Gregory</HI> greets him in this manner:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem. l. <HI>4.</HI> Indict. <HI>13.</HI> ep. <HI>32.</HI> p. mihi.</NOTE> <HI>I have recei|ved letters from my vertuous Lord, that I &s;hould bee at peace with my brother and fellow Bi&s;hop, Iohn; indeede it well be&s;eemeth a Religious Prince to com|mand Bi&s;hops in &s;uch things, but this was heavy to mee, that my Soveraigne Lord did not rebuke him for his Pride.</HI> After the death of <HI>Iohn</HI> the fir&s;t Oe|cumenicall
<PB N="227" REF="120" MS="y"> Bi&s;hop, <HI>Cyriacus</HI> &s;ucceeded in the See of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> and continued that title of Oecu|menicall Bi&s;hop by the power of the Emperour; and accordingly Pope <HI>Gregory</HI> writes againe to <HI>Mauritius,</HI> not to take part with <HI>Cyriacus,</HI> and withall writes to <HI>Cyriacus</HI> at his fir&s;t entrance into his Bi&s;hopricke,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem. l. <HI>6.</HI> ep. <HI>28.</HI></NOTE> <HI>that he would aboli&s;h the word of Pride, by which there was &s;o great &s;candall given to the Church.</HI></P>
<P>After the death of <HI>Mauritius, Phocas</HI> (who was a &s;ouldier and fought under the banner of <HI>Mauri|tius</HI>) was proclaimed Emperour by the muti|neirs, who having committed many murthers and cruelties, (which <HI>Cyriacus</HI> could not approve) (for otherwi&s;e it is probable he might have conti|nued the title of Oecumenicall) he called a Synod at <HI>Rome,</HI> con&s;i&s;ting of (62.) Bi&s;hops, and by ver|tue of his power, granted his <HI>Letters Patents to Boniface</HI> then Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> whereby your Popes had the fir&s;t authority of <HI>(Volumus &amp; jube|mus) wee will and command.</HI> And thus <HI>Phocas</HI> pro|cured his Imperiall authority by treachery and blood; <HI>Boniface</HI> obteined his power and Supre|macy by pollicy, and flattery of a bloody Empe|rour; and this (&s;aith <HI>Platina</HI>) was <HI>magn&acirc; cum con|tentione,</HI> with great contention. Neither did <HI>Bo|niface</HI> enjoy this Title many monthes, nor <HI>Phocas</HI> e&s;cape the heavy hand of God; for he was af|terwards &s;laine by <HI>Heraclius,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Quo quis pec|cat, eo punitur.</NOTE> as <HI>Mauritius</HI> was by him.</P>
<P>From <HI>Phocas</HI> you a&s;cend to your fir&s;t Progeni|tors,
<PB N="228" REF="121" MS="y"> the Kings of the <HI>Gentiles,</HI> wherein I &s;hewed the originall of your Papall Supremacy, not that your Popes did lineally &s;ucceede them, but that they did exceede them farre in Tyranny. <HI>But the Pope u&s;eth to stile him&s;elfe &s;ervum &s;ervorum Dei, the &s;ervant of the &s;ervants of God, and will you have it (&s;ay you) that by rea&s;on of his humility,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>pag.</HI> 95.</NOTE> <HI>there must not be any Superiority?</HI> Surely, no; for he that &s;aid, <HI>learne of me, for I am lowly and meeke,</HI> made likewi&s;e this promi&s;e to him that would follow his le&s;&s;on, <HI>He that humbleth him&s;elfe &s;hall be exalted.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Matth.</HI> 20.25.</NOTE> How&s;oever, it is not the title of <HI>&s;er|vus &s;ervorum,</HI> that makes him Chri&s;ts di&s;ciple, or a univer&s;all Bi&s;hop; for in that he &s;ucceedeth ra|ther <HI>Canaan</HI> then <HI>Boniface:</HI> but he mu&s;t follow Chri&s;ts precept, and his example: his precept was, <HI>That none of his Apo&s;tles &s;hould reigne as Lord over his Brethren:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Luke</HI> 22.27.</NOTE> his example was, <HI>I am among you, as hee that &s;erveth.</HI> Neither is it the title which he a&s;&s;umes unto him&s;elfe, that makes him humble; neither doe his Pro&s;elites &amp; follow|ers &s;o much undervalue him as a &s;ervant: For &s;aith <HI>Ger&s;on,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ger&s;. de pote&s;t. Eccle&s;. con&s;ider. <HI>12.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Fawning, deceitfull flattery, whi&s;per|eth into the eares of eccle&s;ia&s;ticall per&s;ons, e&s;pecially of the Pope, in a &s;hamele&s;&s;e manner, &s;aying; as there is no power but of God, &s;o there is none, either Temporall or Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall, Imperiall, or Regall, but from the Pope, in who&s;e thigh Chri&s;t hath writ|ten, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, of who&s;e power to di&s;pute is &s;acrilegious boldne&s;&s;e, to whom no man may &s;ay, &s;ir, why doe you &s;o? though he alter,
<PB N="229" REF="121" MS="y"> overturne, wa&s;te, and confound all States, rules, and po&s;&s;e&s;sions of men: let me be judged a lyar</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>if the&s;e things be not found written by them that &s;eeme wi&s;e in their owne eyes, and if &s;ome Popes have not given credit to &s;uch lying and flattering words.</HI> You &s;ee then, the Popes owne creatures and &s;ervants would make all other to be &s;ervants unto him. But it is &s;trange to &s;ee how many of your men would palliate, and extenuate the Popes power, and Tyrannicall u&s;urpation, &s;ome|times under the vaile and title of <HI>a &s;ervant,</HI> and &s;ometimes by a ceremony u&s;ed at the time of his creation: your M^r. <HI>Harding</HI> witne&s;&s;eth both, and &s;econds his humility in the title of a &s;ervant, with his <HI>(privie)</HI> rea&s;on,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ioel and Har|ding.</NOTE> that is (&s;aith he) <HI>le&s;t the Soveraignty of honour exhibited unto him, &s;hould in his owne conceit lift him higher, then the degree of humane condition; to that purpo&s;e</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>&s;ee|meth the &s;toole of ea&s;ement at his creation, to be &s;et before him to temper the highne&s;&s;e of that vocation, with the ba&s;e con&s;ideration of humane infirmities and nece&s;sities.</HI> That is to &s;ay, that he may re|member him&s;elfe in the mid&s;t of all his glory to be but a man; when as in truth, it is recorded, that the <HI>Porphirie</HI> &s;toole &s;erveth to put the Pope in remembrance of his virility,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Vt &s;edentis ge|nitalia ab ulti|mo diacono at|trectentur. I&s;a|bellicus.</NOTE> that the world may know he is no woman. How&s;oever it &s;eemes the title of &s;ervant is not &s;ufficient to teach him humility, without the &s;toole of ea&s;ement; (and a &s;toole of ea&s;ement is no &s;weete badge of his hu|mility.) But this is as common to others as to
<PB N="230" REF="122"> him&s;elfe; and therfore by that way of Humilitie, he will not merit a Superioritie.</P>
<P><HI>But</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>becau&s;e hee mu&s;t carry him&s;elfe like a Servant, mu&s;t he not therefore feed the lambs, and &s;heepe of Chri&s;t?</HI>] God forbid. But Saint <HI>Ber|nard,</HI> who otherwi&s;e maintained the Popes Su|premacie, told us about 500 yeares &s;ince, that the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome,</HI> as well as other Bi&s;hops, who had the charge of Gods Church, were <HI>not Teachers,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Bernard ad Eug. lib. <HI>2.</HI> de Con&s;iderat.</NOTE> <HI>but Deceivers; they were not Feeders, but Beguilers; they were not Praelates, but</HI> Pilates. And certainly, if his whole Prerogative hang up|on feeding the flocke, his Superioritie will quick|ly come to nought: for mo&s;t of them feed not, many are utterly ignorant, and cannot feed; o|thers, e&s;pecially the later Popes, feed their flocks for their owne ends. <HI>And</HI> (&s;aith Saint <HI>Au&s;tine) Who&s;oever they be that feed the &s;heepe,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Augu&s;t. in Iohn, Tract. <HI>123.</HI></NOTE> <HI>to the end to make them theirs, and not Chri&s;ts, they love them|&s;elves and not Chri&s;t;</HI> for de&s;ire either of glorie, or of rule, or of gaine.</P>
<P>For a Conclu&s;ion, the Popes humilitie is no other, then that which Antichri&s;t profe&s;&s;eth, <HI>Ad|vancing him&s;elfe above all that is wor&s;hipped,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 2.</NOTE> <HI>or called God:</HI> no other then <HI>Diocle&s;ian</HI> the per&s;ecu|ting Emperour u&s;ed, commanding by Proclama|tion,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Alexander ab Alexandro.</NOTE> <HI>That all &s;hould fall downe and ki&s;&s;e his feet.</HI> And as for his feeding of Chri&s;ts &s;heepe, <HI>Nicho|laus Clemangis</HI> a Doctor of <HI>Paris,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Clemang. de <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">rrupt. Eccle|&s;iae &s;tatu. cap. <HI>5.</HI> &amp; <HI>7.</HI></NOTE> about 200 years &s;ince, complained that the Pope, <HI>Not contented with the fruits and profits of the Bi&s;hopricke of</HI>
<PB N="231" REF="122" MS="y"> Rome, <HI>and Saints</HI> Peters <HI>Patrimonie, though very great and royall, laid his greedy hands on other mens flocks, repleni&s;hed with milke and wooll,</HI> and <HI>u&s;ur|ped the right of be&s;towing Bi&s;hopricks, and livings Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall throughout all Chri&s;tendome: he rai|&s;ed his Cardinals, as complices of his Pompe,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 13.</NOTE> <HI>from Clergy-men of low e&s;tate to the Peeres of Princes, and inriched them with the di&s;pen&s;ations, to have and to hold offices and benefices, not two, or three, or ten,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 14.</NOTE> <HI>or twenty, but a hundred, or two hundred, yea &s;ome|times foure hundred, or five hundred, or more, and tho&s;e not &s;mall or leane ones, but even the be&s;t and fatte&s;t.</HI> Nay more, in&s;tead of feeding the lambes and &s;heepe of Chri&s;t,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 19, 20.</NOTE> <HI>Hee filled the hou&s;e of God with dumb dogs, and evill bea&s;ts,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 3, 4, 5, 9.</NOTE> <HI>even from the highe&s;t Prelates to the ba&s;e&s;t hedge-Prie&s;ts, and all to maintaine the pride and riot of his worldly &s;tate, which he hath lifted up above Kings and Emperors;</HI> and yet this man is <HI>Servus Servorum.</HI> If this man therefore mu&s;t carry him&s;elfe a <HI>Servant,</HI> (as you pretend) why doth hee take upon him to be Lord Paramount? If hee be a &s;ervant, who &s;hall be his ma&s;ter that &s;hall teach him obedience? Your booke of Ceremonies tels us,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Liber Cerem. <HI>3.</HI> cap. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> that <HI>The Pope him|&s;elfe giveth no manner of reverence to any man a|live, neither openly by &s;tanding up, or by bowing downe, or by uncovering his head.</HI> Neither is hee a &s;ervant to the Emperour; for <HI>as &s;oone as he &s;eeth the Pope, he wor&s;hippeth him with bare head,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem, l. <HI>1.</HI> Sect. <HI>5.</HI> c. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> <HI>touch|ing the ground with his knee. Againe, when he com|meth to the foot of the Popes Throne, hee kneeleth
<PB N="232" REF="123"> downe. La&s;t of all, when hee commeth to the Popes feet, hee ki&s;&s;eth them (devoutly) in the reverence of our Saviour.</HI> This is a part of the <HI>Emperors</HI> duty, and the greate&s;t Grandee upon earth mu&s;t yield to this <HI>humble Servant of Servants.</HI> This is that Servant of Servants, that &s;et the Imperiall crown upon the Emperors head, <HI>Henry</HI> the &s;ixt, (not with his hand, but with his foot) and ca&s;ting it off againe with the &s;ame foot,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cele&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">nus</HI> 3^u^s^.</NOTE> &s;aid, <HI>I have power to make Emperors, and to unmake them againe at my plea&s;ure.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pa&s;chalis</HI> 2^u^s^.</NOTE> This is that <HI>Servant of Servants,</HI> that &s;et up the Son of the Emperor, <HI>Henry</HI> the fourth again&s;t his Father, and di&s;po&s;&s;e&s;t him of his King|dome.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Adrian</HI> 2^u^s^.</NOTE> This is that <HI>Servant of Servants,</HI> that did correct the Emperor <HI>Frederick,</HI> for holding the left &s;tirrop of his hor&s;e, when hee &s;hould have held the right.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Clemens <HI>^5^u^s^.</HI> Iuel, pag. <HI>379.</HI></NOTE> This is that <HI>Servant of Servants,</HI> that cau&s;ed <HI>Franci&s;cus Dandalus</HI> the Emba&s;&s;ador of <HI>Venice,</HI> to come before him tied in iron chains, and to wallow under his Table with dogs, whil&s;t his Holine&s;&s;e &s;ate at &s;upper. This is that <HI>Servant of Servants,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Innocentius</HI> 3^u^s^.</NOTE> who cau&s;ed King <HI>Iohn</HI> to kneele downe at his Legates feet, and offer up his crown into his hand. This is that <HI>Servant of Servants,</HI> that termed King <HI>Henry</HI> the third,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Matth. Paris, pag. <HI>844.</HI></NOTE> the elde&s;t Son of King <HI>Iohn, the Popes va&s;&s;all, and</HI> England <HI>his Iade.</HI> To conclude, by this Servant, <HI>Rex &s;uperbiae,</HI> the <HI>King of Pride,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Rex &s;uperbiae in foribus e&s;t. Greg. l. <HI>4.</HI> Ep. <HI>38.</HI></NOTE> (which S. <HI>Gregory</HI> foretold in his dayes <HI>to be nigh at hand</HI>) is now manife&s;ted to the world.</P>
<P>From the Popes Supremacie, you proceed to
<PB N="233" REF="123"> the wor&s;hip of Images; and then you cry out,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>pag.</HI> 96.</NOTE> <HI>Here againe the Knight giveth more ample te&s;ti|mony of his notorious naughtie dealing.</HI> Well, what is this grievous accu&s;ation? <HI>Why, when he &s;aid the Heretikes had the picture of Chri&s;t made, as they &s;aid, by</HI> Pilat; <HI>why I &s;ay, could not hee have gone on with</HI> Irenaeus? Thus you.</P>
<P>Let mee tell you, I have omitted nothing ma|teriall of your exceptions, nor nothing in the Au|thors; but if I &s;hould recite at large, all the words of my Authors, which either make for us, or a|gain&s;t you, I &s;hould have wearied both my &s;elfe and the Reader with impertinencies. Let us goe on with <HI>Irenaeus; They crowne them, and propo&s;e them with the Images of the Philo&s;ophers of the world, to wit,</HI> Pythagoras, Plato, Ari&s;totle, <HI>and the re&s;t; and u&s;e &s;uch other ob&s;ervation towards them, as the Gentiles doe.</HI> Then you triumph be|fore the conque&s;t, in a vaunting fa&s;hion, <HI>Doth not this an&s;wer you,</HI> Sir Humphrey? <HI>Doe you not here find a difference betweene their wor&s;hip and ours? betweene Idolatry and Religion? &amp;c. This is too too gro&s;&s;e for &s;uch a &s;ubtile Knight as you are.</HI></P>
<P>To pa&s;&s;e by your idle words, I mu&s;t tell you plainly, this doth not an&s;wer mee. For the <HI>Car|pocratians</HI> (I confe&s;&s;e) that as they wor&s;hipped the Images of Philo&s;ophers, they were heatheni&s;h; but as they wor&s;hipped the Images of Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles, I &s;ay, in that point of Idolatry, they are your Predece&s;&s;ors. <HI>But</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>the Here|tikes crowned the Philo&s;ophers Images.</HI>] It is true;
<PB N="234" REF="124"> <HI>and &s;o was</HI> Marcellina <HI>reckoned, and dete&s;ted as an Heretike</HI> by <HI>Irenaeus, Epiphanius,</HI> and Saint <HI>Au|&s;tin,</HI> for having the <HI>Images of Chri&s;t and Saint</HI> Paul, <HI>in her Clo&s;et, and &s;etting Garlands on their heads, and burning Incen&s;e to them.</HI> Nay more, <HI>Shee her &s;elfe,</HI> &s;aith Saint <HI>Au&s;tine, was of</HI> Carpo|crates <HI>Sect,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Aug. de Here&s;. here&s;. <HI>7.</HI></NOTE> <HI>and wor&s;hipped the Images of</HI> Je&s;u, Paul, Homer, <HI>and</HI> Pythagoras, <HI>with bowing her &s;elfe,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Epiph in <HI>80</HI> he|re&s;. anaceph.] Idem, lib. <HI>1.</HI> he|re&s;. <HI>27.</HI></NOTE> <HI>and burning Incen&s;e. Epiphanius</HI> likewi&s;e chargeth the whole Sect of <HI>Carpocrates,</HI> with the &s;ame fault. The Heretikes called <HI>Gno&s;tici,</HI> be|&s;ides all this, <HI>have Images painted with colours, and &s;ome of gold and &s;ilver, which they &s;ay, are the Images of</HI> Je&s;u; <HI>and made in the time of</HI> Pon|tius Pilat, <HI>when Chri&s;t was conver&s;ant amongst them.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Iren. lib. <HI>1.</HI> cap. <HI>24.</HI></NOTE> And &s;o doth <HI>Irenaeus</HI> al&s;o witne&s;&s;e, they all re&s;training, and adjudging it to be Here&s;ie and Idolatrie, <HI>to cen&s;e, and bow to the Image, even of</HI> Paul, <HI>or Chri&s;ts. But doe you not find a difference</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>betweene their adoring the creature of wood and colour, in place of the creature, and our adoring the Creator repre&s;ented by the creature?</HI></P>
<P>If there be any difference in the manner of the <HI>Pagan</HI> wor&s;hip and yours, it is in this: That the Chri&s;tians who know God, and &s;et up an Image unto him, offend rather than the <HI>Gentiles,</HI> who know him not: and if to wor&s;hip a creature, which is the worke of Gods hands, be flat Idolatrie, how inexcu&s;able is it to wor&s;hip the worke of mens hands, and the &s;hadowes of Creatures re|pre&s;ented by art, and applied by mans vaine con|ceit
<PB N="235" REF="124" MS="y"> to re&s;emble the Creatour? And in this re|&s;pect, Saint <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> preferred the Pagans and Heathens before the <HI>Manichees,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pagani c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">lunt ea quae &s;unt, etc.</HI> Aug. contr&agrave; Fau&s;t. l. 20. c. 5.</NOTE> which were Chri&s;tians: <HI>For the Pagans wor&s;hip things that be, though they be not to be wor&s;hipped; but you</HI> (&s;aith hee) <HI>wor&s;hip tho&s;e things that be not at all, but are fained by the vanitie of your deceitfull fables and tales.</HI></P>
<P>It is true,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Gentes lignum adorant, quia Dei Imaginem putant. <HI>Ambr. in P&s;al. 118. Serm. 10.</HI></NOTE> (as you &s;ay) <HI>the Heathen did wor&s;hip the Creatures of wood, in place of the Creator:</HI> but the rea&s;on is given by Saint <HI>Ambro&s;e, becau&s;e they thinke it to be the Image of God.</HI> And doe not you the like, when you wor&s;hip the picture of Chri&s;t in wood, or any other metall,<NOTE PLACE="marg">I mo&s;t firmly avouch, that the images of Chri&s;t, and the Mother of God, and o|ther Saints are to be wor&s;hip|ped. <HI>Bulla Pij</HI> (4) <HI>Act.</HI> 9.</NOTE> becau&s;e it is the picture of Chri&s;t? Tho&s;e that wor&s;hipped the golden <HI>Calfe,</HI> knew wherof it was made: neither could there be &s;uch a Calfe among&s;t them, to thinke it was a true God. <HI>Tertullian</HI> obraideth the <HI>Pagans, That in their owne con&s;ciences they knew well enough, that the Gods which they wor|&s;hipped were but men, that it was to be proved in what places they were borne, where they had lived,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Tert. Apolog. cap. 10.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rovo|camus ad con|&s;cientiam ve|&s;tram, &amp;c.</NOTE> <HI>and left a remembrance of their workes, where they were buried:</HI> and may not the like be proved by many of your Saints which you wor&s;hip in your Church?</P>
<P>If the <HI>Pagans</HI> had adored their Images for God, there had beene &s;ome difference betwixt you; but they could an&s;wer the Chri&s;tians, as <HI>Cel&s;us</HI> the Philo&s;opher did <HI>Origen:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Orig. contra Cel&s;um, l. <HI>7.</HI></NOTE> <HI>If the Chri|&s;tians deny things made of wood, &s;tone, bra&s;&s;e, or
<PB N="236" REF="125"> gold, to be God, wee grant it; for otherwi&s;e it were a ridiculous opinion; for who but a &s;tarke foole did ever account them for gods?</HI> But in conclu&s;ion, they joyne hands with you. <HI>The&s;e</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>are the &s;ervices unto the gods, or el&s;e certaine re&s;em|blances of the gods.</HI> I will come neerer unto you. It is the voice of the Heathen man in <HI>Clemens, We wor&s;hip the Images which we may &s;ee,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Clem. Recog|nit. ad Iacob. lib. <HI>5.</HI></NOTE> <HI>in the honor of that God which cannot be &s;een.</HI> You may reade the like excu&s;e of a Heathen man in Saint <HI>Au&s;tine: I wor&s;hip neither the Image,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Aug. in P&s;al. <HI>113.</HI> Concion. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> <HI>nor the devill, but by a Corporall figure, I behold the &s;igne of that which I ought to wor&s;hip.</HI> Now change but the name of <HI>Pagan</HI> into <HI>Papist,</HI> and the&s;e &s;ayings will fully agree with your men: and therefore, if it be flat Idolatry in them that know not God, the greater &s;inne lyeth at your Churches doore, who joyne with Pagans and Idolaters, which otherwi&s;e pro|fe&s;&s;e to know him, and wor&s;hip him as hee ought to be wor&s;hipped, <HI>in &s;pirit and truth.</HI> The diffe|rence onely betwixt you and them, is this: They wor&s;hipped the Images of the heathen Philo&s;o|phers, a&s;wel as of <HI>Ie&s;us;</HI> and you &s;ay that you wor|&s;hip Images of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> and not of the <HI>Gentiles.</HI> And herein, your later error is greater than the fir&s;t; for if you had told a <HI>Carpocratian, Thou &s;halt not covet thy Neighbours wife,</HI> (becau&s;e God hath for|bidden it) <HI>Clemens</HI> &s;aith, hee would have replied (as you doe) <HI>By thy Neighbour is under&s;tood,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Clem. Strom. l. <HI>3</HI></NOTE> <HI>the Neighbour of the Gentiles.</HI> And thus they excu&s;e their di&s;ordered Lu&s;t; and you to decline your
<PB N="237" REF="125"> Idolatrous wor&s;hip, &s;avour of one and the &s;ame &s;pirit, and therefore (to u&s;e part of your owne words) <HI>This doctrine is too gro&s;&s;e for &s;o &s;ubtile a Ie|&s;uit as you are.</HI></P>
<P>To conclude, you would know how our Do|ctrine again&s;t Images, <HI>doth &s;ucceed the &s;econd Com|mandement?</HI> Here you quarrell about the word <HI>Succeed,</HI> when I &s;ay no &s;uch thing, but that it is <HI>derived;</HI> and thus you fight with a Paper-man of your owne making. And la&s;tly, you &s;ay the word Image is not in the Scripture, when as your vul|gar Tran&s;lation in <HI>Exodus</HI> is <HI>Sculptile;</HI> and yours in <HI>Deuteronomie, Sculpta &s;imilitudo;</HI> both which &s;ignifie, A graven Image, or the likene&s;&s;e of any thing. Take for a Conclu&s;ion, that friendly ad|monition which <HI>Origen</HI> &s;ometimes gave to <HI>Cel&s;us</HI> the Pagan,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Communis &s;en|&s;us cogitare nos cogit, &amp;c. <HI>Orig. contra Cel&s;um, l. 3.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Common &s;en&s;e doth will men to thinke that God is not dleighted with honour of Images made by men, to repre&s;ent his likene&s;&s;e, or any &s;igni|fication of him: yea, who</HI> (&s;aith hee) <HI>that hath his right wits, will not laugh at him, who after tho&s;e excellent and Philo&s;ophicall di&s;putations concerning God, or the gods, doth looke to Images, and either offereth prayers unto them,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. l. <HI>7.</HI></NOTE> <HI>or by the contemplation thereof, as of &s;ome vi&s;ible &s;igne, goeth about to lift up his mind to the cogitation of God, thereby to be under&s;tood.</HI> And thus much may &s;erve touching your Patrons, and fir&s;t founders of Images.</P>
<P>From your Images, you proceed to your <HI>Com|munion in one kind,</HI> which I &s;hewed was derived from the <HI>Manichees,</HI> &amp;c. You to excu&s;e the mat|ter,
<PB N="238" REF="126"> &s;ay, <HI>That before there were Manichees in the world, the ble&s;&s;ed Sacrament was admini&s;tred &s;ome|times in one kind, &s;ometimes in both.</HI> You &s;ay &s;o, but you &s;ay nothing to prove it; and your <HI>ip&s;e dixit</HI> will hardly carry it again&s;t a cloud of witne&s;&s;es. For confirmation of what I &s;aid, that in this point of Doctrine you &s;ucceed the Heretikes, hearken to <HI>Leo</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Leo. Serm. <HI>4.</HI> de Quadrage&s;.</NOTE> <HI>The Manichees, to cover their infidelitie, venture to be pre&s;ent at our myste|ries, and &s;o carry them&s;elves in receiving of the Sa|craments for their more &s;afety, that they take the bo|dy of Chri&s;t with an unworthy mouth: but in any wi&s;e, they &s;hunne to drinke the blood of our Redemp|tion, which I would have your devoutne&s;&s;e</HI> (&s;peaking to the people) <HI>learne; for by this &s;acrilegious &s;imu|lation, they may be noted by the Godly, that they may be cha&s;ed away by the Prie&s;tly power. Leo</HI> (you &s;ee) &s;peaketh of the <HI>Manichees</HI> by name, and tho&s;e Lay-men al&s;o; and calleth the forbearing the Lords blood, a Sacrilegious &s;leight. Again&s;t the&s;e Heretikes al&s;o, wrote another Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> in the &s;ame age,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Grat. de Con&s;e|crat. Di&s;t. <HI>2.</HI> Co<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">operimus.</NOTE> namely, Pope <HI>Gela&s;ius: We have intelligence</HI> (&s;aith hee) <HI>that certaine men, re|ceiving only a portion of the &s;anctified Body, ab&s;tain from the Cup of the &s;acred blood, who, for that it ap|peareth they be intangled with I know not what &s;u|per&s;tition, let them either receive the whole Sacra|ments, or be driven from the whole; becau&s;e the divi|ding and parting of one and the &s;ame mystery, cannot be without grievous Sacrilege.</HI></P>
<P>What thinke you of your halfe Communion,
<PB N="239" REF="126"> you that brag &s;o much of the antiquitie of your Church? The <HI>Manichees,</HI> without doubt, were the fir&s;t Authors of your Doctrine; and by the &s;uffrages of two infallible Popes, your Sacra|ment is &s;acrilegious. <HI>But</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>as at that time the Church forbad the u&s;e of one kind, &s;o now it for|biddeth the u&s;e of both, and may againe give way when it &s;hall &s;eeme convenient for the u&s;e of both kinds.</HI> Thus you.</P>
<P>It &s;eemes you make no &s;cruple to thwart the In&s;titution of Chri&s;t, nor the Cu&s;tom of the An|cient Church: but becau&s;e in this point your Church is branded with Sacrilege, I thinke in|deed you could be content to joyne with the Prote&s;tants, and re&s;tore the Cup to the Lay-peo|ple; but I would gladly know how it can be done? Is not your Communion in one kind, publi&s;hed and decreed by your Pope and Councell, for an Article of Faith? And is it in your Churches power to alter,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bulla Pij <HI>(4)</HI> Act. <HI>6.</HI> &amp; Con|cil. Trid Se&s;s. <HI>13</HI></NOTE> and di&s;pen&s;e with Articles of Faith at her plea&s;ure? Surely this Confe&s;&s;ion proves, that your Church can create new Arti|cles of Beleefe, which el&s;ewhere you deny; or el&s;e this is no Article of Faith, being contrary to the practi&s;e of the fir&s;t and be&s;t ages; and by con|&s;equent, your infallible Pope and Councell, are guilty of Error and Sacrilege in a high degree.</P>
<P>For a conclu&s;io~ of this point, you &s;ay the words, <HI>Drinke yee all of this,</HI> (from whence we draw our &s;ucce&s;&s;ion in Doctrine) were &s;poken to the Apo|&s;tles, and in them to Prie&s;ts, not to the Laitie.</P>
<PB N="240" REF="127">
<P>By this rea&s;on who &s;eeth not, but you may a&s;|well take the bread from the Lay people as the cup, for that al&s;o was given onely to the Apo|&s;tles? but if the cup were proper for the Prie&s;ts onely, why doe you deny it to your <HI>Non confici|ent</HI> Prie&s;ts? doe they &s;tand in the place of Lay people? Nay more, were not all <HI>Non conficients</HI> at the time of Chri&s;ts In&s;titution? what &s;trange &s;hifts and eva&s;ions hath your Church, to uphold the Novelty of your faith? I will give you but one te&s;timony of Antiquity: <HI>There is</HI> (&s;aith S^t. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome) where the Priests differ no|thing from the people,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Chry&s;. <HI>18.</HI> in <HI>2.</HI> Corinth.</NOTE> <HI>as when we mu&s;t receive the dreadfull my&s;teries; for it is not here, as it was in the old Law, where the Prie&s;t eates one part, and the people another, neither was it lawfull for the people to be partaker of tho&s;e things of which the Prie&s;t was; but now it is not &s;o, but rather one body is propo&s;ed to all, and one cup (to all.)</HI></P>
<P>To pa&s;&s;e by innumerable authorities of the Ancients, which you know are full in our behalfe, I will &s;hut up this haereticall point of doctrine (for &s;uch is the foundation of it) with a te&s;timony of your owne &s;ide. <HI>There are &s;ome fal&s;e Catholikes that feare not to &s;top the Reformation of the Church,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Gerard. Lori|chius de Mi&s;&s;a publica prero|ganda. p. mihi.</NOTE> <HI>what they can&punc; the&s;e &s;pare no bla&s;phemy, le&s;t that other part of the Sacrament &s;hould be re&s;tored to the Lay people: for</HI> (&s;ay they) <HI>Chri&s;t &s;pake, drinke yee all of this, onely to the Apo&s;tles, but the words of the Ma&s;&s;e be the&s;e, Take and eate yee all of this: Here I would know of them whether this were &s;poken
<PB N="241" REF="127" MS="y"> onely to the Apo&s;tles: then mu&s;t lay men ab&s;taine likewi&s;e from the Element of bread, which to &s;ay, is an haere&s;ie, yea, a pe&s;tilent and dete&s;table bla&s;phemy. It is therefore con&s;equent that both the&s;e words (Eate yee, Drinke yee) were &s;poken to the whole Church.</HI></P>
<P>Thus your Ancient Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> termed your halfe Communion a Sacriledge, and this latter Author of your owne, termes it an haere&s;ie, and a pe&s;tilent Bla&s;phemy; and this may &s;erve to prove your de&s;cent from the Haeretikes the <HI>Mani|chees</HI> in this point.</P>
<P>From your halfe Communion, you proceede to your <HI>Invocation of Angels,</HI> which I derived from the Haeretikes <HI>Angelici;</HI> and for an&s;wer to them, you &s;ay, <HI>they were Haeretikes &s;warving from the rule of the Catholike faith by exce&s;&s;e, that is, honour|ing Angels more then their due.</HI></P>
<P>And this is your very ca&s;e, for you doe not one|ly honour them, but religiou&s;ly wor&s;hip them, and call upon them. I will compare your wor|&s;hip with theirs, and let the Reader judge, if you be not the children of tho&s;e haereticall Authors called <HI>Angelici.</HI> S^t. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> &s;aith,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Angelici in An|g<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">lorum cultu inclmati. Aug. de haere&s;. c. <HI>35.</HI> Angelici vocati quia Angelos colunt. <HI>I&s;id. O|rig in l. 8. c. 5. Rhem. Annot. in Apoc. 19. Sect. 4.</HI></NOTE> that <HI>tho&s;e haere|tikes were inclined to the wor&s;hip of Angels;</HI> or as <HI>I&s;idore</HI> noteth, <HI>they were called Angelici, becau&s;e they did wor&s;hip Angels.</HI> The one &s;ai<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">h, they were but inclined to wor&s;hip, the other &s;aith, they did wor&s;hip. On the other &s;ide you teach, that there is a <HI>religious reverence, honour, and adoration,</HI> which is not to be denied to Angels, nay more, you make it a point of Faith, and have decreed
<PB N="242" REF="128"> that the <HI>Saints and Angels reigning with Chri&s;t are to be wor&s;hipped and prayed unto.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Art. 8. in Bulla Pij. 4.</NOTE> Thus where|as the ancient Haeretikes were but inclined to a|doration, your men have made it a doctrinall de|termination flatly to adore them; and whereas they did wor&s;hip them with a religious honour, (as a cu&s;tome learned from the Heathen Philo&s;o|phers) you receive it as a Dogmaticall re&s;olution of your Faith, delivered by your <HI>Trent</HI> Fathers; and &s;urely in this if there be any exce&s;&s;e in the wor&s;hip, it is in your &s;elves.</P>
<P>Againe, tho&s;e Haeretikes learned their le&s;&s;on from the <HI>Gentiles;</HI> For <HI>Cel&s;us</HI> the Philo&s;opher had &s;aid of the Angels, <HI>that they belong to God, and in that re&s;pect we are to put our tru&s;t in them,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Orig. lib. 8. contr&agrave; Cel&s;um.</NOTE> <HI>and make Oblations to them according to the Lawes, and pray unto them that they may be favourable un|to us:</HI> And is not this your very doctrine? and yet the&s;e men (&s;ay you) &s;werve from the rule of the Catholike faith. Ob&s;erve then what was the Chatholike doctrine of tho&s;e times; <HI>Origen</HI> returnes his an&s;wer in the name of all true belee|vers,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem Ibid.</NOTE> <HI>Away with</HI> Cel&s;us <HI>councell, &s;aying, that we mu&s;t pray to Angels, and let us not &s;o much as afford any little audience to it.</HI> Againe, S^t. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> was living in the fourth age, when <HI>Apo&s;trophes</HI> began to be u&s;ed to Saints and Angels, yet hee telleth us, it was the Devills doing to draw men unto the calling upon Angels; <HI>The&s;e</HI> (&s;aith hee) <HI>be the inchantments of the Devils,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Chry&s;. in 1. Cor. Homil. 1.</NOTE> <HI>though he be an Angell, though an Archangell, though they be Che|rubins
<PB N="243" REF="128" MS="y"> endure it not; For, neither will tho&s;e powers them&s;elves admit it, but reject it, when they &s;ee their Lord di&s;honored; I have favoured thee, &s;aith he, and have &s;aid, call upon me; and do&s;t thou di&s;honour him with calling upon others?</HI> This agrees with the doctrine of <HI>Theodoret,</HI> &s;hewing,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Theod. in Co|lo&s;&s;. 3.</NOTE> that the Sy|nod of <HI>Laodicea</HI> following that rule, made a Law, that <HI>they &s;hould not pray unto Angels, nor for&s;ake our Lord Ie&s;us Chri&s;t:</HI> and accordingly, they de|creed it with a cur&s;e,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Concil. Lao|dic. Can. 35. Anno 364.</NOTE> <HI>Chri&s;tians ought not to for&s;ake the Church of God, and depart a&s;ide, and invocate An|gels, and make meetings, which are things forbid|den. If any man therefore be found to give him&s;elfe to this priuie Idolatry, let him be accur&s;ed.</HI> This Canon makes &s;o plainely again&s;t your Church doctrine,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Merlin Edit. 1530. fol. 68. Crab. Edit. 1538. fol. 226.</NOTE> that both <HI>Merlin</HI> and <HI>Crabbe</HI> (as I have &s;hewed) have turned the word <HI>Angelos</HI> into <HI>An|gulos,</HI> and &s;o by tran&s;po&s;ition of a letter, &s;ay, we mu&s;t not leave the Church of God, and have re|cour&s;e to (Angles) or corners.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Heiron. Epi&s;t. ad Riparium.</NOTE> And S^t. <HI>Heirom</HI> at the &s;ame time oppo&s;ed <HI>Vigilantius,</HI> and pro|fe&s;&s;eth of him&s;elfe and the Catholike Chri&s;tians of his time, <HI>Wee doe not adore or wor&s;hip the Re|liques of Martyrs, no nor the Sunne, nor Moone, nor Angels, nor Archangels, nor Cherubins, nor Se|raphins, nor any name that is named in this world, or in the world to come, le&s;t we &s;hould &s;erve the crea|ture, rather then the Creator, who is ble&s;&s;ed for ever.</HI> You &s;ee then, by the&s;e few ob&s;ervations, that you are rightly de&s;cended from the Haeretikes in this point, and accordingly you have &s;werved
<PB N="244" REF="129" MS="y"> (with them) from the Catholike faith by exce&s;&s;e; Wherefore I will conclude this Invocation, with that memorable pa&s;&s;age of S^t. <HI>Au&s;tin, Whom &s;hould I finde that might reconcile me unto thee?</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Augu&s;t. lib. Confe&s;&s;. 10. c. 42.</NOTE> <HI>&s;hould I have gone unto the Angels? with what prayer? with what Sacraments? Many endeavouring to returne unto thee, and not being able to doe it by them&s;elves, as I heare, have tried the&s;e things, and have fallen into the de&s;ire of curious vi&s;ions, and were accounted worthy of illu&s;ions.</HI></P>
<P>From your Angell-like or Angelicall prede|ce&s;&s;ors, you proceede to the <HI>Cathari</HI> or <HI>Puritans. The&s;e were Novations</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>who out of pride and &s;elfe conceits, as if they were more cleane and ho|ly, did condemne Catholikes.</HI> And doe not your Cloi&s;ter Monkes &s;o conceive of them&s;elves, who beleeve they doe more then God commanded, and that they can &s;upererrorogate, and doe they not condemne the Reformed Catholikes as the <HI>Novatians</HI> did? To come neerer to you, is not the proud generation of Meritmongers derived from the <HI>Cathari&s;ts?</HI> But (&s;aith <HI>Epiphanius) whil&s;t the&s;e men call them&s;elves Puritans,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Epiph. haere&s;. 59.</NOTE> <HI>by this very ground they prove them&s;elves to be impure; for who&s;oever pronounceth him&s;elfe to be pure, doth therein ab&s;olutely condemne him&s;elfe to be impure.</HI></P>
<P>Againe, touching your predece&s;&s;ors, who for bad Marriage, I cited (out of <HI>Epiphanius,</HI> and S^t. <HI>Austin</HI>) the Haeretikes <HI>Tatiani,</HI> and the <HI>Manichees;</HI> But &s;ay you, <HI>That they did di&s;allow it, e&s;pecially in Prie&s;ts, I doe not finde it in Epiphanius.</HI> It is true,
<PB N="245" REF="129"> neither did I cite him for it, but I cited Saint <HI>Au|&s;tin</HI> in the Margent, which you wittingly omitted.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Aug. ep. <HI>74.</HI></NOTE> Yet both Authors declare the Haeretikes to bee founders of your doctrine.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Continentiam viro hic praedi|cat, nuptias au|tem &s;cortatio|nem &amp; corrup|tionem putat. <HI>Epiph. haere&s;. 46. &amp; 47. p. mihi 93. 95.</HI> Auditores co|rum ex carni|bus ve&s;cuntur, &amp; &s;i voluerint uxores habent, quorum nihil faciunt qui vo|cantur electi. <HI>Aug. ep. 74.</HI> Qui cum uxore exercent car|nale commerci|um in carne &s;unt &amp; Deo placere non po&s;&s;unt, &s;an|cti e&s;&s;e non po&s;|&s;unt. <HI>Di&s;t. 82. cap. Propo&s;u|i&s;ti.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Epiphanius</HI> &s;hewes that the <HI>Tatiani</HI> had two proper markes of your Church; for their fir&s;t Leader, <HI>Tatianus accoun|ted of Marriage, as whoredome and corruption, and forbad the eating of meates.</HI> S^t. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> like|wi&s;e tells us that the <HI>Manichees did permit their hearers to eate fle&s;h, to u&s;e husbandry, and to marry wives, but tho&s;e which were called Elect, did u&s;e none of tho&s;e things.</HI> Now if tho&s;e <HI>Elect</HI> were not the hearers, they mu&s;t needs be their <HI>Teachers,</HI> and con&s;equently their Prie&s;ts; And thus you have two &s;orts of Haeretikes to defend your <HI>Mo|na&s;ticke</HI> life, the one <HI>(viz.)</HI> the <HI>Tatiani,</HI> who a|gree with Pope <HI>Innocent,</HI> &s;aying, <HI>They which live in the fle&s;h cannot plea&s;e God, neither can they be ho|ly.</HI> The other <HI>(viz.)</HI> the <HI>Manichees who permit Marriage to all, but to their Prie&s;ts.</HI></P>
<P>La&s;tly, touching the <HI>Collyridian</HI> Haeretikes, &s;o called from the <HI>Collyrides</HI> or cakes which certaine women u&s;ed to offer to the ble&s;&s;ed Virgin; I &s;ay againe, they were your fir&s;t Leaders, and parti|cularly for this rea&s;on, which you alledge to ex|cu&s;e your &s;elves, <HI>Becau&s;e they did exceede the mea|&s;ure of honor due to our ble&s;&s;ed Lady.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 99.</NOTE> And as touch|ing the <HI>Antidico-Marianitae</HI> (with which haere&s;ie you charge us) they were &s;uch who out of malice to the ble&s;&s;ed Virgin, being puffed up with <HI>pride</HI> or <HI>envy</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Epiphanius</HI>) would po&s;&s;e&s;&s;e men,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Epiph. haere&s;. <HI>78</HI> p. mihi. <HI>244.</HI></NOTE>
<PB N="246" REF="130"> that after the birth of our Saviour, <HI>Io&s;eph</HI> knew <HI>Marie,</HI> which never Prote&s;tant to my knowledge, ever taught, or thought. Therefore by way of prevention, you put this as a &s;candall upon our Church, to excu&s;e your owne; But the truth is, we a&s;cribe honour of preheminence unto that glorious per&s;on, before all other ve&s;&s;ells of ble&s;|&s;edne&s;&s;e; we proclaime it with the Angel <HI>Ga|briel</HI> that <HI>&s;he was highly favoured, and ble&s;&s;ed a|mong women;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Luke</HI> 1.2<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.</NOTE> but withall we te&s;tifie with <HI>Epi|phanius, Chri&s;t &s;aid unto her, woman, what have I to doe with thee? my hower is not yet come; le&s;t any man &s;hould thinke our Lady was of greater ex|cellency,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Epiph. l. <HI>3.</HI> hae|re&s;. <HI>79.</HI> contr. Collyridianos.</NOTE> <HI>he called her woman, as it were prophecying of the kinds and &s;ects of haere&s;ies that were to come into the world; le&s;t any man having too great an opi|nion of that Holy Saint, &s;hould fall into this haere&s;ie and into the dotage of the &s;ame.</HI> And as touching her perpetuall virginity, that golden &s;aying of S^t. <HI>Hierome</HI> again&s;t <HI>Helvidius</HI> we unfainedly profe&s;&s;e and te&s;tifie with heart and voice,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Hieron. contr&agrave; Helvidium.</NOTE> <HI>That God was borne of a virgin, we beleeve becau&s;e we reade it; That</HI> Mary <HI>had Matrimoniall company with her husband after her delivery, we doe not beleeve, be|cau&s;e we reade it not.</HI> And to make good my a&s;&s;er|tion, that you tread in the &s;teps of tho&s;e haeretikes, which <HI>did exceede the mea&s;ure of honor due unto our Lady,</HI> fir&s;t looke upon <HI>Epiphanius,</HI> who oppo&s;eth this haere&s;ie, he tells us, <HI>Although</HI> Mary <HI>be beau|tifull,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Epiph. l. <HI>3.</HI> hae|re&s;. <HI>79.</HI></NOTE> <HI>and holy, and honourable, yet is &s;hee not to be adored; For the&s;e women wor&s;hipping</HI> S^t. Mary,
<PB N="247" REF="130" MS="y"> <HI>renew againe the Sacrifice of Wine mingled in the honour of the Godde&s;&s;e</HI> Fortune, <HI>and prepare a Ta|ble for the Devill, and not for God, as it is written in the Scriptures, Their women boult flower, and their children gather &s;ticks to make fine Cakes, in the honour of the Queene of Heaven. Therefore let &s;uch women be rebuked by the Prophet</HI> Ieremie, <HI>and let them no more trouble the world, and let them not &s;ay, we wor&s;hip the Queene of Heaven.</HI></P>
<P>Here we &s;ee, the words which were &s;poken of the Heatheni&s;h Idolls, were applied by <HI>Epiphani|us</HI> unto the Mother of Chri&s;t, not to deface the ble&s;&s;ed Virgin, but to declare the fond errors of the Haeretikes. Now let us compare this do|ctrine with yours. <HI>Bernardinus de Bu&s;to,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ad ornamentum regni terreni e&s;t, quod habeat Re|gem &amp; Regi|nam &amp;c. Bernard. de Bu&s;to part. <HI>9.</HI> Serm. <HI>2.</HI> Bb. V&s;hers an|&s;wer to a chal|ling. p. mihi. <HI>(437.)</HI></NOTE> who was living almo&s;t 200. yeares &s;ince, tells us, <HI>That it is for an ornament of an earthly Kingdome, that it &s;hould have both a King and a Queene, and therefore when any King hath not a wife, his &s;ub|jects often reque&s;t him to take one. Hereupon the eternall King and Omnipotent Emperour minding to adorne the Kingdome of Heaven above, did frame the Ble&s;&s;ed Virgin, to the end that he might make her the Lady and Empre&s;&s;e of his Kingdome and Empire, that the Prophecy of</HI> David <HI>may be verified, &s;aying unto her in the P&s;alme, upon thy right hand did &s;it the Queene in clothing of Gold.</HI> He tells us further, that your Pope <HI>Sixtus</HI> the fourth, gran|ted an Indulgence of twelve thou&s;and yeares for every time, that a man in the &s;tate of grace &s;hould repeate this &s;hort Salutation of the Virgin, <HI>Haile
<PB N="248" REF="131"> mo&s;t holy</HI> Mary, <HI>the Mother of God (the Queene of Heaven) the Gate of Paradi&s;e, the Lady of the world; thou art a &s;ingular and pure Virgin, thou did&s;t receive Chri&s;t without &s;inne, thou did&s;t beare the Creator and Saviour of the world: Deliver mee from all evill, and pray for my &s;innes. Amen.</HI></P>
<P>Looke upon <HI>Gregory</HI> the Great, printed at <HI>Ant|werpe,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Apud Iohannem Keerbergium. <HI>1615.</HI> Tom. <HI>1.</HI> p. mihi <HI>490.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Anno</HI> 1615. and there you &s;hall find the Miter of Pope <HI>Sylve&s;ter</HI> the fir&s;t, who was living <HI>Anno</HI> 314. with the picture of the ble&s;&s;ed Virgin, and Chri&s;t in her armes, figured with this Motto, <HI>Ave Regina Coeli; Haile Queene of Heaven.</HI> And this was in the &s;ame age, wherein <HI>Epipha|nius</HI> complaines of the womens cu&s;tome in his dayes, <HI>Wee wor&s;hip the Queene of Heaven.</HI></P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Bellar. in Praef. de Eccle&s;. Mi|litante.</NOTE>La&s;tly, <HI>Bellarmine</HI> him&s;elfe doth terme her <HI>(Regina Coeli)</HI> the <HI>Queene of Heaven:</HI> which at|tribute is rebuked, and forbidden by <HI>Hieremie,</HI> &s;aith that ancient Father, and in his dayes con|demned for a Here&s;ie. And as touching the ex|ce&s;&s;ive honour (which you complaine of) that the Heretikes gave unto our Lady,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Con&s;tituta quippe est &s;uper omnem creatu|ram, et quicun|que Ie&s;u c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">r<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">at genu, matri quo|que premus <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">up|plicat, &amp; fi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ij gloriam cum matre non tam communem iu|dico quam ean|dem. <HI>Arnold. C<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rnoten&s;. tract. de lau|dibus Virginis.</HI></NOTE> I verily beleeve, if your Churches <HI>Magnificats</HI> be compared with theirs, they will be found to exceed them farre. For fir&s;t, the &s;ame Author te&s;tifies, <HI>That &s;hee is con&s;tituted over every Creature; and who&s;oever boweth his knee unto</HI> JESVS, <HI>doth fall downe al&s;o, and &s;upplicate unto his Mother, &s;o that the glory of the Son may be judged not &s;o much, to be common with the Mother, as to be the very &s;ame.</HI></P>
<P>Neither are your men contented to make her
<PB N="249" REF="131" MS="y"> the <HI>Queene of Heaven,</HI> and to make her equall to him, whom &s;he her &s;elfe termed her Saviour and Redeemer; but your Schooleman <HI>Bonaventure</HI> goes in a high &s;traine,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Iure Matris impera tuo di|lecti&s;simo filio, no&s;tro Ie&s;u Chri&s;to. <HI>Bonav. Corona. B. Ma|riae Virginis Operum. Tom. 6. edit. Rom.</HI> An. <HI>1588</HI></NOTE> and in one of his Orizons pre&s;cribed to her, hee &s;aith, <HI>O Empre&s;&s;e, and our mo&s;t kind Lady, by the authority of a Mother, com|mand thy mo&s;t beloved Son, our Lord Ie&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> (or as wee may reade in the 15^t^h P&s;alme of your Ladies P&s;alter) <HI>Incline the countenance of thy Son upon us, compell him by thy prayers, to have mercie upon us &s;inners.</HI> But that which is mo&s;t remarka|ble, the P&s;almes of <HI>David,</HI> which were wholly framed and dedicated to the honour of our Lord, <HI>E tranver&s;o,</HI> are all applied to the name and ho|nour of our Lady: as for In&s;tance;<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P&s;alter Bonav. edit. Parifiis,</HI> An. 1596. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 15.31.56.71.94.</NOTE> <HI>Pre&s;erve mee &ocirc; Lady, for in thee have I put my tru&s;t. Ble&s;&s;ed are they who&s;e hearts doe love thee, &ocirc; Virgin</HI> Mary, <HI>their &s;innes by thee &s;hall mercifully be wa&s;hed away. Have mercie upon mee, &ocirc; Lady, have mercie upon mee, becau&s;e my heart is prepared to &s;earch out thy will, and in the &s;hadow of thy wings will I rest. Give the King thy Iudgements, &ocirc; Lord, and thy mercie to the Queene his Mother. O come let us &s;ing unto our Lady, let us make a joyfull noi&s;e to</HI> Mary <HI>our Queene, that brings &s;alvation.</HI> And for a conclu&s;ion, <HI>Let every &s;pirit,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P&s;al.</HI> 150.</NOTE> <HI>or every thing that hath breath, prai&s;e our Lady.</HI></P>
<P>After all the&s;e, and many &s;uch like pa&s;&s;ages of exce&s;&s;ive honour, attributed to our Lady, your <HI>Bernardinus</HI> at la&s;t concludes: <HI>Truly, if it be law|full to &s;peake it, thou in &s;ome re&s;pect did&s;t greater
<PB N="250" REF="132"> things to God, then God him&s;elfe did to thee and to all mankind.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Volo ergo ego dicere quod tu ex humilitate reticui&s;ti. Tu enim &s;olus ce|cini&s;ti. Quia &s;e|cit mihi magna qui potens e&s;t, ego ver&ograve; cano &amp; dico. Quia tu feci&s;ti majo|ra ei qui potens e&s;t. <HI>Bernardin. de Bu&s;t. Mar|tial. part. 6. Serm. 2. memb. 3.</HI></NOTE> <HI>I will therefore &s;peake that, which out of thy humility thou ha&s;t pa&s;t in &s;ilence. For thou onely did&s;t &s;ing, Hee that is mighty hath done to mee great things; but I doe &s;ing and &s;ay, That thou ha&s;t done greater things to him that is mighty.</HI></P>
<P>Now I appeale to your &s;elfe, and to all your fellow-Je&s;uites, whether your <HI>Hyperdulia</HI> to the ble&s;&s;ed Virgin be not tran&s;cendent, or (to u&s;e your owne words) <HI>doth not exceed the mea&s;ure of honour due unto our Lady?</HI> And con&s;equently, whether in this particular, upon your owne con|fe&s;&s;ion, you are not de&s;cended from the <HI>Collyri|dian</HI> Heretikes, your fir&s;t parents?</P>
<P>This is &s;o apparently true, that you know no way to free your &s;elves from the guilt of Here&s;ie, but by waving the que&s;tion, telling us, <HI>The line &s;hould be drawne along by a continued &s;ucce&s;sion, from the beginning to the end:</HI> whereas I told you at fir&s;t, I did not undertake to prove that tho&s;e Heretikes, or your Church, had a perpetuall &s;uc|ce&s;&s;ion in per&s;on and doctrine; but to &s;hew, <HI>How neere affinity you have with their adulterate i&s;&s;ue.</HI> (For tho&s;e were my very words;) and thereupon I concluded, that you had no &s;ucce&s;&s;ion in per&s;on and doctrine: but let us heare your an&s;wer? <HI>This is &s;o fal&s;e, and &s;o apparently fal&s;e, as that it is not to be doubted, but hee that &s;hall averre it, will make no &s;cruple of any lie, how lewd &s;oever.</HI> Thus you.</P>
<P>Good words, and found proofes would better become men of your profe&s;&s;ion. If you affirme
<PB N="251" REF="132" MS="y"> that you have a Lineall Succe&s;&s;ion, the proofe lyes on your &s;ide: and when I &s;hall &s;ee it as plain|ly proved, as &s;poken, I &s;hall readily confe&s;&s;e my error, till then, let me tell you, it is not your Ca|talogue of Popes, which you &s;ay are &s;old, and printed at <HI>London,</HI> that can make a firme agree|ment of &s;ucce&s;&s;ion in Faith. For by that rea&s;on, our Queene <HI>Elizabeth</HI> of ble&s;&s;ed memorie, &s;uc|ceeded Queene <HI>Mary</HI> in Faith; and con&s;equent|ly, our Faith mu&s;t be good by your owne con|fe&s;&s;ion. By that rea&s;on, <HI>Ahaz</HI> and <HI>Mana&s;&s;es,</HI> that &s;hut up the doore of the Temple, &s;ucceeded <HI>Da|vid</HI> in the Faith. By that rea&s;on, Pope <HI>Liberius</HI> the Arrian, &s;ucceeded <HI>Iulius</HI> a Catholike Bi&s;hop, in the Faith. By that rea&s;on, your Cardinall <HI>Poole</HI> &s;ucceeded Bi&s;hop <HI>Cranmer</HI> our Prote&s;tant <HI>Martyr,</HI> in the Faith. This <HI>(mo&s;t firme Argument)</HI> therefore (as you call it) is but weake and infirme; and accordingly it was re&s;olved by Saint <HI>Am|bro&s;e,</HI> and the ancient Fathers,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ambr. de Poenit. cap.</NOTE> <HI>They have not the &s;ucce&s;sion of</HI> Peter, <HI>that want the faith of</HI> Peter.</P>
<P>In fine, if for no other cau&s;e, yet for this alone, your &s;ucce&s;&s;ion in Faith is interrupted, becau&s;e you your &s;elfe confe&s;&s;e, that &s;ome Articles which are received as points of Faith in your Church, are different from tho&s;e which were received in the Primitive Churches; and therefore want &s;uc|ce&s;&s;ion in the true doctrine. And that you may yet farther know there was an interruption of the true Faith in &s;ucceeding Ages,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Genebr. Chrono. lib. <HI>4.</HI></NOTE> your owne <HI>Gene|brard</HI> confe&s;&s;eth, that there were fifty Popes &s;uc|ceeding
<PB N="252" REF="133"> one another, rather Apo&s;taticall, than Apo&s;tolicall. Cardinall <HI>Bellarmine</HI> in his Chro|nologie, tels us of &s;ix and twentie Schi&s;mes in the Papacie, wherein it was que&s;tionable betwixt the Popes and Antipopes, who were the true &s;ucce&s;|&s;ors of <HI>Peter.</HI> Your Cardinall <HI>Baronius</HI> tels us, that <HI>ba&s;e Harlots beare all the &s;way at</HI> Rome,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Baron. An. <HI>912.</HI></NOTE> <HI>and gave Bi&s;hopricks at their plea&s;ures, and intruded their Paramours into</HI> Peters <HI>chaire, fal&s;e Popes, who&s;e names are written in the Catalogue of Popes, onely to note and de&s;igne the times.</HI> It is not then your Ca|talogue of Popes (which you &s;o much brag of) that can free you from Here&s;ie, or make good your &s;ucce&s;&s;ion in the Faith: and therefore I will conclude as I fir&s;t began; The pedigree of the <HI>Romi&s;h</HI> Faith is drawne downe from the ancient Heretikes, and the <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> Faith from Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. VIII. The &s;umme of his An&s;wer to Sect. 8.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P N="1"><HI>1.</HI> That I allege but three Authors, <HI>Adrian, Co&s;ter,</HI> and <HI>Harding;</HI> and them fal&s;ly, or impertinently, for three &s;everall points of the Prote&s;tant Faith, none for the univer&s;ality of it in generall, as the title promi&s;eth.</P>
<P N="2"><HI>2.</HI> That it is not &s;ufficient to name &s;ome in the Ro|man Church, who held &s;ome of our opinions, but
<PB N="253" REF="133"> that I mu&s;t &s;hew a di&s;tinct companie from the Ro|man, making a Church.</P>
<P N="3"><HI>3.</HI> That it is not to purpo&s;e, to &s;hew the Antiquitie and Vniver&s;ality of tho&s;e points wherin we agree with you, but in tho&s;e other points wherein wee di&s;agree.</P>
<P N="4"><HI>4.</HI> That if it were granted, the Prote&s;tant Church in former ages lay hid in the bo&s;ome of the Roman Church, that proveth it to have been invi&s;ible, ra|ther than vi&s;ible.</P>
</ARGUMENT>
<DIV3 TYPE="response to chapter">
<HEAD>The Reply.</HEAD>
<P>IN the eighth Section, I a&s;&s;umed to prove the Antiquitie, and Vniver&s;alitie of our Religion, by and with the con&s;enting te&s;timonies of the Romane Church: you tell mee, <HI>It is a bold and unlikely adventure, and it is &s;hamele&s;&s;e and im|pudent.</HI></P>
<P>The&s;e words be like a hou&s;e full of &s;moake without fire: but what is the occa&s;ion of all this heinous complaint? For&s;ooth, <HI>the</HI> Knight <HI>brin|geth not one Author, I &s;ay, not one for the Vniver|&s;alitie and Antiquitie of his Church.</HI> And is this &s;o grievous an accu&s;ation? Surely, I thou<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ht there was none &s;o ignorant or impudent, as to denie both the Vniver&s;alitie and Antiquitie of three Creeds; two Sacraments in&s;tituted by Chri&s;t; the two and twentie books of Canoni|call Scriptures; of the fir&s;t foure Generall <HI>Coun|cels;</HI> of the Apo&s;tolike Traditions; of the An|cient Liturgies; of the Ordination of Prie&s;ts and Deacons. The&s;e are our Tenets, and the&s;e
<PB N="254" REF="134"> were the particular In&s;tances which I made: and to bring Authors for the proofe of the&s;e, as if we made a doubt of that which all true Chri&s;tians did generally receive and beleeve, I &s;ay with S^t. <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">In&s;olenti&s;simae dementiae. <HI>Aug.</HI></NOTE> <HI>It were a &s;igne of mo&s;t in&s;olent madne&s;&s;e.</HI></P>
<P>But admit I &s;hould produce &s;ome Authors for proofe of this generall beleefe, would their Au|thoritie free me from your termes of <HI>Shamele&s;&s;e, and impudent adventure?</HI> Certainly no: for (&s;ay you) <HI>If hee &s;hould have one, two, or three, or ten men, it would not be &s;ufficient for him, unle&s;&s;e hee have the Authoritie of the Catholike Church, or Church of</HI> Rome.</P>
<P>To cite many Authors, or to bring none, then is all alike to you; for in your doome, nothing will free mee from the <HI>name, and puni&s;hment due to Here&s;ie,</HI> but the authoritie of the Church: and yet in this, you have granted mee more than I could expect; for you have given mee liberty to take my authoritie from the Church, &s;o it be from the <HI>Catholike,</HI> or the <HI>Roman.</HI> And hereby you have made your <HI>Roman</HI> Church di&s;tinct from the <HI>Catholike,</HI> which is mo&s;t true; which, both you your &s;elfe, and mo&s;t of your fellow Je&s;uits have made all one, and confirmed by the title of <HI>(Roman Catholike)</HI> in all your writings.</P>
<P>This being granted, I proceed to the re&s;t of your exceptions. <HI>In this Section</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>he brin|geth onely three Catholike Authors,</HI> Adrian, Co&s;te|rus, <HI>and</HI> Harding, <HI>but no word for Antiquitie, or univer&s;alitie.</HI> Thus you.</P>
<PB N="255" REF="134" MS="y">
<P>Hee that &s;hall reade my Section in <HI>Via tuta,</HI> with this your An&s;wer, mu&s;t needs confe&s;&s;e that you deale not fairly, nor ingeniou&s;ly with mee: for &s;ometimes you leape from the beginning of a Chapter to the end, then you returne againe to the beginning, being willing to conceale or con|found the truth of my A&s;&s;ertions. You &s;o mingle my words with your own in the &s;ame Character, that a prudent Reader can hardly di&s;cerne mine from yours: but mo&s;t u&s;uall it is with you to cry down my words with bitter pa&s;&s;ages, and decline the que&s;tion in all. As for In&s;tance, in this Se|ction, whereas I &s;aid, the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> doth confe&s;&s;e the Antiquitie, and Vniver&s;alitie of our Religion long before <HI>Luther,</HI> I in&s;tanced in our three <HI>Creeds,</HI> and the re&s;t before named. One while you cry out of my impudencie, that I cite no Authors; another while, that if I did cite them, they would not &s;erve my turne: but you never mention either the <HI>Creeds,</HI> or <HI>Scriptures,</HI> or <HI>Councels,</HI> or any of the points which you well knew had Antiquitie, and Vniver&s;alitie in the name and opinion of all Chri&s;tians. After that, you flie to the later end of my Section, and there you tell mee, I cite but three Authors, and yet none prove the Antiquitie or Vniver&s;alitie of our Faith. Then you goe backe againe, and you tell the Reader, <HI>I &s;ay nothing here of the mans notable cunning and fal&s;hood, in making him beleeve, as if we did excu&s;e our &s;elves in tho&s;e things whereof they accu&s;e us.</HI></P>
<PB N="256" REF="135">
<P>If &s;uch extravagant excur&s;ions and reproches you call a Reply, or a Catholike An&s;wer, I will lay my finger on my mouth, and &s;ay with your <HI>Cardinall, Qui decipi vult, decipiatur.</HI></P>
<P>Briefely, the &s;ub&s;tance of my A&s;&s;ertion was this: The three <HI>Creeds,</HI> the Canonicall <HI>Scriptures,</HI> the Apo&s;tolike <HI>Traditions,</HI> the foure fir&s;t generall <HI>Councels,</HI> and the re&s;t were &s;o generally received in the bo&s;ome of the <HI>Roman</HI> Church, that for that rea&s; n i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> might &s;eeme a &s;en&s;ele&s;&s;e que&s;tion, to de|mand where our Church was before <HI>Luther.</HI></P>
<P>Next I &s;hewed that the po&s;itive Doctrines of our Church (mentioned in our (39.) Articles) were contained in a very few points, and tho&s;e al|&s;o had Antiquity and Vniver&s;ality; then I &s;hewed that tho&s;e doctrines which they obtruded upon us, were but Additions and Negative Tenets in our Articles, and that many of tho&s;e additions were condemned, or at lea&s;t excu&s;ed, by their owne men: And I in&s;tanced in three Authors be|fore mentioned, for three &s;everall points of their Doctrine; and this is the &s;ub&s;tance and true meaning of that Section; and thus much by way of adverti&s;ement to the mod<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rate Reader. Now to an&s;wer you di&s;tinctly to that you have produ|ced confu&s;edly.</P>
<P>Your fir&s;t exception is touching Pope <HI>Adrian</HI> the &s;ixth: you &s;ay, <HI>It is not as</HI> S^r. Humphry <HI>put|teth it, to wit, if t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e con&s;ecrated Bread be Christ, but if it be rightly con&s;ecrated.</HI></P>
<P>And doe not you &s;till by <HI>Adrians</HI> confe&s;&s;ion
<PB N="257" REF="135" MS="y"> excu&s;e your adoration, by implying a condition? and is it not all one according to your doctrine? For if it be rightly con&s;ecrated, it is Chri&s;t, if not, it is a Cru&s;t, and no man among&s;t your Com|municants knoweth what it is, becau&s;e he know|eth not the Prie&s;ts intention. Take it therefore which way you will, yet my a&s;&s;ertion &s;tands true; we condemne you for adoring the Elements, for ought you know, of bread and wine, becau&s;e it doth depend upon the intention of the Prie&s;t, whether Chri&s;t be there or no; but yet you can|not condemne us for adoring Chri&s;ts rent body in the Heavens: and however the Prie&s;ts doe con&s;ecrate, yet (&s;aith <HI>Ger&s;on) when the ho&s;t is ado|red,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ger&s;. compend. Theol. Tit. de tribus virtut. p. <HI>111.</HI></NOTE> <HI>that condition is ever at le&s;t to be &s;uppo&s;ed (if it be rightly con&s;ecrated)</HI> that is, if it be truely the body of Chri&s;t; And this is that Pope <HI>Adrian</HI> hath delivered by your owne confe&s;&s;ion, and therefore they are not to be cleered from Idola|try, becau&s;e they intended to wor&s;hip one God, (as indeede there was but one God) but becau&s;e they adored him there where he was not, and in that manner as they &s;uppo&s;ed him to be. <HI>The ca&s;e</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Catharinus) is like in the ho&s;t not con&s;ecrated:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Cather. Annot. in Caiet p. mihi <HI>134.</HI></NOTE> <HI>For God and Chri&s;t is not adored &s;imply, but as he is exi&s;ting under the formes of bread and wine: If therefore he be not there, but it be found that Divine wor&s;hip is given to a creature insteede of Chri&s;t, there is Idolatry al&s;o: For even in this regard they were Idolaters who adored Heaven, or any other thing, &s;uppo&s;ing with them&s;elves that they adored
<PB N="258" REF="136" MS="y"> in it the Divinity, whom they called the &s;oule of the world.</HI> Compare then the certainty of your faith, with ours (which is the point in que&s;tion) and tell me if in <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">his we are not more certaine and &s;afe then you can be. Fir&s;t, your owne <HI>Bellarmine</HI> tels us,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bell. de Iu&s;ti|fic. l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>8.</HI></NOTE> that <HI>none can be certaine by the certainety of faith that he doth receive a true Sacrament. No man</HI> (&s;aith <HI>And<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">eas Vega) can beleeve a&s;&s;uredly,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Vega l <HI>9</HI> de Iu&s;tific. c. <HI>17.</HI></NOTE> <HI>that he receiveth the lea&s;t part of the Sacrament, and this is &s;o &s;urely to be credited, as it is apparant that we live;</HI> And both give one and the &s;ame rea&s;on for it: For there is no way, except it be by Revela|tion, that we can know the intention of the Mini|&s;ter, either by outward appearance, or by cer|tainty of faith. From this dangerous con&s;equence, we condemne your adoration, and re&s;olve to let you know from your owne men,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Saliflur. de arte Praedican|di. c. <HI>25.</HI></NOTE> that <HI>No man, be he never &s;o &s;imple, or never &s;o wi&s;e, ought preci&s;ely to believe that this is the body of our Lord that the Prie&s;t hath con&s;ecrated, but onely under this conditi|on, if all things concerning the con&s;ecration be done as appertaineth; for otherwi&s;e he &s;hall avouch a creature to be the Creator, which were Idolatry.</HI></P>
<P>Now as this way in the generall is uncertaine and dangerous; &s;o likewi&s;e there are many other wayes, which may ea&s;ily occa&s;ion this Idolatry; and therefore you cannot deny us to be in the more certaine and &s;afe way. As for in&s;tance <HI>Io|hannes de Burgo,</HI> who was Chancellor of <HI>Cam|bridge</HI> about (200.) yeares &s;ince, gives us to un|der&s;tand that a Prie&s;t may faile in his intention
<PB N="259" REF="136" MS="y"> many wayes. As for example, <HI>If the Bread be made of any other then wheaten flower,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Pupilla Oculi c. <HI>3.</HI> &amp; <HI>5.</HI> &amp;c.</NOTE> <HI>which may po&s;sibly happen, or if there be too much water in quantity, that it overcomes and alters the nature of wine; if the wine be changed into vinegar, and therefore cannot &s;erve for con&s;ecration; If there be thirteene cakes upon the Table, and the Prie&s;t for his con&s;ecration determine onely upon twelve, in that ca&s;e not one of them all is Con&s;ecrated: La&s;tly, if the Prie&s;t di&s;&s;emble, or leave out the words of Con&s;e|cration, or if he forget it, or minde it not, in all and every of the&s;e wayes, there is nothing Con&s;ecrated, and con&s;equently the people giving divine honour to the Sacrament all Bread or Cup, commit flat Idolatry.</HI></P>
<P>When I heare the Apo&s;tle proclaime to all Chri&s;tians, that <HI>he which doubteth is condemned al|ready;</HI> I cannot chu&s;e but pitty the &s;tate and con|dition of that mi&s;erable man, who hath a doubt|full, perplexed, and uncertaine faith, who taketh all upon tru&s;t, and upon the report, &s;ometimes of an Hypocrite, &s;ometimes of a malitious Prie&s;t, who hath no intention at all to admini&s;ter the true Sacrament. <HI>For</HI> (&s;aith your <HI>Trent</HI> hi&s;tory) <HI>if a Prie&s;t having charge of foure or five hundred &s;oules were an Infidell, but a formall Hyppocrite,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Hi&s;tory of Trent.</NOTE> <HI>and in ab&s;olving the Penitent, baptizing of children, and Con&s;ecrating the Euchari&s;t, had an intention not to doe that which the Church doth, it mu&s;t be &s;aid that the children are damned, the penitent not ab&s;olved, and that all remaine without the fruite of the Com|munion.</HI></P>
<PB N="260" REF="137" MS="y">
<P>Now let the Reader judge which doctrine is mo&s;t certaine and &s;afe, either that of your Church which may occa&s;ion flat Idolatry in the wor&s;hip|er, or our <HI>&s;ur&s;um corda,</HI> with hearts and eyes lifted up to Heaven, where we adore our Saviour Chri&s;t in his bodily pre&s;ence according to the Article of your Faith and ours; and this is agreed on both &s;ides to be without feare or perill of Idolatry.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, as if you were guilty of fal&s;e accu&s;ati|ons, you &s;ay, <HI>&s;uppo&s;e</HI> Adrian <HI>hath erred in this, or in any other point, doth it follow that he agree|eth with you in all other?</HI> Then you tell a &s;tory of the Popes <HI>Bull</HI> again&s;t <HI>Luther.</HI></P>
<P>You quarrell with your owne &s;hadow, for I had no relation at all to your Pope, nor made any in&s;tance of him more then in a <HI>Marginall Note;</HI> but &s;ince you &s;tand &s;o much upon the ju&s;tification of his Doctrine, hearken I pray wherein he ma|keth for you, and wherein he is wholly again&s;t you. Your <HI>Agrippa</HI> tells us, that in the&s;e latter times <HI>Pope</HI> Adrian <HI>erected a mo&s;t famous Stewes at Rome.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Agrippa de v<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">|nit. &s;cient. c. <HI>64.</HI> p. mihi. cap. de Lenonia.</NOTE> I confe&s;&s;e in this particular you may chal|lenge him wholly for your owne; But whereas you &s;ay he dete&s;ted <HI>Luthers</HI> doctrine as mo&s;t wicked and damnable, you might have added likewi&s;e, he wi&s;hed a reformation of his owne, and withall taught that doctrine for which you condemne both <HI>Luther</HI> and all his adherents for Haeretikes.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Hi&s;tory of Trent. l. <HI>1.</HI> pag. <HI>25. 26.</HI> &amp; <HI>30.</HI></NOTE> Fir&s;t, witne&s;&s;e his Nu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tio <HI>Franci&s;co Chiericato,</HI> who had Commi&s;&s;ion from his Holi|ne&s;&s;e,
<Q>To ackowledge that the confu&s;ion of the
<PB N="261" REF="137" MS="y"> Church, was cau&s;ed e&s;pecially by the &s;innes of Prie&s;ts and Prelats, confe&s;&s;ing that &s;ome abho|minations, &s;ome yeares &s;ince, were committed even in the Holy See, that there were many abu&s;es in &s;pirituall things, &s;o that it may be &s;aid, that the infirmity is pa&s;&s;ed from the head, to the members, from the Popes, to the inferi|our Pelates; And la&s;tly, he re&s;olves him&s;elfe that he would u&s;e all diligence that the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> &s;hould be fir&s;t reformed; and the rather, becau&s;e hee &s;aw all the world did earne&s;tly de|&s;ire it.</Q> And that you may know the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> as well as the Court of <HI>Rome</HI> was fallen in|to errors and here&s;ies, hee him&s;elfe publi&s;heth, that he heard it related of his Predece&s;&s;or, Pope <HI>Iohn</HI> the 22^t^h. <HI>That hee would have induced the Vniver&s;itie of</HI> Paris <HI>to beleeve, that the &s;oules of the righteous doe not &s;ee God face to face; and that no man &s;hould take his degree in Divinitie, unle&s;&s;e hee &s;hould fir&s;t &s;weare to maintaine that per&s;tiferous He|re&s;ie, and perpetually to cleave unto it.</HI> And that you may be a&s;&s;ured hee was not wholly yours, hee affirmeth for certaine, one Po&s;ition which would confound all Poperie,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Adrian in <HI>4.</HI> de Sacram. Confir. &s;ub finem.</NOTE> <HI>(viz.) That the Pope may erre, even in things touching the Faith, and avouch that which is Here&s;ie by his determina|tion, or decree.</HI> And thus your Pope <HI>Adrian</HI> com|plaines of many abominable things in his owne Church: he tels us, his Predece&s;&s;or was reputed a Heretike: he confe&s;&s;eth, that both him&s;elfe, and all his Succe&s;&s;ors after him, were in po&s;&s;i|bilitie
<PB N="262" REF="138"> of erring, even in matters of Faith: and it is very probable in his erring opinion, hee began to erect that mo&s;t noble Brothell-hou&s;e in his owne See. And thus much touching the Margi|nall note of Pope <HI>Adrian.</HI></P>
<P>Your &s;econd exception is touching <HI>Co&s;terus,</HI> occa&s;ioned by the&s;e words, <HI>Wee accu&s;e them for taking away the Cup from the Lay people; they ex|cu&s;e it, that it was not taken up by the commandment of the Bi&s;hops, but is crept in, the Bi&s;hops winking thereat</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Co&s;terus.</HI>) In an&s;wer to this, &s;ay you, <HI>I would know what excu&s;e you can find for &s;uch a no|torious lye.</HI></P>
<P>Let the Reader judge, whether this mode&s;tie of yours de&s;erve an An&s;wer, or whether this &s;ay|ing of <HI>Co&s;terus</HI> may not be termed, <HI>an Excu&s;e. Howbeit</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>this cu&s;tome came in, not &s;o much by the commandement of the Bi&s;hop, as by the peoples u&s;e and practi&s;e.]</HI> Well, take it as you would have it; yet, I &s;ay, his meaning mu&s;t bee under&s;tood not at all by the Commandement of the Bi&s;hops, for that which is done by Command cannot bee &s;aid to have crept in. But the truth is, under colour of quarrelling with words, and giving me the lye, you &s;eeke to dazle the eyes of your Rea|der, and when you omit the weightier things of your Church, then you que&s;tion, <HI>Where is</HI> Co|&s;terus <HI>te&s;timony for Antiquitie, Vniver&s;alitie, Certaintie, and Safetie,</HI> when as you know well this te&s;timony was not cited for that ende; And thus you <HI>&s;traine at a Gnat, and &s;wallow a Camell.</HI>
<PB N="263" REF="138" MS="y"> Let us heare the re&s;t of your verball di&s;cour&s;e.</P>
<P><HI>Since you are &s;o &s;hamele&s;&s;e as to &s;ay, That we doe not condemne you for receiving in both kinds, Looke into the Councell of</HI> Trent, <HI>and &s;ee whether you doe not finde a heavy cur&s;e, &amp;c.</HI> Thus you.</P>
<P>And are you &s;ure that your Councell hath &s;uf|ficiently cur&s;ed us, <HI>For following Chri&s;ts example, and receiving in both kinds;</HI> for tho&s;e were my very words, <HI>Following Chri&s;ts example:</HI> (which you altogether omitted.) <Q>If therefore we have altered any part of Chri&s;ts In&s;titution, I &s;ay againe, Cur&s;e on in Gods name, and let your cur&s;es take effect: but if the celebration of our My&s;teries be an&s;werable to his will and word, that fir&s;t ordained them, you cur&s;e not us whom you would hurt, but him that your cur&s;ed tongues cannot hurt, which is, God to be ble&s;|&s;ed for ever.</Q> But let us heare your Councels? <HI>The Councell of Trent</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>layes a heavie cur&s;e again&s;t any that &s;hall &s;ay, that all and every of the Faithfull ought, by the precept of God, or nece&s;sitie of &s;alvation, to receive both kinds.</HI></P>
<P>This cur&s;ing Councell toucheth not my A&s;&s;er|tion: for this <HI>Canon</HI> &s;peaketh of the <HI>Precept</HI> of Chri&s;t, whereas I &s;pake of his <HI>Example</HI> onely. And for proofe of this,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bell. de Euch. lib. <HI>4.</HI> cap. <HI>7.</HI></NOTE> wee have <HI>Bellarmines</HI> te|&s;timony as well as ours: <HI>It is not to be doubted, but that is be&s;t, and fitte&s;t to be practi&s;ed, which Chri&s;t him&s;elfe hath done.</HI> And therefore my A&s;&s;ertion &s;till &s;tands good, <HI>(viz) You doe not condemne us for following Chri&s;ts example.</HI></P>
<PB N="264" REF="139">
<P>Touching the Councell of <HI>Con&s;tance,</HI> it con|demnes not our receiving in both kinds, but pre|vents the condemnation of her owne. They de|creed their halfe Communion with this Caution, that <HI>If any &s;hould ob&s;tinately maintaine that it was unlawfull,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Concil. Con|&s;tant. Se&s;s. <HI>13.</HI></NOTE> <HI>or erronious, to receive in one kind, hee ought to be puni&s;hed, and driven out as an Heretike.</HI> And how&s;oever you would &s;eeme to condemne our A&s;&s;ertion, yet you condemne not our practi&s;e as unlawfull; for the Councell of <HI>Ba&s;il,</HI> not twen|tie yeares after your Decree in the Councell of <HI>Con&s;tance,</HI> granted the u&s;e of the Cup to the <HI>Bo|hemians.</HI></P>
<P>Your third exception is touching M^r. <HI>Harding,</HI> who in the que&s;tion betwixt him and Bi&s;hop <HI>Iuel, of Private Ma&s;&s;e,</HI> &s;tands not to ju&s;tifie his &s;olitary, or private Ma&s;&s;e, but rather excu&s;eth it in this manner;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Iuels Articles of Private Ma&s;&s;e. <HI>pag.</HI></NOTE> <HI>That it is through their owne default and negligence, whereof the godly and faithfull people, have &s;ithence the time of the Primitive Church much complained. This</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>hath no &s;en&s;e, for here is a Relative (Their)</HI> without an <HI>Antece|dent.</HI> And let me tell you, this is a poore Pedan|ticall ob&s;ervation; for to &s;pend many lines about &s;uch toyes and trifling words, and to pa&s;&s;e by the maine &s;inew &amp; &s;trength of the Citation; this is to confe&s;&s;e in plaine termes, that you cannot ju&s;tifie your doctrine: and the rather it appeares in this particular point, wherein Ma&s;ter <HI>Harding</HI> doth not onely condemne the people for their neglect, but excu&s;eth hereby your Churches ordinance in
<PB N="265" REF="139"> generall, as being not guilty of the coldne&s;&s;e of the people. Nay more, hee plainly intimates the An<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">iquitie, and Vniver&s;alitie of our Doctrine in the&s;e words;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Iuel. Divi&s;. <HI>7.</HI> p. mihi, <HI>11.</HI></NOTE> <HI>In ca&s;e the people might be &s;tirred to &s;uch devotion, as to di&s;po&s;e them&s;elves worthily to receive their How&s;el every day with the Prie&s;t, as they did in the Primitive Church, what would the&s;e m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">n have to &s;ay?</HI> And as touching Safety, and Certainty of our Doctrine, hee freely expre&s;&s;eth his thoughts, and liking of our Communion of Prie&s;t and People, &s;aying; <HI>It were to be wi&s;hed,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Iuel in Art. <HI>1.</HI> Divi&s;. <HI>9</HI> p. <HI>17.</HI></NOTE> <HI>as oftentimes as the Prie&s;t doth celebrate the high Sa|crifice, that there were &s;ome, who worthily di&s;po&s;ed, might receive their Rites with him, and be parta|kers Sacramentally, of the Body and Blood of Chri&s;t with him:</HI> and hee gives a rea&s;on for it,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem, Divi&s;. <HI>25.</HI> p. mihi, <HI>45.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Becau&s;e it would be more commendable, and more godly on the Churches part.</HI> And thus much touching your three Authors, <HI>whom</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>I have &s;o egregi|ou&s;ly belyed.</HI></P>
<P>Touching your wor&s;hipping of Images, I re|ferre it to his proper Section. And whereas wee charge you with flat Idolatrie in the adoration of the <HI>Sacrament,</HI> of <HI>Reliques,</HI> of <HI>Images,</HI> and the like, how&s;oever I &s;ay, you excu&s;e your &s;elves with the manner of your adoration, yet (to our endle&s;&s;e comfort be it &s;poken) you cannot charge us in the Po&s;itive Doctrine of our Church; no, not with the lea&s;t &s;u&s;pition of Idolatrie. This I told you before, and (ble&s;&s;ed be God) you have not wherewith to charge us in your Reply. But
<PB N="266" REF="140"> you &s;ay, <HI>It is far greater evill for you to be truly char|ged with Here&s;ie, than for us to be charged with Ido|latrie:</HI> yet neither you, nor all your fellow-Je&s;uits could ever prove us guilty of either. But what may wee thinke of your Church, which is ju&s;tly charged, and highly guilty of both? Your Popes (which the Je&s;uits re&s;olve to be the Church) are condemned for Heretikes by your Councels, ac|knowledged Heretikes by the Popes them&s;elves, and condemned of Here&s;ie by your be&s;t learned Divines. Your wor&s;hip of Images and Saints, concludes in flat Idolatrie; and in particular (by the Doctrine of your owne Church) the adora|tion of the Sacramentall Bread and Cup, (for want of a right intention) becomes an Idoll in the Temple. The&s;e things I have in part proved, which in place convenient, &s;hall be more fully handled hereafter.</P>
<P>But it is ob&s;ervable, after I had ended my Se|ction with this point of Idolatrie, I &s;ay, after this conclu&s;ion, you flye backe to the middle of the chapter, and now que&s;tion me where our <HI>Church</HI> was before <HI>Luther:</HI> but when I an&s;wered that from your addition, and Articles of Faith, <HI>The que&s;tion doth truly re&s;ult upon your &s;elves; Where was your Church? that is, where was your</HI> Trent <HI>Doctrine, and Articles of the</HI> Roman <HI>Creed, recei|ved</HI> de fide <HI>before</HI> Luther? You are &s;o farre from &s;hewing it, that you cunningly &s;uppre&s;&s;ed the&s;e words, and not &s;o much as mentioned them: and thus, one while &s;uppre&s;&s;ing the point in que&s;tion;
<PB N="267" REF="140" MS="y"> other whiles, by declining the true &s;tate of the que&s;tion, you &s;hew your wit is better than your cau&s;e, and declare your Sophi&s;trie to be better than your Divinitie.</P>
<P>But to follow you backe againe, you &s;ay, <HI>Wee mu&s;t &s;hew you a companie of men in former times di&s;tinct from yours.</HI></P>
<P>It were no difficult matter, to &s;hew you many that did &s;eperate both from you, and the errours of your Church in former Ages. The <HI>Walden&s;es</HI> were a di&s;tinct companie of Beleevers, and &s;epa|rate from your Church above 500. yeares &s;ince: <HI>Reinerius</HI> the Inqui&s;itor confe&s;&s;eth upon their ex|amination,<NOTE PLACE="marg">B. Pp. Tom. <HI>13.</HI> Reiner. contr&agrave; Wald. cap. <HI>3.</HI> p. mihi, <HI>299.</HI></NOTE> that hee found they had in one Dio|ce&s;e, one and forty Schooles, in another, ten; and withall, reckons up forty Churches by name in <HI>Lombardy,</HI> in <HI>Province</HI> in <HI>France,</HI> and other Kingdomes; he prote&s;teth that among&s;t all Sects, <HI>There was none more pernitious to the Church of</HI> Rome, <HI>than it, and that for three cau&s;es: Fir&s;t,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE> <HI>be|cau&s;e it is of longer continuance; for &s;ome &s;ay it hath continued from the time of</HI> Sylve&s;ter, <HI>(which is three hundred yeares after Chri&s;t) others &s;ay, from the time of the Apo&s;tles. Secondly, becau&s;e it is more Vniver&s;all, for there is &s;car&s;e any Country, wherein this Sect hath not crept. Thirdly, whereas all other &s;orts bla&s;pheme God, this Sect hath a great &s;hew of godline&s;&s;e: for they live ju&s;tly before men, they be|leeve all rightly concerning God, and the Articles of the Creed; onely they &s;peake evill of the Church of</HI> Rome, <HI>and hate it; and by this meanes draw mul|titudes
<PB N="268" REF="141" MS="y"> to their beliefe after them.</HI> Thus if you re|quire Antiquity for their Doctrine, they derive it either from Chri&s;t, or from <HI>Sylve&s;ter,</HI> 300. yeares after Chri&s;t, if Vniver&s;ality, all Coun|tries were filled with their Doctrine; if good life, they lived well before men, and beleeved all rightly concerning God, and the Articles of their Faith; and this the force of truth hath ex|torted from your grand Inqui&s;itor.</P>
<P><HI>Augu&s;tus Thuanus</HI> Pre&s;ident of the Parliament of <HI>Paris,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Thuan. hi&s;t. Tom <HI>1. 1550.</HI> p. <HI>457.</HI> &amp; <HI>465.</HI></NOTE> tells us, that <HI>tho&s;e who are commonly called Walden&s;es, Picards, Albigen&s;es, Cathari, Lollards, though by their difference of place they had divers names, yet they held the &s;ame faith, which</HI> Wicliffe <HI>held in England, and</HI> Hu&s;&s;e <HI>in</HI> Bohemia, <HI>and ga|thered &s;trength at the comming of</HI> Luther, <HI>e&s;pecial|ly in the</HI> Caparien&s;es, <HI>who profe&s;&s;ed a Religion a|greeing almo&s;t in all things with</HI> Martin Luther: But withall he ingeniou&s;ly profe&s;&s;eth that <HI>Cardi|nall Sadolet did examine them, and found many things malitiou&s;ly fained again&s;t them.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Poplinerius</HI> &s;aith, <HI>that about the yeare</HI> 1100. <HI>the&s;e men did publi&s;h their doctrine differing but a little from the Prote&s;tants,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Poplin. Hi&s;t. Franc. l. <HI>1.</HI> Bb. V&s;her de &s;tatu. Eccl. c. <HI>8.</HI> p. <HI>209.</HI></NOTE> <HI>not onely through</HI> France, <HI>but al&s;o through all the coa&s;ts of Europe: For both</HI> French, Spaniards, Engli&s;h, Scots, Italians, Ger|mans, Bohemians, Saxons, Polonians, Lituani|ans, and oth<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">r nations doe peremptorily defend it to this very day; And by rea&s;on they &s;eparated from the doctrines of the <HI>Roman</HI> Church, Pope <HI>Innocent</HI> the third, about the yeare 1198. autho|ri&s;ed
<PB N="269" REF="141" MS="y"> certaine Monkes, who had the full power of the Inqui&s;ition in their hands, to deliver the people by thou&s;ands into the Magi&s;trats hands, and the Magi&s;trats to the Executioners.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Hi&s;tor. of the Wald. c. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> S^t. <HI>Do|minick</HI> who in&s;tituted the order of the begging Monkes, called <HI>Dominicans</HI> was a great per&s;ecu|tor of them and their doctrine. The Mother of this Monke &s;aith your <HI>Martyrologe,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Martyrologe in the life of St. <HI>Dominick p. (mihi) 556.</HI></NOTE> <HI>before he was yet borne, dreamed that &s;hee was delivered of a whelpe, with a firebrand in his mouth, with which he &s;et the whole world on fire;</HI> and your learned Do|ctors have interpreted this dreame, that <HI>Domi|nick</HI> &s;hould be that dogge that &s;hould vomit out the fire which &s;hould con&s;ume the Haeretikes. your infallible Pope likewi&s;e tells us, that he &s;aw in <HI>his &s;leepe the Church of</HI> S^t. John Lateran, <HI>to tot|ter and ready to fall,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. p. <HI>562.</HI></NOTE> <HI>and that</HI> St. Dominick <HI>&s;up|ported it, and held it up with his &s;houlders, &s;ignify|ing thereby, that he, and tho&s;e of his order &s;hould doe great good to the Catholike faith.</HI> And how&s;oever the&s;e reports may pa&s;&s;e for dreames, yet this dog behaved him&s;elfe &s;o worthily in the per&s;ecution of tho&s;e Chri&s;tians, that from that time forward, the <HI>Monkes</HI> of his <HI>Order</HI> have bin alwayes im|ployed in the Inqui&s;ition.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Hi&s;tor. Wald. c. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> But herein we may admire the great mercy and goodne&s;&s;e of God unto this &s;eparate Church, that notwith&s;tanding this grievous per&s;ecution, it was record<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d by <HI>George Morell,</HI> at that time a Pa&s;tor among&s;t the <HI>Walden&s;es,</HI> that there were then remaining accor|ding to common report, above eight hundred
<PB N="270" REF="142" MS="y"> thou&s;and per&s;ons that made profe&s;&s;ion of the &s;ame faith. And thus breefely I have given you one company of men in former times di&s;tinct from yours. If we tooke beyond tho&s;e times; the <HI>Greeke</HI> Church was likewi&s;e &s;eparate from yours above eight hundred yeares agoe, and dif|fered in the points of <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation,</HI> of <HI>Pur|gatory,</HI> of <HI>private Ma&s;&s;e,</HI> of <HI>Prayer in an unknowne tongue,</HI> of <HI>Marriage of Prie&s;ts,</HI> of the <HI>Communion in both kindes,</HI> and the Popes <HI>Supremacy,</HI> I &s;ay in all the&s;e they &s;eparated from your Church; and this Church, if you require Antiquity, is before <HI>Rome</HI> in time; if Vniver&s;ality, &s;he hath larger bounds, and multitudes of people, mo&s;t of the <HI>Patriarchs,</HI> &s;even univer&s;all Councels, the <HI>Greeke</HI> tongue wherein the New Te&s;tament was written, in&s;omuch as your Bi&s;hop of <HI>Bitonto</HI> was not a&s;ha|med publikely to profe&s;&s;e, <HI>It is our Mother</HI> Grae|cia,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Concil. Trid. Epi&s;c. Bitont.</NOTE> <HI>unto whom the Latin Church is beholding for all that ever &s;he hath.</HI> And as touching the pro|ce&s;&s;ion of the Holy Gho&s;t, which your men &s;ay they deny (and therefore charge their Church with a knowne haere&s;ie) it may &s;eeme rather that this is an a&s;per&s;ion laid upon them then any ju&s;t exception;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Concil. Florent. Se&s;&s;. <HI>35.</HI></NOTE> For at the Councell of <HI>Florence,</HI> a|bout 200. yeares &s;ithence, your Pope <HI>Eugenius</HI> an&s;wered the <HI>Graecians,</HI> that he was well &s;atisfied by them touching the proce&s;&s;ion of the Holy Gho&s;t; and that you may know they agreed with us in the principall points of our doctrine, the <HI>Greeke</HI> Patriarch congratulates with the re|formed
<PB N="271" REF="142" MS="y"> Churches in this manner. <HI>We give thanks to God, the Author of all grace,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Patr. re&s;p. <HI>2.</HI> in init, &amp; re&s;p. <HI>1.</HI> pag. <HI>148.</HI></NOTE> <HI>and we rejoyce with many others, but e&s;pecially in this, that in many things your doctrine is agreeable to our Church.</HI> For a conclu&s;ion, <HI>the Mu&s;covites, Armenians, Aegyp|tians, Aethiopians,</HI> and divers other countries and Nations (all members of the <HI>Greeke</HI> Church) taught our doctrine from the Apo&s;tles time to ours. This is &s;o true an evidence in our behalfe, that <HI>Bellarmine,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Bellarm. de ver. Dei. l. <HI>2. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.</HI> ult. in fine.</NOTE> as it were in di&s;dain of the Chur|ches, makes this an&s;wer; <HI>We are no more moved with the examples of Mu&s;covites, Armenians, Egyp|tians, and Aethiopians, then with the examples of Lu|therans, or Anabapti&s;ts, and Calvini&s;ts, for they are either Haeretikes or Schi&s;matikes.</HI> So that all Chur|ches (be they never &s;o Catholike and Ancient) if they &s;ub&s;cribe not to the now Roman faith, are either Schi&s;maticall or Haereticall.</P>
<P>Thus I have briefely &s;hewed you two &s;orts of Chri&s;tians, who were di&s;tinct from you, and yet lived in the Communion of the Catholike Church. I &s;hewed you others al&s;o which lived and died in the bo&s;ome of the <HI>Roman</HI> Church, but as farre different in opinion from your now profe&s;&s;ed Faith, as tho&s;e that went out from you. The fir&s;t &s;ort &s;eparated them&s;elves from your Church and Doctrine, the latter continued in communion with you, but &s;eparated them&s;elves from the errors of prevayling faction in your Church: the one &s;ort you per&s;ecuted unto death, for the other you cut out their tongues for &s;peak|ing truth.</P>
<PB N="272" REF="143">
<P><HI>But you are not of it</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>&s;ince the time you have begun to be again&s;t it.</HI> And this you would inferre from <HI>Tertullian, That as out of the mild, fat, and profitable Olive,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Tertull. de prae|&s;crip. c. <HI>36.</HI></NOTE> <HI>the &s;ower ba&s;tard Olive grow|eth; &s;o have errors fructified out of the true Church, but became wild by untruth and lying, degenerating from the graine of truth, and &s;o not yours; and this doth fully an&s;wer the matter</HI> (&s;ay you.) Surely if you compare the true and fruitfull Olive to your &s;elves, and us unto the ba&s;tard, and wild Olive, the matter (as you &s;ay) will be ea&s;ily an&s;wered; but this is to beg the point in que&s;tion, neither indeede can it be granted to you, without a &s;inne again&s;t the Holy Gho&s;t. For the Spirit of God hath &s;poken it in particular to the <HI>Roman</HI> Church, that, <HI>Thou wert cut out of the Olive tree, which is wild by nature,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Rom.</HI> 11.24.</NOTE> <HI>and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good Olive tree.</HI> Now if the haere&s;ies and errors (which are compared to the wild Olive) have &s;prung out of that good Olive tree, into which you were fir&s;t grafted, or if the wild Olive is now returned to its owne nature, I will &s;ay to you, as &s;ometimes <HI>Diogenes</HI> &s;aid to the Philo&s;o|pher, <HI>A me incipias, &amp; erit verus &s;illogi&s;mus,</HI> let the wild Olive be applied to your Church (as it ought to be) and the compari&s;on will redound upon your &s;elves, and returne into your owne bo&s;ome.</P>
<P>From the Communion with your Church, you que&s;tion the Antiquity and Vniver&s;ality of tho&s;e points wherein you differ from us; <HI>and you would
<PB N="273" REF="143" MS="y"> have me &s;hew the deniall of them to have beene an|tiently and univer&s;ally taught.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 121.</NOTE></P>
<P>Your demand to the fir&s;t is unrea&s;onable; For it is &s;ufficient for us, that we profe&s;&s;e <HI>that Faith which was once given to the Saints;</HI> be&s;ides, tho&s;e new Articles which you thru&s;t upon the Church, are wholly yours, and the proofe lies on your part to make good, as being properly your owne: on the other &s;ide, to &s;hew the deniall of them to have bin anciently taught is un&s;en&s;ible; for the explicite deniall of them could not be taught till &s;uch Articles were offered and obtruded to us, but the implicite deniall we prove by the po&s;itive do|ctrines of the Ancient Fathers, which is incom|patible with your new additions and corrup|tions.</P>
<P>From the Doctrine in generall, you de&s;cend in|to the particulars; and you &s;ay, <HI>one of our Sacra|ments is an empty piece of Bread, and a &s;up of wine.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 123.</NOTE> <HI>Hannibal</HI> of <HI>Carthage,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Cicero de Ora|tore lib. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> when he heard <HI>Phormio</HI> the Orator talke plea&s;antly a long while toge|ther, being afterwards demanded what he thought of his Eloquence, made an&s;wer in this homely &s;ort; <HI>Multos &s;e vidi&s;&s;e deliros &s;enes, &s;ed qui magis qu&agrave;m Phormio deliraret, vidi&s;&s;e nemi|nem.</HI> I will leave the application to your &s;elfe, and the interpretation to the Reader, becau&s;e you &s;ay I cannot tran&s;late Latin.</P>
<P>Some truth or mode&s;ty I &s;hould gladly heare from you; but this is &s;uch an impudent Calumny, as <HI>Bellarmine</HI> him&s;elfe would have beene a&s;hamed
<PB N="274" REF="144"> to have heard it fall from the Pen of any learned Papalin; heare therefore what your owne men confe&s;&s;e of <HI>Calvin</HI> and others, and what we pro|fe&s;&s;e in the name of our Church. Your <HI>F. Kelli|&s;on</HI> &s;aith of <HI>Calvin,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Kelli&s;. Surney. lib. <HI>4.</HI> cap. <HI>5.</HI> p. mihi, <HI>229.</HI></NOTE> <HI>That if hee did meane as hee &s;peaketh, hee would not di&s;pute with him, but would &s;hake hands with him, as with a Catholike.</HI> And then hee repeats <HI>Calvins</HI> words; <HI>I &s;ay that in the Mysterie of the Supper, by the &s;igne of Bread and Wine, is Chri&s;t truly delivered, yea, and his Body and his Blood. And a little before tho&s;e words, hee giveth the rea&s;on; Becau&s;e, &s;aith he, Chri&s;ts words, [This is my Body] are &s;o plaine, that unle&s;&s;e a man will call God a deceiver, hee can never be &s;o bold as to &s;ay, that hee &s;etteth before us an emptie Signe.</HI> This is likewi&s;e <HI>Bellarmines</HI> confe&s;&s;ion of him;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bell. de Euch. lib. <HI>1.</HI> cap. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Non ergo vacuum &amp; inane &s;ignum,</HI> It is no vaine and empty &s;igne. Thus you &s;ee your fellowes and you agree like Harpe and Harrow; you &s;ay it is an empty peece of Bread, they an&s;wer in <HI>Calvins</HI> behalfe and ours, that it is not an <HI>empty &s;igne:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem ibid. c. <HI>8.</HI></NOTE> Nay, &s;aith <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> both <HI>Calvin and Oecolampadius, and Peter Martyr, doe teach the Bread is called Chri&s;ts Body figuratively, as being a &s;igne or figure of his body, but they adde withall, it is no bare (and empty) figure, but &s;uch as doth truely convey unto them the things &s;ignified thereby;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Bil&s;on</HI> in the difference be|twixt Subjecti|on, and Chri&s;ti|&s;tian Rebellion. <HI>Part 4. p. mihi, 779.</HI></NOTE> <HI>for which truthes &s;ake, Chri&s;t &s;aid not this Bread is a figure of my body, but it is my body.</HI></P>
<P>To give you an in&s;tance in &s;ome of our <HI>Church; God forbid</HI> (&s;aith our learned <HI>Bil&s;on) wee &s;hould
<PB N="275" REF="144" MS="y"> deny that the fle&s;h and blood of Chri&s;t are truly pre|&s;ent, and truly received of the Faithfull, at the Lords Table. It is the Doctrine that wee teach others, and wherewith wee comfort our &s;elves. Wee never doubted but the Truth was pre&s;ent with the Signe, and the Spirit with the Sacrament, (as</HI> Cy|prian <HI>&s;aith) Wee knew there could not follow an ope|ration, if there were not a pre&s;ence before.</HI></P>
<P>Neither doe I thinke you are ignorant of this, but that you have inured your &s;elfe to fal&s;ities and reproaches. For it is apparently true, that the que&s;tion in the&s;e dayes, is not of the truth of the pre&s;ence, but of the manner: that is, whe|ther it be to the Teeth and the Belly, or Soule and Faith of the Receiver. And therupon our learned and Reverend B. <HI>Andrews</HI> returned his An&s;wer to <HI>Bellarmine; Wee beleeve the pre&s;ence, Wee beleeve,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">B. Andrew. ad Bell. Apol. Re&s;p. c. <HI>1.</HI> p. mihi <HI>11.</HI></NOTE> <HI>I &s;ay, the pre&s;ence as well as you: concerning the man|ner of the pre&s;ence, we doe not unadvi&s;edly define; nay more, wee doe not &s;crupulou&s;ly inquire, no more than wee doe in Bapti&s;me, how the blood of Chri&s;t clean&s;eth us.</HI></P>
<P>From the Sacraments; you procceed to our two and twentie Bookes of <HI>Canonicall</HI> Scripture, and indeed wee allow but two and twentie. <HI>But will any Catholike</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>allow this to have been Catholike Doctrine?</HI></P>
<P>Yes, without doubt, many good Catholikes did follow the Hebrew Canon of the <HI>Iewes,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Orig &s;it</NOTE> which (&s;aith <HI>Origen</HI>) compri&s;eth but two and twentie bookes of the old Te&s;tament, accor|ding
<PB N="276" REF="145" MS="y"> to the number of the letters among them.</P>
<P><HI>Melito,</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Sardis,</HI> was a Catholike, and (&s;aith <HI>Bellarmine</HI>) hee did follow the <HI>Hebrew Ca|non of the Iewes.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Bellar. de verbo Dei. l. <HI>1</HI> c. <HI>20.</HI></NOTE></P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Hilar. in Pro|log. in P&s;al. explanat.</NOTE><HI>Hilary,</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Poictiers,</HI> was a Catholike, and he told us, <HI>The old Te&s;tament was contained in two and twentie bookes, according to the number of the Hebrew letters.</HI></P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Cyril. Catechi&s;. <HI>4.</HI></NOTE>S^t. <HI>Cyril,</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Hieru&s;alem,</HI> was a Catho|like, and hee gave us the like Le&s;&s;on; <HI>Peru&s;e the two and twentie books of the old Te&s;tament, but med|dle not with the Apochrypha.</HI></P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Anthana&s;. in Synop&s;.</NOTE><HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Alexandria,</HI> was a Ca|tholike, and affirmes, that the <HI>Chri&s;tians had a definite number of books comprehended in the Canon, which were two and twentie, equall to the number of the Hebrew letters.</HI></P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Bellar. de verbo Dei. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>20.</HI></NOTE><HI>Ruffinus</HI> was a Catholike, and <HI>Bellarmine</HI> con|fe&s;&s;eth hee did follow <HI>the Hebrew Canon, which conteined our two and twentie books.</HI></P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Naz. Carm. lamb. ad Se|leucum. lamb. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE><HI>Gregory Nazianzen</HI> was a Catholike, and hee &s;hewed to <HI>Seleucus,</HI> a Catalogue of the Canoni|call bookes, and hee cites the bookes in order from <HI>Gene&s;is</HI> to <HI>Malachie,</HI> the la&s;t of the Prophets; and leaveth out all the <HI>Apochrypha.</HI></P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Concil. Laod. cap. <HI>59.</HI></NOTE>The Fathers of the Councell of <HI>Laodicea</HI> were Catholikes: and in the 59^t^h Canon, they allow onely tho&s;e two and twenty bookes for Canoni|call, which wee receive.</P>
<P>There are others whom you terme Catholikes; as namely, <HI>Dama&s;cene, Hugo de Sancto Victore,
<PB N="277" REF="145"> Lyranus, Hugo Cardinalis, To&s;tatus, Walden&s;is, Driedo,</HI> and <HI>Cajetan:</HI> all which differ from your Tenet of the <HI>Apochryphall</HI> bookes which are ca|nonized by your <HI>Trent</HI> Councell (&s;uch agree|ment is there among&s;t your be&s;t learned, touch|ing the greate&s;t point of your Beleefe) and yet for&s;ooth your Church cannot be depraved.</P>
<P><HI>But here is one thing</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>which giveth mee much cau&s;e of wonder; which is, that you talke of Traditions, as di&s;tinct from Scripture. I ever tooke you to be &s;o fallen out with them, that you made the deniall of them a fundamentall point of your Re|ligion, that you would not indure the word Tradi|t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">on; but alwaies tran&s;lated, or rather fal&s;ified it into Ordinances.</HI> Thus you.</P>
<P>It is a true &s;aying of the Heathen Orator;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cicero.</NOTE> <HI>Hee who once goeth beyond the bounds of Mode&s;tie, had need to be lu&s;tily impudent.</HI> I prote&s;t, I onely ter|med your Additions, <HI>Traditions;</HI> and you que|&s;tion our Church, for fal&s;e tran&s;lating of the word. And cannot wee indure the word <HI>Tradi|tions?</HI> Doe not we allow of all the Apo&s;tolicall <HI>Traditions,</HI> which agree unto the Scriptures? Nay more, doe wee not tran&s;late the word <HI>Tra|ditions</HI> in the Scriptu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e, when the Text will beare it according to the Greeke originall? Looke up|on the fifteenth of <HI>Matthew,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Matth.</HI> 15. <HI>v.</HI> 2, 3, 6.</NOTE> and in three &s;eve|rall ver&s;es, 2, 3, 6. wee u&s;e the word <HI>Tradition.</HI> Looke upon the &s;eventh of <HI>Marke,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Marke</HI> 7. <HI>v.</HI> 3, 8, 9, 13.</NOTE> and in foure &s;everall places of that chapter, y<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">u &s;hall find likewi&s;e, wee tran&s;late <HI>Traditions.</HI> Looke upon
<PB N="278" REF="146"> Saint <HI>Paul</HI> to the <HI>Colo&s;sians, Galatians,</HI> and upon Saint <HI>Peter;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Colo&s;.</HI> 2.8. <HI>Galat.</HI> 1.14. 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1.18.</NOTE> and in all the&s;e, in the Tran&s;lation joyned with your <HI>Rhemi&s;h Te&s;tament,</HI> you &s;hall find the word <HI>Traditions.</HI> How may your <HI>Pro&s;e|lytes</HI> beleeve you another time, when you &s;ay, <HI>Wee alwaies tran&s;late it,</HI> or rather <HI>fal&s;ifie it into Ordinances?</HI></P>
<P>For a conclu&s;ion of this Section; you &s;ay, that the three Creeds, the two Sacraments, the foure Generall Councels, the two and twenty books of Canonicall Scripture, <HI>We had them from you.</HI> Let it be your comfort then, that you had &s;omething in your Church which was worth the gleaning, after the devill had &s;owed the Tares among&s;t the good Corne. But I would not have you over|much confident of that neither; for originally wee had them from the Church Catholike, be|fore there was a <HI>Roman.</HI> For, the Go&s;pell was preached in <HI>England</HI> before it was in <HI>Rome;</HI> and we had in <HI>England,</HI> a Chri&s;tian Church and King, before <HI>Rome</HI> had a Chri&s;tian <HI>Emperor,</HI> yea long before Poperie, or the name of <HI>Pope</HI> was heard of in the Chri&s;tian world; (in the &s;en&s;e you now take it.) And in after Ages, when the Go&s;pell of Chri&s;t was rooted out by Heathen per&s;ecutors (where it was fir&s;t planted) it was afterwards re|planted by Preachers, partly &s;ent from <HI>Rome,</HI> partly by the <HI>Greeke</HI> Church, but by neither was the Faith preached and re&s;tored; which your pre&s;ent Church now teacheth, and maintaineth at this day.</P>
<PB N="279" REF="146" MS="y">
<P>And la&s;tly, if wee had the three Creeds, the two Sacraments, the 22. bookes of Canonicall Scripture, and the fir&s;t foure Generall Councels from you, then you cannot deny that we teach the Ancient Faith, fir&s;t given to the Saints; and that we had a Church vi&s;ible long before <HI>Luthers</HI> dayes, (for tho&s;e <HI>Tenents</HI> were &s;ufficient of them|&s;elves to make a glorious, and a vi&s;ible Church in the fir&s;t and be&s;t ages) they were received by &s;ucceeding Chri&s;tians in all the later Ages, and are now become the Po&s;itive, and Affirmative Articles of our Beleefe, which for the greater part, were ever taught and received in the bo&s;om of your owne Church. To &s;hut up all your bitter A&s;per&s;ions, of Corrupting, of Fal&s;ifying, of Ly|ing, of Lynding, and I know not what reproches, ca&s;t upon me in the&s;e fir&s;t (8) Sections; I will &s;hut up all, I &s;ay, which hitherto hath beene delivered by you, with that an&s;wer of <HI>Socrates</HI> to his accu|&s;ers, before the Judges:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Plato in Apolo|gia Socratis.</NOTE> <HI>My Lords</HI> (&s;aith hee) <HI>in what &s;ort your affections have been &s;tirred with mine accu&s;ers eloquence which you heard them &s;peake, I cannot tell. But well I wot, for mine owne part, I my &s;elfe, whom it toucheth mo&s;t, was almo&s;t per&s;waded to beleeve, that what they &s;aid was true, yea although it were again&s;t my &s;elfe; &s;o hand&s;omly they can tell their tale, and &s;o likely, and &s;o &s;moothly they convey their maters: every word they &s;pake, had appearance of Truth, and yet in good &s;ooth, they have &s;car&s;ely uttered one word of Truth.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="147">
<PB REF="147" MS="y">
<P>STRICTVRAE IN LYNDOMASTIGEM: OR, An An&s;were by way of Supplement to the Chapters remaining in the Booke Intituled, A CASE FOR THE SPECTACLES.</P>
<P>Together <HI>With a Funerall Sermon preached</HI> at <HI>Cobham, June</HI> 14^t^h. 1636.</P>
<P>By DANIEL FEATLEY, D. D.</P>
<P>LONDON, Printed by <HI>M. P.</HI> for <HI>Robert Milbourne,</HI> at the &s;igne of the Vnicorne in Fleet-&s;treet, neere Fleet-Bridge. 1638.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<PB REF="148">
<PB REF="148" MS="y">
<HEAD>STRICTVRAE IN LYNDO-MASTIGEM.</HEAD>
<HEAD>The PREFACE to the Reader.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Christian Reader;</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P><HI>_CLemens Alexandrinus</HI> hath a &s;trange relation of <HI>Locrus,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Admonit. ad Graec. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> a famous Mu&s;ician in <HI>Greece;</HI> who, as he was playing a choi&s;e <HI>Madrigall</HI> upon his Harpe, in the mid&s;t of it, brake his Trebble; and (&s;ee) a Gra&s;hopper leaping upon the necke of his In&s;trument, held out the note till he had made an end of the Song. The like accident hath befallen our <HI>Locrus,</HI> or rather <HI>Lynus;</HI> who, as hee was warbling an exqui&s;ite <HI>Le&s;&s;on,</HI> lately <HI>prick'd</HI> by him, brake not his <HI>Harpes,</HI> but his <HI>Hearts &s;tring:</HI> and J like the Gra&s;&s;|hopper, with my har&s;h &s;ounding voice, mu&s;t now &s;upply that defect, and perfect the tune. The prime Doctor of the Schooles, <HI>Aquinas,</HI> was wont to &s;ay, that hee de&s;ired but to live &s;o long, till hee might &s;ee the golden-mouthed
<PB REF="149"> Father, Saint <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> his imperfect worke upon <HI>Matthew</HI> fini&s;hed. And J doubt not, but that many, who very much affected Sir <HI>Humphrey Lynde</HI> his per&s;on, and wri|tings, heartily wi&s;h, that this his <HI>Cygnea cantio,</HI> and la&s;t worke again&s;t the common Adver&s;arie, might be perfected. Which task, partly out of my re&s;pect to the worthy decea&s;ed Knight, partly at the reque&s;t of &s;ome friends yet alive, I have undertaken; promi&s;ing to adde (according to the di&s;tinction of the Schooles) <HI>perfectionem partium</HI> thereunto, but not <HI>graduum,</HI> a perfection of Parts, but not Degrees: that is, an An&s;wer to all the parts and Chapters remaining, but not with the like multiplicitie of reading, and accu|ratne&s;&s;e of &s;tyle, as may be ob&s;erved in the Knights writings. For, J <HI>owne</HI> not this Worke as mine, nor intend to &s;hape any new weapon again&s;t the Adver&s;aries of our Re|ligion, upon his <HI>Anvile,</HI> but onely <HI>Hammer</HI> that <HI>Iron</HI> which hee tooke <HI>red hot out of the fire.</HI> In which regard, I entitle my Anim|adver&s;ions upon <HI>Flood</HI> his reply, <HI>Stricturas;</HI> partly, becau&s;e like &s;parkles, they give &s;ome,
<PB REF="149" MS="y"> though &s;mall light into the points in Contro|ver&s;ie: partly, becau&s;e they burne where&s;o|ever they light. Some peradventure, would have wi&s;hed a more moderate An&s;wer; but in rea&s;on they could expect no other from him, whom, not zeale onely, of the truth of our Re|ligion &s;candalou&s;ly traduced, but love to a departed friend, and just anger and indig|nation at an Adver&s;arie, trampling upon his a&s;hes, heat in the penning hereof, above his ordinarie temper. Were <HI>Romi&s;h</HI> Priests and Je&s;uits ingenuous Adver&s;aries, in whom there were any hope to gaine by mildne&s;&s;e, and win by yeelding unto them as much as might be, without prejudice to the Truth; I &s;hould then per&s;wade all that write against them, to temper their Inke, rather with Ro&s;e|water than &V;inegar.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Vrtica &s;i mol|li&ugrave;s tractetur vrit.</NOTE> But in all my conflicts with them, at home and abroad, I find them like Nettles, <HI>which &s;ting if they be gently touched, but hurt not at all if they be roughly handled.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Greg in pa&s;to|ral. Lenis &s;ibi|lus, qui equos mitigat, canes in&s;tigat.</NOTE> The like Saint <HI>Gregorie</HI> ob&s;erveth, <HI>That a gentle whi&s;tle, which quiets a mettled Hor&s;e, provoketh a bar|king Curre;</HI> and &s;uch is the Je&s;uit, with
<PB REF="150"> whom the Knight before, and now I am to deale: hee entitleth him&s;elfe, <HI>I. R.</HI> and is indeed, all Ire and Rage, (like <HI>Labienus,</HI> for his furie, called <HI>Rabienus</HI>) every where full of <HI>Canina facundia,</HI> Dogg-eloquence. Who&s;oever vieweth the <HI>Picture</HI> he hath lately drawne of a mo&s;t learned and reverend Pre|late;<NOTE PLACE="marg">The picture of D. <HI>White.</HI> A Pair<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> of Spectacles for S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">r <HI>H. L.</HI> to &s;ee his way. <HI>Hermanni Leo melii Spo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">gia.</HI></NOTE> or handleth the <HI>Spectacles</HI> he hath made for our Knight; or &s;queezeth the <HI>Spunge</HI> he lately pre&s;ented to the Doctors of <HI>Sorbon;</HI> will &s;ay,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Gutture tri|fauci inanes territat Via|bras.</NOTE> that if there were ever a <HI>Cerberus,</HI> who&s;e tongue was &s;et on fire with hell, this is he. Wherfore marvell not, that I turn the <HI>rods</HI> wherewith the Knight la&s;hed him, into <HI>Scor|pions;</HI> and his <HI>Vinegar</HI> into <HI>Aqua-fortis, (Si mordaci&ugrave;s quicquam dixero non tam meae putes au&s;teritatis qua~ morbi,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Hieron. ep. ad Sabine. &amp; adver&s;as Iouin. l <HI>1.</HI> Fel hienae oculorum re&s;ti|tuit claritate~.</NOTE> <HI>putridae carnes ferro curantur, &amp; cauterio, venena &s;erpentina pelluntur antidoto; quod &s;atis dolet, majore dolore expellitur:</HI>) but con|&s;ider what <HI>Plinie</HI> writeth concerning <HI>Bal&s;a|mum,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Plin. l. <HI>12.</HI> nat. hi&s;t. cap. ult. Optimum opo|bal&s;amum bux|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;um mordens <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">&s;tu e&s;t, fer|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> cu&s;&abque; in ore.</NOTE> that the &s;weete&s;t, and be&s;t of that kind, called <HI>Opo Bal&s;amum,</HI> is &s;omewhat hot in the mouth, and biting in the ta&s;te.</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Thine in the Lord Je&s;u, DANIEL FEATLEY.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="table of contents">
<PB REF="150" MS="y">
<HEAD>The Titles of the &s;everall Chapters, and Sections in the en&s;uing Treati&s;e.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Chap. 9. Alphab. 1.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Sect. 1.</HI> Of Iu&s;tification by Faith onely. <HI>Pag. 2. d:</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Sect. 2.</HI> Of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation. <HI>Pag. 12.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Sect. 3.</HI> Of Private Ma&s;&s;es. <HI>pag. 42.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Sect. 4.</HI> Of the &s;even Sacraments. <HI>pa. 69</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Sect. 5.</HI> Of Communion in both kinds. <HI>pa. 127</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Sect. 6.</HI> Of Prayer in an unknowne tongue. <HI>pa. 145</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Sect. 7.</HI> Of the Wor&s;hip of Images. <HI>pa. 176</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Sect. 8.</HI> Of Indulgences. <HI>Alphab. 2. pag. 8.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Chap. 10.</HI> Of the certaintie of the Prote&s;tant, and uncer|taintie of the Romi&s;h Faith. <HI>pag. 44</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Chap. 11.</HI> Of the greater &s;afetie and comfort in the Pro|te&s;tant Faith, then in the Romi&s;h. <HI>pa. 68</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Chap. 12.</HI> Of re&s;pect due to the Ancient Fathers. <HI>pa. 84</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Chap. 13.</HI> Of razing Records, and clipping Authours tongues, by the Roman Indices Expurgatorij. <HI>pa. 92</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Chap. 14.</HI> Of the perfection and per&s;picuitie of Scripture, and our Adver&s;aries bla&s;phemous Exceptions against it. <HI>pa. 104</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Chap. 15.</HI> Concerning <HI>Bellarmine</HI> his &s;ub&s;cription to Pro|te&s;tant Doctr: in the main point of Iu&s;tification. <HI>pa. 122</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Chap. 16.</HI> Of Martyrs, and particularly, that the primi|tive Martyrs were not Papi&s;ts. <HI>pa. 128</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Chap. 17.</HI> Concerning the Prote&s;tants charitable opinion of Papi&s;ts, <HI>pag. 137.</HI> And in what &s;en&s;e &s;ome affirme the Romane a true Church. <HI>pag. 148</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Chap. 18.</HI> Concerning the Confe&s;sion on all &s;ides for the Safetie of the Prote&s;tant Religion. <HI>pa. 154</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>A Sermon preached at the Funerall of the Right Wor&s;hip|full Sir <HI>Humphrey Lynde,</HI> at Cobham in Surrey. <HI>p. 171</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<PB REF="151" MS="y">
<HEAD>Errata in the &s;econd Part.</HEAD>
<P>PAge 5. lin. 7. reade <HI>authors.</HI> in marg. l. 15. reade <HI>gloriamur,</HI> p. 17 l. 8. r. <HI>eat ye,</HI> p. 22. l. 8. in mar. r. <HI>fieri,</HI> p. 40 l. 1. dele <HI>of.</HI> p. 98. l. 28. in marg. r. <HI>alleviationem.</HI> p. 109. l. 2. in mar. r. <HI>de pecc. mer.</HI> p. 148. l. 10. r. <HI>at the fir&s;t in.</HI> p. 151. l. 9. r. <HI>Of.</HI> p. 191. l. 12. in mar. r. <HI>perhibeat.</HI> p. 202. l. 12. dele <HI>vi&s;ible.</HI> p. 203. l. 6. r. <HI>Miracles.</HI> l. 14. <HI>wonders &s;hew.</HI> p. 218. l. 6. dele <HI>the.</HI></P>
<P>Alphab. 2. pag. 39. l. 12. in mar. r. <HI>hic.</HI> p. 51. l. 5. add <HI>hee.</HI> p. 58. l. 16 r. <HI>et.</HI> &amp; l. 26. r. <HI>her.</HI> p. 62. l. 19. r. <HI>Of.</HI> p. 92. l. 8. r. <HI>Caietans.</HI> p. 134. lin. 5. r. <HI>the.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Errata</HI> in the Sermon. Pag. 181. l. 12. in mar. r. <HI>vertit.</HI> p. 184. l. 14 in mar. r. <HI>Condemnant.</HI> p. 191. l. 1. r. <HI>menacing.</HI> p. 192. l. 35. in mar. r. <HI>illaqueet.</HI> l. 36. <HI>obiect et.</HI> p. 195. l. 27. r. <HI>con&s;eruare.</HI> p. 202. l. 8 in marg. r. <HI>puteum.</HI> p. 204. l. 16. in mar. r. <GAP DESC="foreign">. l. 17. r. <GAP DESC="foreign"> pa. 211. l. 6. in mar. r. <HI>volentibus.</HI> l. ult. r. <HI>his.</HI> p. 212 l. 3. r. <HI>dores.</HI> l. 8. in marg. r. <HI>Christo.</HI> pa. 214. l. 7. in marg. r. <HI>obd<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">citur.</HI> &amp; l. 11. in mar. r. <HI>Epitaphii.</HI> &amp; l. 14. in mar. r. <HI>lacrymis implentur.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 N="9" TYPE="chapter">
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="section">
<PB N="1" REF="151" MS="y">
<HEAD>CONCERNING IVSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONLY. <HI>Spectacles Chap.</HI> 9. <HI>Sect.</HI> 1.</HEAD>
<P>_THE Knight faileth in the proofe of his fir&s;t point of Iu&s;tification, producing but one only place out of a booke intituled, <HI>Ordo bapti|zandi &amp; vi&s;itandi,</HI> and that of no &s;peciall good authoritie, as hee al|ledgeth it out of <HI>Ca&s;&s;ander</HI> an Author placed in the fir&s;t Cla&s;sis in the <HI>fir&s;t index librorum prohibi|torum;</HI> and even in that which he alledgeth, there is nothing that doth not very well &s;tand being rightly under&s;tood with the Catholique faith which wee now profe&s;&s;e, for there is nothing but that which was &s;hewed before out of <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> to wit, that in regard of the uncertaintie of our owne ju|&s;tice, that is, whether wee bee ju&s;t or no, and for the perill of vaine-glory it is mo&s;t &s;afe to put our whole confidence in the &s;ole mercy and benignitie of God; Which word &s;ole, doth import confidence
<PB N="2" REF="152"> in that, and in nothing el&s;e with which it may &s;tand very well, that men in the favour and grace of God may doe workes meritorious of encrea&s;e of grace and glory, which is the controver&s;ie betweene us and heretiques.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="response to section">
<HEAD>The Hammer.</HEAD>
<P><NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Era&s;. Apoph. Laconum.</NOTE>AS <HI>David</HI> cut off <HI>Goliahs</HI> head with his owne Sword, and <HI>Bra&s;idas</HI> ranne through his Antagoni&s;t with his owne Speare, and <HI>Iu&s;tine</HI> Martyr refuteth the Philo&s;ophers out of the principles of Nature; and <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> the ancient Romans out of the Oracles of <HI>Sibylla,</HI> and <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> the Gentiles out of their owne Hi&s;torians,<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Credis te non po&s;&s;e ni&s;i per mortem Chri&s;ti &s;ervari? re|&s;pondet in&s;ir|mus; etiam, tum illi dicitur age ergo dum &s;uper e&s;t in te anima in hac &s;ola morte fiduciam tuam con&s;titue, in nulla alia re fiducium habe, huic morti te totum co~mitte, hac &s;ol&acirc; te to|tum contege: fi dixerit tibi quod merui&s;ti damnationem, dic, Domine, mortem, D. no|&s;tri Ie&s;u Chri|&s;ti obtendo in|ter me, &amp; ma|la merita mea ip&s;iu&s;&abque; meri|tum, offero pro merito quod e|go debui&s;&s;em habere, nec ha|beo: credis quod Dom: no&s;ter Ie&s;us Chri&s;tus pro no&s;tr&acirc; &s;a|lute mortuus fit? &amp; quod ex proprijs me|ritis vel alio modo nullus po&s;&s;et &s;alvari ni&s;i merito pa&s;|&s;ionis ejus? Im|pre&s;. Venet. <HI>1575.</HI></NOTE> and S. <HI>Paul</HI> the Athenians out of their owne Poets: &s;o doth the Knight here in a litigious ca&s;e, of greate&s;t moment, convince the Ie&s;uite out of his owne evidence a booke intitu|led, The forme and order of baptizing and vi&s;i|ting the &s;icke; printed and reprinted, and practi|&s;ed for many hundred yeares without any check, or controle. In this booke the Prie&s;t is directed to put this que&s;tion to the &s;ick; <HI>Do&s;t thou beleeve that thou can&s;t not be &s;aved but by the death of Chri&s;t? the &s;icke per&s;on an&s;wereth; I be|leeve; then the Prie&s;t goeth on &s;aying, Goe too there|fore as long as thy &s;oule remaines in thee, place thy whole confidence in this death only, have confi|dence in no other thing, commit thy &s;elfe wholly to
<PB N="3" REF="152" MS="y"> this death, with this alone cover thy &s;elfe wholly, if hee &s;ay unto thee, thou ha&s;t de&s;erved damnati|on, &s;ay Lord, I &s;et the death of our Lord Ie&s;us Chri&s;t betwixt mee and my bad merits, and I offer his merit in &s;tead of the merits which I ought to have and yet have not.</HI> What could <HI>Luther</HI> or <HI>Calvin,</HI> or <HI>Zuinglius,</HI> or <HI>Peter Martyr,</HI> or any Prote&s;tant in the world &s;peake more expre&s;&s;ely for the renouncing all merit, and relying upon Chri&s;t wholly and &s;olely for ju&s;tification and &s;alvation? Yet our Spectacle-maker by a fal&s;e <HI>glo&s;&s;e,</HI> as it were, a <HI>fal&s;e gla&s;&s;e,</HI> would make us beleeve, that the author of the Liturgie ca&s;t his eyes another way, and that this allegation ma|keth nothing for us.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, he excepteth again&s;t this Authour as a &s;ingle witne&s;&s;e, <HI>you produce,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>but one only place out of one authour, &amp;c.</HI> I an&s;wer as the Lio|ne&s;&s;e doth in the fable to the aemulous bea&s;t twitting her,<NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">Ae&s;op. Fab.</NOTE> that whereas other females had many young ones at once, &s;hee had but one, <HI>ac pol leonem inquit; but,</HI> &s;aith &s;hee, <HI>that one is a Lion of more worth then twenty whelpes:</HI> &s;o I grant, that in this place hee in&s;i&s;teth but upon one allegation, but it is a mo&s;t remarkable one; It is very likely that this <HI>ordo vi&s;itandi,</HI> as other parts of the Liturgie and Catechi&s;mes, and con|fe&s;&s;ions might bee penned by one man: yet after they are generally received, and approved, and pa&s;&s;e currant for many ages, they carry the au|thoritie of many, yea the whole Church; and
<PB N="4" REF="153" MS="y"> how&s;oever the Ie&s;uite would intimate that the Authour was an <HI>anonymus,</HI> yet hee might have learned from their great<NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg">Ho&s;ius Conf. Petricon. c. <HI>73</HI> Sed &amp; An|&s;elmus Cartu|ar. Interrogat qua&s;dam prae|&s;crip&s;i&s;&s;e dici|tur infirmis in extremis con|&s;titutis.</NOTE> Cardinall <HI>Ho&s;ius</HI> that hee was the famous Archbi&s;hop of <HI>Canter|burie.</HI> Neither is ther any rea&s;on to make &s;cruple thereof, for it hath beene anciently printed with his Workes, and pa&s;&s;ed under his name, and both the &s;tyle and the doctrine in it is very con|formable to that wee find in his unque&s;tionable writings, as namely in his Comment upon <HI>Ro|mans</HI> chapter the eight (<HI>v.</HI> 18.) <HI>I reckon that the &s;ufferings of this pre&s;ent time are not worthie to bee compared with the glorie which &s;hall bee revea|led in us</HI> if <HI>a man,</HI> &s;aith he,<NOTE N="e" PLACE="marg">Si homo mille annis &s;erviret Deo etiam fer|venti&s;&s;im&egrave;, non mereretur ex condigno dimi|dium diem e&s;&s;e in regno coelo|rum.</NOTE> <HI>&s;hould &s;erve God a thou&s;and yeares, and that mo&s;t fervently, he &s;hould not de&s;erve of condignity to bee halfe a day in the kingdome of heaven.</HI> Neither is <HI>Ca&s;&s;anders</HI> te|&s;timonie of this booke (at which the Ie&s;uite gives &s;o many a flert) to be &s;leighted, for he was a man of eminent note, and in high e&s;teeme a|mong the learned of his age, hee was a favou|rite of two great Emperours, and lived and died in good reputation, as appeareth by the &s;undrie encomiums before his Workes; as al&s;o the E|pitaph on his Tombe. As for the &s;etting him in the fir&s;t Cla&s;&s;is of prohibited bookes, no whit ecclip&s;eth the glorie, but rather enobleth him, for that Index is a kind of <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall ostra|ci&s;me,</HI> by which the <HI>Romani&s;ts</HI> bani&s;h as farre as their power &s;tretcheth, the mo&s;t eminent Au|thours, and mo&s;t free and ingenuous profe&s;&s;ors
<PB N="5" REF="153" MS="y"> of the truth. As<NOTE N="f" PLACE="marg">Tertul in A|pologet. c. <HI>5.</HI> con&s;ulite com|mentarios ve|&s;tros illio repe|rietis primum Neronem in hanc Sectam Romae oriente~ Cae&s;ariano gla|dio feroci&s;&s;e. Sed tali dedi|catore damna|nionisno&s;trae e|tiam gloriamus qui enim &s;cit illum intellige|re pote&s;t non ni&s;i grande a|liquod bonum &agrave; Nerone dam|natum.</NOTE> <HI>Tertullian</HI> draweth an argu|ment to prove the &s;incerity and holine&s;&s;e of the Chri&s;tian Religion from the barbarous decree of wicked <HI>Nero</HI> again&s;t the profe&s;&s;ours thereof; <HI>it mu&s;t needs,</HI> &s;aith hee, <HI>bee &s;ingular good which that damned mon&s;ter condemnes:</HI> &s;o if any man peru&s;e the Authours cen&s;ured, and the pa&s;&s;ages expunged in the <HI>Index expurgatorius,</HI> hee &s;hall find them to be of &s;peciall note, and &s;ingular u&s;e. Albeit the Inqui&s;itors pretend that <HI>they change not, nor blot out any thing, but onely where manife&s;t errour is crept in, and that &s;ince the yeare</HI> 1515. Yet the Knight hath demon&s;trated be|fore by undeniable in&s;tances in all ages, that they blot out of the Index of the Bible, the wri|tings of the ancient Fathers; and &s;ince 800. yeares out of the Doctours of their owne Church, what maketh mo&s;t again&s;t their er|rours and &s;uper&s;titions. Yea, but &s;aith the Ie|&s;uite, this &s;uppo&s;ed booke of <HI>An&s;elme</HI> hath beene printed, and reprinted by heretiques, and therefore may well fall under the Inqui&s;itions cen&s;ure; &s;o hath <HI>Ignatius, Cyprian, Theodoret,</HI> and <HI>Ambro&s;e,</HI> and <HI>Au&s;tine;</HI> yea and the originalls of the old and new Te&s;tament, and mu&s;t they therefore come under their file, and bee &s;ub|ject to their Index correction? As<NOTE N="g" PLACE="marg">Iohn 18.23</NOTE> Chri&s;t &s;pake to the high Prie&s;ts &s;ervant; <HI>If I have &s;po|ken ill, beare witne&s;&s;e of the ill, if well, why &s;mite&s;t thou mee?</HI> So &s;ay wee of the&s;e bookes printed and reprinted by tho&s;e whom hee tearmes here|tiques,
<PB N="6" REF="154"> becau&s;e they impugne his errours and he|re&s;ies, if they have printed ought ami&s;&s;e declare it: if not, why doe you prohibit or correct their impre&s;&s;ions?</P>
<P>Well (&s;aith he) for all this, if the wor&s;t come to the wor&s;t, if this Authour prove to be S. <HI>An|&s;elme</HI> and his words Go&s;pell, the Knight gaines nothing by it, or we lo&s;e, for <HI>though it bee the &s;a|fe&s;t way to ca&s;t anchour at the la&s;t in the bottome of Gods mercie, and put our whole confidence in Chri&s;ts merits, it doth not from hence follow, but that men may doe workes meritorious of increa&s;e of grace and glory.</HI> Fir&s;t, why doth he li&s;pe here, and not &s;peake plaine out the Romi&s;h tenet which is that our Workes <HI>doe merit not only in|crea&s;e of grace and glorie, but remi&s;sion of &s;innes, and</HI><NOTE N="h" PLACE="marg">Concil. Trid. Se&s;s. <HI>6.</HI> c <HI>32.</HI> Si quis dixerit hominis ju&s;ti|ficati opera non ver&egrave; mereri augmentu~ gra|tiae &amp; vitam aeternam, &amp; ipfius vitae ae|ternae, &s;i tamen in grati&ograve; dece&s;|&s;erit, con&s;ecu|tionem, Ana|thema fit.</NOTE> <HI>eternall life?</HI> Next, I would faine know how mercy and merit, nay &s;ole mercy and merit can &s;tand together? Certainly as mercy exclu|deth merit, &s;o &s;ole mercy all merit. Can tho&s;e workes which in S. <HI>An&s;elmes</HI> judgement will not beare &s;cale in Gods ballance, weigh downe <HI>&s;uper-excellens pondus gloriae,</HI> a &s;uper-excellent weight of glorie? Certainly the Spectacle-maker put in a burning gla&s;&s;e into his Spectacles which hath much impaired his eye-&s;ight, or el&s;e hee could not but reade S. <HI>An&s;elmes</HI> words in this place, in which he renounceth all merit, and that in mo&s;t direct and expre&s;&s;e tearmes, <HI>I be|leeve that none can bee &s;aved by his owne merits,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Vid loc. &s;up. cit. p. <HI>4.</HI></NOTE> <HI>or by any other meanes, but by the merit of Chri&s;ts
<PB N="7" REF="154" MS="y"> pa&s;sion. I &s;et the death of Chri&s;t betwixt mee and my bad merits, and I offer his merits in &s;tead of the merits which I ought to have, and have not.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>Concerning Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation Spectacles chap. 9. Sect. 2. <HI>&agrave; pag.</HI> 132. <HI>ad</HI> 187.</HEAD>
<P>_THE Knight and the Prote&s;tants com|mit <MILESTONE N="1"> a great &s;inne in admini&s;tring the Sacrament of Bapti&s;me without tho&s;e Ceremonies which were u&s;ed in the Church from the Apo&s;tles times.</P>
<P><HI>Elfrick</HI> was not the Authour of the Homilie <MILESTONE N="2"> and Epi&s;tles, the Knight citeth again&s;t Tran&s;ub|&s;tantion, in which notwith&s;tanding there is nothing again&s;t Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, but much for it, if the Knight had not &s;hamefully corrupted the Text by fal&s;e tran&s;lating it, in five &s;everall places.</P>
<P>The difference of Catholique Authours about things not defined by the Church maketh nothing <MILESTONE N="3"> for Prote&s;tants, becau&s;e they vertually retract all &s;uch opinions by &s;ubmitting their writings to the cen&s;ure of the Catholique Church.</P>
<P>Cajetan is fal&s;ely alledged by putting in the word &s;uppo&s;ed, and Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation: he denied <MILESTONE N="4"> not the bread to bee tran&s;ub&s;tantiated into Chri&s;ts body, though hee conceived that tho&s;e words, <HI>This is my body,</HI> doe not &s;ufficiently prove the reall pre|&s;ence
<PB N="8" REF="155"> of our Saviours body for which he is worthily cen&s;ured by <HI>Suarez</HI> and the whole &s;choole of Di|vines.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="5"> <HI>Biel</HI> affirmeth that it is expre&s;ly delivered in holy Scriptures, that the body of Chri&s;t is contai|ned under the &s;pecies of bread, &amp;c. Which former words the Knight leaveth out, becau&s;e they made clearely again&s;t him, and in the latter &s;et downe by the Knight, he denieth not that Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation may bee proved out of Scriptures, but that it may be proved expre&s;ly, that is in expre&s;&s;e tearmes or &s;o many words.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="6"> <HI>Alliaco</HI> his opinion maketh nothing for the Knight being a Calvini&s;t, though hee &s;eeme to fa|vour the Lutherans tenet: and though hee thought the Doctrine of con&s;ub&s;tantiation to be more po&s;si|ble and ea&s;ie, yet therein hee preferred the judge|ment of the Church before his owne.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="7"> <HI>B. Fi&s;her</HI> denieth not that the reall pre&s;ence can be proved out of Scripture; for the fourth chapter of the booke cited by the Knight, is employed in the proofe thereof again&s;t <HI>Luther:</HI> but that laying a|&s;ide the interpretation of Fathers, and u&s;e of the Church, no man can be able to prove, that any Prie&s;t now in the&s;e times, doth Con&s;ecrate the true body and bloud of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="8"> <HI>Durand</HI> B. of Maundy doth not deny Tran&s;ub|&s;tantiation to bee wrougnt by vertue of the words, <HI>This is my body;</HI> For though in the fir&s;t place hee &s;aith that Chri&s;t then made the bread his body when he ble&s;&s;ed it, yet hee after addeth that wee doe
<PB N="9" REF="155"> ble&s;&s;e, <HI>ill&acirc; virtute quam Chri&s;tus indidit verbis,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Durand. rat. c. <HI>41.</HI> n. <HI>14.</HI></NOTE> by that power which Chri&s;t hath giuen to the words.</P>
<P><HI>Odo Cameracen&s;is</HI> calleth the very forme of <MILESTONE N="9"> Con&s;ecration, a benediction both becau&s;e they are ble&s;&s;ed words appointed by Chri&s;t, for &s;o holy an end, and becau&s;e they produce &s;o noble an effect, or becau&s;e they are joyned alwayes with that benedi|ction and thanke&s;giving, u&s;ed both by our Saviour in the institution of this holy Sacrament, and now by the Prie&s;t in the Catholique Church, in the Con|&s;ecration of the &s;ame.</P>
<P><HI>Chri&s;topherus de capite fontium</HI> is put in the <MILESTONE N="10"> Roman Index of prohibited bookes, and in the words cited out of him by the Knight, there is a gro&s;&s;e hi&s;toricall errour in this that hee &s;aith, that in that opinion of his, both the Councell of <HI>Trent,</HI> and all Writers did agree till the late time of <HI>Caie|tan,</HI> as if <HI>Caietan</HI> were &s;ince the Councell of <HI>Trent;</HI> and in citing this place, the <HI>Knight</HI> is again&s;t him|&s;elfe, for whereas hee maketh Cardinall <HI>Caietan,</HI> and the Archbi&s;hop of <HI>Cae&s;area</HI> his two Champions again&s;t the words of Con&s;ecration, as if they did both agree in the &s;ame: here this Archbi&s;hop &s;aith quite contrary, that all are for him but onely <HI>Cajetan.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Salmeron</HI> relateth it indeed to bee the opinions <MILESTONE N="11"> of &s;ome <HI>Graecians</HI> that Chri&s;t did not con&s;ecrate by tho&s;e words, <HI>This is my body,</HI> but by his bene|diction: but this opinion of theirs is condemned by him as <HI>Chamier</HI> &s;aith expre&s;&s;ely in the
<PB N="10" REF="156"> place coted by the <HI>Knight, l. 6. de Eucha. c. 7.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="12"> <HI>Bellarmine</HI> in the place alledged &s;aith nothing, but what is granted by all Papi&s;ts,<NOTE PLACE="marg">De Euchar. l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>23.</HI></NOTE> to wit, that though the words of Con&s;ecration in the plaine con|naturall and obvious &s;en&s;e inferre Tran&s;ubstan|tiation: yet becau&s;e in the judgement of &s;ome learned men, they may have another &s;en&s;e, which proveth only the reall pre&s;ence, it is not altogether improbable, that without the authority of the Church, they cannot inforce a man to beleeve Tran|&s;ub&s;tantiation out of them.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="13"> <HI>Alfon&s;us &agrave; Ca&s;tro</HI> affirmeth that of Tran&s;ub|&s;tantiation there is rare mention in the ancient Fa|thers: yet of the conver&s;ion of the bread into the body of Chri&s;t, there is mo&s;t frequent mention; and the drift of <HI>Ca&s;tro</HI> in that place is to &s;hew, that though there bee not much mention in ancient Wri|ters of a thing, or plaine te&s;timonie of Scripture, that yet the u&s;e and practice of the Church is &s;uffi|cient, bringing in for example this point of Tran|&s;ub&s;tantiation, and the proce&s;sion of the holy Gho&s;t from the Son.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="14"> The meaning of <HI>Yribarne</HI> and <HI>Scotus,</HI> &s;aying Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation of late was determined in the Councell of <HI>Lateran</HI> is only this, that whereas the words of Con&s;ecration may bee under&s;tood of the reall pre&s;ence of our ble&s;&s;ed Saviours body either by Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, or otherwi&s;e; &s;o the &s;ub|&s;tance of bread doe remaine: the Church hath de|termined the words are to be under&s;tood in the for|mer &s;ence. And moreover <HI>Yribarne</HI> &s;aith, that
<PB N="11" REF="156"> Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation was not from the beginning <HI>de &s;ub&s;tanti&acirc; fidei,</HI> becau&s;e it had not beene &s;o plainely delivered, nor determined in any Councell, till <HI>Gre|gorie</HI> the <HI>7</HI> his time wherein it was fir&s;t determined again&s;t <HI>Berengarius.</HI></P>
<P>It is not the reall pre&s;ence whereof either S. <HI>Au|&s;tine</HI> <MILESTONE N="15"> or <HI>Maldonate</HI> &s;peaketh, but how they that eate Manna have died, and they that eate the body of our Lord &s;hall live according to our Saviours &s;ay|ing, which is a cleane different thing.</P>
<P><HI>Gregorie de Valentia</HI> having brought two or <MILESTONE N="16"> three &s;everall and &s;ub&s;tantiall an&s;wers to a place al|ledged out of <HI>Theodoret</HI> concludeth &s;omewhat roundly with the heretiques in this manner, that if no other an&s;wer will &s;erve the turne, but that they will &s;till &s;tand wrangling; that it is no marvell that one or two (<HI>hee meaneth</HI> Theodoret <HI>and</HI> Gelafius) might erre in this point, and that <HI>Bellarmine Sua|rez,</HI> and others an&s;wer the place otherwi&s;e, to whom hee remitteth the <HI>Knight.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Cu&s;anus</HI> &s;peaketh not of ancient Fathers, but of <MILESTONE N="17"> certaine ancient Divines, who&s;e names and errours are &s;et downe in our late Schoole-men: and this Cardinall him&s;elfe in the place alledged by the <HI>Knight</HI> declareth his beliefe of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Excit. l. <HI>6.</HI></NOTE></P>
<P>The <HI>Walden&s;es</HI> agree not with Prote&s;tants in the <MILESTONE N="18"> point of the Sacrament; for they had Ma&s;&s;e but once a yeare, and that upon Maundy Thur&s;day, nei|ther would they u&s;e the words, <HI>hoc e&s;t corpus me|um,</HI> but &s;even <HI>Pater no&s;ters,</HI> with a ble&s;sing over the bread.</P>
<PB N="12" REF="157">
<P> <MILESTONE N="19"> <HI>Durand</HI> affirmeth not, that the &s;ub&s;tance of the Bread and Wine remaineth in the Sacrament, but the materiall part only, and hee acknowledgeth that all other Schoole-men were herein again&s;t him.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="20"> <HI>Gaufridus</HI> and <HI>Ho&s;tien&s;is,</HI> though they recount three opinions concerning the pre&s;ence of Chri&s;ts body in the ble&s;&s;ed Sacrament, of which the one &s;aith, the bread is the body of Chri&s;t, another, that the Bread doth not remaine, but is changed into Chri&s;ts body; a third, that the bread doth remaine, and is together with the body of Chri&s;t: yet they ap|prove none for true, but only that of the body of Chri&s;t, being upon the Altar by Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="21"> <HI>Ton&s;tall</HI> with <HI>Scotus,</HI> &s;peake either of the word Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, or of the proofe thereof by de|termining that &s;en&s;e of Scripture, or if they meane otherwi&s;e the matter is not great. For one &s;ingle Au|thour, or two contradicted by others, carry little credit in matter of beliefe.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="22"> <HI>Era&s;mus</HI> is not an Authour to be an&s;wered or na|med as the <HI>Knight</HI> hath beene often told.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="response to section">
<HEAD>The Hammer.</HEAD>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">In <HI>3.</HI> p. Tho q. <HI>61.</HI> in&s;olubile e&s;t argumentu~ Suarez propter intricationem &amp; ob&s;curita|tem non diffi|cultarem.</NOTE>AS <HI>Nugno</HI> wrote of an Argument of <HI>Suarez</HI> the Ie&s;uite, <HI>that it was in a manner in&s;oluble, not in regard of the difficultie of the matter, but in regard of the intricacie and ob&s;curitie in the manner of propounding it:</HI> &s;o this Section may be truly &s;aid to bee uncapeable of a cleare and di|&s;tinct
<PB N="13" REF="157"> an&s;wer thereunto, not in regard of any dif|ficultie in the matter it &s;elfe; for there is nothing contained in it, but <HI>Crambe centies cocts;</HI> but in re&s;pect of the confu&s;ion thereof, the Adver&s;ary following no tract at all, but <HI>leporis in&s;tar viam intorquens,</HI> purpo&s;ely like a Hare leaping out of the way, that hee might not be caught, for which cau&s;e I have beene enforced to leave the order, or rather di&s;order in his Paragraphes, and cull out of the whole Section here and there, what hee materially an&s;wereth to the <HI>Knights</HI> allegations, and reduce it to the numbers following, where|unto I purpo&s;e to referre my en&s;uing animad-ver&s;ions.</P>
<P>To the fir&s;t Exception. Whereas hee taxeth <MILESTONE N="1"> the Prote&s;tants for leaving out ceremonies in Bapti&s;me u&s;ed in the Church, &s;ince the Apo&s;tles time, hee &s;hamefully abu&s;eth his reader, for hee &s;peaketh not of the &s;igne of the Cro&s;&s;e, or of Godfathers and Godmothers, which ceremonies and cu&s;tome of the ancient Church hee knoweth that we retaine: but of Salt and &s;pittle, or bapti&s;|mall chri&s;me, which can never be proved to have beene u&s;ed in the Apo&s;tles time, or many hun|dred yeares after. Of the mo&s;t ancient of them, to wit, Chri&s;me he him&s;elfe el&s;e-where, <HI>Apolog. c.</HI> 2.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 57.</NOTE> acknowledgeth that it began but about <HI>Con|&s;tantines</HI> time (as <HI>Aurelius</HI> the Sorboni&s;t ob&s;er|veth in his booke intituled <HI>Vindiciae cen&s;urae,</HI> wherein the Ie&s;uite is trimmed, as &s;uch a &s;have|ling de&s;erveth.)</P>
<PB N="14" REF="158" MS="y">
<P>To the &s;econd concerning <HI>Elfrick.</HI> That <HI>Ael|frick</HI> was not the Authour of the Homilies wee acknowledge, neither doth this any whit dero|gate from their authoritie, but adde rather. For the more ancient the Authour was, the more au|thoritie the Sermons carry. Now it appeareth out of an ancient Manu&s;cript, that the&s;e Homi|lies were extant in Latine before the dayes of <HI>Ael|frick,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">In Bib. Bodeli|an&acirc;, Oxon.</NOTE> who was commanded by the Archbi&s;hop of Yorke <HI>Wol&s;tanus</HI> to tran&s;late them into Eng|li&s;h, which after hee had faithfully done, the Bi|&s;hops at a Synod commanded them to bee read to the people on Ea&s;ter day before they received the Communion. As for the &s;hamefull corrup|tion hee objecteth to the <HI>Knight</HI> by fal&s;e tran&s;la|ting the Homilies in five places, I cannot &s;uffici|ently pitty the gro&s;&s;e &s;tupidity and blindne&s;&s;e of the objecter. Hee who hath made a paire of Spectacles for the <HI>Knight,</HI> had need to have a Fe&s;trawe made for him&s;elfe to &s;pell withall; for here hee mo&s;t ab&s;urdly and ridiculou&s;ly mi&s;ta|keth a Collation for a Tran&s;lation, and <HI>Bertram</HI> for <HI>Aelfrick.</HI> Doctor <HI>V&s;her</HI> now Primate of <HI>Ar|math,</HI> whom the <HI>Knight</HI> here followed &s;tep by &s;tep, maketh a kind of parallel betweene the word of <HI>Bertram,</HI> and divers pa&s;&s;ages in the Ho|milies and Epi&s;tles tran&s;lated by <HI>Aelfrick,</HI> to &s;hew the conformitie of the doctrine in both. This parallel by this blind buzzard is taken for a tran&s;lation,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cic. Phil. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Vis te, &agrave;&s;ine, literas doceam,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Tully</HI> to <HI>Anthony, non opus e&s;t verbis &s;ed fu&s;tibus:</HI> yea
<PB N="15" REF="158" MS="y"> but the Authour of this Homilie is &s;o farre from condemning Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, that hee pro|fe&s;&s;edly teacheth it in the&s;e words,<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Sicut<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Paul&ograve; antequam pa|teretur, panis &s;ub&s;tantiam et vin<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> creatu|ram convertere potuit in pro|prium corpus quod pa&s;&s;urum erat, &amp; in &s;u|um &s;anguinem qui p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;t fun|dendus exta|bat, &s;ic etiam in de&s;erto Man|na, &amp; aquam de petr&acirc; in &s;u|am carnem, &amp; &s;anguinem co~|vertere prae|valuit.</NOTE> <HI>As there|fore a little before hee &s;uffered, hee could change the &s;ub&s;tance of Bread, and the creature of Wine into his proper Body, which was to &s;uffer, and into his Bloud which was there extant to bee afterwards &s;hed, &s;o in the De&s;ert hee was able to change Manna and water into his owne body and bloud.</HI> I an&s;wer, this pa&s;&s;age hee doth well to whet like a &s;harpe knife to cut the throat of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation. For let it be granted according to the doctrine of <HI>Aelfrick</HI> and <HI>Bertram,</HI> that Chri&s;t &s;o turned the Bread into his Body at his la&s;t &s;upper, as hee tur|ned Manna and water into his owne fle&s;h in the wilderne&s;&s;e, what will hereupon in&s;ue? but that the conver&s;ion or change which is made in the elements is not reall, and corporall, but &s;pirituall and &s;acramentall, as that was in the De&s;ert: of which the Apo&s;tle &s;peaketh, <HI>the</HI><NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 10.4.</NOTE> <HI>&s;pirituall rock followed them, and that rock was Chri&s;t.</HI> When Manna fell, and the rock was &s;trucken, Chri&s;t was not incarnate, nor many hundred yeares after: how then could the Manna, or the water bee real|ly and properly turned into his fle&s;h and bloud? Moreover, how&s;oever hee eludeth the former words of <HI>Aelfrick; There is a great difference be|twixt the body wherein Chri&s;t &s;uffered, and the body which is received of the faithfull, the body in which Chri&s;t &s;uffered, was borne of the fle&s;h of</HI> Mary, <HI>and con&s;i&s;ted of bloud and bone, but the
<PB N="16" REF="159"> other is gathered of many cornes without bloud and bone,</HI> (by &s;aying) <HI>that the difference which Aelfrick &s;heweth betweene Chri&s;t on the Cro&s;&s;e and Chri&s;t on the Sacrament is in his manner of be|ing, not in the being it &s;elfe, not denying him to bee really in both:</HI> yet the later words which containe an inference upon the former: <HI>therefore there is nothing to bee under&s;tood in the Sacrament bodily, but &s;piritually:</HI> admit of no colourable eva&s;ion, for if <HI>nothing bee there under&s;tood bodily but &s;piri|tually;</HI> then mu&s;t needs the words, <HI>This is my bo|dy,</HI> be under&s;tood figuratively, then mu&s;t we not according to the doctrine of tho&s;e times under|&s;tand any &s;ub&s;tantiall change of the bread into Chri&s;ts very body, or the Wine into his bloud really and corporally.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> To the third. The difference betweene Papi&s;ts of mo&s;t eminent note concerning the words, by vertue whereof they teach Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation is effected, maketh much again&s;t the doctrine it &s;elfe, and by con&s;equence quite overthroweth it. For thus we argue again&s;t them out of this their difference: If the bread bee turned into Chri&s;ts body, then either by the words of benediction before hee brake the bread, or gave it, &amp;c. or by the very words of Con&s;ecration, <HI>viz. hoc e&s;t corpus meum.</HI> But hee neither changed the bread into his Body by the one, nor by the other; <HI>Ergo,</HI> hee changed it not at all. Not by the pre|cedent benediction, as <HI>Aquinas</HI> and <HI>Bellarmine</HI> prove. For till the la&s;t in&s;tant of the prolation of
<PB N="17" REF="159" MS="y"> the words <HI>This is my Body,</HI> the &s;ub&s;tance of bread remaineth. Not by the words of Con&s;ecration: for as <HI>Durand</HI> and <HI>Odo Cameracen&s;is,</HI> and <HI>Chri&s;to|pherus</HI> Archbi&s;hop of <HI>Cae&s;area</HI> prove, Chri&s;t could not have &s;aid after hee had ble&s;&s;ed the Bread, <HI>This is my body, unle&s;&s;e by ble&s;sing it he had made it his body before.</HI> If when Chri&s;t &s;aid <HI>Take yee and eate,</HI> yet at that time the Bread by bene|diction were not changed, it would follow that Chri&s;t did command his Di&s;ciples to take, and eate the &s;ub&s;tance of Bread, which to &s;ay is to deny the article of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation. Neither can the Ie&s;uite heale this &s;ore by his <HI>vertuall &s;alve,</HI> in &s;aying, <HI>that tho&s;e men above alledged, who impugne the pre&s;ent tenent of the Schooles con|cerning the words of Con&s;ecration, in which the e&s;|&s;ence of the Sacrament con&s;i&s;teth vertually retracted &s;uch opinions, becau&s;e they &s;ubmitted their writings to the cen&s;ure of the Catholique Church:</HI> for &s;o wee may &s;ay with better rea&s;on, that what they held again&s;t us, <HI>they vertually retracted by &s;ubmitting their judgement to the Catholique Church,</HI> which we can ea&s;ily prove not to bee the particular Ro|man, but the Univer&s;all, which in all times, and all places through the Chri&s;tian world hath pro|fe&s;&s;ed the <HI>common faith once given to the Saints</HI> without any of tho&s;e later Articles which <HI>P. Pius</HI> the fourth,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Jud. 13.</NOTE> and the late conventicle of Trent hath <HI>pinned</HI> unto it.</P>
<P>To the fourth, <HI>Gajetan</HI> is truly alledged by the <MILESTONE N="4"> <HI>Knight;</HI> for though neither the words <HI>Tran&s;ub|&s;tantiation,</HI>
<PB N="18" REF="160"> nor <HI>&s;uppo&s;ed</HI> are in him, yet the &s;ence of them is to be found in him; for as both <HI>Suarez</HI> and <HI>Flood</HI> him&s;elfe acknowledgeth (<HI>p.</HI> 147.) <HI>Cajetan</HI> &s;aid, <HI>that the&s;e words, This is my body, doe not &s;ufficiently prove the reall pre&s;ence of our Sa|viours body without the pre&s;uppo&s;ed authoritie of the Church;</HI> and if in his judgement they prove not &s;o much as the reall pre&s;ence of Chri&s;ts bo|dy in the Sacrament, much le&s;&s;e prove they the pre&s;ence thereof by Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, or tur|ning the bread into it. By the word <HI>&s;uppo&s;ed,</HI> which the <HI>Knight</HI> addeth more fully to declare <HI>Cajetans</HI> meaning, hee intended not <HI>&s;uppo&s;itions, or barely pretended authority of the Church,</HI> but truly pre&s;uppo&s;ed, which maketh not the &s;peech &s;ound at all contemptibly of the Church as <HI>Flood</HI> would have it, who&s;e &s;tomack is &s;o bad, that it turneth &s;weet and whol&s;ome meate into choler;
<Q><L>Nectar cui fiet acetum</L>
<L>&amp; vaticani perfida vappa cadi.</L></Q></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="5"> To the fifth. The <HI>Knight</HI> tran&s;cribeth &s;o much out of <HI>Biel</HI> as was pertinent to his purpo&s;e: with the re&s;t he thought not fit to trouble the reader.<NOTE PLACE="marg">In Can. Mi&s;&s; Lect. <HI>40.</HI> no|tandum quod quamvis ex|pre&s;s&egrave; tradatur in &s;criptur&acirc; quod corpus Chri&s;ti veraci|ter &s;ub &s;pecie|bus panis con|tinetur, &amp; &agrave; fidelibus &s;umi|tur, tamen quo|modo &s;it ibi corpus Chri&s;ti an per conver|&s;ionem alicujus in ip&s;um, an &s;ine conver&s;io|ne incipiat e&s;&s;e cor<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">us Chri&s;ti cum pane ma|nentibus &s;ub|&s;tanti&acirc;, &amp; ac|cidentibus pa|nis in Canone bibliae non in|venitur.</NOTE> The whole pa&s;&s;age in <HI>Biel</HI> &s;tandeth thus, <HI>It is to bee noted, that though it bee expre&s;&s;ely deli|vered in Scripture, that the body of Chri&s;t is truly contained under the forme or &s;pecies of Bread, and received by the faithfull, yet it is not found in the canon of the Bible, how the body of Chri&s;t is there,
<PB N="19" REF="160" MS="y"> whether by conver&s;ion of any thing into it, or whether it beginneth to be there without conuer&s;ion, or turning the &s;ub&s;tance, and accidents of bread remaining.</HI> The former words in which pa&s;&s;age, make no|thing again&s;t the <HI>Knight:</HI> Who in this chapter for the mo&s;t part condemneth Papi&s;ts out of their owne mouth, and therefore taking <HI>Biel</HI> for &s;uch, hee maketh u&s;e of his te&s;timonie again&s;t the Ro|man Church in point of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation. Which is very direct and expre&s;&s;e, and the <HI>Ie|&s;uites</HI> an&s;wer is very weake and un&s;ufficient there|unto, to wit, that hee <HI>denieth only that Tran&s;ub|&s;tantiation is found in Scripture in expre&s;&s;e words.</HI> For fir&s;t <HI>Biel</HI> &s;aith not <HI>non invenitur expre&s;&s;um,</HI> but <HI>non invenitur; It is not found in Scripture, whe|ther Chri&s;ts body be there by conver&s;ion of any thing into it.</HI> Now many things are found in Scrip|ture, as the Trinity of per&s;ons, the eternall gene|ration of the Sonne, the proce&s;&s;ion of the holy Gho&s;t from the Father and the Sonne, the number and nature of Sacraments: which yet are not &s;et downe in expre&s;&s;e words. Second|ly, it is evident out of the former words of <HI>Biel,</HI> that hee accounted tho&s;e things expre&s;&s;ely to be delivered in Scriptures, which yet are not &s;et downe in expre&s;&s;e words: for hee &s;aith that <HI>it is expre&s;ly delivered in Scriptures, that the body of Chri&s;t is truly contained under the &s;pecies of bread,</HI> and yet tho&s;e words are not found in Scripure. If wee &s;hould admit then of <HI>Flood</HI> his glo&s;&s;e up|on <HI>Biel,</HI> Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation is not found in Scrip|ture,
<PB N="20" REF="161"> that is, is not found expre&s;&s;ely: Yet out Argument from <HI>Biels</HI> te&s;timonie is no way di&s;|abled thereby, becau&s;e it appeareth out of <HI>Biels</HI> owne words, that hee holdeth that to bee expre&s;ly delivered in Scriptures, which is either expre&s;&s;ed in word, or &s;ence; the reall pre&s;ence, he &s;aith is expre&s;&s;e, not in the letter or forme of words in the text, yet in the &s;ence: but &s;o &s;aith he, is not Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation; the apparant oppo&s;iti|on betweene the members of his &s;entence &s;hew|eth that what hee beleeved of the reall pre&s;ence, hee beleeved not of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, but the former he beleeved could bee proved out of Scripture, though not in expre&s;&s;e words yet in &s;ence: therefore the later hee beleeved could not be proved &s;o much as in &s;en&s;e, much le&s;&s;e in ex|pre&s;&s;e words.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="6"> To the &s;ixt. Although <HI>Petrus de Alliaco</HI> in|clineth rather to the Lutherans opinion in the point of the Sacrament, then to the doctrine of the Church of England: yet the <HI>Knight</HI> upon good rea&s;on produceth him as a witne&s;&s;e; for hee &s;peaketh home again&s;t Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Camerace~. in <HI>4</HI> &s;ent. q. <HI>6.</HI> art. <HI>2.</HI> patet qu&ograve;d ille modus &s;it po&s;&s;ibilis, nec repugnet rati|oni, nec autho|ritati bibliae i|m&ograve; facilior ad intelligendum &amp; rationabi|lior e&s;t quum, &amp;c.</NOTE> his words are that <HI>(the conver&s;ion of bread into Chri&s;ts body) cannot evidently bee proved out of Scripture, and that that manner or meaning which &s;uppo&s;eth the &s;ub&s;tance of bread &s;till to remaine in the Sacra|ment is po&s;sible, neither is it contrary to rea&s;on, or to the authoritie of the Scripture; nay it is more ea&s;ie to bee under&s;tood, and more rea&s;onable then that which &s;aith, the &s;ub&s;tance doth leave the accidents.</HI>
<PB N="21" REF="161"> If this bee not as <HI>Flood</HI> will have it &s;o much as in &s;hew for the <HI>Knight,</HI> I am &s;ure it is both in &s;hew and &s;ub&s;tance again&s;t the <HI>Trent</HI> faith: for if it bee granted that Con&s;ub&s;tantiation is not contrarie to Scripture, nor rea&s;on; it followeth nece&s;&s;arily that Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation is grounded upon nei|ther, but rather repugnant to both, for as <HI>tran&s;.</HI> denieth <HI>con.</HI> &s;o <HI>con. tran&s;.</HI> If the remaining of the &s;ub&s;tance of bread with the &s;ub&s;tance of Chri&s;ts body be not repugnant to the authoritie of Scripture, nor the meaning of Chri&s;ts words, then doe not the&s;e words, <HI>This is my body</HI> &s;ignifie, or make Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation which nece&s;&s;arily a|boli&s;heth the &s;ub&s;tance of Bread, and putteth in place thereof the &s;ub&s;tance of Chri&s;ts bodie. If Con&s;ub&s;tantiation bee more ea&s;ily to bee un|der&s;tood, and more agreeable to right rea&s;on in <HI>Alliacoes</HI> judgement then Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation: it is evident but for feare of his Cardinalls cap, hee would have &s;imply avowed the former, and renounced the latter.</P>
<P>To the &s;eventh. Take <HI>Roffen&s;is</HI> his words at <MILESTONE N="7"> the be&s;t, the Ie&s;uite is at <HI>a great lo&s;&s;e:</HI> admit hee &s;aid no more then <HI>I. R.</HI> here confe&s;&s;eth <HI>that no man can bee able to prove, that any prie&s;t now in the&s;e times doth con&s;ecrate the true body of Chri&s;t:</HI> &s;ee what will follow hereupon, that no man is able to prove that your prie&s;ts and people are not gro&s;&s;e Idolatours, adoring a piece of bread for Chri&s;t. Secondly, that none is able to prove that Chri&s;t is really and &s;ub&s;tantially offered in your
<PB N="22" REF="162"> Ma&s;&s;e: for if it cannot bee proved that he is there corporally pre&s;ent, as <HI>Roffen&s;is</HI> confe&s;&s;eth, and you beare him out in it: it cannot bee proved that hee is corporally offered, <HI>restat ita&abque; ut mi&s;&s;as, mi&s;&s;as faciatis;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Roff. cont. Luth captiv. Bab. c. <HI>4</HI> ne&abque; ullum po&s;itu~ hic ver|bum e&s;t, quo probetur in no|&s;tr&acirc; mi&s;s&agrave; ve|ram fic<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">i car|nis, &amp; &s;angui|nis Chri&s;ti prae|&s;entiam: non pote&s;t igitur per ullam &s;criptu|ram probari.</NOTE> it remaineth therefore that you <HI>di&s;mi&s;&s;e your mi&s;&s;es,</HI> or Ma&s;&s;es. For what can they availe the living, or the dead, if nothing but meere accidents and &s;hewes of Bread and Wine bee offered, which are meere nothing. Wee may yet gather farther upon <HI>Roffen&s;is</HI> his words, if it cannot bee proved by any Scripture, that Chri&s;ts body and bloud are pre&s;ent in the Roman ma&s;&s;e: it cannot bee proved that they are pre&s;ent in any Ma&s;&s;e, unle&s;&s;e it bee granted that the Roman ma&s;&s;es are of a wor&s;er condition then others: if not in any ma&s;&s;e, much le&s;&s;e mu&s;t Papi&s;ts &s;ay in any Sacrament without the Ma&s;&s;e. What then be|commeth of the maine and mo&s;t <HI>reall</HI> article of the <HI>Trent</HI> faith, which hath co&s;t the <HI>reall</HI> effu&s;ion of &s;o much Chri&s;tian bloud, I meane the <HI>reall and carnall pre&s;ence of Chri&s;t in the Sacrament.</HI> To <HI>Roffen&s;is I. R.</HI> &s;hould have added <HI>Cajetan,</HI> and &s;o hee might have had a parreiall of Cardinalls, for the <HI>Knight</HI> alledged him, and his words are mo&s;t expre&s;&s;e, not only again&s;t the proofe of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Caje. in <HI>3.</HI> p. Tho. q. <HI>75.</HI> dico autem ab eccle&s;iacum non appareat ex E|vangelio coa|ctivum ali|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">uod ad intel|ligendum haec verba propri&egrave; quod evangeli|um non expli|cavit expre&s;s&egrave; ab eccle&s;ia ac|cepimus, viz. conver&s;ionem panis in corpus.</NOTE> but al&s;o of the corporall pre|&s;ence of Chri&s;t (as out of the words <HI>hoc e&s;t corpus meum.</HI>) The Cardinalls words are, <HI>that which the Go&s;pell hath not expre&s;&s;ed, wee have received from the Church, to wit, the conver&s;ion of the bread into the body of Chri&s;t, I &s;ay from the Church, be|cau&s;e
<PB N="23" REF="162" MS="y"> there appeares nothing out of the Go&s;pell that can enforce a man to beleeve that the words,</HI> This is my body, <HI>are to bee taken properly.</HI> How doth this <HI>Flood &s;well</HI> in pride, that to &s;o great a Cardinal, &s;o profound a Schoole-man, &s;o eminent a Do|ctour, &s;o divine a Commentatour, &s;o golden a Writer (all which titles are given by the Roman Church to <HI>Cajetan</HI>) he vouch&s;afeth not a looke. But indeed he <HI>held a Wolfe by the eares,</HI> and was in a quandarie what to doe, whether to keepe his holt, or to let him goe: if hee had taken notice of his te&s;timonie again&s;t the Roman Church, ei|ther hee mu&s;t have di&s;paraged the Cardinall, or given his Trent faith a grievous wound.</P>
<P>To the eight. <HI>Durand</HI> his words are plaine e|nough <MILESTONE N="8"> to prove that the conver&s;ion of bread into the body of Chri&s;t, is wrought by the vertue of Chri&s;ts <HI>benediction</HI> before hee uttered the words,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Benedixit be|nedictione coe|le&s;ti, &amp; vir|tute verbi qua convertitur pa|nis in &s;ub&s;tan|tiam corporis Chri&s;ti. Dur. rat. c. <HI>41.</HI> num. <HI>14.</HI></NOTE> <HI>This is my body, hee ble&s;&s;ed,</HI> &s;aith hee, <HI>the bread by his heavenly benediction, and by vertue of the Word, whereby the Bread is turned into the &s;ub|&s;tance of Chri&s;ts body.</HI> Yea but &s;aith <HI>Flood,</HI> hee ad|deth, <HI>Wee ble&s;&s;e,</HI> ex illa virtute quam Chri&s;tus indidit verbis, <HI>wee ble&s;&s;e by that power or vertue which Chri&s;t hath given to the words,</HI> true: <HI>verbis benenedictionis,</HI> not <HI>con&s;ecrationis</HI> according to <HI>Durands</HI> mind by that power which Chri&s;t gave to the words of benediction going before, not tho&s;e words which you call the words of Con&s;e|cration en&s;uing after, <HI>viz. This is my body,</HI> which words yet <HI>Durand</HI> there rehear&s;eth not to prove
<PB N="24" REF="163" MS="y"> the conver&s;ion to bee wrought by them, but to prove Chri&s;ts body to be truly there.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="9"> To the ninth. Though the forme of Con&s;e|cration may be called a Benediction for the rea|&s;ons alledged by the Spectacle-maker:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Odo Camerac in can<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">mi&s;. di<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. <HI>4.</HI> benedixit, &s;u|um corpus fe+cit qui prius erat panis be|nedictione fa+ctus e&s;t caro non enim po<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> benedictionem dixi&s;&s;et, hoc e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> corpus meum ni&s;i in benedi|ctione fieret corpus &s;uum.</NOTE> yet it is certaine that <HI>Odo Cameracen&s;is</HI> di&s;tingui&s;heth the one from the other, and a&s;cribeth the conver&s;i|on of bread into Chri&s;ts body to the vertue of the precedent <HI>benediction,</HI> and not of the &s;ub&s;e|quent <HI>Con&s;ecration, Chri&s;t ble&s;&s;ed the bread, hee made it his Body, that which before was Bread by his ble&s;sing is made fle&s;h; for hee would not have &s;aid after hee had ble&s;&s;ed it,</HI> This is my Body, <HI>un|le&s;&s;e by ble&s;sing it hee had made it his Body.</HI> Yea, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ut <HI>Flood</HI> threatneth to bring a place out of <HI>Odo</HI> expre&s;ly to the contrary, which is this, <HI>Take away the words of Chri&s;t,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Odo Camera. exp<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s; in Can. mi&s;s. di&s;t. <HI>5.</HI> tolle v<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rba Chri&s;ti, non fi|unt &s;acramen|ta Chri&s;ti, vis fieri corpus, &amp; &s;anguinem, ap|pone Chri&s;ti &s;ermonem.</NOTE> <HI>and take away the Sacraments of Chri&s;t, wilt thou have the Body and Bloud of Chri&s;t made, put thereto the word of Chri&s;t,</HI> but which word of Chri&s;t? for therein is the <HI>cardo que&s;tionis,</HI> whether the word of <HI>Benediction</HI> going before, or the word of <HI>Con&s;ecration</HI> following af|ter? In <HI>Odo</HI> his judgement by the word of <HI>bene|diction;</HI> for hee &s;aith <HI>Benedictione factus e&s;t caro, by ble&s;sing it became fle&s;h,</HI> and that before hee ut|tered the words, <HI>This is my Body;</HI> which in <HI>Odo</HI> his apprehen&s;ion as wee heard before, could not bee true: unlele&s;&s;e bread had beene turned into Chri&s;ts body, before he pronounced them.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="10"> To the tenth. Here <HI>Iohannes de Rivis,</HI> or <HI>Iohn of the Flood</HI> &s;peaketh very di&s;gracefully of <HI>his</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">I. R.</NOTE>
<PB N="25" REF="163" MS="y"> <HI>Father Chri&s;topherus de capite fontium, Chri&s;topher of the head of the Fountaines:</HI> Nay, to a mo&s;t re|verend Father, the Archbi&s;hop of <HI>Cae&s;area;</HI> for the Archbi&s;hop of <HI>Cae&s;area</HI> his booke, &s;aith hee, <HI>De correctione Theologiae &s;chola&s;ticae; I doe not &s;o much as looke into him, but remit it to the Roman Index, where you &s;hall find this booke by you here cited forbidden, and even the arrogancie of the title &s;heweth it to de&s;erve no better a place.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Solinus c. <HI>43.</HI> Bona&s;us Tauri &s;imilis fi in&s;e|quantur Aga|&s;ones, vehe|menti&ugrave;s fimum emittit per tria jugera &amp; quicquid tangit Vrit.</NOTE> The <HI>Bona&s;us</HI> when hee is hard followed ca&s;ts dung in abun|dance on the pur&s;uer, and brayeth hideou&s;ly; &s;o doth <HI>I. R.</HI> ca&s;t filth, and raile downe right, when he is &s;o hard pre&s;&s;ed with a te&s;timonie that he hath nothing to reply. The Roman Index <HI>Prohibitorum librorum</HI> is to <HI>Flood</HI> like the Philo&s;ophers <HI>pons a&s;inorum</HI> in all extremities hee flieth to it. But what is this Index to us? hee might as well al|ledge the Turkes Alcharon again&s;t the <HI>Knight.</HI> This Index of prohibited bookes de&s;erveth not only a prohibition, but a purging by fire. For in the fir&s;t ranke we find the holy Bibles tran&s;lated into vulgar languages to bee &s;et, and after them mo&s;t of the prime and Cla&s;&s;ick Writers, almo&s;t in all profe&s;&s;ions. There is nothing &s;o ea&s;ie as to prohibit this or any other booke: but unle&s;&s;e our Adver&s;ariee back this Papall prohibition with detection of errours and here&s;ies contained in &s;uch bookes, and a &s;olid confutation thereof; this tyrannicall prohibition of the workes of Au|thours wil prove an evident conviction, that they forcibly &s;mother that truth, the light whereof
<PB N="26" REF="164"> dazleth their eyes. Yea, but &s;aith <HI>Flood,</HI> there is a gro&s;&s;e hi&s;toricall errour, in that he &s;aith, that in that opinion of his, both the Councell of <HI>Trent,</HI> and all the Writers did agree till the late time of <HI>Cajetan,</HI> as if <HI>Cajetan</HI> were &s;ince the Coun|cell of <HI>Trent.</HI> No hi&s;toricall errour at all in the Archbi&s;hop, but a frivolous cavill in <HI>Flood.</HI> For hee &s;aith not that the Councell of <HI>Trent</HI> was be|fore <HI>Cajetan,</HI> but that the Councell of <HI>Trent,</HI> and all Writers (before it al&s;o) did agree till the late time of <HI>Cajetan.</HI> Yea, but the <HI>Knight</HI> maketh Cardinall <HI>Cajetan,</HI> and the Archbi&s;hop of <HI>Cae&s;a|rea</HI> his two champions again&s;t the words of Con|&s;ecration, as if they did both agree in the &s;ame, whereas here the Archbi&s;hop &s;aith quite contra|rie, <HI>that all are for him but only</HI> Cajetan. A ridi|culous &s;ophi&s;me, <HI>ex ignoratione Elenthi:</HI> the <HI>Knight</HI> alledgeth both Cardinall <HI>Cajetan,</HI> and the Archbi&s;hop of <HI>Cae&s;area</HI> again&s;t the words of Con|&s;ecration, but not <HI>ad idem,</HI> not to prove the &s;ame conclu&s;ion: hee alledgeth <HI>Cajetan</HI> to prove that there is nothing in the words <HI>hoc e&s;t corpus meum</HI> to enforce Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation; but the Archbi|&s;hop of <HI>Cae&s;area</HI> to prove that the &s;uppo&s;ed con|ver&s;ion is made, not by the words of Con&s;ecrati|on, <HI>This is my body,</HI> but by the precedent words of Benediction,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Chri&s;toph. de correct. theo|&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">holi&s;t fol. <HI>11.4<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.</HI> u&s;&abque; ad <HI>63.</HI> ri&s;i p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">us qu&agrave;m <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;ta verba di|ceret Chri&s;tus corpus &s;uum ex pane factum e|rat, i&s;ta pro|po&s;ito non fui&s;|&s;et vera, hoe e&s;t corpus me|um, &amp;c. Fol. <HI>23.</HI></NOTE> and this hee proveth again&s;t all Pa|pi&s;ts &s;trongly after this manner; <HI>Vnle&s;&s;e before Chri&s;t uttered tho&s;e words,</HI> This is my body, <HI>his body had beene made of bread, this Propo&s;ition had not beene true,</HI> This is my body, <HI>for when Chri&s;t
<PB N="27" REF="164"> &s;aid, take ye, eate yee, if at that time the Bread by benediction were not changed, it will follow that Chri&s;t did command his Di&s;ciples to take and eate the &s;ub&s;tance of bread, and &s;o wee mu&s;t denie the article of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation;</HI> therefore, &s;aith he, <HI>(certo certius con&s;tat Chri&s;tum, non &s;olum per i&s;ta &s;ola verba non con&s;ecr&acirc;&s;&s;e, fed ne quidem illa par|tem aliquam fui&s;&s;e con&s;ecrationis quam fecit) it is mo&s;t certaine that the&s;e words were no part of the Con&s;ecration;</HI> And this hee proveth to bee the o|pinion of all the ancient Fathers by name of <HI>Iu|&s;tine Martyr, Diony&s;ius,</HI> S. <HI>Au&s;tine, He&s;ichius,</HI> S. <HI>Ierome, Gregorie, Ambro&s;e, Rupert, Alquine, Bernard, Scotus, Landulph, Peter de Aquila, Pel|bert,</HI> and others.</P>
<P>To the eleventh. The <HI>Knight</HI> alledgeth not <MILESTONE N="11"> <HI>Salmerons</HI> opinion, but his relation of the opini|on of other men: and although his credit bee cracked with Prote&s;tants, yet it is whole with <HI>Flood</HI> and his fellow Ie&s;uits: as <HI>Chamierus</HI> on the contrarie, his credit is good with Prote&s;tants, though none with Pontificians. Yea but &s;aith <HI>Flood,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 162.</NOTE> <HI>Chamier</HI> di&s;covereth the <HI>Knights</HI> bad dea|ling, I would faine know how, or wherein fir&s;t how? by the &s;pirit of prophe&s;ie? or by &s;ome letter &s;ent to the <HI>Knight</HI> after <HI>Chamier</HI> his death; for <HI>Chamier</HI> was dead many yeares before the <HI>Knight</HI> wrote. Were he alive what bad dealing could he di&s;cover in the <HI>Knight,</HI> who out of him truly and &s;incerely relateth the words of <HI>Salme|ron</HI> the Ie&s;uite concerning the Graecians in the&s;e<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cham. de Eu|char. l. <HI>6.</HI> c. <HI>7.</HI></NOTE>
<PB N="28" REF="165"> words, <HI>&s;eeing the benediction of the Lord is not &s;uperfluous or vaine, nor gave hee &s;imply bread; it followeth that when hee gave it, the tran&s;mutati|on was made, and tho&s;e words,</HI> This is my Body, <HI>did demon&s;trate what was contained in the bread.</HI> What fault findeth hee in this allegation? If the Greekes had no &s;uch opinion, or <HI>Salmeron</HI> rela|teth no &s;uch thing, the blame mu&s;t light between <HI>Salmeron</HI> and <HI>Chamier;</HI> how&s;oever the <HI>Knight</HI> is free. For hee truly quoteth <HI>Chamier,</HI> neither dare <HI>Flood</HI> &s;ay that <HI>Chamier</HI> mi&s;quoteth <HI>Salme|ron;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 161.</NOTE> For, &s;aith hee, <HI>though I found not this place in him, yet I will not &s;ay but it may bee there.</HI> Let this <HI>Spectacle-maker</HI> put on a better paire of Spe|ctacles, and hee &s;hall plainly reade the words al|ledged out of <HI>Salmeron</HI> in the place quoted by <HI>Chamier.</HI> The gee&s;e in the Capitoll, if they gagled without cau&s;e,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cic. Orat. pro Ro&s;c. Ameri|no.</NOTE> were to be beate for it: and the dogges to have their legges broken, if they barked when there was no &s;u&s;pition of a theefe approaching; Some &s;uch like puni&s;hment they de&s;erve in <HI>Tullies</HI> judgement, who lay foule a|&s;per&s;ions upon others without any colour of proofe or &s;emblance of truth.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="12"> To the twelfth. At the <HI>Knights</HI> allegation out of <HI>Bellarmine, Flood</HI> here <HI>nibleth,</HI> but can no where <HI>fa&s;ten his tooth,</HI> hee excepteth at the chan|ging of the &s;ingular number into the plurall, and tran&s;lating Scriptures for Scripture, and the mo&s;t learned and acute men, &s;uch as <HI>Scotus</HI> for mo&s;t learned and acute men. It &s;eemeth this Ie&s;uite is
<PB N="29" REF="165"> de&s;cended of the race of <HI>Domitian;</HI> who&s;e grea|te&s;t exerci&s;e was all day to &s;trike at flies with a &s;harpe iron bodkin:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Sueton in Do|mitian.</NOTE> reade <HI>Scriptures</HI> in the plu|rall, or <HI>Scripture</HI> in the &s;ingular or <HI>mo&s;t acute,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Bellar. de Eu|char. l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>23.</HI> Dicit Scotus non extare lo|cu~ ullum &s;crip|turae tam ex|pre&s;&s;um, ut fine eccle&s;iae decla|ratione eviden|ter cogat tran|&s;ub&s;tantiatio|nem admitte|re: atque id non e&s;t omnin&ograve; im|probabile: nam etiam&s;i &s;crip|turae nobis tam apertae vide|antur, ut co|gant hominem non protervu~: tamen merit&ograve; dubitari pote&s;t c&ugrave;m homines docti&s;&s;imi &amp; acuti&s;&s;imi qua|lis imprimis Scotus fuit, cli|ter &s;entiant.</NOTE> or <HI>the mo&s;t acute,</HI> the confe&s;&s;ion of <HI>Bellarmine</HI> ma|keth &s;till altogether as &s;trongly again&s;t the groun|ding of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation on Scripture. <HI>Scotus</HI> &s;aith, that <HI>there is no place of Scripture &s;o expre&s;&s;e (viz. for Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation) which &s;etting a&s;ide the declaration of the Church evidently enforceth a man to admit it. For though the Scripture, viz. That text of Scripture brought by him to prove Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, &s;eemed to bee &s;o plaine as to enforce a man not refractorie to beleeve it; yet it may bee doubted whether that text, viz.</HI> Hoc e&s;t corpus meum <HI>bee cleare enough to enforce it, &s;eeing mo&s;t learned and acute men, &s;uch as</HI> Scotus <HI>was thought otherwi&s;e.</HI> If it may bee ju&s;tly doubted whether the text, <HI>This is my body,</HI> inferre Tran|&s;ub&s;tantiation, why doe our Adver&s;aries blame us for doubting of it? If &s;harp-&s;ighted <HI>Scotus,</HI> and other mo&s;t learned and acute men thought the text enforceth no &s;uch thing: let our Adver|&s;aries give us leave to preferre their opinion be|fore the judgement of <HI>Flood</HI> and others, neither &s;o learned nor &s;o acute. <MILESTONE N="13"> </P>
<P>To the thirteenth.<NOTE PLACE="marg">L. <HI>8</HI> con. haere&s;. verb. indulg. de tran&s;ub&s;ta~|tiatione panis in corpus Chri|&s;tirara in anti|quis &s;criptori|bus mentio ra|ra, &amp;c.</NOTE> The <HI>Knight</HI> regarded not at what <HI>Alfon&s;us &agrave; Ca&s;tro</HI> aimed, but hee tooke up his arrow where hee found it, and &s;hooteth it again&s;t your <HI>Trent</HI> doctrine. <HI>Of the Tran&s;ub&s;tan|tiation,</HI> &s;aith hee, <HI>of the bread into Christs body,
<PB N="30" REF="166"> there is rarely or &s;eldome any mention made in an|cient Writers:</HI> What doth <HI>I. R.</HI> an&s;wer hereunto? <HI>Alfon&s;us</HI> (&s;aith hee) &s;aith true, and the <HI>Knight</HI> mo&s;t fal&s;e. For though of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation there bee no mention, yet of the conver&s;ion of the bread into Chri&s;ts body there is mo&s;t fre|quent mention;<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 164.</NOTE> Reade my riddle, wats this? <HI>rare mention of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, but not rare mention of the conver&s;ion of the bread into Chri&s;ts body, pugnantia te loqui non vides?</HI> Is not this a flat contradiction? I would faine know, what diffe|rence there is betweene Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, and the conver&s;ion of the &s;ub&s;tance of Bread, into the &s;ub&s;tance of Chri&s;ts body in the Sacrament. Neither can the Ie&s;uite free him&s;elfe here from uttering an evident contradiction in the &s;ame &s;en|tence, by &s;aying that <HI>Alfon&s;us</HI> &s;peaketh of the word Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, nor of the thing it &s;elfe. For <HI>Alfon&s;us</HI> there &s;peaketh of things not of words, as <HI>Flood</HI> him&s;elfe confe&s;&s;eth in the &s;ame page five lines after, &s;aying, <HI>that Alfon&s;us his drift in that place is to &s;hew, that though there bee not much mention in ancient Writers of a thing, or plaine te&s;timonie of Scripture, that yet the u&s;e and practice of the Church is &s;ufficient, bringing in for in&s;tance the point of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, and pro|ce&s;sion of the holy Gho&s;t.</HI> See here <HI>Alfon&s;us</HI> &s;pea|keth not of the word Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, but of the <HI>point</HI> or <HI>thing</HI> it &s;elfe; and of this <HI>thing</HI> or point (hee &s;aith) <HI>there is rare or &s;eldome mention in ancient Writers.</HI></P>
<PB N="31" REF="166" MS="y">
<P>To the fourteenth. Neither <HI>Scotus</HI> nor <HI>Yri|barne</HI> <MILESTONE N="14"> &s;peake of the interpretation of the words, <HI>This is my body,</HI> nor of the manner of the delive|rie of the doctrine of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation in for|mer times, but <HI>de dogmate fidei,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Bellar. l. <HI>3.</HI> de Euch. c. <HI>23.</HI> unum addit Scotus, &amp;c. quod anie La|teranen&s;e con|cilium Tran|&s;ub&s;tantiatio non fuit dog|ma fidei. Trib. in <HI>4.</HI> di&s;t. <HI>11.</HI> q. <HI>3.</HI> di&s;p. <HI>42.</HI> in prima|tiv&acirc; eccle&s;i&acirc; de &s;ub&s;tantia fidei erat cor|pus Chri&s;ti &s;ub &s;peciebus con|tineri: tamen non erat de fide &s;ub&s;tantiam panis in corpus Chri&s;ti con|verti. Aug. de doct. Chri&s;t. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>9.</HI> omnia quae continent fi|dem, &amp; mores in illis inveniuntur quae apert&egrave; po&s;ita &s;unt in &s;criptur&acirc;. Chry&s;o&s;t. in <HI>2.</HI> ad The&s;&s;. hom. <HI>3.</HI> manife&s;ta &s;unt in divinis Scripturis quaecun&abque; &s;unt nece&s;&s;aria Rivet Cathol. orthod. q. <HI>18. 138.</HI> Gat. <HI>di&s;cour&s;e of</HI> Tran. pag. <HI>60. 61.</HI> Scotus <HI>4.</HI> Sent. di&s;t. <HI>11.</HI> ad hoc mult&ugrave;m expre&s;s&egrave; videturloqui Ambro&s;ius.</NOTE> of a doctrine of faith, which they expre&s;ly denie Tran&s;ub&s;tantia|tion to have beene, and what they &s;ay, may bee confirmed by <HI>Flood</HI> his owne an&s;wer in this place. For if Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation in former ages was not plainly delivered, as hee confe&s;&s;eth, <HI>p.</HI> 167. it could not bee then <HI>dogma fidei,</HI> or <HI>de &s;ub&s;tanti&acirc; fidei,</HI> any doctrine of faith. For all do|ctrines of faith are plainly and evidently &s;et downe in holy Scriptures, as S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> and S. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> joyntly teach. As for the pa&s;|&s;age alledged by <HI>Scotus</HI> out of S. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> it is ful|ly an&s;wered, &amp; retorted by <HI>Andrew Rivet,</HI> M^r. <HI>Ga|taker,</HI> and others; Whereunto I thinke fit to adde nothing, but that <HI>Scotus</HI> in the place alledged &s;peaketh not confidently of S. <HI>Ambro&s;e,</HI> that hee held the doctrine of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation: but that in words he &s;eemed to favour that opinion.</P>
<P>To the fifteenth. Albeit S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> in the place <MILESTONE N="15"> alledged by the <HI>Knight</HI> &s;peaketh not expre&s;ly a|gain&s;t your carnall pre&s;ence, yet by con&s;equence hee quite overthroweth it; for if the unbeleeving Iewes in the De&s;ert, and <HI>Iudas</HI> in the new Te&s;ta|ment
<PB N="32" REF="167"> died &s;piritually, after they had received the Sacrament: it followeth that neither the one, nor the other in S. <HI>Au&s;tines</HI> judgement received Chri&s;ts true fle&s;h, <HI>which who&s;oever eateth &s;hall live for ever.</HI> Againe, it followeth that the true fle&s;h of Chri&s;t cannot be eaten, but by faith only, and doth not this make much for the <HI>Knight?</HI> Yea, but &s;aith the Ie&s;uite, with due reverence bee it &s;poken to S. <HI>Au&s;tines</HI> authoritie, <HI>Maldonat</HI> his interpretation is more &s;utable to the text, and di&s;cour&s;e of our Saviour in the whole chapter then that of S. <HI>Au&s;tines.</HI> And with due reverence bee it &s;poken here, <HI>Flood</HI> and <HI>Maldonat</HI> two Ie|&s;uites like <HI>Mules</HI> in the Latine proverbe, <HI>Mutuum &s;cabunt, &s;cratch and claw one the other;</HI> But let a|ny man examine the interpretation of <HI>Maldonat,</HI> and that other of S. <HI>Au&s;tins,</HI> and apply them, both to the words of Chri&s;t, and his maine &s;cope and drift in that &s;ixt Chapter, and hee will find S. <HI>Au&s;tins</HI> di&s;cour&s;e in that tractate to bee <HI>pure gold;</HI> and <HI>Maldonate</HI> his glo&s;&s;e to be <HI>dro&s;&s;e or Al|cumie &s;tuffe,</HI> which will not indure the fire.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="16"> To the &s;ixteenth. <HI>Gregorie de Valentia conclu|deth</HI> not <HI>roundly with heretiques,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Greg. de Val. de tran&s; l. <HI>2</HI> c. <HI>7.</HI> minim&egrave; mirum e&s;t &s;i unus aut alter, aut etiam aliqui &egrave; vete|ribus minim&egrave; con<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">derat&egrave; &amp; rect&egrave; hac de re &s;en&s;erint.</NOTE> (as <HI>Flood</HI> &s;pea|keth) but dealeth very <HI>&s;quarely,</HI> confe&s;&s;ing in effect that <HI>Gela&s;ius</HI> and <HI>Theodoret</HI> are again&s;t Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation. Yea but (&s;aith <HI>Flood) Bel|larmine, Suarez,</HI> and <HI>Valentia</HI> him&s;elfe bring o|ther <HI>&s;ub&s;tantiall</HI> an&s;wers to tho&s;e Fathers. Very <HI>&s;ub&s;tantiall</HI> an&s;wers indeed, that by <HI>&s;ub&s;tance</HI> are under&s;tood <HI>accidents</HI> like to the glo&s;&s;e in the Ca|non
<PB N="33" REF="167"> law, <HI>&s;tatuimus, id e&s;t, abrogamus, &amp; quo magis id e&s;t, quo minus.</HI> The words of <HI>Theodoret</HI> are, that <HI>the mysticall &s;ignes after Con&s;ecration doe not goe out of their proper nature, but continue in their former &s;ub&s;tance, &s;hape and figure, and may be &s;eene and felt as before.</HI> How doth the Ie&s;uite thinke you, expound the&s;e words?<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 175.</NOTE> <HI>Theodoret</HI> &s;peaketh not (&s;aith he) of the &s;ub&s;tance of bread, as if that did remaine, but hee only &s;aith that the ac|cidents remaine in their owne &s;ub&s;tance, that is their <HI>owne entitie, nature or being, which to them is not accidentall, and therefore may be tearmed their &s;ub&s;tance; for it is plaine that accidents have a cer|taine being of their owne, different from that of their &s;ubject wherein they inhere, or re&s;t.</HI> I grant that it is plaine they have: but it is as plaine or rather plainer, that <HI>Theodoret</HI> in that place by <HI>&s;ub&s;tantia</HI> under&s;tandeth no &s;uch thing. For in this very Dialogue hee exactly di&s;tingui&s;heth be|tweene &s;ub&s;tance and accidents, and telleth us that by (<GAP DESC="foreign">) or &s;ub&s;tance, hee meanes not ac|cidents, but &s;ub&s;tance properly &s;o taken, &s;aying, <HI>wee call a body a &s;ub&s;tance,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Theod. Dial. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>22.</HI></NOTE> <HI>but health and &s;ickne&s;&s;e an accident.</HI> Be&s;ides that which hee here calleth <HI>&s;ignum my &s;ticum,</HI> hee in this very Dialogue tear|meth <HI>donum oblatum,</HI> the <HI>gift offered, &amp; cibum ex &s;eminibus, bread made of &s;eeds;</HI> and afterwards, <HI>a thing vi&s;ible and tangible:</HI> but who ever heard of accidents without a &s;ubject offered to God for a gift? or that dimen&s;ions or colours or fi|gures are a <HI>nouri&s;hment made of feeds,</HI> or that ac|cidents
<PB N="34" REF="168"> without a &s;ubject <HI>can bee felt?</HI> Againe, it is evident and confe&s;&s;ed by all, that accidents properly &s;o called have not &s;hape or figure. For that implies thrt the accidents &s;hould bee one thing, and &s;hape and figure another, whereas &s;hape and figure are meere accidents them&s;elves. La&s;t|ly, if <HI>Theodoret</HI> had thought that the &s;ub&s;tance of bread and wine cea&s;eth, and is changed into the very body and bloud of Chri&s;t: and that the ac|cidents thereof only remained; <HI>Theodoret</HI> had not <HI>taken</HI> the heretique <HI>in his owne net,</HI> by retor|ting a &s;imilitude drawne from the Sacrament up|on him; but the Heretique had taken <HI>Theodoret</HI> after this manner; <HI>It is granted by us both, that the body of Chri&s;t after his a&s;cen&s;ion is &s;o changed, as the &s;acred Symbolls after Con&s;ecration: but the &s;a|cred Symbolls are &s;o changed, that in the Euchari&s;t there remaineth only the outward &s;hape and forme of bread, and not the reall &s;ub&s;tance; therefore Chri&s;ts body after his A&s;cen&s;ion is &s;o changed, that the &s;hape and forme of fle&s;h remaineth, and not the very na|ture and &s;ub&s;tance.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Of this &s;ee more in the Romi&s;h <HI>Fi&s;her</HI> held in his owne net, <HI>P.</HI> 144.</NOTE> Yea but (&s;aith <HI>Flood</HI>) Theo|doret <HI>&s;peaketh of &s;omething which is wrought or made by Con&s;ecration, and which is under&s;tood and adored: What is this that is made here? not the accidents for they remaine the &s;ame, not the &s;ub|&s;tance of the bread, for that was before, neither is that &s;aid to bee heleeved, much le&s;&s;e adored.</HI> I an|&s;wer briefly; of bread that was before common, a holy Sacrament of Chri&s;ts body and bloud is made, and beleeved and reverenced as a mo&s;t
<PB N="35" REF="168" MS="y"> &s;acred my&s;terie: as when Waxe is made a &s;eale, or bullion the Kings coyne, or money: the &s;ub|&s;tance is not changed, but the u&s;e,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Theod. ibid. non mutans natu|ram &s;ed natu|rae adi&s;ciens gratiam.</NOTE> &s;ignificancie or efficacie: &s;o in the Sacrament according to the mind of <HI>Theodoret</HI> there is a change made, but accidentall only, not &s;ub&s;tantiall.</P>
<P>To the &s;eventeenth. Cardinall <HI>Cu&s;anus</HI> is not <MILESTONE N="17"> produced by the <HI>Knight,</HI> as a witne&s;&s;e &s;peaking plaine again&s;t Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation: but as <HI>li&s;ping</HI> &s;omething to that purpo&s;e, not as maintaining profe&s;&s;edly Con&s;ub&s;tantiation: for that had not beene &s;afe for him, the Roman Church from whom hee held his Cardinals hat determining the contrarie:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Excit. lib. <HI>6</HI> &s;i quis intellige|ret panem non tran&s;ub&s;tanti|ari, &s;ed &s;uper|ve&s;tiri nobiliori &s;ub&s;ta~ti&acirc;. Pro|ut quidam ve|teres Theologi intellexi&s;&s;e re|periuntur.</NOTE> but yet &s;ecretly favouring that o|pinion, his words are, <HI>that &s;ome ancient Divines are found to have under&s;tood (by the words,</HI> This is my body) <HI>the Bread not to bee tran&s;ub&s;tantiated, but to be over-clothed with a more noble &s;ub&s;tance.</HI> Had he held Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation an article of faith, he would have branded tho&s;e who held the contrarie with a note of here&s;ie, and not &s;aid <HI>&s;ome ancient Divines:</HI> but &s;ome old heretiques thought, <HI>that the words,</HI> This is my body, <HI>implyed not Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, but rather a kind of Con|&s;ub&s;tantiation.</HI> As for that errour of the Printer in the marginall quotation at which the Ie&s;uite glanceth, as if the <HI>Knight</HI> had mi&s;taken <HI>libros ex|citationum,</HI> for <HI>exercitiorum</HI> or <HI>exercitationum.</HI> I an&s;wer, the errour is as happy as that in the <HI>Co|len</HI> edition of S. <HI>Cyprian, ce&s;&s;at error Romanus,</HI> for <HI>error humanus;</HI> and that in <HI>Platina, ni&s;i qui du|arum
<PB N="36" REF="169" MS="y"> partium ex Carnalibus integra &s;uffragia tule|rit,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Pl<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t. in vit. Clement. San|der. l. <HI>1.</HI> de &s;eb<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;m. Aug. <HI>Or in</HI> Garnets <HI>Apologie by</HI> Eud. Iohann. r<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">bu&s;tioribus e&s;t proponendus hic cibus Olidus <HI>for</HI> Cibus Solidus.</NOTE> for <HI>Cardinalibus,</HI> or that of the Printer of <HI>In|gol&s;tade, Wolfeum conatu &s;ummo nixum e&s;&s;e pri|mam toties eccle&s;ia &s;edem occupare, &amp; vanitatis &s;acerdotalis fa&s;tigium con&s;cendere,</HI> for <HI>unitatis:</HI> For indeed tho&s;e bookes of the Cardinall are no other then the exerci&s;e of his readers patience, or at the be&s;t of his owne wit or imagination.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="18"> To the eighteenth. For <HI>Wickliff</HI> and the <HI>Wal|den&s;es,</HI> the <HI>Knight</HI> in&s;i&s;ted not upon their te&s;ti|monie, though well hee might; (for they were mo&s;t eminent profe&s;&s;ours of the truth, and mo&s;t free from tho&s;e foule a&s;per&s;ions which their &s;worne enemies, and bloudy per&s;ecutors ca&s;t upon them) becau&s;e his purpo&s;e was in this chap|ter, as hee profe&s;&s;eth in the title, <HI>vos ve&s;tris gla|dijs jugulare,</HI> to cut your throat with your owne &s;words, and condemne you out of your owne mouth, as Chri&s;t doth the evill &s;ervant in the Go&s;pell. 'Tis true, <HI>Wickliffe</HI> was condemned for an heretique in the Councell of <HI>Con&s;tance</HI> many yeares after his death, and barbarous inhumani|tie was al&s;o exerci&s;ed upon his bones. Yet will it follow no more from hence that <HI>Wickliffe</HI> was an heretique, then that <HI>Ieremie</HI> was a fal&s;e Pro|phet, or Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles fal&s;e teachers, becau&s;e they were condemned by councells of Prie&s;ts. And of all Councells that of <HI>Con&s;tance</HI> carries the lea&s;t credit, becau&s;e it is not only con|demned by all the reformed Churches, but by the Roman Church her &s;elfe, and the Decrees
<PB N="37" REF="169" MS="y"> thereof repealed in later Councells. Touching the <HI>Walden&s;es</HI> what the Ie&s;uite here writeth of them hee confirmeth by no te&s;timonie, and the contrarie may be demon&s;trated out of <HI>Orthwinus Gratius,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Hi&s;toire des Vaudois.</NOTE> and the Hi&s;torie and confe&s;&s;ion of the <HI>Walden&s;es</HI> lately &s;et forth out of authenticall re|cords in French.</P>
<P>To the nineteenth. The Ie&s;uits an&s;wer to <HI>Durand</HI> <MILESTONE N="19"> concerning the <HI>materiall</HI> part of bread remaining in the Sacrament, but not the &s;ub&s;tance, imply|ing that the <HI>materiall</HI> part of Bread, and the &s;ub|&s;tance are different things is not <HI>materiall</HI> nor true. For though the materiall part of any &s;ub&s;tance be a di&s;tinct thing, both from the forme &amp; the <HI>com|po&s;itum:</HI> yet is it a &s;ub&s;tance, and hath accidents inherent in it. For according to the axiome of the metaphy&s;ickes, <HI>ex non &s;ub&s;tantijs non fit &s;ub|&s;tantia,</HI> a &s;ub&s;tance or &s;ub&s;tantiall compound is not made or compo&s;ed of <HI>non</HI> &s;ub&s;tances. Sith the whole is not di&s;tinct really from all the parts united together, the compound cannot bee &s;ub|&s;tantiall, unle&s;&s;e the parts of which it con&s;i&s;teth be &s;ub&s;tances. <HI>Durand</HI> therefore affirming that the <HI>materiall part of the bread remained in the Sa|crament after Con&s;ecration:</HI> held that &s;ome part of the &s;ub&s;tance of bread remained, and there|fore the <HI>Knight</HI> no way wrongeth <HI>Durand,</HI> but <HI>Flood</HI> the <HI>Knight.</HI> If <HI>Durand</HI> held that the whole &s;ub&s;tance of the bread was turned into the body of Chri&s;t according to your <HI>Trent</HI> Decree:<NOTE PLACE="marg">De Euch. l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>13.</HI></NOTE> why doth Card. <HI>Bellarmine</HI> cen&s;ure his doctrine as he|reticall:
<PB N="38" REF="170"> if he taught not that the whole &s;ub&s;tance was converted, hee mu&s;t needs hold that &s;ome part of the &s;ub&s;tance remained as it was before; which is all the <HI>Knight</HI> chargeth him with. As for that the Ie&s;uite addeth to &s;alve the matter, that he acknowledgeth all others to bee again&s;t him in this point,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Durand. in <HI>4.</HI> &s;ent. di&s;t. <HI>11.</HI> q. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> let him put on his <HI>Spectacles</HI> and reade the place againe, and hee &s;hall &s;ee there are no &s;uch words. Only I find que&s;t. 3. This mode&s;t parenthe&s;is <HI>&s;alvo meliori judicio.</HI> Which indeed are re&s;pective words befitting a mode&s;t man: but no way amounting to a confe&s;&s;ion that his opini|on in that point was &s;ingular, and that all others were again&s;t him, which notwith&s;tanding <HI>Flood</HI> puts upon him.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="20"> To the twentieth. Touching <HI>Gaufridus</HI> and <HI>Ho&s;tien&s;is</HI> cited by the <HI>Knight</HI> out of <HI>Durand,</HI> it is evident that how&s;oever they might peradven|ture incline to that,<NOTE PLACE="marg">In <HI>4.</HI> &s;ent. di&s;t. <HI>10.</HI> q. <HI>1.</HI> n. <HI>13.</HI></NOTE> which the Roman Church determined, <HI>viz.</HI> the &s;econd opinion that <HI>the bread doth not remaine, but is changed,</HI> yet they no way condemne the third opinion, <HI>viz.</HI> the <HI>&s;ub|&s;tance of bread remaines, and is together with tho body of Chri&s;t.</HI> For as <HI>Durand</HI> well noteth, they call it an <HI>opinion,</HI> not an <HI>errour,</HI> or an <HI>here&s;ie;</HI> nei|ther doe they &s;ay it is to bee reproved, but let it pa&s;&s;e without any cen&s;ure, which they would not have done, if they had held Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation to be a doctrine <HI>de fide</HI> to be beleeved of all upon paine of damnation.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="21"> To the twentie one. <HI>Cutbert Tun&s;tall</HI> was a Bi|&s;hop,
<PB N="39" REF="170" MS="y"> and in great e&s;teeme among all the learned in his time,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>In his Epi|taph in</HI> Lam|beth <HI>Chancell he is &s;tyled</HI> Aureus iste Se|nex. Tun&s;t. de Euch. l. <HI>1.</HI> pag. <HI>46.</HI> de modo quo id fieret for|ta&s;&s;e &s;ati&ugrave;s e|rat curio&s;um quemque relin|quere conjectu|rae &s;icut libe|rum fuit ante concilium La|teranen&s;e.</NOTE> and therefore not lightly to bee filli|ped off, and &s;leighted by a prie&s;t and Ie&s;uit <HI>de face vulgi,</HI> by &s;aying that the matter is not great, whether <HI>Tun&s;tall</HI> &s;aid, that for which hee is alled|ged or no, becau&s;e one &s;ingle Author or two con|tradicted by others carrieth no credit. For I find not that hee is contradicted by any. His words are the&s;e, <HI>of the manner and meanes of the reall pre&s;ence, either by Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, or otherwi&s;e perhaps it had beene bettter to leave every man that would bee curious to his owne conjecture, as before the Councell of</HI> Lateran <HI>it was left free.</HI> Neither did that learned Bi&s;hop of <HI>Dure&s;me</HI> ever retract this opinion. For M^r. <HI>Bernard Gilpin</HI> a holy man, and a kin&s;man of the Bi&s;hop affirmeth, that the Bi&s;hop his Dioce&s;an often told him, that <HI>Innocent the third had done very unadvi&s;edly, in that he had made the opinion of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation an article of faith.</HI> Neither doe wee find that any in his dayes or &s;ince before <HI>Flood</HI> taxed this Bi&s;hop for this his opinion.</P>
<P>To the twentie two. None more &s;leight <MILESTONE N="22"> men of worth then tho&s;e who want it. <HI>Era&s;mus</HI> will live both in his owne workes, and in the wri|tings of the ancient Fathers, and other Cla&s;&s;ick Authours corrected and &s;et forth by him, when a thou&s;and <HI>Floods,</HI> and <HI>Leomelij,</HI> and <HI>Daniels a Ie&s;u</HI> &s;hall bee buried in perpetuall oblivion. <HI>Era&s;mus</HI> was in great e&s;teeme with Archbi&s;hop <HI>Waram,</HI> and Sir <HI>Thomas Moore</HI> Lord Chancellor
<PB N="40" REF="171"> of <HI>England,</HI> and of divers Bi&s;hops, yea and Car|dinalls al&s;o beyond the Sea, and what <HI>Tully</HI> &s;pake of <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> may bee truly &s;aid of him,<NOTE PLACE="marg">A golden ri|ver. A helli&s;h lake.</NOTE> <HI>there is in his writings, aureum flumen:</HI> but in the Ie&s;uit his <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">dver&s;arie, <HI>lacus averni.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>Concerning private Ma&s;&s;es, Spectacles Paragraph 3. <HI>&agrave; pag.</HI> 187. <HI>v&s;&abque; ad</HI> 199.</HEAD>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> _OVR Saviours words <HI>take yee, eate ye,</HI> make nothing again&s;t private Ma&s;&s;e, for Chri&s;t there &s;pake to all his Apo&s;tles who did all eate: and out of that place a man might as well &s;ay, that all mu&s;t communicate that are in the Church at the &s;ame time as two or three.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> <HI>S. Pauls</HI> words where hee inviteth Chri&s;tians to imitate him, are meant of cha&s;tening the body, fa|&s;ting and praying, and the like, in which Prote&s;tants follow him not, and if the words bee extended to the Sacrament, Catholike Prie&s;ts imitate S. <HI>Paul</HI> there|in, becau&s;e they are readie to communicate with all &s;uch as come worthily to receive, but the <HI>Knight</HI> mu&s;t prove that S. <HI>Paul</HI> would not &s;ay Ma&s;&s;e, un|le&s;&s;e others would communicate with him, or that he teacheth that other Prie&s;ts mu&s;t not.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> Where S. <HI>Paul 1 Cor. 11.</HI> commandeth the people
<PB N="41" REF="171" MS="y"> to tarrie one for another when they came together to eate hee &s;peaketh to the people, who made the &s;uppers called Agape, as is plaine by the text wherein hee reprehendeth the Abu&s;es that were committed, as that &s;ome did exceed, others did want, &s;ome were drunke, &s;ome went away hungry, which could not pertaine to the ble&s;&s;ed Sacrament; be&s;ides the di&s;tri|bution of that belonged to the Prie&s;ts not to the peo|ple who are here in&s;tructed, and reprehended for their manner of making their &s;uppers.</P>
<P>The cup of ble&s;sing is called a Communion, be|cau&s;e <MILESTONE N="4"> it uniteth us to Chri&s;t our head, and al&s;o a|mong our &s;elves, as members of the &s;ame body, and though it doe this mo&s;t perfectly when it is al&s;o recei|ved &s;acramentally, yet not only &s;o, but it doth the &s;ame al&s;o in &s;ome mea&s;ure being &s;piritually received: and as this union may remaine among us members, though every one among us doe not receive every day: &s;o it may al&s;o remaine betweene us and the Prie&s;t, though hee &s;ay Ma&s;&s;e, and wee not receive. If this argument of the <HI>Knight</HI> were good, it would follow that not only &s;ome, but that all the people mu&s;t receive together with the Priest.</P>
<P>The Catholique Doctours cited by the <HI>Knight</HI> &s;ay <MILESTONE N="5"> indeed, that it was the practi&s;e of the primitive Church to communicate every day with the Prie&s;t, but they &s;ay not that it was of nece&s;sitie &s;o to doe; nay &s;ome of them as <HI>Bellarmine</HI> and <HI>Durand</HI> prove manife&s;tly that there was no &s;uch nece&s;sitie or dependence of the Prie&s;ts celebrating upon the peoples communicating, that they might not cele|brate
<PB N="42" REF="172"> unle&s;&s;e the people did communicate. For S. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> &s;aith of him&s;elfe that hee celebra|ted every day, though there were no body to partici|pate with him.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="6"> The Councell of <HI>Nants</HI> forbidding Prie&s;ts to ce|lebrate alone, &s;peaketh only of not &s;aying Ma&s;&s;e all alone, without one or two to an&s;wer; to whom the Prie&s;t may &s;eeme to &s;peake, when hee &s;aith, <HI>Domi|nus vobi&s;cum,</HI> and the like; but whats this to &s;ay|ing Ma&s;&s;e without &s;ome body to communicate with him?</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="7"> The Councell of <HI>Trent</HI> doth not ble&s;&s;e and cur&s;e out of the &s;ame mouth, or approve or condemne the &s;ame thing, when it commendeth &s;acramentall com|munion of the people together with the Prie&s;t, and yet condemneth tho&s;e who &s;ay private Ma&s;&s;es are unlawfull. For it is one thing for the Councell to wi&s;h that the people would communicate, becau&s;e to heare Ma&s;&s;e and receive withall will be more profi|table: an other to &s;ay, that if there bee no body to communicate, &s;uch a Ma&s;&s;e is unlawfull, or that the Prie&s;t mu&s;t not &s;ay Ma&s;&s;e.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="response to section">
<HEAD>The Hammer.</HEAD>
<P>THe Ie&s;uits an&s;wer to this Section of the <HI>Knight,</HI> wherein hee impugneth private Ma&s;&s;e by foure texts of Scripture, two Ca|nons of Councells, and twelve pregnant Con|fe&s;&s;ions of Romi&s;h Doctours, con&s;i&s;teth partly of
<PB N="43" REF="172" MS="y"> &s;ophi&s;mes, and partly of &s;arca&s;mes, to both which I purpo&s;e to returne a &s;hort and &s;mart an|&s;wer, fir&s;t by refuting his &s;ophi&s;mes, and after by retorting his &s;arca&s;mes.</P>
<P>To the fir&s;t &s;ophi&s;ticall an&s;wer I replie. <MILESTONE N="1"> That the words of our Saviour, <HI>Take, eate, this is my body</HI> were &s;poken to all future communicants as well as to the Apo&s;tles then pre&s;ent,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mat. 26.26.</NOTE> for they containe in them an in&s;titution of a Sacrament to bee celebrated in all Chri&s;tian Churches, till the end of the world, as the Apo&s;tle teacheth us from the 23. to the 28. e&s;pecially at the 26 ver&s;e,<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 11.</NOTE> <HI>as often as yee eate this bread, and drinke this cup, ye &s;hew the Lords death till he come.</HI> This the Apo|&s;tles in their per&s;ons alone could not fulfill, for they lived not till Chri&s;ts &s;econd comming: they mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;itie therefore bee extended to all that in &s;ucceeding ages &s;hould bee pre&s;ent at the Lords Supper, who are as much bound by this precept of Chri&s;t to communicate with the Prie&s;t, or di&s;pencer of the Sacrament, as the A|po&s;tles were to communicate with Chri&s;t him|&s;elfe, when hee fir&s;t in his owne per&s;on admini|&s;tred it; otherwi&s;e if the precepts <HI>Take, eate, doe this in remembrance of mee</HI> appertained to the A|po&s;tles only, what warrant hath any Prie&s;t now to con&s;ecrate the elements? or admini&s;ter the Sacrament? nay, what command have any faith|full at all to receive the Communion? Yea but &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> if not only the Apo&s;tles and their &s;ucce&s;&s;ors, but all the faithfull are here enjoyned
<PB N="44" REF="173"> to eate: it would follow that when&s;oever the Sa|crament is admini&s;tred, all mu&s;t communicate that are in the Church at the &s;ame time. It will follow that all who are bid to the Lords table, and come prepared to whom the Prie&s;t in the per&s;on of Chri&s;t &s;aith, <HI>Take eate, this is my body</HI> ought to communicate; and this was the cu&s;tome of the ancient Church as <HI>Micrologus</HI> teacheth,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><P>De eccle&s;. ob|&s;erv. &s;ciendum juxta antiquos patres quod &s;o|li co~munican|tes divinis my|&s;terijs intere&s;|&s;e con&s;ueve|rint.</P>
<P>Orat. de con&s;e|crat. di&s;t. <HI>2.</HI> per|act&acirc; con&s;ecra|tione omnes communicent ni&s;i malint ec|cle&s;ia&s;ticis care|reliminibus.</P></NOTE> <HI>Wee mu&s;t know,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>according to the ancient Fathers, that none but Communicants were wont to be pre&s;ent at the my&s;teries,</HI> and therefore before the Communion, the Catechumenie and penitents which were not prepared to communicate, were commanded to depart <HI>ite, Mi&s;&s;a e&s;t:</HI> and wee find an ancient Canon of the Roman Church attri|buted to <HI>Gela&s;ius, enjoyning all under paine of ex|communication that are pre&s;ent after the Con&s;ecra|tion is fini&s;hed, to participate of the ble&s;&s;ed Sacra|ment.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> To the &s;econd. The precept of the Apo&s;tle, <HI>bee ye followers of mee as I am of Chri&s;t,</HI> 1 <HI>Co.</HI> 11.1. is generall, and reacheth as well to acts of pietie, as charitie. As <HI>non e&s;t di&s;tinguendum ubi lex non di&s;tinguit,</HI> &s;o <HI>non e&s;t re&s;tringendum ubi lex non re|&s;tringit;</HI> as wee may not di&s;tingui&s;h where the law doth not di&s;tingui&s;h: &s;o we mu&s;t not re&s;traine where the law hath no re&s;triction. The <HI>Ie&s;uite</HI> him&s;elfe &s;aith, that S. <HI>Pauls</HI> imitation is <HI>directed to all,</HI> if to all, then to Prie&s;ts; and againe hee &s;aith, <HI>the&s;e words come in very fitly to prove that in all things that appertaine unto &s;alvation wee &s;hould
<PB N="45" REF="173"> &s;eeke to imitate S.</HI> Paul <HI>as hee doth Chri&s;t.</HI> And I hope the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> holdeth the worthy receiving of the Sacrament a matter of &s;alvation. I am &s;ure the Apo&s;tle &s;aith, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. <HI>Hee that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnati|on to him&s;elfe.</HI> But what need wee di&s;pute this point any further? &s;ith the Apo&s;tle after hee had delivered this precept in the beginning of the chapter, in pur&s;uit thereof at the 23 ver&s;e in&s;tan|ceth in the Sacrament it &s;elfe, &s;aying, <HI>What I re|ceived of the Lord, that I delivered unto you, that the Lord Ie&s;us the &s;ame night hee was betrayed tooke bread &amp;c.</HI> Surely if wee are to follow the Apo|&s;tle in the performance of morall duties, much more of religious, and this the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> in the end is compelled to grant, and therefore addeth for his further an&s;wer, that <HI>Catholique Prie&s;ts doe imitate S.</HI> Paul <HI>in the admini&s;tration of the Sacrament, be|cau&s;e they are ready to communicate with all &s;uch as come worthily to receive.</HI> Catholique Prie&s;ts, that is in his language Romani&s;ts imitate S. <HI>Paul</HI> in their Ma&s;&s;e; wherein? and how? he admini&s;tred a Sacrament, they offer a &s;acrifice: hee prayed in a knowne tongue, they in the Latine unknowne to the people: he acknowledgeth no Lords &s;upper where there is not a Communion,<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 10.17.</NOTE> whereby <HI>ma|ny are made one bread and one body, becau&s;e they all partake of that one bread;</HI> they &s;ay private Ma&s;&s;es in which the Prie&s;t bids the people eate, and drinke, but eateth and drinketh all him&s;elfe: hee &s;peaketh of <HI>breaking of bread,</HI> they breake none
<PB N="46" REF="174"> at all: hee commandeth <HI>every one to examine him|&s;elfe, and &s;o to eate of that bread, and drinke of that cup, ver.</HI> 28. They forbid the Laytie to touch the cup: and call they this an imitation of the Apo|&s;tle? is it not rather an immutation and violation of the Apo&s;tles holy precepts and practi&s;e? in the&s;e things they tread in the Apo&s;tles &s;teps, as the Antipodes doe in ours, who are therefore &s;o &s;tiled, becau&s;e their feet and &s;teps are diametrally oppo&s;ite to ours. Yea but &s;aith <HI>Flood, there are many things which S.</HI> Paul <HI>did,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 194.</NOTE> <HI>and wherein he did de&s;ire to bee followed, as cha&s;tening of his body, fa|&s;ting and prayer, in which Prote&s;tants are not &s;o well able to prove them&s;elves followers of him, as Papi&s;ts can doe.</HI> I an&s;wer, that although S. <HI>Paul</HI> in this place &s;peaketh of no &s;uch thing, neither can his words rea&s;onably bee &s;tretched to the cha&s;tening and beating downe of his body to bring it in &s;ub|jection, becau&s;e hee addeth, <HI>as I am of Chri&s;t bee ye followers of mee as I am of Chri&s;t.</HI> Now wee reade not that Chri&s;t beate his owne body, or needed to endeavour to bring it into &s;ubjection, which was alwayes &s;o from the beginning: yet let him rightly under&s;tand the Apo&s;tles practi&s;e in taming his fle&s;h, and &s;ubduing his body, and he will find Prote&s;tants as ready to follow him as any the mo&s;t au&s;tere Papi&s;t. For by taming his body hee meaneth not whipping or &s;courging, which Papi&s;ts receive by tradition from the here|tiques called <HI>flagellantes</HI> or the whippers: nor was his fa&s;ting an ab&s;tinence from fle&s;h and fee|ding
<PB N="47" REF="174" MS="y"> on the daintie&s;t fi&s;h, and powring downe the &s;weete&s;t and &s;tronge&s;t wines,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Act. 28.33.</HI> Te have conti|nued fa&s;ting, having taken nothing, wher|fore I pray you to take &s;ome meate, for this is for your health.</NOTE> but an afflicting his body by watching, continuall labour, and fa&s;ting from all kind of &s;u&s;tenance, and &s;uch fa&s;ts not only private Chri&s;tians among us keepe often, but our whole Church in publike calamities by the command of &s;upreame authoritie religiou&s;ly ob&s;erveth, and hath reaped &s;ingular benefits thereby.</P>
<P>To the third. That the precept of S. <HI>Paul, to <MILESTONE N="3"> tary one for another when they came to eate,</HI> apper|taineth to the Sacrament is evident, fir&s;t by that hee calleth it the <HI>Lords &s;upper</HI> which they came together to eate,<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 11.20.</NOTE> <HI>when yee come together in one place, this is not to eate the Lords Supper.</HI> Now that by the Lords Supper, not the Agape which were not in&s;tituted by him, but the Sacrament is meant not only S. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and S. <HI>Cyprian,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ep.</HI> 118.</NOTE> <HI>tract. de coen. dom.</HI> and the Fathers generally quoted by <HI>Ca&s;aubonus,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Exercit. <HI>16.</HI> &s;ect. <HI>23.</HI> Baron. annal. tom. <HI>1.</HI> An. <HI>34.</HI> Con&s;tat coenam domini &s;ic enim patres appella|re con&s;uevere in&s;titutionem &s;acrati&s;&s;imae Euchari&s;tiae. Greg. Valent. Tom. <HI>4.</HI> di&s;p. <HI>6.</HI> g. <HI>1.</HI> puncto <HI>1.</HI> &s;olet vocari hoc &s;acramentum coena domini &s;icut appellavit</NOTE> but <HI>Baronius</HI> and <HI>Gregorius de Valen|tia,</HI> and the Fathers in the Catechi&s;me of the Councell of <HI>Trent</HI> expre&s;ly affirme. Secondly, it is evident by the coherence of the Apo&s;tles di&s;cour&s;e in this chapter, who having reproved &s;ome abu&s;es in eating the <HI>Lords Supper,</HI> to &s;et an edge upon his reproofe relateth, <HI>v.</HI> 23. <HI>&amp; &s;equen|tibus</HI> the in&s;titution of the ble&s;&s;ed Sacrament, and from thence inferreth, ver&s;e the 33. and 34. <HI>where|fore my brethren, when you come together to eate ta|ry one for another, and if any man hunger let him eate at home, that ye come not together to condemna|tion.</HI>
<PB N="48" REF="175"> Yea but &s;aith the Ie&s;uit,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Apo&s;tolus <HI>1</HI> Cor. <HI>11.</HI> &amp; Chry&s;o&s;tomus, hom. <HI>1.</HI> de c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ena dom. quam &s;ar&egrave; appellationem tanqua~ &agrave; vete|ribus patribus u&s;urpata~ com|memorat quo&abque; catechi&s;mus Romanus. Ca|thechi&s;. Trid. pat. tract de &s;a|cram. Alt. &s;an|cti&s;&s;imi patres Apo&s;tolorum authoritatem &s;ecuti coenae e|tiam nomine euchari&s;tiam interdum vo|c&acirc;runt, qu&ograve;d ill&acirc; <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ovi&s;&s;im&acirc; c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">en&acirc; &s;alutari my&s;terio &agrave; Chri&s;to domi|no &s;it in&s;tituta.</NOTE> <HI>&s;ome among the Co|rinthians exceeded others, and &s;ome did want, &s;ome were drunke, and &s;ome went away hungrie, which could not pertaine to the Sacrament as every one knoweth.</HI> I grant the&s;e abu&s;es could not fall out in the very act of receiving the Sacrament in which every one had but &s;ome part of the Con|&s;ecrated bread, and a draught al&s;o of the holy Cup in &s;uch a &s;mall mea&s;ure and quantitie, as they could not bee di&s;tempered thereby: neither doth the Apo&s;tle taxe the&s;e abu&s;es at the Lords Supper, but in their owne &s;upper which they tooke before, <HI>v.</HI> 21. their di&s;orders in the&s;e hee &s;harply reproves, not only as breaches of the Morall law, and acts of intemperance, but al&s;o as prophanation of the Sacrament, to which they ought to have come with a holy preparation be|fore. Yea but &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit, the di&s;tribution of the Sacrament belonged to the Prie&s;ts, not to the peo|ple who are here reprehended for their manner of making their &s;uppers.</HI> I an&s;wer, that albeit it ap|pertaineth to the Prie&s;ts to deliver the &s;acred ele|ments, and the people to receive them from them: yet becau&s;e the Prie&s;ts cannot give, if none bee to take from them, the people who either ab|&s;ented them&s;elves from the Communion, or came not together, but one after another, are ju&s;tly reproved: becau&s;e by this their negli|gence or di&s;order, the Sacrament could not bee &s;o decently, or &s;olemnly celebrated, as it ought. Now if the Apo&s;tle as the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> will have it, re|quireth
<PB N="49" REF="175"> the people <HI>to cary one for another,</HI> before they began their fea&s;ts called <HI>Agape;</HI> how much more thinke you would hee require this dutie of expecting one the other before they began the Lords Supper? which is one of the chiefe&s;t and mo&s;t publike Act and &s;ervice, whereby we pro|fe&s;&s;e, and expre&s;&s;e the Communion of Saints. The neglect of the former dutie in not &s;taying for their gue&s;ts at their <HI>Agapae,</HI> could bee at the mo&s;t but a di&s;courte&s;ie or incivilitie; but the neglect in the later, as the Apo&s;tle teacheth, trenched upon their con&s;cience, and hazarded their &s;alvation, wherefore my brethren, &s;aith the Apo&s;tle, <HI>v.</HI> 33.34. <HI>When you come together to eate tarie one for a|nother, and if any man hunger, let him eate at home that you come not together to condemnation.</HI></P>
<P>To the fourth. The text of the Apo&s;tle, <HI>the cup <MILESTONE N="4"> of ble&s;sing, which wee ble&s;&s;e,<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 10.16:</NOTE> is it not the Communi|on of the bloud of Chri&s;t? the Bread which wee breake, is it not the Communion of the body of Chri&s;t, for wee being many are one bread and one body, be|cau&s;e wee are all partakers of that one bread,</HI> is per|tinently alledged by the <HI>Knight</HI> again&s;t private Ma&s;&s;e, which is a <HI>communion without communi|cants;</HI> much like to <HI>Cae&s;ars</HI> monument,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Philippica.</HI> 1.</NOTE> which the Oratour fitly tearmeth <HI>in&s;epultam &s;epulturam,</HI> an <HI>unburied buriall.</HI> How is the cup of ble&s;&s;ing a <HI>Communion</HI> if none <HI>pledge</HI> as it were the one the other in it? how is the Bread a <HI>Communion</HI> if it bee <HI>communicated</HI> to none? How are the people made <HI>one bread,</HI> and <HI>one body</HI> by it, if they <HI>partake
<PB N="50" REF="176"> not of it.</HI> I grant the union betweene the head and members, and Prie&s;t and people may re|maine though the Prie&s;t &s;ay Ma&s;&s;e, and the peo|ple receive not: as likewi&s;e it may remaine though the Prie&s;t &s;ay no Ma&s;&s;e, nor communicate him|&s;elfe, becau&s;e there are other meanes of this Communion be&s;ides the Sacrament: yet becau&s;e this Sacrament was ordained principally to con|firme this union, and communion, and from thence taketh its name, they who impropriate a <HI>common,</HI> and of a publike communion make a pri|vate Ma&s;&s;e, de&s;troy both the name and nature of this Sacrament. Moreover, as the worthy parti|cipation of the Sacrament wonderfully confir|meth: &s;o it was in&s;tituted by Chri&s;t to repre&s;ent the union of the Prie&s;t with the people, which cannot bee done in private Ma&s;&s;es wherein the Prie&s;t communicateth alone. For that repre&s;en|teth rather a di&s;tinction and &s;eparation of the Prie&s;t from the people, then an union. Yea but (&s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit) if this argument of the</HI> Knight <HI>were good, it would follow that not only &s;ome, but all the people mu&s;t receive together with the Prie&s;t, and that the people mu&s;t not receive one without the o|ther.</HI> I an&s;wer, that it followeth indeed that all the people that are &s;olemnly invited by the Prie&s;t, and come prepared, ought to receive together; and this the Apo&s;tles words &s;trongly enforce, <HI>wee being many are one bread and one body,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 10.17.</NOTE> <HI>becau&s;e wee are all partakers of that one bread,</HI> marke it, <HI>all partakers of one bread,</HI> and therefore <HI>all one
<PB N="51" REF="176"> bread and one body.</HI> How can Papi&s;ts make this argument good out of their private Ma&s;&s;es, wherein none partaketh of the Bread, or ta|&s;teth of the Cup but the Prie&s;t?</P>
<P>To the fifth. By the <HI>Iurie of twelve men</HI> true <MILESTONE N="5"> and hone&s;t in the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> account, (for they all li|ved and died in the communion of the Church of Rome) all Prie&s;ts that <HI>&s;ay,</HI> (I cannot &s;ay <HI>cele|brate</HI>) private Ma&s;&s;es <HI>are ca&s;t</HI> as tran&s;gre&s;&s;ours of the traditions and cu&s;tomes of the primitive Church; Nay farther as noveli&s;ts and innova|tors. For they all te&s;tifie and that joyntly, that the practi&s;e of the primitive Church is for our pub|like Communion, and again&s;t their private Ma&s;|&s;es, <HI>true</HI> &s;aith the Ie&s;uit, <HI>they te&s;tifie concerning the practi&s;e of the primitive Church, but they affirme not that the contrary practi&s;e was unlawfull: the people then did communicate ordinarily with the Prie&s;t, but there was no nece&s;sitie &s;o to doe.</HI> Admit this an&s;wer were true, that the verdict of this Iurie pa&s;&s;ed for the practi&s;e and manner of the primitive Church, not for any Canon or precept &s;o to doe: yet the <HI>Knight</HI> hath the better of the cau&s;e. For they all prove that for which hee produceth them, <HI>viz.</HI> that <HI>by the confe&s;sion of our Adver&s;aries antiquitie is for us in this point,</HI> and that there was a Church celebrating the Lords Supper as we doe, in the fir&s;t and be&s;t ages when there was no Church extant in the world, either maintaining or practi&s;ing private Ma&s;&s;es. No man doubteth but that the con&s;tant and uni|forme
<PB N="52" REF="177"> practi&s;e of the primitive Church ought to &s;way more with all religious Chri&s;tians,<NOTE PLACE="marg">De &s;acrific. Mi&s;&s;. Dur. rat. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>53.</HI> in primi|tiv&acirc; eccle&s;i&acirc; omnes qui ce|lebrationi mi&s;|&s;arum intere|rant communi|cabant. Bellith. in ex|plicat can. c. <HI>50</HI> Micro. de ec|cle&s;. ob&s;ervat. Tolos de Riti|bus c. <HI>38.</HI> In|nocent. <HI>3.</HI> l. <HI>6.</HI> my&s;ter. mi&s;. c. <HI>5</HI> Odo. in expo&s;. can. antiquit&ugrave;s nullae mi&s;&s;ae &s;i|ne collect&acirc;, hoc e&s;t, caet<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> aliquo mod&ograve; offerenti|um, &amp; &s;acra|menta partici|pantium age|bantur. Iu&s;tin. in <HI>1</HI> Cor. <HI>10.</HI> olim quod nunc etiam Graeci u&s;ur|pant, ex uno eo|dem&abque; pane co~|&s;ecrato deliba|tae particulae &s;ingulis tribue|bantur ut me|lius unio &amp; conjunctio cum Chri&s;to at&abque; a|perti&ugrave;s &s;ignifi|caeretur.</NOTE> then any novell con&s;titution or practi&s;e of any later Church what&s;oever. If wee had nothing but their practi&s;e, that alone were of great moment. Yet wee have more, I meane their judgement. For &s;ith <HI>what&s;oever is not of faith is &s;inne,</HI> e&s;peci|ally in actions of this nature, their con&s;tant and uniforme practi&s;e in this kind, may &s;erve as a de|mon&s;tration to any &s;ober-minded man, that what they did, they thought mo&s;t agreeable to Chri&s;ts in&s;titution. But the Witne&s;&s;es depo&s;e farther, for &s;ome come home to the point of unlawfulne&s;&s;e of private Ma&s;&s;es. Albeit <HI>Cocleus</HI> &s;aith no more then that <HI>anciently the Prie&s;ts and people did com|municate together;</HI> and <HI>Durandus, that all that were pre&s;ent at the celebration of the Ma&s;&s;e did everyday communicate.</HI> And <HI>Bellichus</HI> and <HI>Micro|logus,</HI> and <HI>Tholo&s;anus,</HI> and <HI>Innocentius</HI> the Third, <HI>that in the infancie of the Church, all that were pre|&s;ent together at the Sacrament were wont to com|municate.</HI> Yet <HI>Odo Cameracen&s;is</HI> goeth a &s;tep far|ther, &s;aying, <HI>in the Primitive Church they never had Ma&s;&s;es without the convention of the people to communicate together. Iu&s;tinian</HI> addeth to the pra|cti&s;e of the primitive Church, the pre&s;ent practi&s;e of the Greeke Church backing them both with a good rea&s;on, <HI>In ancient times,</HI> &s;aith hee, <HI>which the Greeke Church u&s;eth at this day of one loafe of bread Con&s;ecrated, divers parts were di&s;tributed to each communicant, that by this their Communion their
<PB N="53" REF="177" MS="y"> union with Chri&s;t might bee more plainly expre&s;&s;ed.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Hugo de S. Vict. in &s;pec. eccle&s;. po&s;t baec dicitur communio quae &s;ic appellatur ut omnes commu|nicemus, vel di|citur commu|xio quia in pri|mitiv&acirc; eccle&s;i&acirc; populus com|municabat quolibet die. Ca&s;&s;and. de &s;o|litar. mi&s;&s;. pro|pri&egrave; communio dici non pote&s;t ni&s;i plures de eodem &s;acrifi|cio participant. Ioan citat Ca&s;&s;and. con|&s;ult de &s;olit. mi&s;&s;. res ip&s;a clamat tam in Graec&acirc; qu&agrave;m in Latin&acirc; eccle|&s;i&acirc; non &s;ol&ugrave;m &s;acerdotes &s;a|crificantes, &s;ed &amp; reliquos presbyteros, di|aconos, nec non &amp; reliquam plebem aut &s;al|tem aliquam plebis partem communic&agrave;&s;&s;e quod quo modo ce&s;&s;averit mi|randu~ e&s;t, &amp;c. Bellar. li <HI>2</HI> de mi&s;&s;. c. <HI>9</HI> et <HI>10</HI> Durandus de hoeret. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>4.</HI></NOTE> And <HI>Hugo</HI> out-&s;trippeth him, &s;aying, <HI>it is there|fore called the Communion, to teach us that we ought all to communicate of it,</HI> or <HI>becau&s;e the people in the primitive Church did communicate every day toge|ther. Ca&s;&s;ander</HI> enforceth the Argument drawne from the name of this Sacrament yet farther a|gain&s;t private Ma&s;&s;es, <HI>it cannot bee &s;aid properly a Communion, but where &s;ome people are partakers of the &s;ame &s;acrifice with the Prie&s;t.</HI> And la&s;tly <HI>Io|hannes Hoffmi&s;terus</HI> not only &s;peaketh plainly, but <HI>cryeth out</HI> again&s;t your private Ma&s;&s;es, <HI>The thing it &s;elfe doth &s;peake and cry alowd, that both in the Greeke and the Latine Church, not only the &s;acri|ficing Prie&s;t, but the other Prie&s;ts and Deacons, and the re&s;t of the people, or at least &s;ome part of the people did communicate together, and how this cu|&s;tome ce&agrave;&s;ed it is to bee wondered, and wee ought to endeavour that it may bee re&s;tored againe in the Church.</HI> Yea but &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit, Bellarmine</HI> and <HI>Durand</HI> prove by manife&s;t authoritie, that in the Ea&s;terne Church in the time of S. <HI>Ambro&s;e,</HI> S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> and <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome,</HI> the people did com|municate but once a yeare: and yet S. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> even there where hee complaineth of the peoples coldne&s;&s;e, &s;aith of him&s;elfe, that hee celebrated everyday, though there were none to commu|nicate with him. I an&s;wer, that the publike and &s;olemne time at which all were bound to com|municate in the Ea&s;terne Church, was but once a yeare, to wit at Ea&s;ter: yet did the people in tho&s;e
<PB N="54" REF="178" MS="y"> dayes both at other times, and e&s;pecially when they lay on their death-bed, receive the Com|munion: which was therefore called <HI>Viaticum morientium.</HI> As for S. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome;</HI> 'tis true that he <HI>much complaineth of the backwardne&s;&s;e of the people in comming to the Communion, and profe&s;&s;eth for his owne part, that hee neglected not his dutie to ce|lebrate the holy Sacrament, though hee were much di&s;couraged therein by the paucitie and raritie of tho&s;e, who pre&s;ented them&s;elves at the Lords Table:</HI> yet I find not that he any where &s;aith, that he cele|brated the Communion when there was none to participate with him. For though it may bee at &s;ometime e&s;pecially on the weeke dayes, none of the people did communicate with him: yet al|wayes &s;ome of the Clergie, who a&s;&s;i&s;ted that acti|on communicated with him; and therefore the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> inference, <HI>that by our doctrine the Prie&s;t mu&s;t not &s;ay Ma&s;&s;e once in &s;even yeares, unle&s;&s;e the people bee &s;o devout as to receive with him,</HI> is mo&s;t ab&s;urd. For in all Colledges, and Cathedrall Churches, the Prie&s;ts and Deacons communi|cate every moneth at the lea&s;t, though none of the people &s;ometimes receive with them. But in pari&s;h Churches it were a prophanation and a meere mockerie to admini&s;ter the Communion without &s;ome of the people, to &s;ay, <HI>Take, eate, and drinke you all of this,</HI> when there is none to eate or drinke but the Prie&s;t him&s;elfe, none, I &s;ay, neither Layk nor Clergie man.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="6"> To the &s;ixt. The Canon of the Councell of
<PB N="55" REF="178"> <HI>Nants</HI> is mounted again&s;t &s;olitarie Ma&s;&s;es; and what are &s;olitarie Ma&s;&s;es but private Ma&s;&s;es? the Fathers in that Councell account it a ridiculous &s;uper&s;tition in a Prie&s;t, to &s;ay, <HI>the Lord bee with you, and lift up your hearts,</HI> and <HI>wee give thankes unto the Lord,</HI> or <HI>let us pray,</HI> when there is none to make an&s;wer,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Concil Nan. c <HI>30.</HI> &amp; Ca&s;|&s;and. p. <HI>83.</HI></NOTE> or pre&s;ent whom hee inviteth to pray with him; and is it not altogether as ab|&s;urd and ridiculous for the Prie&s;t to &s;ay as hee doth in all private Ma&s;&s;es, <HI>Take, eate,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">De my&s;ter. mi&s;&s;ae, c. <HI>15.</HI> pi&egrave; credendum e&s;t qu&ograve;d Ange|li dei comites a&s;&s;i&s;tant oran|tibus.</NOTE> <HI>and drinke yee all of this,</HI> when there is none to eate or drinke with him? Neither will <HI>Innocentius</HI> eva&s;ion &s;erve the turne, that <HI>wee are piou&s;ly to beleeve that though there are no men pre&s;ent, yet that the Angels ac|companie them that pray;</HI> for neither can the An|gels joyne in &s;uch formes of prayer as are u&s;ed, <HI>looke upon our infirmities, and deliver us from for|nication and other deadly &s;innes:</HI> neither is it a|greeable to &s;ound Divinitie or Philo&s;ophie to bid Angels that are &s;pirits <HI>receive the body and bloud of our Saviour.</HI> Here for want of better an|&s;wer the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> picketh a quarrell with the <HI>Knight</HI> for not citing the Councell of <HI>Nants</HI> out of any originall but out of <HI>Ca&s;&s;ander,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Flood. p. <HI>197.</HI></NOTE> <HI>beyond whom and one or two more &s;uch fellowes,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>it &s;eemeth his learning did not &s;tretch.</HI> I will repay him in his owne coyne. For the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> him&s;elfe citeth not the Councell of <HI>Nants</HI> out of any originall but out of <HI>Bellarmine</HI> and <HI>Burchard, beyond whom,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 197. <HI>l.</HI> 27.</NOTE> <HI>and one or two more &s;uch fellowes, it &s;eemeth his lear|ning did not &s;tretch.</HI> Is it no di&s;paragement for
<PB N="56" REF="179"> <HI>Flood</HI> a profe&s;&s;or in Divinitie, and writer of Con|trover&s;ies to cite a Canon of a Councell out of <HI>Bellarmine</HI> his fellow-Ie&s;uit, and is it a di&s;parage|ment for a <HI>Knight</HI> no profe&s;&s;ed Divine, to cite a Canon of a Councell out of <HI>Ca&s;&s;ander</HI> a mo&s;t learned Doctour, and great Antiquarie in high e&s;teeme when hee lived in the Roman Church? If the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> an&s;wer that hee could not cite the originall, becau&s;e that Decree is not now extant in any Councell of <HI>Nants</HI> that wee have, with one and the &s;ame an&s;wer hee ju&s;tifieth the <HI>Knight</HI> as well as him&s;elfe. It is no argument of Ignorance, but rather of faithfulne&s;&s;e and &s;ince|ritie when a man cannot come to the &s;ight of a record him&s;elfe to tran&s;cribe it out of others <HI>ver|batim,</HI> who have &s;eene it and avouch them for it.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="7"> To the &s;eventh. The Councell of <HI>Trent</HI> like <HI>Satyrus</HI> in the Poet <HI>bloweth out of the &s;ame mouth hot and cold;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">3. <HI>V.</HI> 11.</NOTE> or like the fountaine in S. <HI>Iames, &s;endeth forth at the &s;ame place &s;weet water and bitter,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">c. <HI>6.</HI> can. <HI>8.</HI> op|taret quidem &s;acro-&s;ancta &s;ynodus ut po|pulus qui a&s;tat communicaret, qu&ograve;d hujus &s;ancti&s;&s;imi &s;a|crificij fructus uberior prove|niret.</NOTE> for the Councell accur&s;eth them who &s;ay private Ma&s;&s;es are unlawfull, and yet wi&s;heth that there might bee no private Ma&s;&s;es. It is true that it is one thing <HI>to wi&s;h that the people would communicate becau&s;e to heare Ma&s;&s;e and receive withall, will bee more profitable:</HI> another to &s;ay, if there bee none to communicate the Prie&s;t mu&s;t not &s;ay Ma&s;&s;e, or that &s;uch Ma&s;&s;e is unlawfull, yet there is &s;uch affinitie betweene the&s;e two &s;ayings, that a good argument may bee drawne from the one to the other. For hee that wi&s;heth a reforma|tion
<PB N="57" REF="179" MS="y"> in private Ma&s;&s;es, or (which is all one) that of private Ma&s;&s;es they were made publike Com|munions, con&s;equently acknowledgeth that pri|vate Ma&s;&s;es are faultie, or defective: and if faulty &s;o farre as they are faulty, unlawfull.</P>
<P>And thus the indifferent reader may &s;ee that the water of this <HI>Flood</HI> wants a&s;hes and &s;oap to bee mingled with it, <HI>lavat enim non perluit,</HI> for it wa&s;heth but &s;cowreth not, nor fetcheth out foule &s;taines in the Ma&s;&s;e-prie&s;ts linnen.</P>
<P>Having refuted his &s;ophi&s;mes, I come now to retort his Sarca&s;mes.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Loemel. &s;pong feles unguen|torum fragran|ti&acirc;, &amp; Tigres pul&s;u tympano|rum in rabiem aguntur.</NOTE> <HI>Tigers if they heare a drum grow madde:</HI> in this &s;ection the <HI>Knight</HI> &s;ounded an alarum, and cau&s;ed the drum to beate hard, at the &s;ound whereof the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> his adver&s;arie after the manner of the Tiger groweth &s;tarke madde, and &s;nappeth at every one hee meeteth. Fir&s;t hee falleth upon the Knight for creating a Cardinall, to wit, <HI>Hugo de</HI> S. <HI>Victore,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Flood p. <HI>188.</HI></NOTE> <HI>of his owne free goodne&s;&s;e to make up the number of his Bi&s;hops and Cardinals.</HI> I an&s;wer for the knight, that he created no &s;uper|numerall Cardinall: for he would not u&s;urpe up|on the Popes priviledge; but committed a &s;mall errour in an <HI>hue and cry,</HI> which was made after one <HI>Hugh</HI> in &s;tead of <HI>another,</HI> yet peradventure it was not the <HI>Knights</HI> mi&s;take, but the Correctors. For <HI>Hugh</HI> of S. <HI>Victor,</HI> though he hath his Cardi|nals hat in the margent, yet hee &s;tandeth bare-headed in the text <HI>(it is called a Communion,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Lynd</HI> &s;afe way <HI>p.</HI> 119.</NOTE> <HI>be|cau&s;e it is a common union of Prie&s;ts and people, otherwi&s;e,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Hugo, it is called a Communion, for
<PB N="58" REF="180" MS="y"> that the people in the primitive Church did com|municate every day.)</HI> But admit the <HI>Knight</HI> mi|&s;tooke <HI>Hugo de S. Victore,</HI> for <HI>Hugo Cardinalis,</HI> as <HI>Bellarmine</HI> confe&s;&s;eth, that many learned men of his owne &s;ide mi&s;tooke <HI>An&s;elmus Laudunen&s;is,</HI> for <HI>Cantuarien&s;is;</HI> yet <HI>Flood</HI> &s;hould have pardo|ned or let pa&s;&s;e and over&s;eene this &s;mall over|&s;ight, becau&s;e wee tooke him at a wor&s;e fault in the like kind in examining his la&s;t Section, where|in as I there &s;hewed hee gro&s;ly mi&s;taketh <HI>Bertram</HI> for <HI>Elfrick,</HI> and a collation of two Authours for a tran&s;lation of one.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Era&s;. Adag<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"></NOTE><HI>Loripedem rectus derideat Aethiopem albus.</HI> After this hee jeareth at the <HI>Knight</HI> for &s;aying that the Councell of <HI>Trent</HI> wi&s;hed well to our doctrine,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 189.</NOTE> <HI>What,</HI> &s;aith hee, <HI>have you Ma&s;&s;es Sir</HI> Humfrey? <HI>take heed it may co&s;t you money: an In|former that &s;hould heare this might catch you by the backe, and bring you in for &s;o many hundred markes as you have received bits of bread in your Church, which truly might prove a deere ordinarie for you.</HI> The Orator &s;aid well,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cic. pre Coel.</NOTE> <HI>nihil tam volucre qu&agrave;m ma|ledictam,</HI> nothing is &s;o ea&s;ily ca&s;t out as a contu|melious word, and I may adde nothing &s;o ea&s;ily returned backe. The <HI>Knight</HI> no where &s;aith that wee have any Ma&s;&s;es in our Church, but only that the Councell of <HI>Trent</HI> wi&s;heth well to pub|like Communions wherein the people communi|cate with the Prie&s;t, which are not certainly your private Ma&s;&s;es: but admit hee had &s;aid wee have Ma&s;&s;es in our Church, hee might very well have
<PB N="59" REF="180" MS="y"> defended this &s;peech by my Lord of <HI>Dure&s;me</HI> his di&s;tinction of <HI>Chri&s;t his Ma&s;&s;e,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Tho. Mor. e|pi&s;c. Dunelm. l. nitit. <HI>Chri&s;t his Ma&s;&s;e.</HI></NOTE> and <HI>the Pope his Ma&s;&s;e.</HI> Wee have Chri&s;t his ma&s;&s;e at every com|munion, neither is any man merced for being pre&s;ent at it, but for being ab&s;ent from it. For Ma&s;&s;es are not &s;old with us, as they are with Pa|pi&s;ts where there is a price &s;et for <HI>drie Ma&s;&s;es,</HI> and <HI>wet Ma&s;&s;es,</HI> for <HI>low Ma&s;&s;es</HI> and <HI>high Ma&s;&s;es;</HI> the ordinarie was but a groat for the one, and a te&s;ter for the other, but now it is rai&s;ed; and &s;o to &s;peake in the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> language the Prie&s;ts Ma&s;&s;es prove a <HI>Deere ordinarie</HI> for the Laitie. After this madde Tiger hath left the <HI>Knight,</HI> hee fa&s;tens his teeth upon our Communion Table, calling it an <HI>emptie Communion, nothing but a mor&s;ell of bread,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 190.</NOTE> <HI>and a &s;up of wine, and a prettie &s;ervice and good-fellow Communion.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 199.</NOTE> <HI>Flood</HI> is the &s;ame full and fa|&s;ting, in jea&s;t and in earne&s;t, for in both hee con|tradicts him&s;elfe, which di&s;couereth an idle and addle braine. If our Communion bee <HI>emptie</HI> and nothing but a <HI>mor&s;ell of bread,</HI> and a <HI>&s;up of wine</HI> what <HI>good-fellow&s;hip</HI> can there bee in it? But in good earne&s;t how can the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> call ours an <HI>emp|tie Communion,</HI> which is every way full, and ful|ler then theirs, both for the &s;ignes, and the things &s;ignified? for the &s;ignes, we have the &s;ub&s;tance of Bread and Wine, they nothing but <HI>hungrie acci|dents</HI> and <HI>&s;hewes,</HI> a bit <HI>of quantity,</HI> and a <HI>mor&s;ell of colours,</HI> and a <HI>&s;oppe of figures;</HI> neither have the Laitie among them &s;o much as a <HI>&s;up of the con&s;e|crated cup.</HI> For the thing &s;ignified we teach that
<PB N="60" REF="181"> all communicants by faith feed on the very body and bloud of Chri&s;t, and all that &s;o feed partake of all the benefits of Chri&s;ts pa&s;&s;ion: they teach that Infidels and reprobates eate Chri&s;ts body, and reape no benefit at all by it. As for his <HI>good-fellow Communion,</HI> let him take it to him&s;elfe, for <HI>Aquinas</HI> noteth, that <HI>&s;ometimes their Prie&s;ts are over&s;eene by drinking the liquor in the Con&s;ecrated cup,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Mi&s;&s;al. in c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">u|tel. &s;e ca&s;u gulae Euchari|&s;tiam evomue|rit.</NOTE> and the cautels of the Ma&s;&s;e appoint what is to bee done in ca&s;e <HI>the Prie&s;t being drunke before ca&s;t up the ho&s;t.</HI> As for our Communion there can bee no exce&s;&s;e, or as hee tearmeth it good-fellow&s;hip in it. For the people have warning a weeke at lea&s;t before to prepare them&s;elves, and they receive alwayes fa&s;ting before, and the quan|titie is &s;o &s;mal that it cannot di&s;temper any, which this <HI>bone Compaignion</HI> could not bee ignorant of. But it &s;eemeth hee tooke a cup of <HI>vinum Theolo|gicum</HI> in the Taverne before hee &s;et pen to paper in this &s;ection. For be&s;ide manifold contradictions before noted, hee tearmeth in it our <HI>Communion &s;acrilegious,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 199.</NOTE> not con&s;idering that they <HI>&s;acrilegi|ou&s;ly</HI> take the cup from the Laity, and that we have re&s;tored it, and he concludeth the Section with <HI>the&s;e words, here is enough of &s;uch an idle &s;ubject.</HI> Now the &s;ubject as appeares by the argument of the Section, and the title he putteth throughout, is <HI>Private Ma&s;&s;e.</HI> Nay which is a mo&s;t certaine demon&s;tration of his di&s;temper; when hee wrote this Section hee forgot that hee was a Prie&s;t, and reckoneth him&s;elfe among the Laitie, &s;aying,
<PB N="61" REF="181" MS="y"> <HI>the union may remaine betweene us and the Prie&s;t,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 197. <HI>l.</HI> 1.</NOTE> <HI>though he &s;ay Ma&s;&s;e, and wee not receive.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>Concerning the 7. Sacraments, Spectacles, paragraph. 4. <HI>a pag.</HI> 199. <HI>u&s;&abque; ad</HI> 242.</HEAD>
<P>_THe <HI>Knight</HI> unju&s;tly chargeth <HI>Bel|larmine</HI> <MILESTONE N="1"> for laying a foundation of Athei&s;me,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Concil. Trid. Se&s;&s;. <HI>7.</HI> can. <HI>1.</HI> Bell. de effect. &s;acram. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>25.</HI> &s;i tollamus authoritatem prae&s;entis eccle|&s;iae, &amp; prae&s;en|tis concilij, in dubiu~ revocari poterunt omni|um aliorum co~|ciliorum decre|ta &amp; tota fi|des chri&s;tiana. <HI>1</HI> Eliz. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> in &s;aying that if wee &s;hould take away the credit of the Roman Church and Councell of <HI>Trent</HI> (which decreeth the preci&s;e number of <HI>7.</HI> Sacraments;) the Decrees of other Councels, nay even Chri&s;tian faith it &s;elfe might be called in question, for if &s;uch a generall Councell may erre, the Church may erre; if the Church may erre, the faith which that Church teacheth may faile, and con&s;equently there can bee no certaintie. S. <HI>Gregorie</HI> the great, did often &s;ay, and write, that hee did hold the <HI>4,</HI> fir&s;t Councels in the &s;ame honour that hee did the <HI>4.</HI> Go&s;pels, which is the &s;ame, as to &s;ay they could as little erre as the <HI>4.</HI> Go&s;pels. And the Parliament lawes of <HI>England</HI> give as great authoritie to tho&s;e <HI>4.</HI> fir&s;t Councels, as S. <HI>Gregorie</HI> doth, acknowledging that for here&s;ie, what&s;oever is condemned for &s;uch by any of them, which is in other words to acknowledge them for a Rule of faith,
<PB N="62" REF="182"> and con&s;equently of infallible authoritie: neither can any thing be &s;aid more again&s;t the pre&s;ent Church, and pre&s;ent Councell of <HI>Trent,</HI> then again&s;t the Church of that time, and the Councels of tho&s;e times.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> The <HI>Knight</HI> impertinently alledgeth the te&s;timo|nies of S. <HI>Paul,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">You know that I have withdrawne nothing that was profita|ble v. 27. I have not &s;hrunke to de|clare unto you the whole coun&s;ell of God.</NOTE> <HI>Acts 20.20.</HI> and <HI>Bellarmine l. 4. d. verb. Dei.</HI> All tho&s;e things are written by the A|po&s;tle, which are nece&s;&s;arie for all men, and which they preached generally unto all. For S. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;pea|keth not of the written word, but of the doctrine of Chri&s;t by him preached; neither doth <HI>Bellarmines</HI> &s;aying helpe any thing, becau&s;e though tho&s;e things which are nece&s;&s;arie in generall for all to know, which are but few bee written, there bee yet many more not written, which are nece&s;&s;arie to bee knowne by &s;ome in the Church.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> The <HI>Knight</HI> in praying that the Anathema de|creed by the Councell of <HI>Trent</HI> might fall upon his head, if any Papi&s;t could &s;hew the number of &s;even Sacraments to have beene the beliefe of the Church for a thou&s;and yeares after Chri&s;t, is too forward to draw malediction upon him&s;elfe; it will come fa&s;t enough to his co&s;t. It is an heavier thing then he is a ware of to have the cur&s;e of a mother, and &s;uch a mother as the Church which doth not cur&s;e without cau&s;e,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Eccle&s;i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="4 letters">cus 3.11.</NOTE> nor out of pa&s;sion. For as the Scripture &s;aith, <HI>maledictio matris eradicat fundamenta,</HI> the male|diction of a mother doth roote out the foundations.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="4"> The <HI>Knights</HI> definition of a Sacrament, to wit, that it is a &s;eale witne&s;sing to our con&s;ciences, that
<PB N="63" REF="182" MS="y"> Gods promi&s;es are true is &s;en&s;ele&s;&s;e, and without ground, largely refuted by <HI>Bellarmine,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Bell. l. <HI>1.</HI> de &s;ac. in genere. c. <HI>14. 16.</HI></NOTE> and proved to bee mo&s;t ab&s;urd. For how can the Sacraments bee &s;eales to give us a&s;&s;urance of his words, when all the a&s;&s;urance wee have of a Sacrament is his word? this is <HI>idem per idem.</HI> Be&s;ides, what promi&s;es are the&s;e that are &s;ealed? or if they be &s;ealed, what need we more &s;eales and Sacraments then one? if there may bee more, why not &s;even as well as two? Againe, how doe wee &s;ee the promi&s;es of God in the Sacra|ments? the&s;e are but fooli&s;h fancies, bred in here|ticall braines, and &s;o to be contemned.</P>
<P>The <HI>Knights</HI> Argument again&s;t five of our Sa|craments, <MILESTONE N="5"> that in them the element is not joyned to the Word, or they have not their in&s;titution from Chri&s;t, or they bee not vi&s;ible &s;ignes of invi&s;ible &s;a|ving grace, is frivolous. For confirmation and ex|treame Vnction have the element, and the Word, to wit, oyle and the forme: order and penance have in&s;titution from Chri&s;t, as is confe&s;&s;ed in order the patten with an Ho&s;t and Chalice with wine in it is the outward element: in penance humble confe&s;si|on with prayer, fa&s;ting, and almes deedes, are the outward element: in Matrimonie the bodyes of a man or woman are as much an outward element, as water in bapti&s;me: and though Matrimonie might bee a naturall contract before the Go&s;pell, yet was it exalted to the dignitie of a Sacrament by Chri&s;t, and though it bee an holy thing as order is, yet as or|der is forbidden to all women, &s;o upon good rea&s;on Mariage is forbidden to all Prie&s;ts: becau&s;e it is good,
<PB N="64" REF="183"> but of an inferiour ranke, and not &s;o agreeable to the high e&s;tate of Prie&s;t-hood.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="6"> That S. <HI>Ambro&s;e, Au&s;tine, Chry&s;o&s;tome,</HI> and <HI>Bede</HI> teaching,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Aug. in Iohan. tract. <HI>15</HI> de la|tere in cruce pendentis lan|ce&acirc; percu&s;&s;o, &s;acramenta ec|cle&s;iae proflux|erunt.</NOTE> that out of Chri&s;ts &s;ide came the Sa|craments of the Church prove no more two then &s;e|ven Sacraments. For they &s;ay not that they were then in&s;tituted, or that there were no more Sacra|ments in&s;tituted, or that other Sacraments did not i&s;&s;ue from thence.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="7"> Saint <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> maketh expre&s;&s;e mention of the Sacrament of confirmation,<NOTE PLACE="marg">L. 2. <HI>de &s;acram. c.</HI> 24.</NOTE> and of penance, as <HI>Bel|larmine</HI> &s;heweth: who al&s;o yeeldeth a rea&s;on why S. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> in his bookes <HI>de Sacramentis</HI> mentio|neth no more but three Sacraments, becau&s;e his in|tent in that worke is only to in&s;truct the catechu|menie in tho&s;e things which are to bee done at the time of Bapti&s;me. For hee neither writeth to the be|leevers of his age, but only to &s;ome beginners, as is manife&s;t by the title of one of his bookes: neither doth he there &s;peake of the Sacraments which the Church hath taught and declared, but of the Sacra|ments which tho&s;e beginners that hee &s;pake to, had newly received.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="8"> S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> in tho&s;e places where hee &s;peaketh of two Sacraments re&s;traineth not the number to two only.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Re&s;pice ad mu|nera eccle&s;iae, munus &s;acra|mentorum in bapti&s;mo in Euchari&s;ti&acirc;, et c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">eteris &s;anctis &s;acramentis.</NOTE> For in his fir&s;t Sermon upon the <HI>103.</HI> p&s;alme, hee &s;aith, ca&s;t thine eyes upon the gifts, or offices of the Church in Bapti&s;me, the Euchari&s;t, and the re&s;t of the holy Sacraments: and in his Epi&s;tle <HI>118.</HI> having brought in the two Sacraments, Bapti&s;me, and the Lords Supper, he addeth this generall clau&s;e,
<PB N="65" REF="183"> and if there bee any thing el&s;e commended in cano|nicall Scriptures. Neither doth the place the <HI>Knight</HI> citeth out of the third booke <HI>de doctrin&acirc; chri&s;tian&acirc;</HI> availe him any thing; for it is plaine by the word <HI>&s;icuti,</HI> that he bringeth in Bapti&s;me, and the Lords Supper for example only, which doth no way re|&s;traine the number. Be&s;ides, his word in this place is not &s;acraments as the <HI>Knight</HI> citeth him, but <HI>&s;igna &s;ignes,</HI> which is therefore a corruption of the <HI>Knights.</HI></P>
<P>S. <HI>Cyprian de ablutione pedum,</HI> reckoneth but <MILESTONE N="9"> five Sacraments, not that hee thought there were no more:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cyp. de <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ablut. ped. propter hoc benigni&s;&s;ime Domine, pedes lavas di&s;cipulis quia po&s;t bap|ti&s;mum quem &s;ui reverentia iterari non pa|titur, aliud la|vacrum procu|ra&s;ti, quod nun|quam debeat intermitti.</NOTE> but that it pertained not to his purpo&s;e to &s;peake of more in that place: his &s;cope being only to &s;peake of &s;uch Sacraments as had relation to our Saviours la&s;t Supper, and by <HI>ablutio pedum,</HI> that Authour meaneth the &s;acrament of penance, as ap|peareth by the words following, for this, O mo&s;t be|nigne Lord, thou did&s;t wa&s;h thy Di&s;ciples feet, be|cau&s;e after Bapti&s;me which may not be iterated, thou ha&s;t procured another laver which mu&s;t never bee intermitted.</P>
<P>S. <HI>I&s;idore</HI> in his &s;ixt booke of Etymologies cited <MILESTONE N="10"> by the <HI>Knight,</HI> doth not &s;o much as intend to &s;peake of any Sacrament at all, but his only intent is to treat of the names of certaine fea&s;ts, as the title of the chapter &s;heweth, to wit, of fea&s;ts and their n<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">mes. Among which he putteth Chri&s;ts Supper. Moreover, to &s;hew that S. <HI>I&s;idore</HI> held more then the three Sa|craments the <HI>Knight</HI> &s;peaketh of, in his &s;econd booke <HI>de Eccle&s;ia&s;t. offic. c. 16. &amp; l. 23. c. 19.</HI> he mentio|neth
<PB N="66" REF="184"> two more, Penance and Matrimonie.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="11"> <HI>Alexander hales</HI> in the place alledged by the <HI>Knight</HI> &s;aith not, that there are no more then foure Sacraments, but on the contrarie concludes, <HI>Par. 4. q, 5. n. 7. art. 2.</HI> that there bee neither more nor fewer then &s;even Sacraments; tis true indeed that <HI>Hales</HI> was of opinion that the forme and matter which wee now u&s;e in the Sacrament of confirmation were not appointed by our Saviour, but by the Church in the Councell, at <HI>Melda:</HI> but this <HI>Hales</HI> &s;aith, <HI>&s;ine praejudicio,</HI> that is with leave, not &s;tifly nor arro|gantly maintaining his owne opinion.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="12"> <HI>Hugo de Sancto victore</HI> excludeth not Penance from being a Sacrament. For in his <HI>23.</HI> chapter hee calleth Penance the &s;econd board after &s;hipwrack,<NOTE PLACE="marg">C. <HI>12.</HI> Septem &s;unt principa|lia eccle&s;iae &s;a|cramenta, &amp;c.</NOTE> and &s;aith, that if any man endanger his clean&s;ing, which he hath received by Bapti&s;me, he may ari&s;e, and &s;cape by Penance. Moreover, the &s;ame <HI>Hu|go</HI> in his Gla&s;&s;e of the my&s;teries of the Church &s;aith, that there are &s;even principall Sacraments of the Church, whereof five are called generall, be|cau&s;e they belong unto all, to wit, Bapti&s;me, Confir|mation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreame vnction; and two &s;peciall, to wit, Matrimonie and Order.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="13"> Although <HI>Bellarmine</HI> denieth that Extreame Vnction can be deduced out of the la&s;t of S. <HI>Marke:</HI> and <HI>Cajetan</HI> out of the fir&s;t of S. <HI>Iames,</HI> and al|though <HI>Hugo,</HI> and <HI>Peter Lomberd,</HI> and <HI>Bonaven|ture,</HI> and <HI>Alen&s;is,</HI> and <HI>Alti&s;iodoren&s;is</HI> denie it to bee in&s;tituted by Chri&s;t: yet none of them all denie it to be a Sacrament.</P>
<PB N="67" REF="184" MS="y">
<P><HI>Be&s;&s;arion</HI> the Cardinall &s;aith not that there are <MILESTONE N="14"> but two Sacraments; for he was a great man in the Councell of <HI>Florence,</HI> wherein &s;even Sacraments are preci&s;ely taught: but that we find the&s;e two Sacraments expre&s;ly delivered, and that wee find none other, and none of the re&s;t &s;o delivered, that is, &s;o plainly.</P>
<P><HI>Soto,</HI> though he denieth that ordination of Bi|&s;hops, <MILESTONE N="15"> is truly and properly a Sacrament: yet hee denieth not the Sacrament of order in the Church.</P>
<P><HI>Durand</HI> &s;aith indeed that Matrimonie is not ae <MILESTONE N="16"> Sacrament univocally, agreeing with the other &s;ix: but all acknowledge it to bee an errour in him, and Divines of his owne time did note it for &s;uch, though the matter then were not &s;o clearely defined.</P>
<P><HI>Cajetan</HI> &s;aith indeed, that the prudent reader <MILESTONE N="17"> cannot inferre out of the words of S. <HI>Paul,</HI> Ephe&s;. <HI>5. hoc e&s;t magnum Sacramentum,</HI> that Matrimonie is a Sacrament: yet hee denieth it not to bee a Sacra|ment.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Locor. Theol. l. <HI>8.</HI> c. <HI>1.</HI> &s;i Lu|theram de hoc matrimonio|rum genere di&s;|ceptare volue|rint, intelligant &s;e in &s;cholae di&s;ceptationem incidi&s;&s;e, ne<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">o|portere catho|licum ad eorum argumenta re|&s;pondere: &s;in ver&ograve; argumen|tentur matri|monium cum &s;acris ceremo|nijs admini|&s;tratum Sacra|mentum eccle|&s;iae non e&s;&s;e tunc catholicus re&s;pondeat fi|denter, &s;ecur&egrave; contra pugnet.</NOTE> <MILESTONE N="18"> For though it bee not inferred from that place, it may be inferred from other; or if neither from that nor other, yet it may bee deduced out of tradition.</P>
<P><HI>Canus</HI> telleth us that the Divines &s;peake &s;o un|certainly of the matter and forme of Matrimonie, that hee &s;hould bee accounted an unwi&s;e man, who in &s;o great differences of opinion, would take upon him to e&s;tabli&s;h any thing certainly: yet hee denieth not Matrimonie to be a Sacrament. For the&s;e are his words, if the Lutherans argue that Mariage admi|ni&s;tred with &s;acred Ceremonies, &s;acred matter, &s;a|cred
<PB N="68" REF="185"> forme, and by a &s;acred Mini&s;ter, as it hath e|ver beene admini&s;tred in the Roman Church, even from the Apo&s;tles time; if I &s;ay they argue that this is not a Sacrament of the Church, then let a Catho|lique an&s;wer confidently, let him defend &s;toutly, let him gain&s;ay &s;ecurely.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="19"> <HI>Va&s;quez</HI> doth not &s;ay, that Matrimonie is not a Sacrament properly &s;o taken: but that S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> &s;peaking of Matrimonie doth u&s;e the word Sacra|ment but in a large &s;en&s;e: This is true, but it is but <HI>Va&s;quez</HI> his private and &s;ingular opinion, not in a point of faith, but only in the meaning of one Father, in the u&s;e of a word, and in this his opinion he is con|tradicted by other Catholique Divines.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="20"> <HI>Bellarmine</HI> &s;aith, that the Sacraments &s;ignifie three things,<NOTE PLACE="marg">De Sacram. in Gen. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>9.</HI></NOTE> one thing pa&s;t, to wit, the Pa&s;sion of Chri&s;t; another thing pre&s;ent, to wit, &s;anctifying grace, which they worke in our &s;oules; another thing to come, to wit, eternall life. The &s;ignification of the&s;e three things is mo&s;t apparant in Bapti&s;me, and the Euchari&s;t: but not &s;o apparant in the re&s;t. Thus farre the <HI>Knight</HI> quoteth <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> but leaveth out that which followeth, <HI>tamen certum e&s;t impli|cit&egrave; illa omnia &s;ignificari;</HI> but it is certaine that the re&s;t of the Sacraments &s;ignifie all the&s;e things at lea&s;t implicitly.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="response to section">
<PB N="69" REF="185">
<HEAD>The Hammer.</HEAD>
<P>ALthough the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> was very angrie when hee wrote this Paragraph, as appeareth by his &s;narling at every pa&s;&s;age almo&s;t: yet in his di&s;cretion hee thought good not to meddle with &s;ome things, which were too hard for his teeth. To <HI>Theophylact, Fulbert,</HI> and <HI>Pa&s;cha&s;ius,</HI> and the la&s;t pa&s;&s;age out of S. <HI>Au&s;tine,</HI> as al&s;o to the refutation of the popi&s;h arguments for their &s;ep|tenarie number of Sacraments, from <HI>incongru|ous</HI> and ridiculous <HI>congruities,</HI> hee replieth not a word, and three of their prime Schoole-men, <HI>Durand, Va&s;ques,</HI> and <HI>Cajetan,</HI> hee lets &s;hift for them&s;elves, defend them he neither will nor can; yet for all this hee puts up as if hee had done wonders in this Paragraph, and filleth up the de|fect of &s;olid an&s;wers with bragges, and &s;welling words of vanitie;
<Q><L>Bullatis vndi&abque; nugis</L>
<L>pagina turge&s;cit.</L></Q> But the&s;e bubbles wee &s;hall &s;ee will di&s;&s;olve of them&s;elves, in the particular an&s;wer to his twen|tie &s;everall exceptions again&s;t the <HI>Knights</HI> di&s;|cour&s;e.</P>
<P>To the fir&s;t. The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> in this Paragraph <MILESTONE N="1"> thinketh that hee di&s;cour&s;eth very profoundly, for page 201. he &s;aith, <HI>the</HI> Knight <HI>is not capable of it;</HI> whereas his <HI>chanel</HI> here is &s;o <HI>&s;hallow,</HI> that any child in&s;tructed in his Catechi&s;me, may <HI>wade</HI>
<PB N="70" REF="186"> thorow it. <HI>Without an infallible rule,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>there can be no certaine beliefe in God.</HI> An extreame ve|ritie, <HI>without an unerring Pope no certaine rule of faith,</HI> an extreame fal&s;itie: the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> cannot &s;ee Chri&s;t for the Pope, nor the Scripture for the <HI>Trent</HI> Canons. Let him remove them out of the way; and if hee have an eye of faith, hee may clearly &s;ee both, and in them an infallible rule of faith, and certaine meanes to learne true beliefe in God. The occa&s;ion of this di&s;cour&s;e of the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> was the <HI>Knight</HI> charging Cardinall <HI>Bellar|mine</HI> for laying a foundation of Athei&s;me in &s;ay|ing that if we &s;hould take away the credit of the Roman Church and Councell of <HI>Trent,</HI> the Chri&s;tian faith it &s;elfe might bee called in que&s;ti|on. The charge lieth heavie upon the Cardinall. For to di&s;parage the &s;elfe-&s;ufficiencie of the holy Scriptures, and &s;u&s;pend our Chri&s;tian faith upon the Decrees of a late factious conventicle, reje|cted by the greater part of the Chri&s;tian world, is a ready way to overthrow all Divine faith, and true religion. Yet the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;eeketh to cover the nakedne&s;&s;e of the Cardinall with the&s;e <HI>fig leaves; If a generall Councell may erre, the Church may erre; if the Church may erre, the faith which that Church teacheth may faile, and con&s;equently there can bee no certaintie.</HI> How ea&s;ily are the&s;e leaves plucked away, and torne in pieces? 1. Though &s;uch a Councell as the Councell of <HI>Trent,</HI> con|&s;i&s;ting of a few Bi&s;hops &s;waied by the Italian fa|ction may erre, it would not from thence follow,
<PB N="71" REF="186" MS="y"> that the whole repre&s;entative Church might erre. 2. Though the whole repre&s;entative Church in a free and generall Councell lawfully called might erre, yet many millions in the Catholique Church may hold the orthodox beliefe, and con|&s;equently the faith of the Church not totally faile. Yea but &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit, take away the infal|libilitie of the Church there is no rule of faith.</HI> This a&s;&s;ertion of his is open bla&s;phemie, as if God would not bee true, though all men were found liars: though the Roman Church and Pope erre a thou&s;and times, yet the rule of faith remaineth unvariable in the holy Scriptures. Yea but S. <HI>Gre|gorie</HI> equalizeth the foure fir&s;t generall Councels to the Go&s;pel, and &s;aith in effect, that they could as little erre as the 4. Go&s;pels, and that upon the deniall of their authoritie the Chri&s;tian faith might be &s;haken as well as by the deniall of the Go&s;pels: and the like authoritie giveth your Parliament unto them. I an&s;wer, S. <HI>Gregorie</HI> e|qualizeth the foure fir&s;t generall Councels to the foure Go&s;pels, not in re&s;pect of authoritie, but in re&s;pect of the veritie of the articles defined in them: he &s;aith not, <HI>they could as little erre,</HI> but <HI>they did as little erre,</HI> in their deci&s;ions, or to &s;peake more properly that their doctrine was as true as Go&s;pell, becau&s;e the determinations in tho&s;e fir&s;t generall Councels again&s;t Heretiques are evidently deduced out of holy Scriptures. Our Parliament alluding to the words of S. <HI>Gregorie</HI> &s;peaketh in the &s;ame &s;en&s;e, as hee doth. Yea but
<PB N="72" REF="187"> &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> your Parliament lawes acknow|ledge that for here&s;ie what&s;oever is condemned for &s;uch in any of tho&s;e Councels, which is in other words to acknowledge them for a rule of faith, and con&s;equently to bee of infallible au|thoritie, and to joyne them in the &s;ame ranke with the Canonicall Scriptures. <HI>Idem jungat Vulpes;</HI> by the like rea&s;on the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> might &s;ay we joyne the booke of Articles of Religion, and Homilies in the &s;ame ranke with the Canonicall Scriptures, becau&s;e we condemne for heretiques all that ob&s;tinatly maintaine any doctrine repug|nant to them: which wee doe not, becau&s;e we hold the Decrees of a provinciall Synod, to bee of in|fallible authoritie: but becau&s;e wee are able to prove all the Articles there e&s;tabli&s;hed, to be con|&s;onant to the holy Scriptures. Yea, but further &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> in the &s;ame &s;tatute, <HI>you give power to the Court of Parliament,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 2<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">3.</NOTE> <HI>with the a&s;&s;ent of the Clergie in their Convocation to adjudge or deter|mine a matter to be here&s;ie, which is the very &s;ame as to give it power to declare faith, or to be the rule thereof.</HI> I an&s;wer, the &s;tatute giveth power to the Convocation, to declare faith, and deter|mine here&s;ie out of Gods word, and by the &s;en|tence thereof, and no otherwi&s;e. In &s;uch &s;ort to declare faith, is not to be the rule of faith, but to judge and mea&s;ure things by the rule. There is a maine difference betweene the&s;e two, which yet the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> here confoundeth as if they were co|incident) to declare faith, and to bee the rule of
<PB N="73" REF="187"> faith every Iudge declareth the Law, yet is he not the rule of the Law. The Inqui&s;itors in their <HI>ju|dices expurgatorij,</HI> and the <HI>Sorboni&s;ts</HI> in their cen&s;ures declare what is here&s;ie: yet they are not I trow the Rule of popi&s;h faith, every meater in the market declareth that &s;uch or &s;uch is the mea&s;ure of corne and graine&punc; yet is not every, or any corne-meater the Winche&s;ter &s;tanderd. It is one thing to be the rule, and another to mea&s;ure by the rule, and declare what we have mea&s;ured. But to retort the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> phra&s;e upon him&s;elfe, hee is not <HI>capable</HI> it &s;eemes of this di&s;cour&s;e which yet every market-woman or boy is. Well, let the authoritie of generall Councels bee great in the Church, and of the foure fir&s;t Councels greate&s;t of all, <HI>quid hoc ad Rombum?</HI> what maketh this for the infallibilitie of the <HI>Trent</HI> conventicle? much &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> every way, for <HI>what,</HI> &s;aith hee, <HI>can you &s;ay more again&s;t the pre&s;ent Church, and pre&s;ent Councell of Trent, then again&s;t the Church and Councels of tho&s;e times?</HI> What can we &s;ay? nay what can we not &s;ay? what have we not &s;aid? or what could all the Papi&s;ts in the world an&s;wer to what wee have already &s;aid? After hee hath taken away the legall exceptions made again&s;t this conventicle by the Authour of the hi&s;torie of the Councell of <HI>Trent,</HI> and of the <HI>litterae mi&s;sivae,</HI> and <HI>Iewel</HI> his Treati&s;e affixed to that Hi&s;torie, and <HI>Chemni&s;ius</HI> his Examen, and Doctor <HI>Bowles</HI> his latine Sermon preached to the Convocation, and lately printed: after hee hath
<PB N="74" REF="188"> proved which hee will never bee able, that the A&s;&s;emblie at <HI>Trent</HI> was a free and generall Coun|cell, and called by lawfull authoritie, and all the proceedings in it according to ancient Canons: yet it will &s;till fall as &s;hort of the Councell of <HI>Nice</HI> in authoritie, as in antiquitie: that con&s;i&s;ted of mo&s;t eminent, learned, and holy Bi&s;hops and Confe&s;&s;ors: this for the mo&s;t part of hungrie ani|mals depending on the Popes trencher as <HI>Dudi|thius</HI> a Bi&s;hop pre&s;ent at that Councell declareth at large in his letter &s;et before the Hi&s;torie of the Councell of <HI>Trent,</HI> to which I referre the reader.</P>
<P>To the &s;econd. The te&s;timonies alledged by <MILESTONE N="2"> the <HI>Knight</HI> for the &s;ufficiencie of holy Scriptures are ponderous, and weightie, and the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> ex|ceptions to them are &s;leight, vaine, and frivolous. To the te&s;timonie out of the Acts, <HI>I have kept backe nothing that was profitable unto you, and I am pure from the bloud of all men,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Act. 20.20.27</NOTE> <HI>for I have not &s;hunned to declare unto you all the Councell of God,</HI> hee &s;aith that S. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;peaketh of the doctrine by him preached, not of the written word of God: as in like manner our Saviour &s;aith, <HI>that what hee heard from his Father hee made knowne unto them, Iohn</HI> 15.15. and yet delivered not one word in writing. It is true, S. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;peaketh of the do|ctrine which he preached, but it is as true that the doctrine which he preached hee confirmed unto them by te&s;timonie of Scripture. For S. <HI>Luke</HI> &s;aith <HI>Acts</HI> 17.2. that <HI>S. Paul as his manner was, rea&s;oned with them out of the Scriptures opening
<PB N="75" REF="188"> and alledging that Ie&s;us whom hee preached unto them was Chri&s;t, and they that received the word with all readine&s;&s;e of mind &s;earched the Scriptures daily, whether tho&s;e things were &s;o: and again I con|fe&s;&s;e that after that way which they call here&s;ie,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Act. 24.14.</NOTE> <HI>&s;o wor&s;hip I the God of my fathers, beleeving all things which are written in the Law, and the Prophets.</HI> If the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> had read the ver&s;e immediatly fol|lowing, <HI>te&s;tifying to the Iewes and Greekes repen|tance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Ie&s;us Chri&s;t:</HI> hee could not but have &s;eene the ab&s;urdi|tie of his an&s;wer, wherein he denieth that S. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;peaketh of the written word. For who knoweth not that repentance towards God, and faith to|wards Ie&s;us Chri&s;t are written almo&s;t in every Sermon of the Prophets, and chapter of the E|vangeli&s;ts. What hee addeth for confirmation of his an&s;wer, (from the example of our Saviour, who made knowne to his Di&s;ciples what&s;oever hee heard from his Father, and yet delivered not one word in writing) no whit at all helpeth his cau&s;e. For albeit we grant that our Saviour wrote nothing (except wee give credit to a relation in <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> of a letter written by him to King <HI>Ab|garus</HI>) yet hee commanded his Apo&s;tles to write tho&s;e <HI>things which they had heard and &s;eene, what thou &s;ee&s;t write it in a booke,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Eu&s;eb. eccle&s;. hist. l.</HI> 1. Apoc. 1.11.</NOTE> <HI>and &s;end it to the &s;even Churches;</HI> and S. <HI>Peter</HI> &s;aith,<NOTE PLACE="marg">2 Ep. 8.2<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.</NOTE> <HI>that no Scripture is</HI> privatae <GAP DESC="foreign">, that is, as <HI>Cal|vin</HI> well rendereth the words <HI>privatae impul&s;ionis, of private impul&s;ion or motion: for the prophecie
<PB N="76" REF="189" MS="y"> came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God &s;pake as they were moved by the holy Gho&s;t:</HI> and therefore <HI>Irenaeus</HI> &s;aith expre&s;ly,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Adver&s;. haere&s;. <HI>.3.</HI> c. <HI>1</HI> no<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> per alios di&s;po&s;iti|onem &s;alutis accepimus quam per quos Evan|gelium ad nos pervenit, quod primum praeco|nia verunt, po|&s;te&agrave; &s;ecund&ugrave;m Dei volunta|tem in &s;criptis reliquerunt, co|lumnam &amp; firmamentum fidei futurum. Eu&s;eb. hi&s;t. eccl. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>14.</HI> fide|les iteratis precibus impe|tr&acirc;runt &agrave; Marco ut mo|numentum il|lud doctrinae quod &s;ermone, &amp; verbis illis tradidi&s;&s;et, eti|am &s;criptis mandatum a|pud eos relin|queret. <HI>E&s;ay 8.20.</HI></NOTE> that what the Apo&s;tles preached fir&s;t <HI>by word of mouth by the will of GOD, they afterwards delivered in writing to bee a pillar and foundation of our faith:</HI> and S. <HI>Au&s;tine affirmeth,</HI> that what Chri&s;t would have knowne of his words and deeds as needfull to our &s;alvation, that hee gave in charge to his Apo&s;tles to &s;et downe in writing. If this &s;uffice not, I will &s;top the mouth of this <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> with the free confe&s;&s;ion of a greater <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> then hee, <HI>Gregorie</HI> of <HI>Valence</HI> in his eight booke of the Analy&s;is of faith the fift chapter, <HI>minim&egrave; in ip|&s;orum arbitrio po&s;itum fuit &s;cribere, aut alio tempore aut alijs verbis &s;cribere, the penmen of the holy Gho&s;t were &s;o guided by the &s;pirit that it was not in their power, or at their choyce to write, or not to write, or to write at another time, or to write in other words then they did.</HI> To the te&s;timonie of <HI>Bel|larmine</HI> the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> gives as &s;leight an an&s;wer as to the former out of S. <HI>Luke,</HI> whereunto I need to reply nothing, becau&s;e in a ca&s;e &s;o cleere wee need not the Cardinals confe&s;&s;ion, having &s;uch expre&s;&s;e te&s;timonie of Scripture and Fa|thers, as namely of <HI>E&s;ay, to the law and to the te|&s;timonie,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Deut. 4.2. Cur&s;od is e|very one that continueth not in all things which are written in the booke of the law to doe them. And <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> wrote this law, and deli|vered it to the Prie&s;ts which bare the Arke. Gal. 1.8. 2 Tim. 3.15.</NOTE> <HI>if they &s;peake not according to this word, it is becau&s;e there is no light in them, of</HI> Moy&s;es, <HI>yee &s;hall not adde unto the words which I command you</HI> (which to bee &s;poken of the written law is apparant by comparing this text with <HI>Galathians</HI>
<PB N="77" REF="189" MS="y"> 3.10. and <HI>Deuteronomie</HI> 31.9.) And the words of Chri&s;t, <HI>Iohn</HI> 5.39. <HI>&s;earch the Scriptures, for in them you thinke you have eternall life.</HI> And of S. <HI>Iohn</HI> his beloved Di&s;ciple, <HI>Iohn</HI> 20.31. <HI>the&s;e things are written that yee might beleeve that Ie&s;us Chri&s;t is the Sonne of God, and that beleeving ye might have life through his Name.</HI> And of S. <HI>Paul, if we or an Angel from heaven preach unto you any other Go&s;pel then that yee have received;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Adver&s;. her|mog. c. <HI>22.</HI> ado|ro &s;cripturae plenitudinem: &s;criptum doceat Hermogenes. Epi&s;t. ad Pomp. nihil innovetur inquit Stepha|nus, quod tra|ditum e&s;t, unde e&s;t i&s;ta tradi|tio? Vtrum de Dominic&acirc;, &amp; Evangelic&acirc; authoritate de|&s;cendens, an de Apo&s;tolorum mandatis, &amp; epi&s;tolis veni|ens? ea enim facienda quae &s;cripta &s;unt Deus te&s;tatur, &s;i ergo aut in evangelio prae|cipitur aut in Apo&s;tolorum&punc; epi&s;tolis aut A|ctibus contine|tur, ob&s;ervetur haec &s;ancta tra|ditio.</NOTE> (that is as S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> expoundeth it <HI>praeterquam quod in Scripturis lega|libus &amp; Evangelicis accepi&s;tis, if any preach unto you any Go&s;pell be&s;ide that which is contained in the writings of the Law and the Go&s;pell, let him bee ac|cur&s;ed.</HI> And, <HI>thou ha&s;t knowne the Scriptures from a child which are able to make thee wife unto &s;alva|tion through faith which is in Chri&s;t Ie&s;us, for all Scripture is given by Divine in&s;piration, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction, for in&s;truction and righteo&s;ne&s;&s;e, that the man of God may bee perfect throughly furni&s;hed to all good workes.</HI> And of <HI>Tertullian, I adore the fulne&s;&s;e of Scriptures; let</HI> Hermogenes <HI>prove what hee &s;aith out of Scriptures, or otherwi&s;e let him feare the woe denounced again&s;t all &s;uch as adde any thing there|unto, or take there from.</HI> And of S. <HI>Cyprian; our brother</HI> Steven <HI>will have nothing to bee altered in the Church tradition; Whence is this tradition, is it from the Go&s;pel, or the Acts of the Apo&s;tles, or their Epi&s;tles, if it be &s;o then let this holy tradition bee kept, for God him&s;elfe witne&s;&s;eth that wee ought to ob&s;erve tho&s;e things that are written.</HI> And of
<PB N="78" REF="190"> <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Athanas. orat. <HI>1.</HI> cont. Ar<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. Sufficiunt per &s;e in&s;piratae &s;cripturae ad veritatis in|&s;tructionem. Ba&s;il. Serm. de fide: <GAP DESC="foreign">. Hom. <HI>3.</HI> in <HI>2.</HI> ad The&s;&s;. <GAP DESC="foreign">. Et in <HI>2.</HI> ad Cor. Hom. <HI>3.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. Ierom. adver&s;. Helvid. c. <HI>5.</HI> credimus quia legimus, non credimus quia non legimus. Augu&s;tin. de doc. Chri&s;. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>9.</HI> in ijs quae a|pert&egrave; po&s;ita &s;unt in &s;criptura inveniuntur illa amnia quae continent fidem &amp; mores. Cy|ril in Evang. Iohan. l. <HI>12.</HI> c. <HI>68.</HI> ea con&s;cripta &s;unt quae &s;cribent<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> Sufficere pu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters">unt ad mores dogmata&abque;. Vincen. Lyrin. adver&s;. Haeres&punc; hic requirat aliquis cum: &s;it. perfectus &s;cripturae canon &s;ibi&abque; ad omnia &s;atis &s;uper&abque; &s;ufficiat. Biel in can. mi&s;. lec. <HI>71.</HI> quae agen|d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, &amp; quae fugienda, quae amanda, &amp; quae contemnenda, quae tim<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nda, &amp; quae auden|da, &amp; quae credenda, &amp; &s;peranda, &amp; caetera no&s;trae &s;aluti nece&s;&s;aria, quae omnia &s;ola docet Sacra &s;criptura.</NOTE> <HI>the holy Scriptures are &s;ufficient to in|&s;truct us in the truth.</HI> And of S. <HI>Ba&s;il, it is a mani|fe&s;t falling away from faith, either to refu&s;e any thing of tho&s;e that are written, or to bring in any of tho&s;e things which are not written.</HI> And of S. <HI>Chry|&s;o&s;tome, all things that are needfull are manife&s;tly &s;et downe in holy Scriptures;</HI> And againe, <HI>in the ho|ly Scriptures wee have a mo&s;t exact ballance and rule of all things.</HI> And of S. <HI>Ierome,</HI> who maketh the Scripture a two edged &s;word cutting here&s;ies on both &s;ides, both in the exce&s;&s;e, and in the defect, <HI>We beleeve,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>becau&s;e we reade in Scriptures, we beleeve not what we reade not.</HI> And of S. <HI>Au&s;tine, among tho&s;e things which are openly &s;et downe in Scriptures, all &s;uch things are to bee found us ap|pertaine to faith and manners.</HI> And &s;o of S. <HI>Cyril, all things which Chri&s;t &s;pake and did are not writ|ten, but all are written which the writers of the Go&s;|pell thought to bee &s;ufficient for doctrine of faith and manners.</HI> And of S. <HI>Vincentius Lyrinen&s;is, the Canon of the Scripture is perfect, and over and above &s;ufficient for all things.</HI> And of the prime of the Schoole-men <HI>Gabriel Biel&punc; The Scripture a|lone teacheth us what we ought to beleeve and to hope for what things are to bee done, and what to bee
<PB N="79" REF="190" MS="y"> &s;hunned, and all other things that are nece&s;&s;arie to &s;alvation.</HI> And of <HI>William Pepin, Dom.</HI> 2. <HI>advent &s;ola haec &s;cripturadocet perfect&egrave; &amp; plan&egrave; quid cre|dendum, &amp;c. The holy Scripture alone teacheth per|fectly and plainely, what wee ought to beleeve as the articles of our Creed, what wee ought to doe, as all divine precepts what wee ought to de&s;ire as hea|venly joyes, what we ought to feare, as eternall tor|ments.</HI> And of <HI>Scotus;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">In prim. &s;ent. prol. q. <HI>2.</HI> &s;acra &s;criptura &s;uffi|cienter conti|net doctrinam nece&s;&s;ariam viatori.</NOTE> <HI>The holy Scripture &s;uffi|ciently containes doctrine nece&s;&s;arie for away faring man, that is in his travell to heaven.</HI> Howbeit, becau&s;e Cardinall <HI>Bellarmine</HI> beareth downe all before him, the more to convince this <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> and nonplus all Papi&s;ts, I will examine what the <HI>Knight</HI> alledgeth out of him to our pre&s;ent pur|po&s;e; <HI>All things are written,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>by the A|po&s;tles, which are nece&s;&s;arie for all men to know:</HI> If all things which are nece&s;&s;arie for all men to know, then all things which are nece&s;&s;arie for all Prie&s;ts, Bi&s;hops, Cardinals, yea and the Pope him|&s;elfe to know, unle&s;&s;e the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> will prove them to bee no men. A&s;&s;uredly the Apo&s;tles and the Fathers a&s;&s;embled at <HI>Nice</HI> and <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> &s;et not downe a different Creed for the Prie&s;t, and for the people, but one for all Chri&s;tians. Yet I grant, that as the mea&s;ures of the &s;anctuarie were double to the common; &s;o the learning of a Prie&s;t ought to bee double at lea&s;t to that of the common &s;ort: a more exact, full, and exqui&s;ite knowledge of all, both the principles, and con|clu&s;ions of faith is required in them then in the
<PB N="80" REF="191"> other: yet nothing is required of them as nece&s;&s;a|rie to &s;alvation, which may not bee drawne out of holy Scriptures, in which are contained <HI>all the trea&s;ures of wi&s;dome and knowledge.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>2 Tim. 3.16.17.</HI> Oecum. &amp; Chry&s;. in hunc locum <GAP DESC="foreign"> Lit. ad Phil. Hi&s;p. reg. Nam quod ad Theologiam at|tinet quae &s;um|ma Philo&s;ophia e&s;t, his libris omnia no&s;trae religionis, &amp; divinitatis my|&s;teria expli|cantur: quod ver&ograve; attinet ad eam partem quae moralis nominatur, hinc quo&abque; omnia ad omnes virtutes praecepta colli|guntur, quibus quidem duabus partibus omnis no&s;trae &s;alutis, &amp; foelicitatis ratio contine|tur. Banes in <HI>1.</HI> p. Tho. q. <HI>1.</HI> art. <HI>8.</HI> conclu&s;. <HI>1.</HI> om|nia quae non con&s;onant ju|dico eorum gravioribus cen&s;uris inu|runt id&abque; tantae facilitate ut merit&ograve; irride|antur.</NOTE> The Apo&s;tle &s;aith not only <HI>they are able to make wi&s;e unto &s;alva|tion</HI> indefinitely, <HI>but that the man of God, that is the mini&s;ter of God,</HI> may be wi&s;e &amp; not only <HI>wi&s;e unto &s;alvation, but furni&s;hed to every good worke,</HI> that is, as S. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> and <HI>Oecumenius</HI> expound it, <HI>ful|ly accurately, and exactly in&s;tructed.</HI> And for ever to &s;eale the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> mouth; thus much <HI>Gregorie</HI> the thirteenth Pope of <HI>Rome</HI> in his letters to <HI>Phi|lip</HI> King of <HI>Spaine,</HI> freely confe&s;&s;eth thus expati|ating in the prai&s;es of holy Writ, as for <HI>Theologie which is the prime Philo&s;ophie or metaphy&s;ick in the&s;e bookes (&s;peaking of the Bible) all the myste|ries of our religion, and divine knowledge are un|folded, and as for that part which is tearmed mo|rall; from hence all precepts to all vertues are ga|thered, and on the&s;e two parts depend all the cour&s;e or meanes of our &s;alvation and happine&s;&s;e.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. To the third. What <HI>Dominicus Banes</HI> wrote of certaine Divines in his time, <HI>that were &s;o free in their cen&s;ures of other men, that they became a laughing-&s;tock to all men of judgement,</HI> may bee truly applyed to the Bi&s;hops a&s;&s;embled at <HI>Trent,</HI> who are &s;o free in ca&s;ting their thunder-bolts of anathemaes again&s;t all that differ from them in judgement, that the learned and judicious ac|count divers of their <HI>Canons</HI> no better then <HI>Pat|guns.</HI> As arrowes that are &s;hot bolt upright fall
<PB N="81" REF="191" MS="y"> downe upon their heads that &s;hoot them, unle&s;&s;e they carfully looke to it: &s;o cau&s;ele&s;&s;e cur&s;es fall alwayes upon the cur&s;ers them&s;elves, and hurt none el&s;e. This made the <HI>Knight</HI> &s;o much &s;leight the <HI>bruta fulmina</HI> of your <HI>Trent</HI> Councell. Yea but &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit, It is a heavie thing to have the cur&s;e of a mother,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Apo. 17.5.</NOTE> <HI>and &s;uch a mother which doth not cur&s;e without cau&s;e.</HI> The Church of <HI>Rome</HI> I grant is a mother, but <HI>mater fornicationum,</HI> as &s;hee is tearmed <HI>the mother of fornications and abominati|ons of the earth;</HI> but &s;hee is none of our mother, <HI>Ieru&s;alem,</HI> or to &s;peake more properly the catho|like chri&s;tian Church <HI>is our mother,</HI> the <HI>Roman</HI> Church mu&s;t &s;peake us very faire; if wee owne her for a &s;i&s;ter, even this &s;heweth her to bee no Mother, that &s;hee is ever cur&s;ing us: the true Mother would by no meanes &s;uffer her child to bee divided. This cruell Stepdame not only &s;uf|fereth tho&s;e whom &s;hee would have taken for her children to be cut in &s;under, but her &s;elfe as much as in her lieth by her cur&s;es, divideth them from God, and all the members of Chri&s;ts my&s;ticall body, yet wee &s;pare to apply the words of the P&s;almi&s;t unto her; <HI>&s;hee loved not ble&s;sing, and therefore it &s;hall bee farre from her;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s;. 109.17.18</NOTE> <HI>&s;hee delighteth in cur&s;ing, and therefore &s;hall it enter like oyle into her bowels, and like water into her bones.</HI> How&s;o|ever wee are not &s;cared with the bugbeare, the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> goeth about to fright us withall; <HI>Maledi|ctio matris eradicat fundamenta, the cur&s;e of a Mo|ther doth roote out the foundation;</HI> For fir&s;t the
<PB N="82" REF="192" MS="y"> booke out of which he citeth this text is not Ca|nonicall. Next we denie that the text any way concerneth us, who are ble&s;&s;ed and not cur&s;ed by our Mother the true Catholike Church; as for the <HI>Roman</HI> Church &s;hee can in no &s;ence bee tear|med <HI>our mother.</HI> For we had Chri&s;tian Religion in this I&s;land, before there was any Church at <HI>Rome</HI> at all, as I have el&s;e-where proved at large. La&s;tly, the text the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> alledgeth is fal&s;ly tran&s;lated,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Eccle&s;ia&s;ticus 3.11.</NOTE> he &s;hould have rendred the Greeke thus; <HI>A Mother in di&s;honour or defamed, is a reproach to her chil|dren,</HI> &s;uch a Mother wee grant the Church to be <HI>a reproach to all her children.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="4"> To the fourth. The number of Sacraments we prove two manner of wayes, fir&s;t <GAP DESC="foreign">, 2 <GAP DESC="foreign">; fir&s;t by demon&s;trating our two; &s;econdly, by refuting the five they adde thereunto. How&s;oever the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> here as al&s;o <HI>Baylie</HI> the antagoni&s;t of <HI>Ri|vet</HI> in&s;ult upon us, as if it were unpo&s;&s;ible to prove the preci&s;e number of two Sacraments and no more, becau&s;e neither the name, nor the num|ber of Sacraments is any where &s;et downe <HI>in ter|minis</HI> in Scripture: yet they &s;hall find that wee faile not in proofes of this point, but they in their an&s;wers. For to re&s;erve the refutation of their five to the next Paragraph, we demon&s;trate our two by arguments drawne fir&s;t from the name, &s;econdly from the definition of Sacra|ments, thirdly from the example of Chri&s;t, fourthly from the end of the Sacraments, fiftly from the te&s;timonies of the ancient Doctours of the Church.</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="83" REF="192" MS="y">1. From the name, <HI>Sacramentum</HI> is derived from the verbe <HI>&s;acrare,</HI> to con&s;ecrate, and &s;igni|fieth a holy thing, a holy Rite whereby wee are con&s;ecrated unto God. Now it is evident that by Bapti&s;me wee give our names to Chri&s;t, wee take our <HI>militare &s;acramentum,</HI> to fight under his banner, and that thereby wee are <HI>&s;anctified and con&s;ecrated to his &s;ervice:</HI> the like wee may ob|&s;erve in the Lords Supper, wherein <HI>wee offer our bodies and &s;oules, as a holy and lively &s;acrifice un|to God,</HI> we are incorporated into Chri&s;ts body, and <HI>made one bread and one body, becau&s;e wee partake of one bread, the bread which we breake; Is it not the Communion of the body of Chri&s;t? the Cup of ble&s;sing which wee ble&s;&s;e, is it not the Communion of the bloud of Chri&s;t?</HI> In the re&s;t which our Ad|ver&s;aries tearme Sacraments, there cannot bee given the like rea&s;on of the name. For by then wee neither put on Chri&s;t, as in Bapti&s;me: nor are made members of his my&s;ticall Body, as by the Lords Supper.</P>
<P N="2">2. From the definition of Sacraments; every Sacrament of the New Te&s;tament is a &s;eale of the new Covenant.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. 4.11.</NOTE> Now it is agreed on all parts that he only hath authoritie to &s;eale the charter, in who&s;e authoritie it is to grant it. But wee find that Chri&s;t in the New Te&s;tament &s;et only two &s;eales, Bapti&s;me, the In&s;titution whereof wee have, <HI>Teach all nations baptizing them,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Math. 28.19.</NOTE> <HI>in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Gho&s;t;</HI> and the Lords Supper, the in&s;titution
<PB N="84" REF="193" MS="y"> whereof wee have, <HI>hee tooke bread and brake it, &s;aying,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Luk 22.19.</NOTE> <HI>this is my Body, doe this in remembrance of mee.</HI> In the&s;e Sacraments wee have all the con|ditions required, fir&s;t an outward and vi&s;ible &s;ign, in Bapti&s;me water, in the Euchari&s;t bread and wine. Secondly, an Analogie or corre&s;pon|dencie betweene the &s;igne and the thing &s;ignified, betweene Water which wa&s;heth the body, and the &s;pirit which wa&s;heth the &s;oule; betweene bread and wine which nouri&s;heth the body, and Chri&s;ts body and bloud which nouri&s;heth the &s;oule. Thirdly, a promi&s;e of &s;anctifying and &s;a|ving grace, to all that u&s;e the outward rite accor|ding to our Lords in&s;titution: the promi&s;e annex|ed to Bapti&s;me wee find,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mar. 16.16. Mtch. 26.28.</NOTE> <HI>Hee that beleeveth and is baptized, &s;hall be &s;aved;</HI> to the Euchari&s;t wee find, <HI>this is the bloud of the new Te&s;tament, which is &s;hed for you, and for many, for the remi&s;sion of &s;innes,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Iohn 6.51.</NOTE> <HI>and if any one eate of this bread hee &s;hall live for ever.</HI> When our adver&s;aries &s;hall prove in each of their five &s;upernumerarie &s;acraments, the&s;e three conditions wee will &s;ub&s;cribe to their whole number of &s;even, till then wee content our &s;elves with our two.</P>
<P N="3"> <MILESTONE N="2"> 3. From the example of Chri&s;t. Chri&s;t our head con&s;ecrated in his owne per&s;on all tho&s;e holy rites, which hee in&s;tituted for his owne members.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mat. 3.15.</NOTE> This Chri&s;t him&s;elfe intimateth, when being repelled by S. <HI>Iohn</HI> from his bapti&s;me, &s;ay|ing, <HI>I had need to bee baptized of thee, and com|me&s;t thou to mee?</HI> He an&s;wered, <HI>Suffer it to bee &s;o
<PB N="85" REF="193" MS="y"> now, for thus it becommeth us to fulfill all righte|ou&s;ne&s;&s;e.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Serm. de E|piph. baptizari voluit quia voluit facere quod facien|dum omnibus imperabat, ut bonus magi&s;ter doctrinam &s;u|am non tam verbis in&s;inua|ret quam acti|bus exerceret.</NOTE> And S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> &s;aith therefore <HI>Chri&s;t would bee baptized, becau&s;e hee would doe that which hee commanded all others to doe, that as a good ma&s;ter hee might not &s;o much in&s;inuate his Do|ctrine by words, as exhibit it by acts.</HI> But this <HI>our good Ma&s;ter exhibited by acts</HI> the doctrine of two Sacraments only, whereof hee participated him&s;elfe: of Bapti&s;me, <HI>Math.</HI> 3.16. <HI>And Ie&s;us when he was baptized, went up &s;traight way out of the water:</HI> of the Euchari&s;t; <HI>Matth.</HI> 26.29. <HI>I will not drinke hence-forth of this fruit of the vine, un|till the day when I drinke it new with you in my Fa|thers kingdome.</HI> Which words nece&s;&s;arily imply that before hee uttered them, <HI>hee had drunke of the cup which hee gave to them,</HI> &s;aying, <HI>Drinke yee all of this.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. From the end of the Sacraments. We need <MILESTONE N="4"> but two things to in&s;tate us in grace, remi&s;&s;ion of our &s;innes, and ablution; no more to maintaine us in our chri&s;tian life, but birth, apparell, food and phy&s;ick: but all the&s;e are &s;ufficiently repre&s;ented, and effectually conveied unto us by two Sa|craments. For we receive ablution by the one, ab|&s;olution by the other: wee are bred by the one, wee are fed by the other: wee are clothed by the one, wee are healed by the other.</P>
<P N="5">5. From the te&s;timonies of the ancient Do|ctours of the Church, <HI>S. Au&s;tine,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">L. <HI>2.</HI> de Symb. ad catechume|nos. c. <HI>6.</HI> percu&s;|&s;um e&s;t laetus ut Evangelium loquitur &amp; &s;tatim manavit &s;anguis, &amp; a|qua quae &s;unt cccle&s;iae gemina Sacramenta; a|qua in qu&acirc; &s;pon&s;a e&s;t puri|ficata; &s;anguis ex quo inveni|tur e&s;&s;e dotata. I&s;id. l. Origin. &s;unt autam Sa|cramenta bap|ti&s;mus &amp; Chri&s;ma cor|pus &amp; &s;anguis Chri&s;ti. Rupert. de vict. verb. l. <HI>12</HI> c. <HI>11.</HI> quae &amp; quot &s;unt prae|cipua &s;alutis no&s;trae &s;acra|menta? Sacru~ bapti&s;ma, &s;an|cta corporis e|jus, &amp; &s;an|guinis Eucha|ri&s;tia geminum &s;piritus &s;ancti datum. Pa&s;c. l. de coena dom. &s;acra|menta Chri&s;ti|anae Eccle&s;iae Catholicae &s;unt bapti&s;mus, &amp; corpus, &amp; &s;an|guis Domini. Fulbert. ep. <HI>1.</HI> lib. part. Tom <HI>3.</HI> tertium e&s;t no&s;cere in quo duo vitae &s;a|cramenta con|tinentur.</NOTE> <HI>Chri&s;ts &s;ide was &s;trucken, as the Go&s;pell &s;peaketh, and pre&s;ently there i&s;&s;ued out of it water and bloud, which are the
<PB N="86" REF="194" MS="y"> two twin Sacraments of the Church, water whereby the Spou&s;e is purified, and bloud wherewith &s;hee is en|dowed. S.</HI> I&s;idore, <HI>the Sacraments are Bapti&s;me and Chri&s;me, the body and bloud of Chri&s;t.</HI> Rupertus, <HI>which and how many are the chiefe Sacraments of our &s;alvation?</HI> Hee an&s;wers two, <HI>holy Bapti&s;me and the holy Euchari&s;t of the body and bloud of Chri&s;t, the double gift of the holy Gho&s;t.</HI> Pa&s;cha&s;ius, <HI>the Catholique Sacraments of the Chri&s;tian Church, are Bapti&s;me and the body and bloud of Chri&s;t.</HI> Fulbertus, <HI>the way of Chri&s;tian religion is to be|leeve the Trinitie and veritie of the Deitie, and to know the cau&s;e of his Bapti&s;me, and in whom the two Sacraments of our life are contained.</HI> Of all the&s;e arguments brought by Prote&s;tants the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> could not be ignorant. Yet hee glaunceth only at one of them, to wit, the &s;econd which he would make us beleeve to bee an ab&s;urd begging the point in que&s;tion; <HI>How can,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>Sacraments bee Seales to give us a&s;&s;urance of his Word, when all the a&s;&s;urance we have of a Sacrament is his Word?</HI> This is <HI>idem per idem,</HI> or a fallacie called <HI>petitio Principij.</HI> As S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> &s;pake of the Phari&s;ees, <HI>Quid aliud eructarent qu&agrave;m quo pleni erant, What other things &s;hould the&s;e Phari&s;ees belch out, then that wherewith they were full:</HI> wee may in like manner aske, what could wee expect for the <HI>Ie|&s;uit</HI> to belch out again&s;t the <HI>Knight,</HI> then that which he is full of him&s;elfe, &s;ophi&s;mes and falla|cies. That which hee pretends to find in the <HI>Knights</HI> argument every man may &s;ee in his, to
<PB N="87" REF="194" MS="y"> wit, a beggarly fallacie called <HI>homonymia.</HI> For the <HI>Word</HI> may be taken either largely for the whole Scripture, and in that &s;en&s;e wee grant the Sacra|ments are confirmed by the <HI>Word,</HI> or particular|ly for the word of promi&s;e, and the Word in this &s;en&s;e is &s;ealed to us by the Sacrament: and this wee prove out of the Apo&s;tle, again&s;t whom I tru&s;t the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> dare not argue; what Circumci&s;i|on was to <HI>Abraham</HI> and the Iewes, that Bapti&s;me &s;ucceeding in the place thereof, is to vs: but Cir|cunci&s;ion was a <HI>Seale to them of the righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e of faith promi&s;ed to</HI> Abraham <HI>and his po&s;teritie:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. 4.11.</NOTE> therefore in like manner Bapti&s;me is a <HI>&s;eale unto us</HI> of the like promi&s;e. What <HI>Bellarmine</HI> urgeth again&s;t our definition of a Sacrament to whom the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;endeth us, is refuted at large by <HI>Mo|lineus Daneus, Rivetus, Willet,</HI> and <HI>Chamier,</HI> to whom in like manner I remand the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> who here de&s;iring, as it &s;eemed, to bee catechi&s;ed a&s;|keth, what promi&s;es are &s;ealed by the Sacra|ments? I an&s;wer, of regeneration and com|munion with Chri&s;t. His &s;econd <HI>quaere</HI> is, what need more &s;eales then one? or if more, why not &s;even as well as two? I an&s;wer, Chri&s;t might adde as many Seales as hee plea&s;ed, but in the new Te|&s;tament hee hath put but two, neither need wee any more, the fir&s;t &s;ealeth unto us our new birth, the &s;econd our growth in Chri&s;t. If I &s;hould put the like que&s;tion to the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> concerning the King, what need he more Seales then one? or if he would have more, why not &s;even as well as two?
<PB N="88" REF="195"> I know how hee would an&s;wer, that the King might affix as many &s;eales to his Patents, and other grants as hee plea&s;eth: but <HI>quia fru&s;tra fit per plura quod fieri pote&s;t per pauciora,</HI> becau&s;e two &s;eales are &s;ufficient, the <HI>Privie &s;eale,</HI> and the <HI>broad &s;eale:</HI> therefore his Maje&s;tie u&s;eth no other. Which an&s;wer of his <HI>cuts the wind-pipe</HI> of his owne objection. His la&s;t que&s;tion is a <HI>blind one, how may wee &s;ee,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>the promi&s;es of God in the Sacraments?</HI> S. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> and S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> will tell him by <HI>the eye of faith, Magis videtur,</HI> &s;aith S. <HI>Ambro&s;e, quod non videtur, that is more or bet|ter &s;eene, which is not &s;eene with bodily eyes; Sa|craments,</HI> &s;aith S. <HI>Au&s;tine, are vi&s;ible words, be|cau&s;e what words repre&s;ent to the eares, that Sacra|ments repre&s;ent to their eyes, which are anointed with the eye-&s;alve of the &s;pirit.</HI> In the Word we heare, the bloud of Chri&s;t clen&s;eth us from our &s;innes, in the Sacrament of Bapti&s;me we &s;ee it af|ter a &s;ort in the wa&s;hing of our body with wa|ter: in the Word wee heare Chri<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">s bloud was &s;hed for us: in the Sacrament of the Euchari&s;t af|ter a &s;ort we &s;ee it, by the effu&s;ion of the Wine out of the flagon into the Chalice, and drinking it; In the Word wee heare, that <HI>Chri&s;t is the bread of life, which nouri&s;heth our &s;oules to eternall life:</HI> In the Sacrament after a &s;ort wee &s;ee it by feeding on the Con&s;ecrated elements of Bread and Wine, whereby our body is nouri&s;hed, and our tempo|rall life maintained and pre&s;erved.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="5"> To the fift. In the former Paragraph we han|dled
<PB N="89" REF="195"> tho&s;e Arguments which the Logicians tearme Dicticall,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> in this we are to make good our Elencticall; in the former we proved po&s;itively two Sacraments in this privatively we are to ex|clude, and ca&s;heere all that the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> hath added to the&s;e two, which devi&s;eth Sacra|ments upon &s;o weake grounds, and detorteth Scripture in &s;uch &s;ort for the maintenance of them, that a learned Divine wi&s;heth, that as for the remedie of other &s;innes, &s;o there were a Sa|crament in&s;tituted as a &s;peciall remedie again&s;t audacious inventions in this kind, and depravati|ons of holy Scripture to countenance them. For of an Epiphonema <HI>this is a great my&s;terie,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ephe&s;. 5.32.</NOTE> they have made a Sacrament, the &s;acrament of Matrimo|nie: of a promi&s;e, <HI>who&s;e &s;innes yee remit,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Iohn 20.23.</NOTE> <HI>they are remitted,</HI> they have made a &s;econd Sacrament the &s;acrament of Penance: of an enumeration of the Governours and Mini&s;ters of the Church, <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 4.11. <HI>And hee gave &s;ome, Apo&s;tles: &s;ome Prophets: &s;ome, Pa&s;tours: &s;ome, Evangeli&s;ts: &s;ome teachers,</HI> a third Sacrament, the &s;acrament of Or|der: of a relation what the Apo&s;tles did, <HI>Acts</HI> 8.17. <HI>In laying hands on them, who received the gift of tongues;</HI> a fourth Sacrament, the &s;acrament of Confirmation: Of a Miracle in re&s;toring the &s;ick to their former health by <HI>anoynting them with oyle in the name of the Lord;</HI> a fift Sacrament, the &s;acrament of Extreame Vnction. A child can|not be <HI>bi&s;hopped;</HI> a &s;ingle partie <HI>contracted;</HI> a Prie&s;t or Deacon <HI>ordained;</HI> a penitent <HI>reconciled;</HI> a dying
<PB N="90" REF="196" MS="y"> man <HI>di&s;mi&s;&s;ed in peace,</HI> without a &s;acrament, the &s;acrament of Extreame Vnction. If they take Sacrament in a large &s;en&s;e, for every divine My|&s;terie, holy Ordinance, or &s;acred Rite, they may find as well &s;eventeene as &s;even Sacraments in the Scriptures: if they take the Word in the &s;trict &s;en&s;e for &s;uch a &s;acred Rite, as is in&s;tituted in the New Te&s;tament by Chri&s;t, with a vi&s;ible &s;igne or element repre&s;enting and applying unto us &s;ome invi&s;ible &s;anctifying and &s;aving grace; I wi&s;h the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> might but practi&s;e one of their Sacraments, that is, doe <HI>penance</HI> &s;o long till hee found in Scripture that, and the other foure Sa|craments which they have added to the two In&s;ti|tuted by Chri&s;t. To begin with them in order, and give <HI>Order</HI> the fir&s;t place, wee acknowledge the ordination of Prie&s;ts and Deacons by Bi|&s;hops to be <HI>de jure divino,</HI> and we beleeve where they are done according to Chri&s;ts In&s;titution, that grace is ordinarily given to the party ordai|ned, but not &s;acramentall grace, not <HI>gratia gra|tum faciens,</HI> but <HI>gratia gratis data,</HI> a gho&s;tly po|wer for the good of others, not a nece&s;&s;ary grace of the Spirit &s;anctifying and &s;aving the &s;oule of the ordained. Be&s;ides, this Sacrament of order is out of order. For it hath no element added to the &s;anctified forme of words. Yes that it hath (&s;aith <HI>Flood) the Host, Chalice, and Patent, or Letters of order. The Bread and Wine,</HI> I grant are ele|ments appointed by Chri&s;t, but in another &s;acra|ment the Euchari&s;t, not in this, and tis confe&s;&s;ed
<PB N="91" REF="196" MS="y"> on all &s;ides, that as in the Sacraments of the old Law, &s;o of the New, the elements mu&s;t not bee confounded. Neither doth Chri&s;t any where command that in the ordination of Bi&s;hops, or Prie&s;ts, &s;uch a Rite or Ceremonie &s;hould be u&s;ed: neither doth the Ho&s;t or Chalice &s;ignifie or re|pre&s;ent the invi&s;ible Grace, or Gho&s;tly power then given. And as for the in&s;trument it is a parch|ment, but no element; it is a legible writing te|&s;tifying the party is ordained, but no vi&s;ible &s;igne of an invi&s;ible grace; no Seale of the new Co|venant. For the Patent, Chalice, and Bible, they are not, as before was &s;aid, any &s;acramentall &s;ignes of divine grace, but only en&s;ignes and tokens of their &s;everall offices and functions, or in&s;tru|ments that are to bee u&s;ed in their mini&s;tration, be&s;ides, every one of the&s;e orders is conferred by words and Ceremoniss cleane differing one from another, whereupon it followeth, that ei|ther none of them is a Sacrament properly &s;o called, or that each of them apart is a Sa|crament, and &s;o the number of Sacraments will bee neere doubled. <HI>Bellarmines</HI> eva&s;ion <HI>De Sacram. ordin. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 8. to wit, that they are all <HI>unum genere,</HI> and referred to one end will not &s;erve the turne, for &s;o all the other &s;ix Sacraments are <HI>unum genere,</HI> and all referred to one end, to wit, to unite the receivers &s;ome way to Chri&s;t, or derive &s;ome grace from Chri&s;t to them, and yet they are not one Sacrament, but as they teach, &s;ix di&s;tinct &s;pecies.</P>
<PB N="92" REF="197" MS="y">
<P>For <HI>Confirmation,</HI> we allow of it as an Apo&s;to|licall tradition, not as a Sacrament of Divine In|&s;titution. For where doth Chri&s;t command that tho&s;e who have heene baptized, &s;hould bee after confirmed by a Bi&s;hop? Where is an element or forme of words pre&s;cribed by Chri&s;t as in Bap|ti&s;me and the Lords Supper? The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> an&s;we|reth that the element in this Sacrament is chri&s;me, or oyle. But this cannot bee: becau&s;e in di|vers Sacraments there ought to bee divers ele|ments, and therefore &s;ith Chri&s;me and oyle is the element in Extreame Unction, which taketh the name from thence, it cannot bee the matter or element in Confirmation. <HI>Accedit verbum ad ele|mentum,</HI> &s;aith <HI>S. Au&s;tine, &amp; fit Sacramentum,</HI> the word of promi&s;e being added to an element appointed by God maketh a Sacrament. In this we have neither Word nor Element, there|fore as the Greeke Oratour &s;pake of the evill lawes enacted in his time,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ari&s;tot. Rhet. l. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>the lawes need a law to mend them:</HI> &s;o we may &s;ay of this Sacrament of Confirmation, it needeth confirmation and better proofe for it, then yet we &s;ee.</P>
<P>For <HI>Penance,</HI> as it is practi&s;ed at this day in the Roman Church, it is not of divine in&s;titution: as it was practi&s;ed in the Primitive Church, and is at this day in ours is a <HI>Divine ordinance,</HI> but yet no Sacrament: becau&s;e we find in it no outward element with a forme of words pre&s;cribed by Chri&s;t: no vi&s;ible &s;igne of invi&s;ible grace. No
<PB N="93" REF="197" MS="y"> (&s;aith <HI>Flood?) is not the true &s;orrow of heart decla|red by humble confe&s;sion, together with prayer, fa|&s;ting, and Almes-deeds, an outward element, or thing to bee perceived by &s;en&s;e?</HI> I an&s;wer, that eve|ry thing perceived by &s;en&s;e, is not pre&s;ently an element in a Sacrament, it mu&s;t bee as the Schooles out of S. <HI>Austine</HI> define <HI>a vi&s;ible &s;igne of invi&s;ible grace.</HI> Confe&s;&s;ion and prayer are in|deed audible, but not vi&s;ible: Fa&s;ting and Almes-deedes are vi&s;ible, but vi&s;ible workes of pietie and charitie, not vi&s;ible elements in the Sacra|ments: they are morall duties, not &s;acramentall Rites. For what corre&s;pondencie is betweene the&s;e, and ab&s;olution or remi&s;&s;ion of &s;innes? how doth Fa&s;ting or Almes exhibit to the eye this invi&s;ible grace? Contrition of the heart of which hee &s;peaketh, is no vi&s;ible or &s;en&s;ible &s;igne, Confe&s;&s;ion is &s;en&s;ible, but not vi|&s;ible, nor ordained as the elements are in Sacra|ments to &s;ignifie the grace of God, but to aske it: The &s;acred &s;ignes ought to be admini&s;tred by the Prie&s;t, but Confe&s;&s;ion is made by the penitent. The &s;ame may be &s;aid of corporall &s;atisfactions which are accompli&s;hed by the &s;inner, and com|monly in his hou&s;e by fa&s;tings, or whippings, or abroad by pilgrimages, whereas &s;acred &s;ignes are to bee admini&s;tred by the hands of the Prie&s;t, and ordinarily in the Church; Ab&s;olution al&s;o cannot bee a &s;acred &s;igne of the grace of God, &s;eeing that if it bee good and available, it is the grace of God; be&s;ides this Ab&s;olution, is not an
<PB N="94" REF="198" MS="y"> element, nor a vi&s;ible &s;igne of an invi&s;ible grace, for the words are not &s;eene: if it be &s;aid that it is &s;ufficient, that it is &s;ignificantly the grace of God, by the &s;ame rea&s;on the preaching of the Word &s;hould bee a &s;acrament, for it is &s;ignificantly the grace of God. In all Sacraments the Word mu&s;t bee joyned to the element; but here they will have the Word to bee an element: the impo&s;ition of the Prie&s;ts hands on the penitent is a vi&s;ible action, but not a vi&s;ible element, nor is it in&s;titu|ted by Chri&s;t. When the <HI>Trent</HI> Councell, and the Roman Catechi&s;me come to a&s;&s;igne the matter of this Sacrament, they doe it very faintly with a <HI>qua&s;i materia, Se&s;&s;.</HI> 14. <HI>de poenit. c.</HI> 3. <HI>&amp; Catechi&s;. Rom. part.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 5. They &s;ay the actions of the pe|nitent are, <HI>qua&s;i materia,</HI> and &s;uch as the matter is, &s;uch is the Sacrament <HI>qua&s;i &s;acramentum.</HI></P>
<P>For <HI>Matrimonie,</HI> it is a holy ordinance of God, but more ancient then the New Te&s;ta|ment, and therefore can be no &s;eale of it: it was in&s;tituted by God in Paradi&s;e, not by Chri&s;t in the Go&s;pell: yea but (&s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI>) though it were before a naturall contract, yet might it not be exalted by Chri&s;t to the dignitie of a Sacra|ment? I an&s;wer, the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> mu&s;t not di&s;pute what Chri&s;t might doe, but what hee did; When hee proveth out of the Evangeli&s;ts or Apo&s;tles, that Chri&s;t exalted it to the dignitie of a Sacrament, wee will hold it in that high e&s;teeme, but this hee can never doe: for none of the Evangeli&s;ts relate that hee altered the Law, or nature of Matrimo|nie:
<PB N="95" REF="198" MS="y"> but only that hee confirmed it, and honou|red it with his pre&s;ence, and the fir&s;t Miracle which hee wrought. Other exaltation wee find not in the Go&s;pell; And as <HI>S. Ierome</HI> &s;peaketh in the like kind, <HI>quia non legimus, non credimus,</HI> be|cau&s;e wee reade it not, wee beleeve it not.</P>
<P>Our &s;econd exception again&s;t the Sacrament of Matrimonie is, that in it there is no outward element &s;anctified by the Word of promi&s;e. To this the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> an&s;wereth; the bodies of men and women, are they not as much as an outward ele|ment? Yes &s;urely as much in quantitie and more too:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bell. l. <HI>1.</HI> de matrim. c. <HI>6.</HI> Si matrimonium con&s;ideretur. Vt jam factum &amp; celebratum conjugati &s;unt materiale Synbolum &amp; externu~ cujus refutat. vid. apud Chamie|rum Pani&s;trat. Cathol. de &s;acr. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>27.</HI></NOTE> but none ever before this <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> and his Ma|&s;ter <HI>Bellarmine</HI> maketh mens bodies outward ele|ments in any Sacrament: the bodies of men and their &s;oules are either the Mini&s;ters, or receivers in every Sacrament, not the elements or materi|all parts thereof. The element in every Sacra|ment hath the denomination of the whole, as when wee &s;ay the &s;acrament of Circumci&s;ion, of the Pa&s;&s;eover, of bread and wine: but who ever heard of the &s;acrament of men and womens bo|dies. Our third exception again&s;t the &s;acrament of Matrimonie is that if it bee a &s;acrament con|ferring grace, as they teach, <HI>ex opere operato,</HI> why doe they deprive Prie&s;ts of it? and make them take a &s;olemne vow again&s;t it? The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> an&s;we|reth, <HI>that though Mariage bee a holy thing, as Order al&s;o is, yet as Order is forbidden to all women, &s;o upon good rea&s;on Mariage is forbidden all Prie&s;ts.</HI> Tis true, I grant that all holy things in them|&s;elves
<PB N="96" REF="199" MS="y"> are not fit for all ages, &s;exes, and callings. In particular it is no way fit that women &s;hould be admitted into holy Orders, becau&s;e they are <HI>forbidden to &s;peake in the Church;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 14.34</NOTE> and it &s;eemeth to bee again&s;t the law of nature, that the weaker and more ignoble &s;ex &s;hould be appointed to in|&s;truct and governe the &s;tronger and more noble: but there is not the like rea&s;on in Order and Ma|trimonie.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Heb. 13.4.</NOTE> For the Scripture &s;aith, <HI>Mariage is ho|nourable among all;</HI> but not that the order of Prie&s;thood is commendable in all men much le&s;&s;e women. Yet the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;aith, that upon good rea&s;on Mariage is forbidden Prie&s;ts, becau&s;e <HI>is is not agreeable to the high and holy e&s;tate of Prie&s;t|hood and religious life.</HI> A &s;trange thing that a &s;a|crament &s;hould not bee agreeable to the mo&s;t &s;a|cred function, that a holy Rite conferring grace &s;hould not bee agreeable to a religious life. If Marriage were any di&s;paragement to the holine&s;&s;e of prie&s;thood, why did God appoint married Prie&s;ts under the law? and Chri&s;t cho&s;e married Apo&s;tles in the Go&s;pel? <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> &s;aith of <HI>Spiri|dion,</HI> that though hee were married, and brought up children, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">et that hee was nothing thereby <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>hindered or di&s;paraged in his &s;a|cred function,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Sozom. Eccle&s;. hi&s;t. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>11.</HI> Chry&s;. in Gen. <HI>5.22.</HI></NOTE> and <HI>S. Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> in his Homi|lie upon tho&s;e words, Enoch <HI>walked with God, noteth it that it is &s;aid twice for failing, Enoch walked with God, and begat &s;onnes and daughters to teach us that marriage is no impeachment to ho|line&s;&s;e, or the highe&s;t degree of perfection, whereby
<PB N="97" REF="199" MS="y"> wee are &s;aid to walke with God.</HI> To &s;hut up this point concerning Matrimonie, Cardinal <HI>Bellar|mine</HI> teacheth us, that the <HI>&s;even Sacraments an|&s;wer &s;even Vertues;</HI> Bapti&s;me an&s;wereth to Faith, Confirmation to Hope, the Euchari&s;t to Chari|tie, Penance to Iu&s;tice, Extreame Vnction to For|titude, and Matrimonie to continence or tempe|rance; if &s;o, then certainly Matrimonie is mo&s;t a|greeable to the office of a Bi&s;hop or Prie&s;t;<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Tim. 3.2.</NOTE> <HI>For a Bi&s;hop mu&s;t bee continent and mode&s;t,</HI> and as it there followeth, <HI>the husband of one wife;</HI> and unle&s;&s;e the rules of Logick faile, if Matrimonie hold corre&s;pondencie with temperance, the prohibiti|on thereof, and forced &s;ingle life mu&s;t needs an|&s;wer to intemperance, as the te&s;timonie of all ages proveth it.</P>
<P>For <HI>Extreame Vnction</HI> the <HI>lagge</HI> of all their Sacraments little or nothing can bee &s;aid. For it wanteth all the three conditions requi&s;ite to a Sa|crament: it hath neither element, nor forme of words pre&s;cribed by Chri&s;t, nor any promi&s;e of &s;aving &amp; &s;anctifying grace. The Apo&s;tles indeed u&s;ed oile, but as a medicine to heale the body, not as a &s;acrament to cure the &s;oule. As the Apo&s;tles u&s;ed oyle, &s;o Chri&s;t &s;pittle in re&s;toring &s;ight to the blind: will they hereupon make &s;pittle an eighth &s;acrnment? Sacraments ought to be of perpetual u&s;e in the Church, whereas the Unction whereof the Scripture &s;peaketh, wherby the &s;ick were mi|raculou&s;ly cured, is cea&s;ed long agoe; if the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> will not give eare to us, let him yet yeeld &s;o much
<PB N="98" REF="200" MS="y"> re&s;pect to Cardinall <HI>Cajetan,</HI> as to peru&s;e what he commenteth on that text of Scripture on which the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> foundeth this Sacrament; <HI>Is any &s;ick among you,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Iames 5.14.15.</NOTE> <HI>let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anoyn|ting him with oyle in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith &s;hall &s;ave the &s;ick, and the Lord &s;hall rai&s;e him up, and if hee have committed &s;ins they &s;hall bee forgiven him.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Cajet. com. in hunc locum neque ex ver|bis, neque ex effectu, verba haec loquuntur de Sacramen|tali Vnctione, &s;eu &s;acramento Extremae Vn|ctionis &s;ed ma|gis de Vnctione quam in&s;tituit Dominus Ie&s;us in Evangelio &agrave; di&s;cipulis exercend&acirc; in aegrotis: textus enim non dicit infirmatur quis ad mortem? &s;ed ab&s;olut&egrave; infirmatur quis? &amp; effe|ctum dicit in|firmi al<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters">iationem &amp; de remi&s;&s;ione peccatorum non ni&s;i conditionaliter loquitur, cum extrema Vnctio non ni&s;i prop&egrave; articulum mortis detur, &amp; direct&egrave; ut ejus forma &s;onat, tendit ad remi&s;&s;ionem peccatorum adde quod Iacobus ad unum aegrum multos prae&s;|byteros tum orantes, tum Vnguentes mandat vocari, quod ab Extremae Vnctionis ri|tu alicnum e&s;t.</NOTE> On the&s;e words thus <HI>Cajetan</HI> inferreth, <HI>it cannot bee gathered either from the words, nor from the effect here mentioned, that the Apo&s;tle &s;peaketh of &s;acramentall or Ex|treame Vnction, but rather of that anoynting which Chri&s;t appointed in the Go&s;pell to bee u&s;ed in hea|ling the &s;ick, for the Text &s;aith not, is any man &s;ick unto death, but &s;imply is any man &s;ick; and the effect hee attributeth to this anoynting is the ea&s;e or rai&s;ing of the &s;ick; of remi&s;sion of &s;innes he &s;peaks but conditionally, whereas Extreame Vnction is gi|ven to none but at the point of death, and directly tendeth to remi&s;sion of &s;innes as the forme impor|teth. Adde hereunto that S.</HI> Iames <HI>commandeth many Elders to be &s;ent for, both to pray and anoynt the &s;ick, which is not done in Extreame Vn|ction.</HI></P>
<PB N="99" REF="200">
<P>To the &s;ixt. The <HI>Knight</HI> having &s;hot two <HI>ar|rowes</HI> <MILESTONE N="6"> out of <HI>S. Au&s;tines quiv er,</HI> the one with a head, the other without, yet &s;harpe pointed: the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> quite concealeth the one, and endeavours to blunt the other. The former hee drew out of S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> his treati&s;e <HI>de &s;ymbolo ad catechumenos,</HI> where &s;peaking of Bapti&s;me and the Lords Sup|per, he &s;aith, <HI>haec &s;unt Eccle&s;ia geminae Sacramen|ta, the&s;e are the two twin Sacraments of the Church.</HI> To this the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> an&s;wereth, <HI>ne gry quidem.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">De latere in cruce pen|dentis lance&acirc; percu&s;&s;o &s;a|cramenta Ec|cle&s;iae profluxe|runt.</NOTE> To the other taken out of the 15. tract vpon S. <HI>Iohn, that out of the &s;ide of Chri&s;t the Sacraments of the Church i&s;&s;ued,</HI> he would &s;eeme to an&s;wer &s;ome|thing. Fir&s;t he quarrelleth at the quotation, &s;ay|ing, I doe not thinke you will find in <HI>Chemnitius</HI> your good friend. S. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> and <HI>Bede</HI> cited, Whereunto I an&s;wer, that though the <HI>Knights</HI> good friend <HI>Chemnitius</HI> cite not <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> and <HI>Bede,</HI> yet the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> good friend Card.<NOTE PLACE="marg">De Sacram. in gen. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>27.</HI> Amb. l. <HI>10.</HI> in Luc. &amp; Bed. c. <HI>19.</HI> Ioh. in|telligunt per &s;anguinem qui &egrave; latere efflux|it redemptionis pretium, &amp; per aquam bapti&s;mum.</NOTE> <HI>Bellarmine</HI> citeth them both, his <HI>words are,</HI> Ambro&s;e <HI>in his tenth booke upon S.</HI> Luke, <HI>and</HI> Bede <HI>in his comment upon the</HI> 19. <HI>of S.</HI> Iohn <HI>under&s;tand by blood which i&s;&s;ued out of our Saviours &s;ide the price of our re|demption, by water Bapti&s;me.</HI> Next the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> en|deavoureth to <HI>untwi&s;t</HI> this <HI>triple cord,</HI> by &s;aying that the&s;e three Fathers &s;peake of Sacraments i&s;|&s;uing out of Chri&s;ts &s;ide, but no way re&s;traine the number to two. Whereunto I reply, that though the word <HI>Sacramenta</HI> for the number may bee as well &s;aid of &s;even as two Sacraments: yet where S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> alludeth to the &s;ame text of
<PB N="100" REF="201" MS="y"> Scripture, and falleth upon the &s;ame conceite, he re&s;traineth the number to two, &s;aying, <HI>there i&s;&s;ued out of Chri&s;ts &s;ide water and blood, quae &s;unt Ec|cle&s;iae gemina Sacramenta.</HI> Now I would faine know of the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> where ever hee read <HI>gemina</HI> to &s;ignifie &s;even, or more then two? Were the <HI>Dio&s;curi</HI> which are commonly knowne by the name of <HI>gemini</HI> &s;even, or two only, to wit, <HI>Ca|&s;tor</HI> and <HI>Pollax?</HI> As for S. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> and <HI>Bede</HI> though they &s;ay not <HI>totidem verbis,</HI> that the two Sacraments of the Church i&s;&s;ued out of Chri&s;ts &s;ide, as <HI>S. Au&s;tine</HI> doth: yet they can bee under|&s;tood of no more then two Sacraments: for there were but two things which i&s;&s;ued out of our Saviours &s;ide, to wit, water and blood, whereby they under&s;tand Bapti&s;me and the Lords Supper. Had there i&s;&s;ued out of our Saviours &s;ide, toge|ther with water and blood Chri&s;me or <HI>bal&s;amum,</HI> or had a rib beene taken from thence, the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> might have &s;ome colour to draw more Sacra|ments out of it: but now &s;ith the Text &s;aith there i&s;&s;ued onely <HI>two things, water and blood;</HI> and the Fathers &s;ay the Sacraments of the Church are thereby meant: it is mo&s;t apparant that by <HI>Sacra|menta</HI> they meant tho&s;e two only: which they there name in expre&s;&s;e words, Bapti&s;me and the price of our redemption, that is Chri&s;ts blood in the Euchari&s;t.</P>
<P>To the &s;eventh. The authoritie of S. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> is as a thorne in the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> eye, for it cannot but bee a great prejudice to their cau&s;e, that &s;o lear|ned
<PB N="101" REF="201" MS="y"> a Bi&s;hop as S. <HI>Ambro&s;e,</HI> writing &s;ix bookes profe&s;&s;edly of the Sacraments omitteth the Ro|mi&s;h five, and &s;pendeth his whole di&s;cour&s;e upon our two. If the Church in his time beleeved or admini&s;tred &s;even Sacraments, hee could no way be excu&s;ed of &s;upine negligence for making no mention at all of the greater part of them: it were all one as if a man profe&s;&s;ing to treate of the ele|ments, or the parts of the world which are foure, or of the <HI>Pleiades</HI> or the <HI>Septentriones,</HI> or the Planets which are &s;even &s;hould handle but two of that number. <HI>Bellarmine</HI> therefore and after him <HI>Flood</HI> pluck hard at this thorne, but cannot get it out (&s;aying that <HI>S. Ambro&s;e</HI> his intent was to in&s;truct the <HI>Catechumeni</HI> only, as the title of one of the books &s;heweth.) For fir&s;t <HI>S. Ambro&s;e</HI> hath no booke of that title, <HI>viz.</HI> An <HI>in&s;truction to them who are to bee catechized, or are beginners in Chri|&s;tianitie.</HI> The title of that booke is <HI>De ijs qui ini|tiantur, of tho&s;e who are initiated or entred into ho|ly my&s;teries.</HI> Secondly, this is not the title of any of the &s;ix bookes <HI>de &s;acramentis</HI> alledged by the <HI>Knight,</HI> but of another tractate. Thirdly, admit that <HI>S. Ambro&s;e,</HI> as <HI>S. Au&s;tine</HI> and <HI>Cyrill</HI> wrote to the <HI>Catechumeni,</HI> and intended a Catechi&s;me: yet they were to name all the Sacraments unto them, as all Divines u&s;ually doe in their Catechi&s;mes: becau&s;e the Sacraments are alwayes handled a|mong the grounds, and principles of Chri&s;tian religion. And though the <HI>Catechumeni</HI> are not pre&s;ently admitted unto all, yet they are to learne
<PB N="102" REF="202" MS="y"> what they are, that they may bee the better pre|pared in due time to receive them. Fourthly, it is evidently untrue (which the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;aith) that <HI>S. Ambro&s;e</HI> writeth not to the beleevers of that age, but only to &s;ome beginners. The very <HI>front</HI> of his booke proves the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> to bee <HI>frontle&s;&s;e.</HI> For <HI>S. Ambro&s;e</HI> his fir&s;t words are, <HI>I will begin to &s;peake of the Sacraments which wee have recei|ved, &amp;c. In Chri&s;tiano enim viro prima e&s;t fides, for the fir&s;t thing in a Chri&s;tian man is faith.</HI> And as hee writeth to all beleevers not beginners on|ly, &s;o hee &s;peaketh al&s;o of the chiefe Sacraments of the New Te&s;tament, and not of tho&s;e only which the <HI>catechumeni</HI> received, as is apparant out of the fourth chapter of the fir&s;t booke <HI>De &s;acra|mentis.</HI> Wherein hee proveth according to the title of that Chapter, <HI>Qu&ograve;d &s;acramenta Chri&s;tia|norum diviniora &s;int, &amp; priora qu&agrave;m Iudaeorum, That the Sacraments of the Chri&s;tians are more an|cient and more divine then tho&s;e of the Iewes;</HI> and hee in&s;tanceth e&s;pecially in the Sacrament of the <HI>Lords Supper.</HI> La&s;tly, the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> in this an&s;wer apparantly contradicteth him&s;elfe, fir&s;t, &s;aying that <HI>S. Ambro&s;e</HI> intent in that Worke was only to in&s;truct the <HI>catechumeni</HI> in tho&s;e things that were to be done <HI>in the time of Bapti&s;me,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 210.</NOTE> and with|in a few lines after he &s;aith,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bud. dea&s;se, Ve|ritas nonnun|quam invitis erumpit ac fallens inter mendacia ab audientibus de|mum agno&s;ci|tur cum inte|rim loquentes adhuc &s;e habere in pote&s;tate putent.</NOTE> that he <HI>writeth of the Sacraments whereby they were &s;o initiated which are three, Bapti&s;me, Confirmation, and the Eucha|ri&s;t.</HI> So true is <HI>Budaeus</HI> his ob&s;ervation, That lyes da&s;h one with the other, and truth breakes out of
<PB N="103" REF="202" MS="y"> the mouth of the lyar ere hee is aware. Who ever heard of rhe Euchari&s;t to bee admini&s;tred in the time of Bapti&s;me, or that the Euchari&s;t was admini&s;tred at all to the punies or <HI>catechumeni</HI> while&s;t they were &s;uch, certainly if the <HI>catecu|meni</HI> or younger beginners, to whom hee &s;aith S. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> wrote, were capable of the doctrine of the Euchari&s;t, containing in it the highe&s;t my&s;te|ries of Chri&s;tianitie, they were much more capa|ble of Penance, Matrimonie, and Extreame Un|ction, which are ea&s;ie to bee under&s;tood by any novice in Chri&s;tian religion.</P>
<P>To the eight. That it may appeare what was <MILESTONE N="8"> the judgement of S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> in this maine point of difference, betweene the Reformed and the Ro|man Church, I will weigh what is brought on both &s;ides, fir&s;t what the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> alledgeth for &s;e|ven: and then what the <HI>Knight</HI> for two. S. <HI>Au|&s;tine</HI> having written divers Catechi&s;ticall trea|ti&s;es, in which hee had occa&s;ion to name and handle the Sacraments: yet no where defineth the number of them to bee &s;even, neither nameth all of them either joyntly or &s;everally: this the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> knowing well enough, bringeth no one te&s;timonie for the proofe of their &s;even Sacra|ments out of him, but forceth only &s;ome &s;enten|ces to prove out of them that hee held more then two, as namely out of his fir&s;t Sermon upon the 103. P&s;alme, <HI>Ca&s;t thine eyes upon the gifts or of|fices of the Church in Bapti&s;me, the Euchari&s;t, and the re&s;t of the holy Sacraments,</HI> and <HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 118.
<PB N="104" REF="203" MS="y"> having brought in two Sacraments, Bapti&s;me and the Lords Supper, hee addeth &s;uch a generall clau&s;e, <HI>and if there bee any thing el&s;e commended in holy Scriptures;</HI> which words of his import that hee held more &s;acraments then Bapti&s;me and the Lords Supper, in that very &s;en&s;e wherein tho&s;e two by him named are called Sacraments. I an&s;wer, <HI>S. Au&s;tine</HI> in neither of the&s;e places ta|keth the word Sacrament in a &s;trict &s;en&s;e: but in a large for every &s;acred rite commended in Scrip|ture, or gift and office of the Church. As for the word <HI>coeteris,</HI> the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> in&s;i&s;teth upon: it impor|teth only a generical convenience and &s;imilitude not a &s;pecificall; and &s;o wee acknowledge that there are many &s;acred rites in the Church, which agree with Bapti&s;me and the Lords Supper in the genericall notion of Sacraments: but not in the &s;pecificall as the word Sacrament is taken for a peculiar &s;eale of the New Te&s;tament, having thereunto annexed a promi&s;e of ju&s;tifying grace. Now let us weigh what the <HI>Knight</HI> alledgeth out of S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> for two Sacraments only,<NOTE PLACE="marg">De doct. Chri&s;. l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>9.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Our Lord</HI> (&s;aith that Father) <HI>and his Apo&s;tles have delive|red unto us a few Sacraments in &s;tead of many, in performance mo&s;t ea&s;ie, in &s;ignification mo&s;t excel|lent, as is the Sacrament of Bapti&s;me and the Lords Supper.</HI> To di&s;appoint this te&s;timonie, the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> fir&s;t layeth corruption and fal&s;ification to the <HI>Knights</HI> charge, becau&s;e S. <HI>Au&s;tines</HI> words are <HI>&s;igna pauca,</HI> not <HI>&s;acramenta.</HI> Which is nothing but a meere cavill, for <HI>&s;igna</HI> and <HI>&s;acramenta</HI> are in
<PB N="105" REF="203" MS="y"> <HI>S. Au&s;tine</HI> no other then <HI>&s;ynonima,</HI> by <HI>&s;igna</HI> hee can meane no other then <HI>&s;acramenta.</HI> For he in|&s;tanceth there in no other, neither did Chri&s;t de|liver unto us any other <HI>&s;igna</HI> or <HI>&s;igilla</HI> but the&s;e two. <HI>Yes,</HI> &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit, for it is plaine by the word</HI> &s;icut, <HI>that hee bringeth in Bapti&s;me and the Lords Supper for example only, and doth not re|&s;traine the</HI> &s;igna <HI>to the&s;e two.</HI> It is not plaine, for <HI>&s;icut</HI> bringeth in an example be it one, or more, neither can wee from thence inferre that there are more. For <HI>S. Iohn</HI> &s;peaking of our Saviour &s;aith, <HI>vidimus gloriam ejus &s;icut unigeniti filij Dei, Wee beheld the glorie as of the only begotten Sonne of the Father.</HI> Will the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> from thence inferre that God had more only begotten &s;onnes? but to expound <HI>S. Au&s;tine</HI> out of him&s;elfe tho&s;e &s;ignes or Sacraments which here hee calls a few, in his 118. Epi&s;tle hee tearmes <HI>most few (Sacramentis numero pauci&s;simis)</HI> &s;urely &s;even Sacraments are not <HI>numero pauci&s;sima,</HI> fewe&s;t in number, but two are &s;o: and therefore in his booke <HI>De &s;ymbolo ad catechumenos,</HI> he tearmeth them <HI>gemina Eccle&s;iae &s;acramenta;</HI> which pa&s;&s;age the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> taketh no notice of, becau&s;e hee could give no an&s;wer at all unto it, yet hee &s;etteth a good face upon the matter &s;aying, this may &s;uffice for &s;uch te&s;timo|nies as were alledged out of <HI>S. Au&s;tine.</HI> Of all the Roman Captaines I cannot liken him fitter to a|ny then to <HI>Terentius Varro,</HI> who though hee fought &s;o unhappily again&s;t <HI>Hanniball</HI> at <HI>Cannae,</HI> that hee lo&s;t 40000. men upon the place, yet hee
<PB N="106" REF="204" MS="y"> &s;eemed to bee little daunted therewith, and the Roman Senat &s;ent him publike thankes, <HI>qu&ograve;d de republic&acirc; non de&s;per&acirc;&s;&s;et,</HI> that <HI>hee de&s;paired not of the Common-wealth.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="9"> To the ninth. The authour of the treati&s;e <HI>De ablutione pedum,</HI> who was farre later then <HI>S. Cy|prian,</HI> mentioneth indeed five &s;acraments which are more then two, yet le&s;&s;e then &s;even, and for tho&s;e five hee nameth, it is evident hee intended not that they were Sacraments in a &s;trict &s;en&s;e. For one of them is <HI>ablutio pedum,</HI> which if it bee a Sacrament in the proper &s;en&s;e, then hath the <HI>Ie|&s;uit</HI> an eighth &s;acrament as him&s;elfe is <HI>&s;apientum octavus. Not &s;o,</HI> &s;aith hee, for <HI>ablutio pedum</HI> which that Authour meaneth is the &s;acrament of Penance. Then belike <HI>Peter</HI> and the Apo&s;tles did <HI>Penance</HI> while&s;t <HI>Chri&s;t wa&s;hed their feet.</HI> Al|though there may lie hid &s;ome my&s;terie in that ablution, and therefore it may bee tearmed a Sa|crament in a large &s;en&s;e,<NOTE PLACE="marg">L. <HI>2.</HI> de &s;ac. c. <HI>24.</HI></NOTE> as <HI>Bellarmine</HI> expoundeth that authour. Yet our Lord him&s;elfe revealeth unto us no other my&s;terie, nor maketh any other inference from it then a patterne of humilitie,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ioh. 13.14.</NOTE> <HI>If I your Lord and Ma&s;ter have wa&s;hed your feet, ye al&s;o ought to wa&s;h one anothers feet.</HI> Yea but (&s;aith <HI>Flood,</HI>) the authour &s;peaketh of another Laver after Bapti&s;me, and what can that bee other then Penance? He &s;peaketh of another <HI>laver,</HI> not of another <HI>Sacrament,</HI> which laver is no other then the laver of penitent teares. But <HI>dicis cau&s;a,</HI> let <HI>ablutio pedum</HI> be <HI>Penance,</HI> yet wee have but foure
<PB N="107" REF="204" MS="y"> Sacraments mentioned by this Author, what be|commeth of the other three? To this hee an&s;we|reth that <HI>the Authour mentioned not them, becau&s;e his &s;cope was in that place to &s;peake of &s;uch Sacra|ments as had relation to our Saviours la&s;t Supper.</HI> A ridiculous eva&s;ion, for what relation hath Bap|ti&s;me, or Penance, or Confirmation, or order to our Lords Supper? But the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> like a Lawyer that hath taken his fee of his Client, thought him&s;elfe bound in con&s;cience to &s;peake &s;ome|thing in behalfe of this Authour, though no|thing at all to the purpo&s;e, like <HI>Erucius</HI> in <HI>Tully, Ego quid acceperim &s;cio, quid dicam ne&s;cio.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Cic. pro Ro&s;c. Amer.</NOTE></P>
<P>To the tenth. The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> in his an&s;wer to <HI>S. I&s;i|dore</HI> bewrayes extreame negligence. For the <MILESTONE N="10"> <HI>Knight</HI> quoting <HI>S. I&s;idore</HI> at large in his &s;ixt book, and not naming any chapter, this <HI>De&s;ultorius Miles</HI> po&s;ting through one chapter, and finding not the words there, chargeth the <HI>Knight</HI> with fal&s;ification; whereas in the chapter immediatly following, to wit, the 19. according to the later edition of <HI>S. I&s;idore</HI> (but in the 18. according to the former) the te&s;timonie alledged by the <HI>Knight</HI> is found in expre&s;&s;e words, and <HI>Bapti&s;me, Chri&s;me, and the Lords Supper reckoned by him for the Sacraments of the Church there,</HI> without ad|dition of any other; If hee had held &s;even &s;acra|ments, que&s;tionle&s;&s;e in that place hee would have named all, or at lea&s;t the major part of them. The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> applieth a plai&s;ter to this &s;ore, to wit, that el&s;e-where the &s;ame Father mentioneth Penance
<PB N="108" REF="205"> and Matrimonie. But the plai&s;ter is too narrow, and the &s;alve of no vertue at all. Fir&s;t, it is too narrow, for though Penance and Matrimonie be added to Bapti&s;me, Chri&s;me and the Lords Sup|per, we have yet but foure (or if we take Chri&s;me not for a Ceremonie u&s;ed in Bapti&s;me but a di|&s;tinct Sacrament from it) at the mo&s;t, but five: wee are &s;till out of our reckoning, wee heare no|thing of Order and Extreame Vnction. Second|ly, as the plai&s;ter is too narrow, &s;o the &s;alve &s;pread on it is of no vertue at all. For though <HI>S. I&s;idore</HI> compareth Penance to Bapti&s;me in re&s;pect of the effect thereof, <HI>viz.</HI> wa&s;hing away of &s;inne, yet he maketh not thereby Penance a Sacrament. What&s;oever wa&s;heth away &s;inne is not therefore a Sacrament,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Acts 15.9.</NOTE> Faith <HI>purifieth the heart,</HI> as the Apo|&s;tle &s;peaketh;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Luk. 11.41.</NOTE> and Chri&s;t him&s;elfe &s;aith, <HI>doe Almes, and all things &s;hall bee cleane unto you;</HI> Yet doth it not from thence follow, that either Faith or Charitie are Sacraments. For Matrimo|nie he &s;aith indeed <HI>there are three boones or good things in it,</HI> or as the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> tran&s;lateth the words, <HI>three goods of it, fides, proles &amp; &s;acramentum,</HI> faith, i&s;&s;ue, and a Sacrament, but by &s;acrament there hee under&s;tandeth the great my&s;terie of the union of Chri&s;t with his Church, whereof Ma|trimonie is a &s;igne, and hee alludeth to the words of the Apo&s;tle,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ephe&s;. 5.34.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>this is a great mysterie,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Apoc. 17.17.</HI> I will tell thee the my&s;terie of the woman and of the bea&s;t.</NOTE> which the Latine interpreter tran&s;lateth <HI>&s;acramentum,</HI> as hee doth al&s;o the <HI>&s;acrament of the woman,</HI> and as &s;trongly might they conclude out
<PB N="109" REF="205" MS="y"> of him,<NOTE PLACE="marg">So S. <HI>Aug. de peccauerit &amp; remi&s;s. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 26 calleth bread which was gi|ven to the <HI>Ca|tecumeni</HI> an holy Sacra|ment, and in <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 44. the my&s;teries of Chri&s;tian reli|gion <HI>Sacra|menta doctri|nae.</HI></NOTE> that the <HI>Whore of Babylon is an eight Sa|crament,</HI> as Matrimonie is the &s;eventh. In our booke of Homilies Mariage is called a <HI>Sacrament</HI> as all &s;acred Rites may in a large &s;en&s;e. The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;hould have proved according to his undertaking pag. 202. that Mariage is a <HI>Sacrament in a &s;trict &s;en&s;e,</HI> but his proofes are as his hone&s;ty is <HI>at large.</HI></P>
<P>To the eleventh. <HI>Hallen&s;is</HI> lived in a darke age, yet in this point hee &s;aw &s;ome light through a chinke, whereby he di&s;covered that three of their &s;uppo&s;ed Sacraments, to wit, Order, Penance, <MILESTONE N="11"> and Matrimonie had their being before the New Te&s;tament,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Part.</HI> 4. <HI>q.</HI> 5. <HI>memb.</HI> 2.</NOTE> and con&s;equently were not to bee &s;aid properly the Sacraments of the new Law: and hee giveth us al&s;o a &s;ufficient rea&s;on to ex|clude the fourth, to wit, Confirmation; becau&s;e as hee teacheth, <HI>the forme and matter thereof were not appointed by our Saviour, but by the Church in a Councell held at</HI> Melda. Yea but &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> hee addeth, <HI>&s;ine praejudicio dicendum, let this bee &s;poken with leave,</HI> adding, <HI>let us heare but &s;uch a word from the</HI> Knights <HI>mouth, and hee &s;hall &s;ee the matter will &s;oone bee ended.</HI> For an&s;wer whereun|to I &s;ay, fir&s;t, that the words of <HI>Hallen&s;is, &s;ine praejudicio,</HI> no whit prejudice the truth of his a&s;|&s;ertion: but only &s;hew the mode&s;tie of the man. Next, for the <HI>Knight,</HI> who&s;oever peru&s;eth his Booke with the Preface, &s;hall find that hee &s;pea|keth farre more mode&s;ty and &s;ubmi&s;&s;ively then <HI>Hallen&s;is</HI> here doth,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Part.</HI> 4. <HI>q.</HI> 5. <HI>memb.</HI> 7. <HI>art.</HI> 2.</NOTE> <HI>Sed tumor Ie&s;uitae non capit illius modum.</HI> What <HI>Hallen&s;is</HI> concludeth that
<PB N="110" REF="206"> there be neither more nor fewer then &s;even Sa|craments, maketh little again&s;t us, for he neither addeth Sacraments properly &s;o called, nor Sa|craments of the new Law, <HI>in quibus vertitur car|do quae&s;tionis;</HI> if the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;o expound <HI>Hallen&s;is</HI> he maketh him contradict him&s;elfe, and &s;o utter|ly di&s;ableth his te&s;timonie. For all Sacraments properly &s;o called of the new Law mu&s;t be in&s;ti|tuted by Chri&s;t, the authour of the new Law, which <HI>Hallen&s;is</HI> denieth of Confirmation. A|gaine, they mu&s;t have their being by the new Law, not before which hee affirmeth of three of the &s;even Sacraments as I &s;hewed before.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="12"> To the twelfth. Where&s;oever the <HI>Knight</HI> ma|keth mention of <HI>Hugo,</HI> the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> maketh an hi|deous noi&s;e like an hue and cry, <HI>you &s;ay,</HI> &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 231.</NOTE> <HI>of Hugo, that hee excludeth Penance from the number of the Sacraments and admitteth holy water. For both which Sir</HI> Humphrey <HI>a man may hold up his finger to you, and wagge it, you know what I meane, &amp;c.</HI> The <HI>Knight</HI> knoweth well what you meane, and al&s;o what manner of men they are, <HI>who hold up their finger in &s;uch &s;ort, viz.</HI> fooles or mad-men, <HI>utrum horum mavult accipi|at.</HI> Is it a matter that de&s;erveth &s;uch hooting to al|ledge <HI>Hugo de &s;ancto victore</HI> out of Ma&s;ter <HI>Perkins</HI> in his Problemes a mo&s;t learned worke, again&s;t which never a Papi&s;t yet dur&s;t quatch. How ma|ny hundred te&s;timonies doe <HI>Bellarmine</HI> and <HI>Baro|nius,</HI> and this <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> alledge <HI>at the &s;econd hand?</HI> Were the allegation fal&s;e, Ma&s;ter <HI>Perkins</HI> mu&s;t
<PB N="111" REF="206" MS="y"> beare the blame, who mi&s;quoted <HI>Hugo,</HI> not the <HI>Knight,</HI> who rightly alledgeth Ma&s;ter <HI>Perkins,</HI> but the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> neither doth nor can di&s;prove the allegation, but out of another booke of <HI>Hugo</HI> he alledgeth a pa&s;&s;age for &s;even Sacraments, which yet as I &s;hall &s;hew hereafter may well &s;tand with that which Ma&s;ter <HI>Perkins</HI> alledgeth out of him again&s;t Penance. But before I expound <HI>Hugo,</HI> I wi&s;h the reader to ob&s;erve in the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> how true that is which the Naturali&s;ts relate concerning Serpents, that the more venemous they are,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Plin. l. <HI>8.</HI> c. <HI>23.</HI> A&s;pidi hebetes oculi dati, eo&s;&abque; non in fronte &s;ed in tempori|bus habet.</NOTE> the &s;horter &s;ighted they are. Hee who odiou&s;ly and malitiou&s;ly chargeth the <HI>Knight</HI> with a fal&s;e quo|tation in this very place fal&s;ly quoteth the &s;ame Authour him&s;elfe. For the words hee alledgeth out of him, to wit, that <HI>there are &s;even principall Sacraments of the Church,</HI> are not found in the booke he quoteth, <HI>viz. &s;peculum de my&s;t. Eccle&s;. c.</HI> 12. It is true &s;uch like words are found in another Treati&s;e of his, to wit <HI>de &s;acramentis,</HI> but this neither excu&s;eth the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> negligence, nor helpeth at all his cau&s;e. For he that &s;aith there are <HI>&s;even principall Sacraments,</HI> implieth that there are more then &s;even, though le&s;&s;e principall. Either <HI>Hugo</HI> taketh the word Sacrament in a large or &s;trict &s;ence: if in a large, he contradicteth not us; if in a &s;trict &s;ence, he contradicteth the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> and the <HI>Trent</HI> Fathers, for they teach there <HI>are no more then &s;even Sacraments,</HI> whether principall, or not principall. <HI>Hugo</HI> reckoning &s;even as <HI>prin|cipall</HI> tacitly admitteth other as <HI>le&s;&s;e principall.</HI>
<PB N="112" REF="207"> Yet the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;ingeth an <HI>I&ocirc;poean</HI> to him&s;elfe, and mo&s;t in&s;olently in&s;ulteth upon the <HI>Knight,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 231.</NOTE> &s;ay|ing, <HI>Bcau&s;e you may le&s;&s;e doubt of Penance, whereof for thus abu&s;ing your authour and reader you de|&s;erve no &s;mall part, he hath a particular Chapter, wherein hee calleth it as wee doe with S.</HI> Ierome <HI>the &s;econd board after &s;hipwrack, and &s;aith that if a man endanger his clen&s;ing which hee hath received, by Bapti&s;me he may ri&s;e and e&s;cape by Penance. How &s;ay you to this Sir</HI> Humfrey? <HI>have I not ju&s;t cau&s;e to tell you your owne?</HI> Agreed, <HI>&s;uum cui&abque;</HI> let the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> tell the <HI>Knight,</HI> and I will tell the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> his owne; the <HI>Knight</HI> neither holdeth with the do|ctrine of Merit, nor the &s;acrament of Penance; the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> who holdeth both may by his beliefe <HI>merit</HI> their holy <HI>&s;acrament of Penance,</HI> for egre|giou&s;ly abu&s;ing <HI>Hugo de Sancto Victore,</HI> and S. <HI>Ie|rome</HI> and his reader, by making a Sacrament of a metaphor, and out of them arguing thus <HI>wood|denly</HI> again&s;t the <HI>Knight. Hugo</HI> hath a particular chapter wherein hee calleth Penance as wee doe with S. <HI>Ierome,</HI> the <HI>&s;econd boord after &s;hipwracke, Ergo,</HI> Penance is a Sacrament of the new Law; doth he not de&s;erve for concluding &s;o ab&s;urdly, to have the character of his owne &s;acrament in|delebly imprinted upon his fle&s;h.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="13"> To the thirteenth. The <HI>Knight</HI> alledgeth not <HI>Bellarmine</HI> nor <HI>Hugo,</HI> nor <HI>Peter Lumbard,</HI> nor <HI>Bo|naventure,</HI> nor <HI>Hallen&s;is,</HI> nor <HI>Alti&s;iodoren&s;is,</HI> nor <HI>Suarez</HI> him&s;elfe as if they expre&s;ly and in direct tearmes denied Extreame Unction to bee a &s;acra|ment:
<PB N="113" REF="207"> this they doe not, neither as things &s;tood with &s;ome of them might doe &s;afely, the Roman Church having defined the contrarie. Yet &s;o great is the force of truth, that what in words they affirme they con&s;equently deny;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Suar. tom. <HI>4.</HI> di&s;p. <HI>39.</HI> &s;ect. <HI>2.</HI> nonnulli neg&acirc;runt hoc &s;acramen|tum fui&s;&s;e &agrave; Chri&s;to in&s;titu|tum ex quo plan&egrave; &s;equeba|tur non e&s;&s;e verum &s;acra|mentum.</NOTE> and thus much <HI>Suarez</HI> ingenuou&s;ly confe&s;&s;eth; <HI>&s;ome,</HI> &s;aith hee, <HI>have denied that this Sacrament was in&s;tituted by Chri&s;t, whence it followeth by plaine con&s;equence that it is no true Sacrament.</HI> Yea but &s;aith <HI>Flood, if tho&s;e Schoole-men had lived in this age, they would have &s;aid that Chri&s;t did in&s;titute it.</HI> Whereunto I an&s;wer, that all Iudgements pro|ceed <HI>ex allegatis &amp; probatis,</HI> not <HI>allegandis &amp; pro|bandis</HI> upon things alledged, and proved not upon things to be alledged and proved in future times, neither is it likely that they would have altered their opinion, upon notice of the <HI>Trent</HI> deci&s;ion, for if the Church of <HI>France,</HI> and divers other Romi&s;h Catholiques, as they tearme them, &s;ub|mit not at this day to all the Decrees of that Councell: much le&s;&s;e may it bee thought that tho&s;e ancient and acute &s;choole Divines, who bare the greate&s;t &s;way in their times, would have &s;uffered them&s;elves to be baffled by the pretence of a pettie Councell, <HI>charging her canons with no|thing but paper-&s;hot.</HI> Every Sacrament of the New Te&s;tament is &s;upported with two pillars, in&s;titu|tion by Chri&s;t, and a promi&s;e of ju&s;tifying grace annexed to the due receivers thereof &s;et downe in Scripture, the former pillar the ancient Schoole|men take from Extreame Unction: the later <HI>Bel|larmine</HI>
<PB N="114" REF="208"> and <HI>Cajetan,</HI> how then can it &s;tand? The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> an&s;wereth upon a third pillar <HI>unwritten tra|dition.</HI> But this I have proved before to be a weak and rotten one: and to &s;peake the truth it &s;erveth Papi&s;ts as <HI>pons A&s;inorum</HI> did the ancient Logi|cians to which they fly for &s;helter, when all other helpe faileth them. Albeit they bragge much of Scripture, yet upon examination of particulars it will appeare, that their new <HI>Trent</HI> Creed con&s;i|&s;ting of twelve &s;upernumerarie Articles, hath no foundation at all in Scripture: and therefore they are forced for their &s;upport to fly to <HI>verbum Dei non &s;criptum,</HI> an unwritten word of God, which I would faine know of them how they prove to be Gods word? Whether by Scripture, or by unwritten tradition? by Scripture they cannot &s;ay, for it implies a flat contradiction, that <HI>ver|bum non &s;criptum</HI> &s;hould be <HI>&s;criptum,</HI> that unwrit|ten traditions &s;hould be found in, or founded on Scripture; if they &s;ay they prove it to bee Gods word by tradition, then they prove <HI>idem per i|dem</HI> the &s;ame thing by it &s;elfe, and build their faith upon a &s;illie &s;ophi&s;me called <HI>petitio principij,</HI> the begging the maine point in que&s;tion.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="14"> To the fourteenth. In the allegation of Car|dinal <HI>Be&s;&s;ario</HI> the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> chargeth the <HI>Knight</HI> with ambiguous tran&s;lation,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 225.</NOTE> and &s;o placing the words, that they may have a double &s;ence, the one to deceive the &s;imple, and the other to excu&s;e him|&s;elfe again&s;t the objections of the learned: and for this he pronounceth a woe again&s;t him, <HI>vae
<PB N="115" REF="208"> peccatori terram ingredienti duabus vijs, Woe to the &s;inner going on the earth two wayes:</HI> But the truth is, as <HI>Pentheus</HI> after he was di&s;tracted, ima|gined, <HI>duplices &s;e o&s;tendere Phoebos,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ore&s;tes apud Euripidem E|lectram &s;oro|rem appellat Furiam, qu&ograve;d eam ne fureret in lecto con|&s;tringeret.</NOTE> that hee &s;aw two Sunnes, when yet there was but one in the skie: &s;o the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> in a <HI>fit of frantick malice,</HI> ima|gined the <HI>Knight</HI> to goe two wayes whereas hee goeth but one, and that a faire and &s;treight way, for he &s;etteth the Latine words of the Cardinall without any adition or detraction in the mar|gent, <HI>haec duo &s;ola &s;acramenta in Evangelijs ma|nife&s;t&egrave; tradita legimus,</HI> and hee tran&s;lateth them faithfully: <HI>wee reade that the&s;e two Sacraments only were delivered us plainly in Scriptures;</HI> hee rende|reth not the words we reade plainly in Scriptures, that there were two only Sacraments delivered unto us, which had beene a mi&s;placing of <HI>Be&s;&s;a|rions</HI> words, and mi&s;-interpretation of his mea|ning, bu <HI>wee reade that the&s;e two only were plainly delivered in the Go&s;pell;</HI> there is no more ambi|guitie in the tran&s;lation then in the originall, which though it denieth not that other Sacra|ments may bee delivered in the Go&s;pell, yet it affirmeth that <HI>the&s;e two only are plainly delivered there,</HI> and con&s;equently that the&s;e two only are, <HI>de fide,</HI> matter of faith, and upon paine of damna|tion to be beleeved; for as I proved before out of S. <HI>Au&s;tine,</HI> and S. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome, all things that con|cerne faith and manners, and are nece&s;&s;arie to &s;al|vation are plainly delivered in holy Scriptures.</HI></P>
<P>To the fifteenth. Some Papi&s;ts as <HI>Flood</HI> con|fe&s;&s;eth, <MILESTONE N="15">
<PB N="116" REF="209"> denie the foure inferiour Orders to be Sa|craments,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 234.</NOTE> and <HI>Soto</HI> denieth the &s;uperiour, what a <HI>confu&s;ion</HI> is here in your &s;acrament of <HI>order?</HI> If the ordination of Bi&s;hops be not truly and pro|perly a Sacrament, as <HI>Dominicus Soto</HI> acknowled|geth, neither is the ordination of Prie&s;ts a Sacra|ment; for what can be alledged more for the one then the other? and if the ordination of Prie&s;ts be no &s;acrament, much le&s;&s;e Deacons, or &s;ubdea|cons or Acolytes or Exorci&s;ts. Whether there be the &s;ame character imprinted in the ordination of Bi&s;hops, and Prie&s;ts, it is not materiall to our pre&s;ent que&s;tion, for if it be the &s;ame, then it fol|loweth according to the doctrine of the Schooles, that they are one and the &s;elfe-&s;ame Sacrament: if a diver&s;e character bee imprinted by the one, and by the other, then are they two di&s;tinct Sacraments. If they are the &s;ame Sacra|ments, then <HI>Soto</HI> denying the one, con&s;equently denieth the other to bee a Sacrament: if they are di&s;tinct Sacraments, then there are eight Sacra|ments. Yea but &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit, Whether there bee a new character in a Bi&s;hop, or the &s;ame extended is no matter of faith, and therefore wee are not to di&s;pute with you of it, but keepe you off at the &s;taffes end, or rather out of doores: when you are once ad|mitted into the Catholique Church, wee may admit you to &s;peake of a Schoole-point or el&s;e not.</HI> Wee know well that yee are loath that we &s;hould heare of your differences among your &s;elves: but the fire of contention cannot bee kept within the
<PB N="117" REF="209"> walls of your Schooles, <HI>quis enim celaverit ig|nem? Lumine qui &s;emper proditur ip&s;e &s;uo,</HI> it breaketh out, and if ye looke not to it, it will &s;et on fire the whole fabrick of your Romi&s;h <HI>Babel.</HI> Meane while the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> giveth us great incou|ragement to de&s;ire to bee admitted into the Ro|man Church, becau&s;e then for&s;ooth wee &s;hall have leave to <HI>tread the endle&s;&s;e mazes of &s;chola&s;ti|call di&s;putes.</HI></P>
<P>To the &s;ixteenth. If <HI>Soto</HI> come &s;hort, <HI>Durand</HI> <MILESTONE N="16"> commeth home to the point in que&s;tion, for hee affirmeth that which is alledged by the <HI>Knight,</HI> and confe&s;&s;ed by the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> that Matrimonie is <HI>not a Sacrament univocally,</HI> if not <HI>univocally,</HI> not truly and properly, but <HI>equivocally</HI> or <HI>analogical|ly.</HI> Yea but &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit, all acknowledge it for an error in Durand:</HI> hee &s;aith all, but hee names none. Surely the Divines of the reformed Church acknowledge it for no error in <HI>Durand,</HI> but defend it for a truth: and for &s;uch Romi&s;h Divines that adhere to the Councell of <HI>Trent,</HI> they are but a faction in the Church, nor is their authoritie more to be urged again&s;t the Doctours of the reformed Churches, then the authoritie of the Doctours of the reformed Churches again&s;t them: which yet if any &s;hould produce again&s;t any of the Articles of their new Creed, they would not vouch&s;afe them &s;o much as a looke. For the definition of the Church in the Councel of <HI>Florence,</HI> which the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> toucheth upon, it is of little or no authoritie, becau&s;e that Councell
<PB N="118" REF="210"> was not general, nor called by lawfull authoritie, but by the &s;chi&s;maticall Pope <HI>Eugenius</HI> the fourth, who was depo&s;ed by a generall Councell held at <HI>Ba&s;il.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="17"> To the &s;eventeenth. Becau&s;e the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> is for|bidden by the Popes law to ta&s;t of the fruits of Matrimonie, at which it &s;eemes <HI>his mouth waters,</HI> hee is content to let the tree fall to the ground, for want of &s;upport. To Cardinal <HI>Cajetan</HI> who gave a &s;trong pu&s;h at it, by denying that it can be pro|ved to bee a Sacrament. Out of the words of S. <HI>Paul</HI> Ephe&s;ians the fift, hee an&s;wereth nothing but with ifs, if it be not proved out of that place it may be out of others, if out of no other, yet out of tradition to his <HI>ifs</HI> I returne <HI>fies;</HI> fie for &s;hame that they &s;hould bind all their followers under paine of a heavie cur&s;e to beleeve this Sa|crament of Matrimonie, and yet know not where to ground this their beliefe, upon Scrip|ture or tradition. If it may be proved to bee a &s;a|crament out of S. <HI>Paul,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ephe&s;. 5.</NOTE> their mo&s;t learned Car|dinal <HI>Cajetan</HI> is out: if it may not be proved out of tho&s;e words, Cardinal <HI>Bellarmine</HI> and almo&s;t all Papi&s;ts that wrote &s;ince <HI>Cajetan</HI> are in an er|rour. The <HI>Ie&s;uit holdeth a Wolfe by the eare:</HI> hee dares neither hold with <HI>Cajetan,</HI> nor again&s;t him: but puts the matter off with an iff. If it cannot be proved to bee a Sacrament out of that pa&s;&s;age, as <HI>Cajetan</HI> affirmeth, yet it may bee out of other texts. What texts? why doth he not name them? it is a &s;igne hee feareth his <HI>coyne is counterfeit,</HI> that
<PB N="119" REF="210"> hee dare not bring it to the <HI>te&s;t.</HI> If that place which &s;eemeth to make mo&s;t for his Romi&s;h <HI>te|net,</HI> make nothing at all, as the acute Schoole|man, and mo&s;t learned Cardinal <HI>Cajetan</HI> confe&s;|&s;eth there is no likelihood that other texts which have le&s;&s;e appearance will &s;tand them in any &s;tead, and therefore for his la&s;t refuge he flyeth to unwritten traditions, as the old Dunces as I noted before, <HI>ad pontem a&s;inorum.</HI></P>
<P>To the eighteenth. <HI>Canus</HI> puts a &s;trong &s;harpe <MILESTONE N="18"> weapon in our hands to wound your <HI>Trent</HI> do|ctrine concerning Matrimonie,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Canus loc. The|ol. l. <HI>8.</HI> c. <HI>5.</HI> in materi&acirc; &amp; form&acirc; hujus Sacramenti, viz. Matrimo|nij &s;tatuend&acirc;, ade&ograve; &s;unt in|con&s;tantes &amp; varij, ade&ograve; in|certi &amp; ambi|gui ut ineptus futurus &s;it qui in tant&acirc; illo|rum varietate, &amp; di&s;crepan|ti&acirc; rem ali|quam certam, con&s;tantem, &amp; exploratam conetur afferre.</NOTE> but withall for|biddeth us to &s;trike with it, as the Ie&s;uit <HI>Flood</HI> tel|leth us, as if we were at his beck, and might not u&s;e our weapons as wee li&s;t. But let him know, though he be &s;o fooli&s;h as to give advantage, wee will not bee &s;o childi&s;h as to leave it. If that bee true which he writeth, <HI>that the Divines of Rome write &s;o uncertainly of the matter and forme of Matrimonie, that it were folly in any to goe about to reconcile the&s;e differences, and determine any thing certaine in the point:</HI> we will inferre upon him that it is likewi&s;e <HI>folly</HI> to define Matrimonie to be a Sacrament, for if the matter and forme of Matrimonie bee &s;o unknowne as hee &s;aith, the <HI>genus</HI> of it mu&s;t needs be unknowne. For the <HI>ge|nus</HI> as <HI>Porphyrie</HI> teacheth, <HI>is taken from the matter,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">L. de praedicab. c. de genere.</NOTE> <HI>and an&s;wereth thereunto as the difference is taken from the forme.</HI> If the <HI>genus</HI> be uncertaine, how can it bee an article of faith, that <HI>matrimonium</HI> is <HI>&s;pecies &s;acramenti.</HI> The whole nature of a thing
<PB N="120" REF="211"> con&s;i&s;teth of matter and forme, which if it bee unknowne, the &s;pecificall e&s;&s;ence is unknowne, and if the &s;pecificall e&s;&s;ence be unknowne, how can it be ranked in its predicament under its pro|per <HI>genus?</HI> what Papi&s;t &s;oever therefore defineth Matrimonie, and putteth it under a Sacrament as the proper <HI>genus, Canus</HI> putteth the foole upon him take it off when you can.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="19"> To the nineteenth. <HI>Va&s;quez</HI> giveth the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> cau&s;e not &s;o light a blow (as hee imagineth) in &s;aying that where S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> calleth Matrimo|nie a &s;acrament, hee taketh the word Sacrament in a large &s;en&s;e, and not in the &s;trict and proper: for if S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> bee &s;o to be under&s;tood, he held not Matrimonie a &s;acrament properly &s;o called, but in a large &s;ence onely, and if that were his judgement, we have a great advantage of our Ad|ver&s;aries in the cau&s;e. Ffor S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> carrieth a great &s;troake, not only becau&s;e hee is held the a|cute&s;t of all the ancient Fathers, and father of all the Schoolemen: but e&s;pecially, becau&s;e the Pope in the Canon law profe&s;&s;eth <HI>Augu&s;tinum &s;equimur in di&s;putationibus, Wee follow for the mo&s;t part,</HI> &s;aith Pope <HI>Gela&s;ius,</HI> S. <HI>Ierome in the interpretation of Scripture, S. Gregorie in matter of moralitie, but S. Au&s;tine in point of controver&s;ie.</HI> Yea but &s;aith <HI>Flood, this is but</HI> Va&s;quez <HI>his pri|vate and &s;ingular opinion concerning S.</HI> Au&s;tine. Neither doth the <HI>Knight</HI> otherwayes urge it then as the &s;ingular opinion of a &s;ingularly learned <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> enforced by evidence of truth, to give over
<PB N="121" REF="211"> their chiefe&s;t hold of antiquitie in this point the authoritie of S. <HI>Au&s;tine.</HI> Well, be it &s;o &s;aith <HI>Flood, Va&s;quez</HI> is &s;o farre for you, yet <HI>we have an</HI> Oliver <HI>for a</HI> Rowland, Bellarmine <HI>for</HI> Va&s;quez; <HI>for this opinion of</HI> Va&s;quez, <HI>is contradicted by other Ca|tholique Divines, and by</HI> Bellarmine <HI>in particular.</HI> Where is then the unitie our Adver&s;aries &s;o much bragge of? two of the greate&s;t Champions of the Pope <HI>Va&s;quez</HI> and <HI>Bellarmine</HI> &s;trive about S. <HI>Au&s;tine,</HI> and the one refelleth the rea&s;ons of the other, &s;o that it &s;eemeth our popi&s;h Divines are as ill re&s;olved about the proofe of their doctrine, as I &s;hewed before out of <HI>Canus,</HI> that they were in a wood concerning the doctrine it &s;elfe. More|over I adde, that though <HI>Bellarmine</HI> may goe in <HI>equipage</HI> with <HI>Va&s;quez:</HI> yet <HI>Va&s;quez</HI> again&s;t them more di&s;parageth their cau&s;e, then <HI>Bellarmine</HI> for them helpeth it. For a te&s;timonie from an ene|mie is of more force for us, then the te&s;timonie of a friend, or rather &s;worne va&s;&s;all to the Roman Church can be for them.</P>
<P>To the twentieth. Sithence &s;ignification is of <MILESTONE N="20"> the e&s;&s;ence of the Sacrament, and <HI>Bellarmine</HI> will have this &s;ignification nece&s;&s;arily to <HI>containe in it three things, the Pa&s;sion of Chri&s;t, &s;anctifying grace, and eternall life.</HI> And whereas farther he confe&s;&s;eth <HI>that the &s;ignification of the&s;e three things is mo&s;t apparant in Bapti&s;me and the Lords Supper.</HI> The <HI>Knight</HI> &s;trongly concludeth out of him that our doctrine concerning two Sacra|ments is more certaine and evident, then theirs
<PB N="122" REF="212"> concerning &s;even, and con&s;equently that our be|leefe is &s;afer in this point then theirs. As for that which the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> addeth out of <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> that the re&s;t of the Sacraments &s;ignifie all the&s;e things at lea&s;t <HI>implicitly</HI> were it true, yet wee had the better of the cau&s;e. For our two Sacraments, as it is confe&s;&s;ed, &s;ignifie the&s;e things <HI>plainly and evi|dently;</HI> theirs ob&s;curely and <HI>implicitly;</HI> but in|deed it is not true that they &s;ignifie or repre&s;ent tho&s;e things at all. For what repre&s;entation is there betweene impo&s;ition of hands in orders, or joyning of hands in Matrimonie, or confe&s;&s;ing &s;innes in penance, or chri&s;me in Confirmation, or oyle in Extreame Unction, and the Pa&s;&s;ion of Chri&s;t, and eternall life? What the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> addeth for conclu&s;ion, that the re&s;t of the <HI>Knights</HI> &s;ecti|on is nothing but &s;uch fooli&s;h &s;tuffe as hee is wont to talke, without rime or rea&s;on, needeth no other an&s;wer then this that the <HI>Knight</HI> indeed from p. 157. to 161. taketh an inventorie of a great deale of fooli&s;h &s;tuffe, but it is theirs, not the <HI>Knights,</HI> to wit, that <HI>Chri&s;t &s;atisfied the people with five loaves and two fi&s;hes which make &s;even, and that which</HI> Andrew <HI>&s;aid, there is a boy here which hath five loaves and two fi&s;hes, mu&s;t be un|der&s;tood of the ranke of S.</HI> Peters <HI>&s;ucce&s;&s;ors,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Tyrabo&s;c. pat. Ven. vid. Gen|tilet examen concil. Trid. l. <HI>4.</HI></NOTE> <HI>and that which is added; make the people &s;it downe, &s;ignifieth that &s;alvation mu&s;t bee offered to them, by teaching them the &s;even Sacraments.</HI> Againe, <HI>there are &s;even Vertues, &s;even mortall &s;innes, &s;even Planets, the Lord re&s;ted the &s;eventh day, &s;even
<PB N="123" REF="212"> dayes thou &s;halt eate unleavened bread;</HI> Balak <HI>effered &s;even Bulls, and &s;even Rams; and in the Apocalips wee reade of &s;even Candle&s;ticks, &s;even Seales, &s;even Trumpets, &s;even Angels: Ergo,</HI> there are <HI>&s;even Sacraments properly</HI> &s;o called, or rather <HI>properly</HI> &s;o proved.</P>
<P><HI>Spectatum admi&s;si ri&s;um teneatis amici?</HI> Are &s;uch arguments the rea&s;ons of men, <HI>&s;obriae &amp; vigilantis fidei,</HI> as S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> &s;peaketh, are they not rather dreames of the &s;even Sleepers? or as <HI>Epictetus</HI> &s;pake of arguments again&s;t the truth,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ex Humfr. in Vit. Iuelli.</NOTE> <HI>Haec &s;unt infernorum &s;omniorum Phanta&s;mata.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>Concerning the Communion in both kindes. Spectacles, chap. 9. Section 5. <HI>a pag.</HI> 242. <HI>u&s;&abque; ad</HI> 259.</HEAD>
<P>_THe <HI>Knight</HI> in alledging the Coun|cell <MILESTONE N="1"> of <HI>Con&s;tance</HI> touching Com|munion, in one kind tran&s;lateth the Latine fal&s;ly and ab&s;urdly. I con|fe&s;&s;e that under one kind only all and whole Chri&s;t, and the true Sa|craments are received, as if the Councell had &s;aid, <HI>omnis &amp; totus Chri&s;tus,</HI> whereas the words are, <HI>totus at&abque; integer Chri&s;tus,</HI> that is, whole and en|tire Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>In bringing this Decree, hee hath brought a &s;taffe <MILESTONE N="2">
<PB N="124" REF="213"> to beate him&s;elfe withall, for the <HI>non ob&s;tante</HI> which hee would joyne with Chri&s;ts In&s;titution in both kindes, as if the Councell forbid it in both kindes, notwith&s;tanding Christ did &s;o in&s;titute it, is not &s;o joyned in the Councell, but otherwi&s;e thus; Though Chri&s;t did In&s;titute this venerable Sacrament after &s;upper, and admini&s;tred it in both kinds, yet not|with&s;tanding this, the approved cu&s;tome of the Church hath ob&s;erved, and doth ob&s;erve, that this Sacrament is not to bee Con&s;ecrated after Supper, nor to bee received by the faithfull but fa&s;ting; whieh Decree I &s;uppo&s;e the <HI>Knight</HI> will not con|demne.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> This was no new thing begun by that Councell, but it being growne to bee a generall practi&s;e to com|municate in one kind, which al&s;o from the beginning was &s;omewhat practi&s;ed, and certaine heretiques ari&s;ing, and condemning the practi&s;e and beliefe of the whole Church; this Councell condemned them, and commanded the former cu&s;tome to bee &s;till re|tained.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="4"> Though Chri&s;t did in&s;titute the Sacrament in both kindes, yet it is lawfull to receive in one: neither doth the Councell decree any thing again&s;t Chri&s;ts Precept by e&s;tabli&s;hing the Communion in one kind, for Chri&s;t may in&s;titute a thing without comman|ding it. For example, hee did in&s;titute Mariage, yet commanded not every man to marry.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="5"> The Councell of <HI>Trent</HI> doth not any way contra|dict Chri&s;ts in&s;titution or practi&s;e as the <HI>Knight</HI> would have it: but inferreth only thus much, though
<PB N="125" REF="213" MS="y"> Chri&s;t did in&s;titute and deliver the ble&s;&s;ed Sacra|ment to his Apo&s;tles in both kindes in the la&s;t Supper, yet is Chri&s;t contained whole and entire in one kind, and a true Sacrament received, wherein &s;aith hee, I would faine &s;ee, what oppo&s;ition the &s;ubtiltie of the <HI>Knights</HI> wit can find? what rea&s;on can hee give? why it may not &s;tand with Chri&s;t his in&s;titution in both kinds, that he be whole under one, and if whole, why not al&s;o a true Sacrament?</P>
<P>The words, <HI>Drinke yee all of this,</HI> and <HI>doe this <MILESTONE N="6"> in remembrance of mee</HI> were &s;poken and apper|taine only to the Apo&s;tles, and in them to Prie&s;ts, as appeareth more plainly by S. <HI>Mark,</HI> who &s;heweth all which our Srviour meant of when hee &s;aid, <HI>Drinke yee all of this,</HI> for &s;aith S. <HI>Marke,</HI> and they did drinke all.</P>
<P>Though Chri&s;t at his la&s;t Supper did in&s;titute a <MILESTONE N="7"> Sacrament in both kindes, and &s;o gave it to his A|po&s;tles: yet Christ might at &s;ome other time after his re&s;urrection communicate &s;ome of his Di&s;ciples in one kind; and &s;ome Fathers thinke hee did his two Di&s;ciples at <HI>Emmaus.</HI></P>
<P>The <HI>Knight</HI> needeth not to produce ten or eleven <MILESTONE N="8"> Authours to prove it to have beene the practi&s;e of the primitive Church, to communicate in both kinds: for that would have beene granted him without all that labour: but hee &s;hould have proved that the practi&s;e was grounded upon &s;ome divine precept indi&s;pen&s;able, or el&s;e it followeth not, but that it is in the power of the Church to alter the practi&s;e in the u&s;e, and admini&s;tration of the Sacrament.</P>
<PB N="126" REF="214">
<P> <MILESTONE N="9"> <HI>Bellarmine</HI> bringeth &s;ix &s;everall Rites or pra|cti&s;es of the ancient Church which Prote&s;tants can|not deny, evidently convincing the frequent u&s;e of one kind.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="10"> The Nazarites among the fir&s;t Chri&s;tians in <HI>Ie|ru&s;alem</HI> did communicate in one kind, for they were forbid to drinke wine, or even eate a grape or rei&s;in.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="11"> The <HI>Knight</HI> in alledging <HI>Tapperus</HI> again&s;t the Communion in one kind, leaveth out the principall verbe, and one halfe of the &s;entence an&s;wering the former, which of it &s;elfe was imperfect, which was the Authours ab&s;olute judgement and determination for the whole &s;entence of <HI>Tapper, art. 16.</HI> is this, it were more convenient if wee regard the Sacrament, and the perfection thereof to have the Communion under both kindes, then under one: for this were more agreeable to the In&s;titution thereof, and to the integritie of a corporall refection, and the example of Chri&s;t; but in another con&s;ideration, to wit, of the reverence which is due to the Sacrament, and to the end wee may avoide all irreverence, it is le&s;&s;e con|venient, and no way expedient for the Church, that the Chri&s;tian people &s;hould communicate in both kindes.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="12"> In the lawes of King <HI>Edward</HI> the &s;ixt revived and confirmed by Queene <HI>Elizabeth,</HI> it is ordained that the Communion bee delivered to the people un|der both kindes with this exception, unle&s;&s;e nece&s;si|tie otherwi&s;e require.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="13"> That it is not requi&s;ite that every article of faith
<PB N="127" REF="214" MS="y"> have &s;ufficient and expre&s;&s;e proofe of Scripture,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Dial. <HI>2.</HI> cont. Lucifer. etiam|&s;i &s;acrae &s;crip|turae authori|tas non &s;ub|e&s;&s;et, totius or|bis in hanc partem con&s;en|&s;us in&s;tar prae|cepei obtinerct.</NOTE> for as S. <HI>Ierome</HI> teacheth, although the authoritie of holy Scripture were wanting, the con&s;ent of the whole world on this &s;ide &s;hould have the force of a Precept.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="response to section">
<HEAD>The Hammer.</HEAD>
<P>IN this Section the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> beginneth merrily <HI>with a fiddle,</HI> but endeth <HI>&s;adly,</HI> and every where an&s;wereth <HI>&s;orily.</HI> For to omit his omi&s;&s;i|on of &s;ome things that pincht him &s;hrewdly, as namely, fir&s;t <HI>that the Councell of</HI> Con&s;tance <HI>by rea&s;on the fir&s;t Se&s;sions judged the Councell above the Pope, is condemned, and rejected by the Councell of</HI> Florence <HI>and la&s;t Councell of</HI> Lateran; <HI>but for the la&s;t Se&s;sions wherein the halfe Communion is e|&s;tabli&s;hed contrarie to Chri&s;ts precept, and holy in|&s;titution, it is allowed by Pope</HI> Martine <HI>the fift, and rectived of all Catholiques; whereby it appeares that Papi&s;ts are more tender of the Popes &s;upremacie, then Chri&s;ts honour;</HI> Secondly,<NOTE PLACE="marg">De Euchars l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>7.</HI></NOTE> that <HI>Bellarmine</HI> &s;aith, <HI>that it is not to be doubted; but that is be&s;t and &s;itte&s;t to bee practi&s;ed that Chri&s;t hath done.</HI> Now it is evident out of Scriptures, and confe&s;&s;ed by the Fathers in the Councell of <HI>Con&s;tance</HI> and <HI>Trent,</HI> that Chri&s;t in&s;tituted and admini&s;tred the Sacrament in both kindes: La&s;tly, <HI>that the Papi&s;ts in this point apparantly contradict them&s;elves, for they require antiquity, univer&s;ality, and con&s;ent, as
<PB N="128" REF="215"> the proper markes of Catholique doctrine, and yet confe&s;&s;e that in this the practi&s;e of their Church is contrarie eo the practi&s;e of the Primitive Church, nor was it ever received in the true Church, till a|bove a thou&s;and yeares after Chri&s;t.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Dichotomived.</NOTE> To let pa&s;&s;e the&s;e his preteritions, all that hee &s;aith in replie to other pa&s;&s;ages of the <HI>Knights</HI> may be <HI>dicotomi|zed</HI> into idle cavils, and &s;ophi&s;ticall eva&s;ions, as &s;hall appeare by the examination of each parti|cular,</P>
<P>To the fir&s;t. The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> as it &s;hould &s;eeme tooke <HI>Ennius</HI> the Poet for his patterne, who as <HI>Horace</HI> ob&s;erveth, <HI>Nunquam ni&s;i potus ad arma pro&s;iluit, &amp;c.</HI> never undertooke the de&s;cription of a warre, or &s;et him&s;elfe to write <HI>&s;trong lines</HI> be|fore hee had comforted his heart with a cup of <HI>&s;trong liquour.</HI> For if the French wine had not a&s;&s;aulted his <HI>Capitoll,</HI> as the Frenchmen did &s;ome|times the <HI>Roman:</HI> if a &s;trong fume had not made his head &s;o dizzie, that he thought all things be|fore him went <HI>round,</HI> hee would never in &s;o &s;eri|ous a &s;ubject as is the Sacrament of Chri&s;ts blood u&s;e &s;uch light and comicall &s;araca&s;mes as he doth; again&s;t <HI>this</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>hee bringeth two pla|ces of Scripture,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 243.</NOTE> <HI>and the practi&s;e of the Primitive Church, and &s;o concludeth the antiquitie and uni|ver&s;alitie of his Church, this goeth round with a fiddle Sir</HI> Humfrey: <HI>if hee</HI> had a purpo&s;e to make &s;port to his reader in the merrie pin hee was &s;et on, hee &s;hould rather have &s;aid your <HI>Creed Sir</HI> Humfrey <HI>goeth round with a crowd.</HI> But crowde
<PB N="129" REF="215"> or fiddle whether hee plea&s;e to tearme the lear|ned di&s;cour&s;e of the <HI>Knight,</HI> I hope it will prove like <HI>Davids</HI> Harpe, and conjure the evill &s;pirit out of the <HI>Ie&s;uit.</HI> To fall upon the particulars in order, whereas in the fir&s;t place hee chargeth the <HI>Knight</HI> with fal&s;e and ab&s;urd tran&s;lation of the Decree of the Councell, rendering <HI>totus Chri|&s;tus,</HI> all Chri&s;t, not whole Chri&s;t, and would make us beleeve that all can in no &s;en&s;e bee attri|buted to Chri&s;t; hee forgot that text of the Apo|&s;tle that Chri&s;t is <HI>all in all.</HI> Surely it &s;hould &s;eeme this <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> is de&s;cended from Pope <HI>Adrian,</HI> who was choaked with a fly, for what a &s;illy fly choa|keth him here? The <HI>Knight</HI> to avoid a tautolo|gie in tran&s;lating <HI>totus &amp; integer Chri&s;tus,</HI> whole and whole Chri&s;t, rendereth the word <HI>all and whole Chri&s;t,</HI> and what fal&s;itie or ab&s;urditie is there in this? doth not every punie know that <HI>omnis</HI> in Latine, and all in Engli&s;h is often taken <HI>collectiv&egrave;,</HI> as when wee &s;ay <HI>Lazarus</HI> was covered all over with &s;ores, doe not the Papi&s;ts them&s;elves &s;ometimes &s;o render the word <HI>totus,</HI> as namely in tho&s;e places, I have <HI>&s;tretched my armes all the day long to a rebellious people? and all the day long have I beene puni&s;hed, and all Scripture is given by di|vine in&s;piration, and is profitable for doctrine for reproofe, for correction, for in&s;truction in righte|ou&s;ne&s;&s;e that the man of God may bee perfect, throughly furni&s;hed to all good workes:</HI> In which pa&s;&s;ages it is mo&s;t evident that <HI>all</HI> is taken for whole, and &s;o the be&s;t interpreters render <GAP DESC="foreign">,
<PB N="130" REF="216"> <HI>tota &s;criptura,</HI> that is the <HI>whole Scripture.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> To the &s;econd. The <HI>Knight</HI> in bringing the Decree of the Councell of <HI>Con&s;tance,</HI> hath not <HI>brought in a &s;taffe to beate him&s;elfe withall,</HI> but to beate all &s;uch Romi&s;h curres as <HI>barke at the light of the Sunne,</HI> I meane the cleare words of Chri&s;ts in&s;titution,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Se&s;s.</HI> 13.</NOTE> <HI>Drinke you all of this.</HI> Yet &s;aith that Councell to the Laitie, none of you drinke of this. If Chri&s;t had &s;aid in like manner, receive you the Communion after &s;upper, we would ne|ver receive it fa&s;ting. It is true that he in&s;tituted it the night he was betrayed after &s;upper, which circum&s;tance yet bindeth us not now to receive it at that time: but the argument no wayes fol|lowes from the change of a circum&s;tance to the change of a &s;ub&s;tantiall act: the Church may di&s;pence with the one, not with the other. Wee argue not barely from the practi&s;e of Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles, but from their doctrine and pra|cti&s;e. <HI>What Chri&s;t did and taught,</HI> as S. <HI>Cyprian</HI> &s;oundly collects, mu&s;t bee perpetually ob&s;erved in the Church: but he taught and practi&s;ed the Communion in both kindes, <HI>fecit &amp; docuit,</HI> hee both did &s;o, and taught us &s;o to doe; but for the circum&s;tances of time, number of Communi|cants, &amp; ge&s;ture &s;itting or leaning, though at that time he u&s;ed &s;uch circum&s;tances: yet he co~manded not us to u&s;e them, and therefore wee may admi|ni&s;ter the Sacrament at another time, to a greater or le&s;&s;er number then twelve, we may receive it al&s;o with another ge&s;ture then Chri&s;t or his Apo|&s;tles
<PB N="131" REF="216"> u&s;ed, becau&s;e he no where tieth us to tho&s;e circum&s;tances, but wee may in no wi&s;e admini|&s;ter or receive it in one kind, becau&s;e he comman|deth us to communicate in both, <HI>&s;aying, drinke ye all of this;</HI> and what though the Councell joyne not the word <HI>notwith&s;tanding</HI> to Chri&s;ts in&s;titu|tion in both kindes, but to his admini&s;tring after &s;upper: yet this no way excu&s;eth the Fathers in it from confronting Chri&s;t, and abrogating his commandement by their wicked Decree: for notwith&s;tanding Chri&s;ts command, <HI>drinke you all of this;</HI> that Councell by a countermaund forbiddeth any Prie&s;t under a great penaltie to exhort the people to communicate in both kindes, or to teach that they ought &s;o to doe.</P>
<P>To the third. If the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> forehead had not beene made of the &s;ame metall which hee wor|&s;hipeth in his images, hee would have blu&s;hed to utter &s;o notorious an untruth contrary to the Re|cords of all ages, and the confe&s;&s;ion of all the learned of his owne &s;ide. Never any before this <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> dur&s;t to &s;ay, that the halfe Communion was the beliefe, and practi&s;e of the whole Church before the Councell of <HI>Con&s;tance,</HI> for be&s;ides <HI>Salmeron, Arboreus, Aquinas, Tapperus, Alfon&s;us a Ca&s;tro:</HI> the Councell of <HI>Con&s;tance, Bellarmine</HI> and <HI>Ca&s;&s;ander</HI> alledged by the <HI>Knight,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">See grand Sa|crilcg. Sect. <HI>17:</HI></NOTE> I could adde <HI>E&s;tius</HI> the Sorboni&s;t, <HI>Ecchius</HI> the great adver&s;arie of <HI>Luther, Suarez</HI> their accom|pli&s;hed <HI>Ie&s;uit, Soto</HI> their acute&s;t Schoole-man, and <HI>Gregorie de Valentia,</HI> who of all other hath mo&s;t
<PB N="132" REF="217" MS="y"> mok laboured in this argument, all not only affir|ming, but &s;ome of them al&s;o confirming that the Communion in both kindes was anciently, and univer&s;ally admini&s;tred to the people. It is well knowne that the Ea&s;terne Churches in <HI>Greece</HI> and <HI>A&s;ia,</HI> and Southern in <HI>Africa,</HI> and Northerne in <HI>Mu&s;covia</HI> have ever, and at this day doe admi|ni&s;ter the Communion to the Laitie in both kindes: and in <HI>the We&s;terne and Roman Church it &s;elfe for a thou&s;and yeares after Chri&s;t and more, the Sacrament was delivered in both kindes to all the members of Chri&s;ts Church,</HI> which is manife&s;t &s;aith <HI>Ca&s;&s;ander,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ca&s;&s;and. con|&s;ult. art. <HI>22.</HI></NOTE> <HI>by innumerable te&s;timonies of anci|ent Writers, both Greeke and Latine.</HI> And when the new cu&s;tome of communicating in one kinde began a little before the Councell of <HI>Con&s;tance,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Soto artic. <HI>12.</HI> q. <HI>1.</HI> in di&s;t. <HI>12.</HI> non modo inter haeretieos ve|r&ugrave;m inter Ca|tholicos ritus ille multo tem|pore invalnit.</NOTE> it was impugned not by heretiques, as <HI>Flood</HI> would beare us in hand, but by good Catho|liques, as <HI>Soto</HI> a man farre before <HI>Flood</HI> ingenu|ou&s;ly confe&s;&s;eth.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="4"> To the fourth. Albeit I grant there is &s;ome difference betweene an in&s;titution, or con&s;tituti|on, or command: yet our argument drawne from Chri&s;ts in&s;titution in both kindes is of force a|gain&s;t the Romi&s;h halfe Communion. For a command is, as the <HI>genus,</HI> and an In&s;titution is as the <HI>&s;pecies,</HI> every command is not an in&s;titution: but every in&s;titution is a command; for what is an in&s;titution, but a &s;peciall order or appoint|ment in matter of Ceremonie or Sacrament? was not the in&s;titution of Circumci&s;ion an expre&s;&s;e
<PB N="133" REF="217"> command to circumci&s;e every male child? was not the in&s;titution of the Pa&s;&s;eover a command for every familie to kill a Lambe, and eate it with &s;owre herbes? Was not the in&s;titution of Bap|ti&s;me a command to <HI>Bapti&s;e all Nations in the name of the Father, Sonne and holy Gho&s;t?</HI> Was not the in&s;titution of the Lotds Supper by words imperative, <HI>Take, eate, doe this in remembrance of mee,</HI> and <HI>drinke yee all of this?</HI> Yea but the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> in&s;tanceth in Mariage, which we acknowledge to be in&s;tituted by God, yet not commanded. I an|&s;wer, all &s;acred Rites (and namely the ordination of Mariage) are injunctions and commands to the Church, or mankind in generall, though they bind not every particular per&s;on, but &s;uch onely as are qualified for them;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Gen. 2.24.</NOTE> if <HI>cre&s;cite &amp; multipli|camini, bee rather a benediction upon Mariage, then a command to marrie,</HI> yet certainly tho&s;e words u&s;ed in the In&s;titution of Mariage, <HI>therefore &s;hall a man leave his father and mother, and &s;hall cleave to his wife, and they &s;hall bee one fle&s;h,</HI> containe da direct command not to every man &s;imply I grant, but to every one that hath not the gift of conti|nencie. To <HI>avoide fornication,</HI> &s;aith the Apo&s;tle,<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 7.2.</NOTE> <HI>let every man have his owne wife,</HI> and let <HI>every wo|man have her owne husband.</HI> And againe, if they <HI>cannot containe let them marry,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>V.</HI> 9.</NOTE> <HI>for it is better to marry then to burne.</HI></P>
<P>To the fift. There needs no &s;ubtiltie of wit to <MILESTONE N="5"> find out the oppo&s;ition betweene the Decree of the <HI>Trent</HI> Councell and Chri&s;ts in&s;titution; the
<PB N="134" REF="218" MS="y"> dulle&s;t wit cannot but &s;tumble upon it. For if whole Chri&s;t be received in either kind, why did Chri&s;t who doth nothing &s;uperfluou&s;ly, in&s;titute the Sacrament in both kindes? If the Sacrament can no otherwi&s;e exhibit Chri&s;t unto us then by vertue of his In&s;titution, how can wee be a&s;&s;ured that whole Chri&s;t is communicated unto us, when we violate his in&s;titution admini&s;tring the holy Communion but by halfes? the Sacrament exhibiteth nothing but what it &s;ignifieth, but the bread &s;ignifieth Chri&s;ts body not his blood: the wine &s;ignifieth his blood, not his bodie; there|fore accordingly the one exhibiteth only his bo|dy, the other his bloud. Againe, if Chri&s;t bee whole in either kinde, then a man might receive whole Chri&s;t in drinking of the cup only, though he eate not at all of the bread, and con&s;equently a man may without &s;inne at the Lords board drinke only of the Con&s;ecrated cup, and not eate of the bread which yet no Papi&s;t to my know|ledge ever dur&s;t affirme.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="6"> To the &s;ixt. This eva&s;ion of the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> is ex|ploded by <HI>Philip Morney,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">De Euch. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>10.</HI></NOTE> <HI>&amp; Chamierus tom.</HI> 4. <HI>re&s;p. Bellar. &amp; in D.F.</HI> his conference with <HI>Eve|rard p.</HI> 256. and divers others. This may &s;uffice for the pre&s;ent, for the overthrow of this gene|rall an&s;wer of all Papi&s;ts to the words of the in|&s;titution, <HI>Drinke you all of this, viz. (that by all in S.</HI> Mathew <HI>and S.</HI> Marke, <HI>Prie&s;ts only are to be un|der&s;tood.</HI>) Fir&s;t I note at this time the Apo&s;tles were not fully ordained Prie&s;ts. For as yet
<PB N="135" REF="218"> Chri&s;t had not breathed on them, nor given them the power of remi&s;&s;ion of &s;innes: next admit they were Prie&s;ts, yet in the in&s;titution of this Sacrament they were <HI>non conficients,</HI> &s;upplying the place of meere communicants, and therefore con&s;equently what&s;oever Chri&s;t commanded them, hee commanded all receivers after them. Thirdly, Chri&s;t commanded the &s;ame to <HI>drinke,</HI> to whom before hee &s;aid, <HI>Take, eate, this is my bo|dy;</HI> but the former words, <HI>take, eate,</HI> are &s;poken to the Laye-people as well as Prie&s;ts, therefore the words <HI>drinke you all of this,</HI> are &s;poken to them al&s;o,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Math. 9.6.</NOTE> <HI>tho&s;e things which God hath joyned to|gether let no man put a&s;under.</HI> Fourthly, I would faine know of our Adver&s;aries when Chri&s;t &s;aith, <HI>This is the cup of the New Te&s;tament which is &s;hed for many for the remi&s;sion of &s;innes,</HI> who are tho&s;e <HI>many?</HI> will they &s;ay Prie&s;ts only? have the Laytie no &s;innes, or no remi&s;&s;ion of &s;innes by Chri&s;t bloud? if they have, as all profe&s;&s;e they have, why do they forbid them that which Chri&s;t expre&s;ly commandeth them, &s;aying, <HI>Drinke ye all of this, for it is &s;hed for you and for many.</HI> All worthy communicants are to drinke Chri&s;ts bloud for whom it was &s;hed, thus much Chri&s;ts rea&s;on importeth; but it was &s;hed for the Laytie as well as the Clergie, they therefore are alike to drinke it. If the Laytie expect life from Chri&s;t, they mu&s;t drinke his bloud as well as eate his fle&s;h,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Iohn 6.53.</NOTE> <HI>for except a man eate the fle&s;h of the Sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, hee hath no life in him.</HI>
<PB N="136" REF="219"> La&s;tly,<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 11.28</NOTE> when the Apo&s;tle enjoyneth <HI>all to exa|mine them&s;elves</HI> before they receive the holy Communion, I de&s;ire to bee informed by our Adver&s;aries, whether this Precept of examinati|on concerneth not the Laytie e&s;pecially? I know they will &s;ay it doth, becau&s;e the people mo&s;t need examination, that they may confe&s;&s;e their &s;innes, and receive ab&s;olution for them before they pre&s;ume to communicate: let them then reade what followeth in the &s;ame ver&s;e, and <HI>&s;o let them eate of that bread, and drinke of that Cup, let a man examine him&s;elfe, and &s;o let him eate of that Bread, and drinke of that Cup:</HI> the coherence of the members in this &s;entence inferreth, that as none are to be admitted without precedent exa|mination: &s;o that all who have examined them|&s;elves are to be admitted to the Lords table, both to eate of that Bread, and drinke of that Cup.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="7"> To the &s;eventh. There is no force at all in the in|ference which the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> would make from Chri&s;t his breaking of bread with the two Di&s;ciples at <HI>Emmaus,</HI> to prove the Communion in one kind, for neither is it likely Chri&s;t in&s;tituted any &s;up|per after his la&s;t Supper, neither was the place fit for a Communion being a common Inne: nei|ther reade wee of any preparation on the Apo|&s;tles part, nor of any words of in&s;titution u&s;ed then by Chri&s;t: neither could the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> alledge any one Father, who &s;aith that Chri&s;t at that time admini&s;tred the Communion to tho&s;e two Di&s;ci|ples in bread only. For it is well knowne to all
<PB N="137" REF="219"> that are acquainted with the language of <HI>Canaan,</HI> that <HI>breaking of bread</HI> in Scripture by a <HI>Synecdo|che</HI> is taken for making a meale, and it is very unlikely that the di&s;ciples travelling at that time of the yeare in &s;o hot a countrey as <HI>Iudaea</HI> is, when they came to their Inne for a repa&s;t, &s;hould call for bread only and no drinke.</P>
<P>To the eighth. Though the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> make many <MILESTONE N="8"> a bravado here, and el&s;e-where: yet upon the matter in granting to the <HI>Knight</HI> that the generall practi&s;e of the primitive Church was to com|municate in both kindes, he yeeldeth up the buck|lers. For the maine &s;cope of the <HI>Knight</HI> in this and other Sections is to prove the vi&s;ibilitie of our reformed Church in former ages by the con|fe&s;&s;ion of our Romi&s;h adver&s;aries: this hee doth in the point of the Communion in both kindes abundantly in this Section, and the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> cannot denie it; it followeth therefore that in this maine point of controver&s;ie betweene us and the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> wee have antiquitie, univer&s;a|litie, and eminent vi&s;ibilitie, and the Roman Church none of all: whereby any under&s;tanding reader may &s;ee that the <HI>Knight</HI> hath already wonne the day; Yet for the greater confu&s;ion of the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> I adde that what the primitive Church did uniformly, they received it from the Apo|&s;tles, and what the Apo&s;tles did joyntly, no doubt they did by the direction of the holy Gho&s;t, according to our Lords will: and &s;o their example amounteth to a Precept. Againe, the
<PB N="138" REF="220" MS="y"> practi&s;e of the Catholique Church is the be&s;t expo&s;itour of Scripture, therefore the que&s;tion being concerning the meaning of that text of Scripture, <HI>Drinke you all of this,</HI> whether they concerne the Laytie, or Clergie only, that mu&s;t bee taken for the true expo&s;ition which the Ca|tholique Church by a con&s;tant and <HI>vniforme</HI> practi&s;e hath allowed. La&s;tly, either this practi&s;e of the Catholique Church was grounded upon &s;ome divine Precept, or it is a meere will-wor|&s;hip which the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> dare not &s;ay: if it be groun|ded upon any divine precept undoubtedly upon this, <HI>Drinke yee all of this,</HI> that is, <HI>as well Mini|&s;ters as Laye people,</HI> as <HI>Pa&s;cha&s;ius</HI> commenteth up|on the words.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="9"> To the ninth. The arguments of <HI>Bellarmine</HI> drawne from &s;ix ancient Rites to prove the fre|quent u&s;e of Communion in one kind are an|&s;wered at large by <HI>Philip Morney,</HI> and <HI>Chamierus,</HI> in the places above mentioned, and they are every one of them retorted again&s;t <HI>Bellarmine</HI> him&s;elfe by <HI>D.F.</HI> in his booke intituled the <HI>Grand &s;acri|ledge, cap.</HI> 14. <HI>accipe quomodo das &s;i tibi machera e&s;t, &amp; nobis vervina e&s;t,</HI> if it be &s;ufficient for him to ob|ject by <HI>proxe,</HI> why may not we an&s;wer by <HI>proxe?</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="10"> To the tenth. To the in&s;tance in the <HI>Naza|rites,</HI> I an&s;wer fir&s;t, that I read of no other <HI>Na|zarites</HI> &s;ince Chri&s;ts time in the writings of the ancient Fathers, then certaine Heretiques &s;o tear|med of the &s;ect of Ebionites, who went about to cloath the Go&s;pell with <HI>the beggarly rudiments
<PB N="139" REF="220" MS="y"> of the Law,</HI> upon whom S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> pa&s;&s;eth this verdict,<NOTE PLACE="marg">L. De haere&s;. ad quod vult De|um dum vo|lunt Iudaei e&s;&s;e &amp; Chri&s;tiani nec Iudaei &s;unt, nec Chri&s;tiani.</NOTE> <HI>that while&s;t they laboured to bee both Iewes and Chri&s;tians, they became neither Iewes nor Chri&s;tians, but a &s;ect of heretiques, partly judai|zing, partly Chri&s;tianizing.</HI> Secondly, if there were any <HI>Nazarites</HI> that &s;incerely imbraced the Go&s;pell, que&s;tionle&s;&s;e they communicated in both kindes: for though they had vowed again&s;t drinking of wine, yet either their Vow was to be under&s;tood of drinking it civilly not &s;acramen|tally: for their corporall refection, not for their &s;pirituall repa&s;t: or if their vow were ab&s;olutely again&s;t wine, yet Chri&s;ts command, <HI>Drinke yee all of this,</HI> implied a di&s;pen&s;ation for their Vow in that ca&s;e. A private vow of any man mu&s;t give place to a publike command of God: even now adayes tho&s;e who upon any great di&s;temper of body or mind by wine, vow to ab&s;taine from it, yet make no &s;cruple of con&s;cience to take a &s;mall quantitie of it phy&s;ically for the recoverie of their health: how much more ought they to doe &s;o notwith&s;tanding their vow, if it bee pre|&s;cribed by the heavenly phy&s;ician for the cure and &s;alvation of their &s;oules?</P>
<P>To the eleventh. Concerning <HI>Tapperus</HI> the <MILESTONE N="11"> <HI>Knight</HI> no way mi&s;quoteth him though hee leave out &s;ome pa&s;&s;ages in him; for the truth is <HI>Tappe|rus halteth betweene two opinions,</HI> he &s;peaketh &s;ome words <HI>plainly in the language of Canaan,</HI> and o|thers hee <HI>li&s;peth in the language of</HI> A&s;hdod, where he &s;peaketh in the language of <HI>Canaan,</HI> as
<PB N="140" REF="221" MS="y"> hee doth mo&s;t plainly in tho&s;e his words <HI>(if wee regard the Sacrament and perfection thereof, and the integritie of corporall refection, and the exam|ple of Christ, it were more convenient to have the Communion under both kindes)</HI> the <HI>Knight</HI> hearke|neth to him: but where hee <HI>li&s;peth in the language of A&s;hdod,</HI> &s;aying, <HI>(that in con&s;ideration of the reverence due to this Sacrament it is ill and incon|venient to communicate in both kindes)</HI> the <HI>Knight</HI> had rea&s;on to turne a deafe eare to him, for it is co&s;in germane to bla&s;phemie to &s;ay that is ill and inconvenient, which Chri&s;t and his Apo|&s;tles, and the whole Church in all places for more then a thou&s;and yeares practi&s;ed: the <HI>Knight</HI> might well &s;ay to <HI>Tapperus</HI> in the words of him in the Poet, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>I will be &s;ober with you, but I will not runne madde with you.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="12"> To the twelfth. For the &s;tatute made in the dayes of that Phoenix of his age, King <HI>Edward</HI> the &s;ixt, the meaning is, unle&s;&s;e among the people there bee &s;ome that either by a naturall antipa|thie to wine or other infirmitie, cannot receive the Sacraments in both kindes, it is ordained that it be delivered to every one in both kindes, <HI>ce&s;|&s;ante ferre&acirc; nece&s;sitate obtinet haec aurea regula,</HI> that all receive the whole Sacrament in which the Statute, and the articles of Religion, publi&s;hed fir&s;t in the reigne of this ble&s;&s;ed Prince, fully ac|cord; For &s;o wee reade Article the thirtieth, <HI>both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Chri&s;ts ordi|nance
<PB N="141" REF="221"> and command ought to bee mini&s;tred to all Chri&s;tian people alike.</HI></P>
<P>To the thirteenth. That every article of faith <MILESTONE N="13"> ought to have &s;ufficient proofe out of Scripture is proved by innumerable te&s;timonies of antiqui|tie produced by <HI>Philip Morney</HI> in his Preface to his booke <HI>De Euchari&s;tia, Bil&s;on</HI> of Supremacie part the fourth <HI>Abbot</HI> again&s;t <HI>Bi&s;hop,</HI> chapter the &s;eventh; and <HI>Laurentius de di&s;p. Theolog:</HI> Neither doth S. <HI>Ierome</HI> any way contradict them or us, for wee beleeve that the con&s;ent of the whole Chri&s;tian Church is an infallible argument of truth. Albeit wee teach that any particular Church, as namely the Roman or the French, or the Dutch or the Greeke Church may erre: yet we denie that the catholique Church univer&s;ally hath ever erred, or can erre in matter of faith ne|ce&s;&s;arie to &s;alvation: and further I adde for con|clu&s;ion, that as the words of S. <HI>Ierome</HI> alledged by the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> make nothing again&s;t us, &s;o if they bee applied to our pre&s;ent &s;ubject they make mo&s;t &s;trongly again&s;t him, being propounded after this manner. Although the authoritie of holy Scripture were wanting for the Communion in both kindes, (which is not &s;o) yet the con&s;ent of the whole world, on this &s;ide te&s;tified by their uniforme practi&s;e confe&s;&s;ed by Papi&s;ts them|&s;elves, ought to have the force of a divine Pre|cept, and &s;o there would bee an end not only of this Section as the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;peaketh, but of this whole Controver&s;ie.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="section">
<PB N="142" REF="222">
<HEAD>Concerning Prayer in an un|knowne tongue. Spectacles, Sect. 6. <HI>a pag.</HI> 259. <HI>u&s;&abque; ad</HI> 283.</HEAD>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> _THe <HI>Knight</HI> fal&s;ly chargeth the Councell of <HI>Trent</HI> with approving prayer in the vulgar tongue: for though the Councell &s;aith that the Ma&s;&s;e containeth great in&s;truction, yet it doth not &s;ay that it ought to bee in the vulgar tongue: nay contrarily it pronoun|ceth an anathema again&s;t any who&s;oever &s;hall &s;ay that the Ma&s;&s;e ought to bee celebrated in the vulgar tongue.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> It hath beene the generall practi&s;e and cu&s;tome in the Church of God, of having the Ma&s;&s;e, and the publike office in Latine, all over the Latine and We&s;terne Church, both in <HI>Italie, Spaine, France, Germanie, England, Africa,</HI> and all other places, and &s;o likewi&s;e in Greeke in the <HI>Graecian</HI> or Ea|&s;terne Church, though it were as large in extent, and had as much varietie of languages in it as the Latine Church hath.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> Vniformitie which is fit to be u&s;ed in &s;uch things and unitie of the Catholique Church is excellently declared, and al&s;o much maintained by this unitie of language in the Church office.</P>
<PB N="143" REF="222">
<P>The u&s;e of vulgar tongues in the Ma&s;&s;e or Church <MILESTONE N="4"> office would cau&s;e not only great confu&s;ion, but breed an infinite number of errours by many &s;everall tran&s;lations.</P>
<P>The u&s;e of vulgar language in &s;uch things would <MILESTONE N="5"> breed a great contempt of &s;acred things, with pro|phanene&s;&s;e and irreligio&s;itie, be&s;ides the danger of here&s;ie, which commeth no way &s;ooner then by mi&s;|under&s;tanding of holy Scripture.</P>
<P>The place of Scripture alledged by the <HI>Knight</HI> <MILESTONE N="6"> concerning announcing our Lords death, is not un|der&s;tood by words but by deeds, as is mo&s;t plaine by the circum&s;tances.</P>
<P>The text of S. <HI>Paul</HI> where he asketh how hee that <MILESTONE N="7"> under&s;tandeth not the prayers &s;hall &s;ay Amen, is not of the publike prayers of the Church which no man can doubt of, either for the truth or goodne&s;&s;e, and therefore he may confidently &s;ay Amen to them, but of private prayers made by private and Laye men extempore in an unknowne tongue.</P>
<P><HI>Haymo</HI> requireth not that all that are pre&s;ent at <MILESTONE N="8"> Divine &s;ervice &s;hould under&s;tand, but only that he that &s;upplieth the place of the idiot or Laye-man in an&s;wering for the people, &s;hould bee &s;o farre able to under&s;tand, as to an&s;wer Amen at the end of every prayer.</P>
<P><HI>Iu&s;tinian</HI> the Emperour is ordinarily taxed for <MILESTONE N="9"> taking too much upon him in Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall matters: yet all that hee &s;aith may bee well maintained with|out prejudice to the pre&s;ent practi&s;e of the Roman Church, for in the Decree alledged by the <HI>Knight,</HI>
<PB N="144" REF="223"> hee requireth nothing more, but that Bi&s;hops and Prie&s;ts &s;hould pronounce di&s;tinctly and clearely that which according to the cu&s;tome of the Ea&s;terne Church was to bee &s;poken aloud.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="10"> The Canon law <HI>capite quoniam in pleri&s;&abque;</HI> re|quireth only that where divers Nations are mingled, that the Bi&s;hop of the Citie &s;hould &s;ub&s;titute one in his roome to celebrate the divine Office, and admini|&s;ter the Sacraments according to their owne rites and language: for indeed it is a matter of nece&s;sitie in admini&s;tration of &s;ome Sacraments to u&s;e the vul|gar language, as in Mariage and Penance, but not &s;o of other things.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="11"> <HI>Lyra, Belithus, Gretzer, Harding, Ca&s;&s;ander,</HI> and the re&s;t of the Authours quoted by the <HI>Knight</HI> &s;ay indeed, that in the beginning, Prayers were in the vulgar tongue, but the rea&s;on was becau&s;e tho&s;e three holy languages, Hebrew, Greeke, and La|tine dedicated on the cro&s;&s;e of Chri&s;t, were then mo&s;t vulgar, none of them &s;peake a word of any Precept.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="12"> There is no precept in the Scripture commanding prayers in a knowne tongue, or forbidding in an unknowne, who&s;e authority or example can you bring for your &s;elfe in this matter? name him if you can.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="13"> It was more needfull in the Primitive Church that the people &s;hould under&s;tand, becau&s;e they were to an&s;wer the Prie&s;t, which now is not &s;o as <HI>Bellarmine</HI> noteth, becau&s;e that belongs only to the Clarke.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="14"> That the <HI>Knight</HI> contradicteth him&s;elfe in one place, &s;aying&punc; That the alteration of the Church &s;er|vice was occa&s;ioned by certaine Shepheards, who in
<PB N="145" REF="223" MS="y"> the dayes of <HI>Honorius</HI> having learned the words of Con&s;ecration by heart, pronounced them over their Bread and Wine in the fields, and thereby Tran&s;ub&s;tantiated them into fle&s;h and bloud, and for this prophane abu&s;e were &s;trucken dead by the hand of God. In another place hee &s;aith, that the alteration was brought in by Pope <HI>Vitalian</HI> about the yeare <HI>666.</HI> which cannot well agree with his former ob&s;ervation, for <HI>Honorius</HI> the fir&s;t was the &s;ixt Pope before <HI>Vitalian,</HI> by which computation the alte|ration mu&s;t have beene foure&s;core, or a hundred yeares before <HI>Vitalian.</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="response to section">
<HEAD>The Hammer.</HEAD>
<P>AMong the knowne errours of the Roman Church, there is none more gro&s;&s;e or palpably ab&s;urd, then this concerning Prayers in an unknowne tongue; For as <HI>Velleius</HI> the Epicure in <HI>Tully,</HI> goeth about to maintaine by rea&s;on that it had beene better a man had not beene indued with rea&s;on then with it: &s;o in this argument our Adver&s;aries in good earne&s;t &s;trive <HI>cum ratione in&s;anire,</HI> to prove by <HI>rea&s;ons,</HI> that it is be&s;t to exhibit to God an <HI>unrea&s;onable</HI> &s;ervice to &s;peake under&s;tandingly for &s;peech without un|der&s;tanding, and that in the publike wor&s;hip of God: to per&s;wade civill men that in their prayers the <HI>Prie&s;t ought to bee a Barbarian to the people, and the people to the Prie&s;t,</HI> In a word, to enforce
<PB N="146" REF="224" MS="y"> the people in&s;tead of offering the <HI>calves of their lippes to God, to offer to him the lippes of calves</HI> bel|lowing without under&s;tanding. The <HI>Knight</HI> therefore upon very ju&s;t rea&s;on taketh the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> to taske for this un&s;ufferable abu&s;e, and undeniable aberration from the Primi|tive, and catholique Church. Wherein he con|foundeth all Papi&s;ts not only with pregnant te&s;ti|monies of Scripture, and ancient Fathers, but al|&s;o with the confe&s;&s;ion of the learnede&s;t of their &s;ide. Yea, but <HI>Flood</HI> the Ie&s;uit maketh great brags that he <HI>will reckon with him for it;</HI> and reckon he doth according to his be&s;t skill in Arithmeticke, but to halves, for the <HI>Knight</HI> pre&s;&s;eth the Roma|ni&s;ts with the hi&s;torie of the Councell of <HI>Trent,</HI> and the contradictions of their Bi&s;hops there, and other pa&s;&s;ages of moment which the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;i|lently pa&s;&s;eth by, being willing to charge him|&s;elfe with no more then he thought he was faire|ly able to put off. What he &s;aith either by way of objection again&s;t the practi&s;e of the reformed Churches, or in an&s;wer to our arguments &s;hall be particularly di&s;cu&s;&s;ed in my replie to his par|ticular heads.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> To the fir&s;t. The <HI>Knight</HI> &s;aith not that the Councell of <HI>Trent</HI> approveth in expre&s;&s;e and di|rect words the practi&s;e of our Church,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Concil. Trent. Se&s;&s;. <HI>22.</HI> c. <HI>8.</HI></NOTE> but that by con&s;equence it doth &s;o in &s;aying the <HI>Ma&s;&s;e containeth great in&s;truction for the common people, and commanding that the Ma&s;&s;e-Prie&s;t, or &s;ome other &s;hould frequently expound or declare unto
<PB N="147" REF="224" MS="y"> them the my&s;teries of the Ma&s;&s;e:</HI> for if the Ma&s;&s;e containe as the Councell &s;aith great in&s;truction for the people, and for that end ought to bee ex|pounded unto them, by the &s;ame rea&s;on it ought to be tran&s;lated into the mother-tongue, and &s;o read unto them; Unle&s;&s;e they will &s;ay that the people receive as much in&s;truction from that they under&s;tand not, as from that they under|&s;tand.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><P>In <HI>1.</HI> ad Cor. c. <HI>14.</HI> melius ad edificationem eccle&s;iae e&s;t ora|tiones publicas quae audiente populo dicuntur dici lingu&acirc; communi cleri|cis &amp; populo quam dici lati|n&acirc;.</P>
<P>Contar. in ca|tec. interrogat ult. populus lin|gu&acirc; non intel|lect&acirc; orans ca|ret eo fructu quem percipe|ret, &s;i orationes eas quas ore pro ferunt, eti|am intellige|rent nam &amp; &s;peciatim in|tenderent ani|mum, &amp; men|tem in deum, ut ab eo impe|trarent eti<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">m &s;peciatim ea quae ore petunt, &amp; magis aedifi|carentur ex &s;en&s;u pio earum orationum quas ore proferunt.</P></NOTE> Which none will &s;ay but he that were a degree below S. <HI>Pauls idiot.</HI> Doubtle&s;s that which was written and appointed to bee read before the people for their in&s;truction, and edification, ought to be delivered unto them in a language which they under&s;tand: but the Ma&s;&s;e was writ|ten and appointed to bee read before the people for their edification and in&s;truction (as the Councell agnizeth) therefore it ought to be ce|lebrated in a knowne tongue. This rea&s;on alone prevailed &s;o far with two Roman Cardinals, <HI>Ca|jetan</HI> and <HI>Contarenus,</HI> that they &s;ub&s;cribed to the doctrine of the reformed Church in this point. The former his &s;ub&s;cription is in the&s;e words, <HI>It were better for the edification of the Church, that the publique prayers which are made in the audi|ence of the people &s;hould bee &s;aid in a tongue com|mon to the Prie&s;t and people, then that they &s;hould bee &s;aid in Latine.</HI> The other in the&s;e words, <HI>The people that prayeth in an unknowne tongue wanteth that fruit which they might reape, if they under|&s;tood tho&s;e things which they pronounce with their lips, for they would in a &s;peciall manner apply their
<PB N="148" REF="225" MS="y"> mind to God, that they might obtaine of him tho&s;e things which they pray for e&s;pecially, and they would bee more edified by a godly feeling of tho&s;e prayers which they utter with their mouth.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> To the &s;econd. The generall practi&s;e and cu|&s;tome of the We&s;terne Church, having their publike &s;ervice in Latine, and of the Ea&s;terne Churches, having their &s;ervice in Greeke, maketh for us, not again&s;t us. For the Latine &s;ervice was generally under&s;tood in the We&s;terne Church, and the Greeke in the Ea&s;terne; when and where it was not &s;o generally under&s;tood they had their &s;ervice in their Mother-tongue, as namely among the Syrians, Armenians, Ru&s;&s;ians, Egyptians, Ae|thiopians. While the Roman Empire flouri&s;hed, and the Imperiall lawes bare the &s;way, as namely in <HI>Italie, Spaine, France, Germanie, England, A|frica,</HI> and where&s;oever the divine &s;ervice was ce|lebrated in the Latine tongue, the people gene|rally under&s;tood the Latine. If the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;peake of later times after the inundation of Gothes and Vandals, when the Latine tongue was corrupted and degenerated into &s;everall languages, as Itali|an, Spani&s;h, and French, in &s;uch &s;ort, that the people in tho&s;e parts underdood not the Latine: God &s;tirred up i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> the&s;e We&s;terne parts many re|ligious and learned men, who turned the Bible, and the common prayers into the vul|gar tongue, and the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome</HI> were very much to blame, who commanded not the like to be done throughout all their juri&s;diction, and it
<PB N="149" REF="225"> is worth the ob&s;ervation that <HI>Irenaeus</HI> teacheth, that <HI>the number</HI> 666. <HI>containeth the name latinus,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 5. <HI>c.</HI> 30.</NOTE> and that in that very yeare of our Lord Pope <HI>Vi|talian</HI> commanded the Latine &s;ervice generally to be received in the We&s;terne Church, though at that time in mo&s;t parts few of the people un|der&s;tood it.</P>
<P>To the third. We are not &s;o much to regard uniformitie in the Church-&s;ervice, as conformi|tie to the will and word of God, which requireth that all <HI>things in the Church bee done to edification,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 14.15, 16.26.</NOTE> <HI>that we pray with the &s;pirit, and with under&s;tan|ding al&s;o, that the people joyne with the Prie&s;t in all parts, as well prayers as giving of thankes and te|&s;tifie it by &s;aying Amen,</HI> Which cannot be done if prayers be &s;aid in a tongue which people under|&s;tand not. Moreover, as diver&s;itie of in&s;tru|ments tuned together marreth not the mu&s;icke, but maketh it &s;weeter: &s;o diver&s;itie of languages, in which the &s;ame prayers are &s;aid, breeds no de|formitie at all, but uniformitie rather. Sith it is not the different &s;ound of words, but of &s;en&s;e that makes a difference either in the beliefe or practice of the Church. There was never more unitie then in the Apo&s;tles time,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Acts 2.46.</NOTE> <HI>when all the be|leevers were of one mind</HI> yet then they prai&s;ed God in divers languages, <HI>Parthians and Medes,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Acts 2.9.</NOTE> <HI>and Elamites, and the dwellers in Me&s;opotamia, and in Iudaea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and A&s;ia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and the parts of Lybia, about Cyrene and &s;trangers of Rome, Iewes
<PB N="150" REF="226"> and Pro&s;elites, Creets and Arabians, wee doe heare them &s;peake in our tongues the wonderfull workes of God.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="4"> To the fourth, The diver&s;itie of tran&s;lations either of the Scriptures or the Church office breedeth no inconvenience at all, provided care be taken that the tran&s;lations bee revi&s;ed by the learned, and licenced by authoritie: nay on the contrarie the Church reapeth much benefit by it for languages have beene therby improved, and the Scriptures much opened. For oftentimes that which is ob&s;cure in the originall, is cleared in a good tran&s;lation. An unknowne tongue is like a vaile before a beautifull picture, or a filme before the eye, which by a good tran&s;lation is taken a|away. If it were either unlawfull or inconveni|ent to tran&s;late the holy Scriptures, or choyce parts of them in the Church Liturgie into vulgar languages; why did <HI>Severus</HI> tran&s;late them into the Syrian, S. <HI>Ierome</HI> into the Dalmatian, S. <HI>Chry|&s;o&s;tome</HI> into the Armenian, <HI>Vlphila</HI> into the Gothi|an, <HI>Methodius</HI> into the Slavonian? <HI>Bede</HI> into the Briti&s;h,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Aeneas Syl|hi&s;t. Bohem. c. <HI>30.</HI></NOTE> and the Divines of <HI>Doway</HI> and <HI>Rhemes</HI> of late into the Engli&s;h? Nay, why did the Pope him&s;elfe &s;igne and &s;ub&s;cribe unto the Petition of <HI>Cyrill,</HI> and <HI>Methodius</HI> Monkes &s;ent to convert the &s;laves, and Dalmatians who in behalfe of their Converts, de&s;ired of his holine&s;&s;e, that he would give leave to &s;ay &s;ervice unto them in the Slavo|nian tongue, which the Pope con&s;ented unto up|on their much pre&s;&s;ing him with that text of holy
<PB N="151" REF="226"> Scripture,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s;. <HI>150.</HI> v. ult.</NOTE> <HI>Let every thing that hath breath prai&s;e the Lord,</HI> and let every tongue confe&s;&s;e unto him.</P>
<P>To the fift. If there were any force in the <HI>Ie|&s;uits</HI> <MILESTONE N="5"> rea&s;on at all, it would prove that neither the Scriptures of the Old Te&s;tament &s;hould have beene delivered to the Iewes in the Hebrew, nor the New Te&s;tament to the Greekes in the Greek. For Hebrew was then the vulgar tongue of the Iewes, and the Greeke o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> the Gentiles, yet wee find that neither the writing the Old Te&s;tament in the Hebrew, nor the New in the Greeke, which were then the vulgar languages to tho&s;e people, bred any contempt of &s;acred things with prophane&s;&s;e and irreligiou&s;ne&s;&s;e, but the cleane contrarie effects. The u&s;e of Scripture in a vulgar tongue is not the cau&s;e why any di&s;e|&s;teeme or undervalew it, but want of in&s;truction in heavenly my&s;teries, and carele&s;&s;e and &s;uperfi|ciall reading without &s;earching into the bottome of the &s;pirituall meaning, where Orient Pearles lie. A counterfeit &s;tone if it bee often handled is di&s;covered to be fal&s;e, and thereby loo&s;eth its va|lew, whereas a rich Diamond though it be worne every day on the finger, lo&s;eth nothing of the price, or valew of it. If the publike u&s;e of Scrip|tures would have derogated any thing from the worth and valew of it, God would never have commanded the children of I&s;rael to <HI>rehear&s;e the booke of the Law continually to their children,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Deut. 6.7, 8, 9.</NOTE> <HI>to talke of it when they tarried in their hou&s;e, and when they walked in the way, when they lay downe,
<PB N="152" REF="227"> and when they ro&s;e up, to bind the words of the law for a &s;igne upon their hand, and as frontlets between their eyes to write them upon the po&s;ts of the hou&s;e, and upon the gates.</HI> Worldly wi&s;e men &s;eeke to improve their knowledge by concealing it, or at lea&s;t impropriating it to &s;ome few: but God con|trariwi&s;e valeweth his wi&s;dome by making it common. Earthly commodities the rarer the dearer, but heavenly Iewels the more common they are, the more pretious: of other liquour the le&s;&s;e wee ta&s;t, the more we thir&s;t after it, but hea|venly wi&s;edome thus &s;peaketh of her &s;elfe, <HI>Hee that drinketh of me, the more he drinketh the more hee &s;hall thir&s;t.</HI> As the comfortable beames of the Sun which &s;hineth daily upon us are not le&s;&s;e valewed, then the raies of tho&s;e &s;tarres that &s;el|dome appeare in our horizon: &s;o the word of God which is the light of our under&s;tanding i&s;&s;u|ing from the <HI>Sunne of righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e</HI> lo&s;eth no|thing of the reverend e&s;timation, and religious re&s;pect due unto it by the frequent irradiation thereof at the preaching and reading of Scrip|ture, nay it gaineth rather with all hearers in whom there is any &s;parke of grace. As for dan|ger of here&s;ie,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Rain. l. <HI>1.</HI> de Idol.</NOTE> indeed <HI>Claudius E&s;penceus</HI> wri|teth, that a friend of his in <HI>Italie</HI> told him, that in that countrey they made &s;hie of reading Scrip|ture, for feare of being made heretiques thereby, but by heretiques hee meaneth &s;uch as S. <HI>Paul</HI> was, <HI>who after the way which they call here&s;ie wor|&s;hip the God of their Fathers,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Acts 24.14.</NOTE> <HI>beleeving all things
<PB N="153" REF="227"> which are written in the Law and the Prophets,</HI> for otherwi&s;e if here&s;ie bee taken in the proper &s;ence for erroneous doctrine in point of faith, it is as ab&s;urd to &s;ay, that the ftequent u&s;e of Scriptures is a cau&s;e or occa&s;ion to bring men into here&s;ie, as that the often taking of a &s;overeigne antidote a|gain&s;t poy&s;on, is the ready meanes to poy&s;on a man.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>Chry&s;. tom.</HI> 5. Matth. 22.29.</NOTE> S. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> in his Homilie <HI>de Lazaro</HI> ex|horteth all his Chri&s;tian hearers to the frequent reading of Scriptures, as a &s;peciall meanes to pre&s;erve them from errours and here&s;ies. For all errours in point of faith ari&s;e from the ignorance of Scriptures, as our Saviour teacheth the Sadu|ces, &s;aying, <HI>Yee erre, not knowing the Scriptures.</HI> A&s;&s;uredly there is le&s;&s;e danger of falling into here&s;ie by reading Scriptures, then any other booke what&s;oever, partly becau&s;e they alone are free from all po&s;&s;ibilitie of errour, partly becau&s;e God promi&s;eth a ble&s;&s;ing to tho&s;e that reade and meditate on them: yet our Adver&s;aries &s;uffer all other bookes to bee tran&s;lated out of the learned Languages into the vulgar, only they forbid the tran&s;lation and publike u&s;e of the Scriptures, which containe in them mo&s;t whol&s;ome receipts, not only again&s;t all the maladies of the will, but of the under&s;tanding al&s;o: not onely again&s;t all morall vices, but al&s;o all intellectuall errours in matters of faith which wee call here&s;ies.</P>
<P>To the &s;ixt. Had the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> but an <HI>ounce</HI> of di|&s;cretion and common under&s;tanding hee would never tran&s;late <GAP DESC="foreign"> to <HI>announce,</HI> which is
<PB N="154" REF="228"> no Engli&s;h word at all, neither is hee of &s;ufficient authoritie to coyne new words at <HI>Doway</HI> or Saint <HI>Omers,</HI> and make them currant in <HI>England.</HI> For the matter it &s;elfe it is fal&s;e which hee &s;aith, that the Actions at the Lords Supper without the words &s;hew forth, or as he &s;peaketh, <HI>announce</HI> the death of our Lord, for Bread is broken, and Wine poured out at common meales, yet our Lords death is not thereby declared: both mu&s;t concurre, my&s;terious rites, and &s;acred formes of words lively to pre&s;ent Chri&s;ts death. The <HI>Knights</HI> argument therefore &s;tandeth firme. The Sacraments ought &s;o to bee celebrated, that by them the Lords death might bee &s;hewed forth: but it cannot be &s;hewed forth, unle&s;&s;e the Evan|gelicall &s;torie, and e&s;pecially the words of the In|&s;titution be pronounced in a language that may be under&s;tood. For to &s;peake Latine to the peo|ple that under&s;tand it not, is <HI>&s;urdo narrare fabu|lam,</HI> to tell a tale to a deafe man, or to &s;et a beau|tifull picture before him that is blind, or in the <HI>Knights</HI> phra&s;e to <HI>&s;peake to a wall;</HI> at which not|with&s;tanding the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> ridiculou&s;ly carpeth, &s;ay|ing, <HI>I never heard before, that it was all one to &s;peake Latine, and to &s;peake to a wall,</HI> were hee ac|cording to our Engli&s;h proverbe <HI>as wi&s;e as a wall,</HI> hee could not but under&s;tand what was the <HI>Knights</HI> meaning, to wit, that to &s;peake Latine prayers and exhortations, as Papi&s;ts doe at their Ma&s;&s;e to tho&s;e who under&s;tand them not, is no better then to &s;peake to &s;o many walls, when the
<PB N="155" REF="228"> Apo&s;tle touching upon the &s;ame &s;tring the <HI>Knight</HI> doth,<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 14.9.</NOTE> tearmeth the uttering words in an unknowne tongue, as <HI>&s;peaking into the ayre;</HI> This <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> in the &s;pirit of <HI>Lucian</HI> might in like man|ner have jeared at the Apo&s;tle, &s;aying, <HI>I never heard that to &s;peake in an unknowne tongue, bee it Greeke, Latine, or Hebrew, is to &s;peake to the ayre.</HI> The meaning of both phra&s;es, to <HI>&s;peake to a wall, and to &s;peake into the ayre,</HI> is all one to lo&s;e a mans breath to &s;peake idlely and unprofitably, or to no end and purpo&s;e, when no man is the better for it, as the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> afterwards confe&s;&s;eth, &s;aying, <HI>The other rea&s;on from the Apo&s;tle is, that tho&s;e which heare a prayer in a &s;trange language, are nothing the better for it, nor can &s;ay Amen unto it.</HI> What then can the common people bee the better for hearing popi&s;h Mattens or even-&s;ong, which are chaunted in Latine, a language which they un|der&s;tand not.</P>
<P>To the &s;eventh. Admit the Apo&s;tle in that <MILESTONE N="7"> place &s;pake not of publike prayers, but rather of private extemporarie devotion: yet the rea&s;ons he there u&s;eth again&s;t prayer in an unknowne tongue, are as forcible again&s;t publike as private ptayers. For if wee may not pray without un|der&s;tanding, or <HI>&s;peake into the ayre</HI> in our private devotions, much le&s;&s;e in our publike. But the truth is, the Apo&s;tle &s;peaketh evidently of pub|like prayers, and all the parts thereof; fir&s;t of pe|titions <HI>v.</HI> 15. &s;econdly, of giving of thanks <HI>v.</HI> 17. thirdly, of prophecying and interpreting of
<PB N="156" REF="229"> Scriptutes <HI>v.</HI> 4. fourthly, of &s;inging P&s;almes <HI>v.</HI> 15. and all this when the whole Church bee come together in one place <HI>v.</HI> 23. Moreover, he &s;peaketh of prayers made in the Church, <HI>v.</HI> 19. of the edification of others, <HI>v.</HI> 12.26. and of ble&s;&s;ings al&s;o wherein the people are to joyne with the Prie&s;t <HI>v.</HI> 16. and what can &s;uch prayers, benedictions, hymnes, and thanke&s;-givings bee other then parte of the publike Liturgie in the Church in tho&s;e dayes? <HI>Yea,</HI> but &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit, hee cannot &s;peake of the publike prayers of the Church which no man can doubt either for the truth or goodne&s;&s;e of them, and therefore hee may confi|dently &s;ay Amen to them, though they bee uttered in an unknowne tongue.</HI> I an&s;wer, that the Apo&s;tle here &s;peaketh not of <HI>confidently &s;aying Amen, but under&s;tandingly &s;aying it,</HI> which no man can doe, who is utterly ignorant of the tongue in which the Prie&s;t prayeth.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ho&s;. de verb Dei.</HI> I beleeve what the Church be|leeveth, the Church be|leeveth what I beleeve.</NOTE> And how&s;oever, none of the <HI>coliers implicite circular faith</HI> can make any doubt of the truth or goodne&s;&s;e of the prayers &s;aid in the Ma&s;&s;e: yet tho&s;e who&s;e eyes are not put out with the Romi&s;h <HI>coale du&s;t,</HI> may very well doubt of them; fir&s;t they may well doubt whether the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> which appointeth them may not erre as other Churches have done, e&s;pecially con&s;idering what the Apo&s;tle &s;peaketh expre&s;ly of that Church,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Rom. 11.22.</HI> Vid. Bull. praefix breviar. Rom. Melchior loc. theol. l. <HI>11.</HI> c. <HI>5.</HI> nec enim ani|mus e&s;t tueri omnes historias quae pa&s;&s;im in ecclc&s;i&acirc; lecti|tantur.</P>
<P>Claudius E&s;pen in <HI>2.</HI> ad Tim. c. <HI>4.</HI> digre&s;. <HI>2.</HI> no&s;tri quantum me pigeant fal|&s;a in eccle&s;ia Dei cantica canentes quan|rae nugae canore mihi audibiles? in uno hym|no praeter in|eptitudinem &s;ententiarum mendacia ad minus <HI>24.</HI> reperi. Petrus Pictau: ep. <HI>31.</HI> conqueritur inepta ac fal&s;a in laudem Sancti Mauri &s;uper aquas currentis afficta.</P></NOTE> <HI>that if &s;hee continued not in her goodne&s;&s;e, &s;hee &s;hould be cut off.</HI> Second|ly, hee may doubt whether all tho&s;e corruptions and abu&s;es which the Fathers in the Councell of
<PB N="157" REF="229"> <HI>Trent</HI> complaine to <HI>have crept into their Ma&s;&s;e</HI> are reformed. Thirdly, he may doubt whether the Prie&s;ts booke may not bee &s;ome-where fal&s;e printed. La&s;tly, he may doubt whether the Prie&s;t alwayes reades true; &s;urely that prie&s;t who bap|tized a child, <HI>in nomine patria filia, &amp; &s;piritua &s;ancta;</HI> and another who read in the Doxologie <HI>glia pni: flo: &amp; &s;pui &s;co &s;cutrat in primpo &s;cla &s;cla|rum, Amen,</HI> &s;aid Ma&s;&s;e by rote, and could not have skill of brachygraphy, nor well &s;pell La|tine, and can no man then doubt of the truth and goodne&s;&s;e of any of the prayers that are &s;aid by your Ma&s;&s;e-prie&s;ts?</P>
<P>To the eight. The &s;haft which the <HI>Knight</HI> <MILESTONE N="8"> draweth out of <HI>Haymo</HI> his quiver, flieth home. For fir&s;t he expre&s;ly teacheth that S. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;peaketh of publike prayers,<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 14.</NOTE> and among other rea&s;ons u&s;ed by the Apo&s;tle again&s;t the conceiving of prayers in an unknowne tongue, hee in&s;i&s;teth upon that <HI>v.</HI> 16. <HI>when thou &s;halt ble&s;&s;e with the &s;pirit, how &s;hall hee that occupieth the Roome of the unlearned &s;ay Amen at the giving of thankes, &s;eeing he un|der&s;tandeth not what thou &s;aye&s;t?</HI> adding <HI>if one knoweth that onely tongue wherein hee was borne and bred; if &s;uch an one &s;tand by thee while&s;t thou do&s;t &s;olemnly celebrate the my&s;terie of the Ma&s;&s;e, or make a Sermon, or give a ble&s;sing, how &s;hall hee &s;ay Amen at thy ble&s;sing, when hee knoweth not what thou &s;aye&s;t? for a&s;much as hee understanding none
<PB N="158" REF="230"> but his mothers tengue, hee cannot tell what thou &s;peake&s;t in that &s;trange and barbarous tongue.</HI> Hereunto the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> an&s;wereth, that if wee take <HI>Haymo</HI> altogether, wee &s;hall find hee doth not re|quire, that all that are by, &s;hall under&s;tand, but that hee that &s;upplieth the place of the <HI>idiot,</HI> or laye-man in an&s;wering for the people &s;hall under|&s;tand. An an&s;wer befitting an <HI>idiot</HI> indeed, for doth not S. <HI>Paul,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 14.16:</NOTE> and after him <HI>Haymo</HI> &s;peake indefinitly of any that occupie the place of the unlearned, or &s;tandeth by at Service or Sermon in an unknowne tongue? or is it le&s;&s;e ab&s;urd for any other man to be pre&s;ent at a prayer which he under&s;tandeth not, then for a Pari&s;h-Clarke whom alone hee will have here to be under&s;tood. Who is very much beholding to him for be|&s;towing the name of <HI>idiot</HI> upon him, and truly &s;uch a Clarke as the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> here defineth, may ve|ry well take the <HI>idiot</HI> in the wor&s;t &s;ence to him|&s;elfe.<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 265.</NOTE> For he requireth no more in a Clarke <HI>then that hee under&s;tand the Service &s;o farre, as to bee able to an&s;wer Amen.</HI> But it &s;eemeth the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> tooke his holy orders <HI>per &s;altum,</HI> and skipt over the Clarke. For if hee had well con&s;idered what belongs to the Clarkes office, he &s;hould find that he hath more in his part then to &s;ay only Amen; for in all ancient and later Liturgies that I have &s;eene, many &s;hort &s;entences or re&s;ponds are to be &s;aid by him, as namely <HI>Chri&s;te elee&s;on &amp; cum &s;pi|ritu tuo, &amp; habemus ad Dominum,</HI> and the like, neither can hee &s;ay Amen to any prayer in the
<PB N="159" REF="230"> Apo&s;tles &s;ence, unle&s;&s;e hee perfectly under&s;tand it: for to &s;ay Amen, is not only to utter the word which a Parret or Popenjay may doe, but to joyne in prayer with the Prie&s;t, and to give his a&s;&s;ent to every clau&s;e.</P>
<P>To the ninth. The <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> an&s;wer to <HI>Iu&s;tinian <MILESTONE N="9"> is lame on both feet.</HI> For whereas hee taxeth him for taking too much upon him, it will appeare to any who peru&s;eth the <HI>Code &amp; Dige&s;ts,</HI> that hee ta|keth no more upon him then God commendeth to Princes, to wit, <HI>the cu&s;todie of both tables:</HI> he did no more then S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> affirmeth appertaineth to Chri&s;tian Kings, <HI>to command tho&s;e things that are ju&s;t and hone&s;t not only in civill affaires, but al&s;o in matters of religion;</HI> for what he did, hee had ma|ny excellent pre&s;idents before him in <HI>David, Sa|lomon, Hezekiah,</HI> and <HI>Io&s;iah,</HI> Kings of Iudah; and <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> and <HI>Theodo&s;ius,</HI> and other Chri|&s;tian Emperours, as is declared at large by B. <HI>Bil|&s;on</HI> in his defence of the oath of &s;upremacie, and Doctor <HI>Crakenthorpe</HI> in his mo&s;t learned Apolo|gie of this Emperour. Next what hee &s;aith that the Decree of this religious Emperour may well &s;tand with the pre&s;ent practi&s;e of the Roman Church is mo&s;t fal&s;e.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Novel. con&s;tit. <HI>123.</HI></NOTE> For the words of the Empe|rour are generall, commanding all Bi&s;hops and Prie&s;ts to celebrate the &s;acred oblation of the Lords Supper, and prayer u&s;ed in Bapti&s;me, not in &s;ecret, but with a lowd and cleare voyce, that the mindes of the hearers might bee &s;tirred up with more devotion, to expre&s;&s;e the pray&s;es of
<PB N="160" REF="231"> God. Now I would faine know to what end all Bi&s;hops and Prie&s;ts are commanded to pro|nounce their words clearely and di&s;tinctly, both at the admini&s;tration of Bapti&s;me, and the Lords Supper; but that their hearers might undet&s;tand what they &s;ay, and bee affected with tho&s;e things they heare; which cannot be if the Prie&s;t &s;peak to them in an unknown tong? For how can the lowd pronouncing of words in a &s;trange language &s;tirre up the devotion of the people to prai&s;e God for his benefits, which the Emperour here requireth under a great penaltie, &s;aying? <HI>Let the Bi&s;hops and Prie&s;ts know that if they neglect to doe according to our princely command, they &s;hall yeeld an account in the dreadfull judgement of the great God for it, and wee having information of them will not leave them unpuni&s;hed.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="10"> To the tenth. After the Imperiall Decre<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> the <HI>Knight</HI> alledgeth a text out of the Canon law, not to <HI>&s;hew his skill in both lawes,</HI> as the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> would have it, but to demon&s;trate that the pra|cti&s;e of the Roman Church in this point of pray|er in an unknowne tongue, is again&s;t all law both Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall and civill,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Tit. <HI>3.</HI> de Offic.</NOTE> and that <HI>the walls of the Romi&s;h Babell are battered by her owne canons;</HI> for though the Decree of Pope <HI>Gregorie</HI> were made upon a &s;peciall occa&s;ion: yet it is grounded upon this generall rule, that Service and Sacraments mu&s;t bee &s;aid and admini&s;tred to the people in a language they under&s;tand, which the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> him|&s;elfe confe&s;&s;eth in part, &s;aying, <HI>that it is a matter
<PB N="161" REF="231"> of nece&s;sitie in the admini&s;tration of &s;ome Sacra|ments to u&s;e the vulgar tongue, as in Mariage and Penance;</HI> as for the Councell of <HI>Lateran,</HI> and the Pope in his Decree, they &s;peake indefinitely of holy Service and Sacraments, and the Logitians rule is that indefinite propo&s;itions <HI>in materia ne|ce&s;&s;aria</HI> are to be taken for univer&s;als, and by the &s;ame rea&s;on, which the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> alledgeth for Pe|nance and Mariage to be celebrated in a knowne tongue wee may conclude, that Bapti&s;me al&s;o, and the Lords Supper ought to bee &s;o celebrated. For in both, que&s;tions are put to the people, to the godfathers in the one, and communicants in the other, and an&s;wers are expected from them.</P>
<P>To the eleventh. The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> is like them taxed <MILESTONE N="11"> by the Apo&s;tle who knew not <HI>what they &s;pake, nor whereof they affirme.</HI> Our que&s;tion is not, whether divine Service ought alwayes to bee &s;aid in the mother tongue, for wee our &s;elves doe o|therwayes in divers Colledges: but the point in controver&s;ie is, whether the &s;ervice ought al|wayes to be &s;aid in a tongue under&s;tood by tho&s;e that are pre&s;ent: this all the Authours alledged by the <HI>Knight</HI> affirme, and therefore they make for us, and a&s;&s;uredly if for &s;even or 800. yeares the publike prayers of the Church were offered to God in a language under&s;tood by the people, as is confe&s;&s;ed: que&s;tionle&s;&s;e in many places the prayers were turned into vulgar languages. For it cannot be imagined that all the people in the Chri&s;tian world before Pope <HI>Vitalians</HI> time un|der&s;tood
<PB N="162" REF="232"> Hebrew,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Lyra in <HI>1</HI> Cor. <HI>14.</HI> in primiti|va eccle&s;ia be|nedictiones, &amp; coetera fiebant in lingu&acirc; vul|gari. Gretz. def. Bel. l. <HI>2.</HI> de verb. Dei lingu&acirc; au|ditoribus non ignot&acirc; omnia peragebantur, &amp; con&s;uetudo tunc ferebat ut omnes p&s;alle|rent. Harding. apud Iewel. ia <HI>3.</HI> art. divi&s;. <HI>28 Verely in the primitive Church pray|ers were made in a common tongue knowne to the people.</HI> Liturg. canoni|cam precem, &amp; in primis dominici cor|poris, &amp; &s;an|guinis con&s;e|crationem ita veteres lege|bant, ut &agrave; po|pulo intelligi, &amp; Amen ac|clamari po&s;&s;int. Iohan. Belit. in &s;um. de divin. offic. in primiti|va eccle&s;ia pro|hibitum erat ne+quis loqueretur linguis ni&s;i e&s;&s;et qui in|terpretaretur quid enim pro|de&s;&s;et, &amp;c. Wald. in doct. art. eccle&s;. tit. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>31.</HI> fuit ergo ratio talis benedictionis in eccle&s;i&acirc; tem|pore Apo&s;toli cui re&s;pondere &s;olebat non tant&ugrave;m clerus &s;ed omnis po|pulus. Aquinas lect. <HI>4.</HI> ide&ograve; erat in|&s;ania in primi|tiv&acirc; eccle&s;i&acirc; quia erant ru|des in ritu ec|cle&s;ia&s;tico.</NOTE> Greeke, or Latine, neither is it a point much materiall, whether the Authours alledged by the <HI>Knight</HI> &s;peake of any Precept of praying in a knowne tongue or not, it is &s;ufficient, that they confe&s;&s;e that it was the generall practice of the primitive Church, to performe their de|votions in the vulgar tongue. For certainly what they generally practi&s;ed in their divine Service, they thought to be fitte&s;t and mo&s;t agreeable to Gods commandement. If wee had nothing but their practi&s;e for us, it alone would prove the vi|&s;ibilitie of our Church in this maine point, wherein wee &s;tand at a bay with the Roman Church; but the truth is, though the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> would bee loath to heare it, his owne witne&s;&s;es <HI>Ca&s;&s;an|der, Belithus, Walden&s;is,</HI> and <HI>Aquinas</HI> &s;peake home to the point even of a Precept; the words of <HI>Ca&s;&s;ander</HI> are, <HI>the Canonicall prayers, and e&s;pecial|ly the words of Con&s;ecration of the body and blood of our Lord; the Ancients did &s;o read that all the people might under&s;tand it and &s;ay Amen according to the precept intimated by the Apo&s;tle,</HI> 1 Cor. 14.16. The words of <HI>Belithus</HI> are, <HI>that in the Primi|tive Church it was forbidden that any &s;hould &s;peake with tongues, unle&s;&s;e there were &s;ome to interpret: for what &s;aith hee, &s;hould &s;peaking availe without under&s;tanding? Walden&s;is</HI> &s;aith more then that, in the Apo&s;tles time, the giving of thankes was in a knowne tongue, he confirmeth the practi&s;e with a rea&s;on, &s;aying, <HI>There was rea&s;on it &s;hould bee &s;o, becau&s;e in tho&s;e times not only the Prie&s;ts, but the
<PB N="163" REF="232"> people al&s;o were wont to an&s;wer Amen. Aquinas</HI> go|eth a &s;tep farther, that it <HI>was madne&s;&s;e in the Primi|tive Church for a man to have prayed in an un|knowne tongue, becau&s;e then the people were rude and ignorant in Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall rites.</HI> Now if the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> thinke that it was not prohibited in the A|po&s;tles time, to doe any madde act in time of di|vine Service, he him&s;elfe is bound for the <HI>Anti|cyrae.</HI> Now for that the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> addeth for the im|belli&s;hing of his former an&s;wer, that none of the vulgar languages but the three learned, to wit, the Hebrew, Greeke, and Latine, were Dedica|ted on the cro&s;&s;e of Chri&s;t, and con&s;equently that they being the be&s;t and perfecte&s;t of all lan|guages were fitte&s;t for divine Service to be &s;aid in them: it is more plau&s;ible then &s;ub&s;tantiall. For though I grant that every devout &s;oule &s;o affect|eth the per&s;on of our Lord and Saviour, that &s;hee loveth the very ground hee trod upon, and ho|noureth tho&s;e languages above all other in which his titles were proclaimed, for the greater ad|vancement of his kingdome: yet the rea&s;on hol|deth not in our pre&s;ent ca&s;e. For though a gol|den key bee &s;imply better then a key of iron, yet a key of iron which will open to us a casket of mo&s;t pretious Iewells, is better for that u&s;e then a key of gold which will not open the lock. Admit the originall languages of Greeke and Hebrew are &s;imply perfecter, and better then any other which are derivatives from them, yet the Mother|tongue, or vulgar language, is better and fitter
<PB N="164" REF="233"> for the congregation in time of divine Service, be|cau&s;e it an&s;wereth the <HI>wards of their under&s;tanding,</HI> and <HI>openeth</HI> to their capacity the Divine my&s;teries then celebrated, which the learned languages cannot doe. As for <HI>Pilats</HI> writing over the Cro&s;&s;e, it is certaine he had no end therein to honour the three Languages, with this title: but to di&s;honour our Saviour thereby, and put a &s;corne upon him; and therefore that in&s;cription in the three lan|guages was rather a pollution then a Dedication of tho&s;e tongues. If <HI>Pilats</HI> action herein bee of any force it maketh rather again&s;t then for our Adver&s;aries. For <HI>Pilat</HI> therefore commanded the title to be written in tho&s;e three languages, that it might be under&s;tood of all, or the greater part of tho&s;e that then were at <HI>Ieru&s;alem.</HI> By which rea&s;on people of divers languages ought to have their my&s;teries (for &s;o the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> calleth this title) celebrated in their owne &s;everall lan|guages.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Praef. in p&s;al. his maxim&egrave; tribus linguis &s;acramentum voluntatis Dei, &amp; beati regni expecta|tio praedicatur ex eo&abque; illud Pilati fuit, ut in his tribus linguis regem Iudaeorum Dominum no|&s;trum Ie&s;um Chri&s;tum e&s;&s;e prae&s;criberet.</NOTE> S. <HI>Hilarie</HI> who is alledged by <HI>Baylie</HI> the Ie&s;uit for the con&s;ecration of the&s;e tongues, nei|ther &s;aith that the&s;e tongues were con&s;ecrated by that in&s;cription, nor that Chri&s;ts kingdome is to be proclaimed in them only. His words are <HI>in the&s;e three languages, e&s;pecially the my&s;terie of Gods will, and the expectation of his ble&s;&s;ed kingdome is preached; and hence it was that</HI> Pilat <HI>wrote our Lord Ie&s;us Chri&s;t King of the Iewes in tho&s;e three tongues.</HI> This te&s;timonie cutteth the throate of our Adver&s;aries, for the adverbe <HI>maxim&egrave;</HI> or chiefly implieth that the my&s;teries of Chri&s;ts
<PB N="165" REF="233"> kingdome were to be preached in other tongues, though in the&s;e e&s;pecially, becau&s;e the&s;e were then, and are &s;ome of them at this day mo&s;t ge|nerally knowne and under&s;tood.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><P>In c. <HI>15.</HI> Marc. Deus voluit ut cau&s;a mor|tis Chri&s;ti va|rijs linguis &s;criberetur quo ab omnibus in|telligeretur.</P>
<P>Et Hieron. ib. hae tres linguae in crucis titulo conjunctae ut omnis lingua commemoraret perfidiam Iu|daeorum.</P>
<P>Baron. tom. <HI>10</HI> Anno Chri&s;. <HI>880.</HI> ep. <HI>147.</HI> literas Slavo|nicas, &agrave; Con|&s;tantino philo|&s;opho repertas quibus Deo laudes debitas re&s;onent jure laudamus, &amp; vt in eadem lingua Chri&s;ti Dei no&s;tri praeconia, &amp; opera enarrentur, jubemus: neque enim tri|bus tant&ugrave;m linguis, &s;ed omnibus Dominum laudare authoritate &s;acr&acirc; monemur, quae praecepit dicens, laudate Dominum omnes gentes: nec &s;an&egrave; fidei vel doctrinae ali|quid ob&s;tat &s;ive mi&s;&s;as in eadem Slavonica lingua canere, &s;ive &s;acrum evangelium, vel lectiones divinas N. &amp; V. Te&s;tamenti ben&egrave; tran&s;latas, &amp; interpretatas legere, aut alia horarum officia p&s;allere quoniam qui fecit tres linguas principales Hebraeam &s;cilicet Graecam, &amp; Latinam, ip&s;e creavit &amp; alias omnes ad laudem &amp; gloriam &s;uam.</P></NOTE> <HI>Lyra</HI> and S. <HI>Ie|rome</HI> harpe upon this &s;tring, <HI>God would have</HI> &s;aith <HI>Lyra, that the cau&s;e of Chri&s;ts death &s;hould bee written in divers tongues that every tongue might declare the trecherie of the Iewes,</HI> and which marreth all the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> mu&s;ick, the Popes <HI>Diapa|&s;on</HI> &s;oundeth out the &s;ame <HI>note,</HI> for &s;o wee reade in Pope <HI>Iohns</HI> Epi&s;tle to the King of <HI>Moravia,</HI> we <HI>commend the Slavonian letters found out by</HI> Con|&s;tantine <HI>the Philo&s;opher, whereby tho&s;e of that coun|trey &s;et forth the due pray&s;es of God, and we com|mand that the preaching and workes of Chri&s;t our God bee declared in them, for we are admoni&s;hed by the Divine authoritie which commandeth,</HI> &s;aying, <HI>Pray&s;e the Lord all yee Gentiles, to pray&s;e the Lord not in three tongues only, but in all, for hee who made the three principall languages, Hebrew, Greeke and Latine; hee created al&s;o all other for his glorie.</HI></P>
<PB N="166" REF="234" MS="y">
<P>To the twelfth. To this in&s;olent interrogation of the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> wee an&s;wer, that in generall, prayer in an unknowne tongue is commanded in all tho&s;e texts of Scripture, which require us to come neere unto God, and pray unto him with our heart. For by the heart the under&s;tanding as well as the will and affections are meant, as ap|peareth by that prayer of <HI>Solomon, Da mihi cor intelligens?</HI> in particular and expre&s;&s;e words it is commanded in the 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. chapter through the whole, out of which wee thus argue, if it be bet|ter in the Church to &s;peake five words with un|der&s;tanding, that by our voyce wee may teach others, then a thou&s;and words in an unknowne tongue: then certainly the publike Service of the Church ought to be in a knowne tongue; but it <HI>is better in the Church to &s;peake five words with un|der&s;tanding to in&s;truct others thereby, then a thou|&s;and words in an unknowne tongue,</HI> v. 19. There|fore the publike Service of the Church ought to bee in a knowne tongue. If all things ought to be done in the Church to edification, then ought the publike Service to bee in a knowne tongue; (for <HI>hee that &s;peaketh in an unknowne tongue edifi|eth not,</HI> v. 5.) but in the Church all <HI>things ought to bee done to edification,</HI> v. 26. <HI>Ergo,</HI> the publike Service ought to bee in a knowne tongue: If in the prayers of the Church the people are to joyne with the Prie&s;t, and te&s;tifie their con&s;ent with him by &s;aying <HI>Amen</HI> to his prayers, and gi|ving of thankes: then ought the publike Service
<PB N="167" REF="234" MS="y"> to be in a knowne tongue: But in the prayers of the Church, the people ought to joyne with the Prie&s;t, and te&s;tifie their <HI>con&s;ent by &s;aying Amen</HI> to his prayers, and giving of thankes. <HI>Ergo,</HI> the publike Service ought to bee in a knowne tongue. If in the Church prayers wee ought to pray and &s;ing with under&s;tanding, then ought Church &s;er|vice to bee in a knowne tongue (<HI>for if wee pray in an unknowne tongue our &s;pirit prayeth, but our under&s;tanding is unfruitfull,</HI> v. 14.) But in the prayers of the Church wee ought to pray and &s;ing with under&s;tanding, <HI>v.</HI> 15. <HI>Ergo,</HI> the publike Service ought to bee in a knowne tongue. Nei|ther can the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;hift off the&s;e pa&s;&s;ages with a wi&s;h, &s;aying that S. <HI>Paul indeed advi&s;eth and wi&s;heth, that when any prayer is made in an un|knowne tongue, there &s;hould bee &s;ome to interpret, but that hee requireth no &s;uch thing to bee ob&s;erved as a divine precept:</HI> for <HI>v.</HI> 37. hee addeth, <HI>if any man thinke him&s;elfe a prophet or &s;pirituall, let him know that the things which I write unto you, are the commandements of God.</HI> To conclude, when S. <HI>Iames</HI> commandeth, <HI>that who&s;oever prayeth,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Iames 1.6.</NOTE> <HI>aske in faith, nothing doubting but that hee &s;hall receive what he asketh,</HI> hee nece&s;&s;arily implieth, that wee ought to pray to God in a knowne tongue. For how can hee beleeve that hee &s;hall receive what he prayeth for, if he knoweth not what him&s;elfe &s;aith in his prayers, or what an other prayeth for him, to who&s;e prayers hee &s;aith <HI>Amen.</HI> To the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> &s;econd <HI>quaere,</HI> where prayer in an un|knowne
<PB N="168" REF="235" MS="y"> knowne tongue is forbidden. I an&s;wer, <HI>E&s;ay</HI> 29.13. and <HI>Marke</HI> the 7.10. Well <HI>E&s;ay</HI> prophe&s;ied of you hypocrites, <HI>this people honoureth mee with their lips, but their heart is farre from mee:</HI> and 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. where the Apo&s;tle profe&s;&s;edly di&s;pu|teth again&s;t &s;peaking in the Church in an un|knowne tongue. But the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> excepteth, that S. <HI>Paul</HI> in that chapter condemneth not &s;imply prayers in an unknowne tongue, though hee pre|ferreth prophecie. By which his ignorant ex|ception, it &s;hould &s;eeme that hee read that chap|ter in an unknowne tongue; for hee &s;peaketh &s;o wide from the matter as if hee under&s;tood never a word in it. It is true that the Apo&s;tle in that chap|ter comparing the gift of tongues, and prophecie together condemneth neither of them, but pre|ferreth the gift of prophecie; and in pro&s;ecution of the compari&s;on falleth upon tho&s;e who u&s;ed the gift of tongues in publike prayers in the Church, and hee expre&s;ly condemneth that pra|cti&s;e of them, becau&s;e they that prayed in &s;uch &s;ort uttering words that were not under&s;tood, <HI>&s;pake not to men, becau&s;e no man under&s;tood them,</HI> v. 2. <HI>&s;pake into the ayre,</HI> v. 5. <HI>edified not by tho&s;e prayers,</HI> v. 12.17. becau&s;e others could not joyne with them in their prayers, nor <HI>&s;ay Amen to their thankes,</HI> v. 15. Now if the Apo&s;tle reproved the u&s;e of the miraculous gift of tongues (which re|dounded &s;o much to the honour of God) in the Church, without an interpreter, <HI>v.</HI> 28. &s;aying, <HI>if there bee no interpreter, let them keepe &s;ilence in the
<PB N="169" REF="235" MS="y"> Church;</HI> How much more may wee conceive would he have &s;orbidden the u&s;e of an unknowne tongue acquired by humane indu&s;trie? To his third <HI>quaere,</HI> what authoritie we can bring for our &s;elves, or example? I an&s;wer, that the <HI>Knight</HI> hath brought the authoritie, and example of the catholique Chri&s;tian Church for 700. yeares at the lea&s;t, and becau&s;e he calleth upo~ us to name a|ny Father, who teacheth as we do, that the &s;ervice of the Church ought to bee in a knowne tongue,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Expo&s;it. in p&s;al. <HI>18.</HI> vult ut quod cana|mus intelliga|mus ac humana ratione non qua&s;i avium voce canamus nam, &amp; p&s;it|taci, &amp; corvi, &amp; picae, &amp; huju&s;modi vo|lucres &s;aep&egrave; ab|hominibus do|centur &s;onate quod ne&s;ciunt &s;ciunter autem cantare natu|rae hominis di|vina bonitate conce&s;&s;um e&s;t.</NOTE> I name S. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome,</HI> who in his Commentarie upon the 14. chapter of the fir&s;t to the <HI>Corinthians</HI> &s;aith that <HI>the Apo&s;tle teacheth, that we ought to &s;peak with our tongues, and withall to minde what is &s;po|ken, that wee may under&s;tand it;</HI> and S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> willeth, <HI>that wee under&s;tand what wee &s;ing like men indued with rea&s;on, and not chatter like birds, for ou&s;els, parrats, crowes, pies, and &s;uch other birds, are often taught by men to &s;ound out that which they know not, but to know what they &s;ing, or &s;ing with knowledge and under&s;tanding, is by Gods will pecu|liarly given unto man.</HI> I name al&s;o <HI>Iu&s;tine Mar|tyre,</HI> and S. <HI>Ba&s;il,</HI> and many other ancient Do|ctours, who&s;e te&s;timonies are plentifully alled|ged by Bi&s;hop <HI>Iewell,</HI> Article the third, and <HI>Bil|&s;on</HI> of Supremacie, part the fourth, and not yet an&s;wered by any Papi&s;t to my knowledge.</P>
<P>To the thirteenth. The ob&s;ervation of Car|dinall <MILESTONE N="13"> <HI>Bellarmine</HI> concerning the different cu|&s;tome of the ancient Church, and the pre&s;ent Roman, maketh rather again&s;t the Ie&s;uits then
<PB N="170" REF="236" MS="y"> for them. For who will not attribute more to the uniforme practi&s;e of the primitive Church, then to the heteroclyte practi&s;e of later Churches? a&s;|&s;uredly the practi&s;e of the primitive Church wherein the people an&s;wered the Prie&s;ts, and not the Clarke only, is mo&s;t agreeable to the do|ctrine of S. <HI>Paul,</HI> and con&s;on<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nt to rea&s;on. For publike prayers were in&s;tituted e&s;pecially for three ends, fir&s;t, for the mo&s;t &s;olemne wor&s;hip of God, when thou&s;ands of hands are at once lifted up to him, and as many tongues confe&s;&s;e his name: &s;econdly, for the &s;tirring up of greater de|votion, when many hundreds praying and ble&s;|&s;ing, and &s;inging together, like &s;o many coales on the &s;ame hearth kindle one the other, and in|crea&s;e the flame. Thirdly, for more prevalencie with God, when we <HI>offer violence,</HI> as it were to heaven, and &s;end up our united devotions like a <HI>vollie of &s;hotte to batter the walls of it;</HI> They who pray in a tongue which the people under&s;tand not, and therefore cannot joyne with them in their prayer, faile of all the&s;e ends. Yet to <HI>&s;odder</HI> all, the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> beareth us in hand, that <HI>the Ma&s;&s;e be|ing the &s;ame continually, the people under&s;tand it &s;ufficiently for the exerci&s;e of their devotion, though not to &s;atisfie vaine curio&s;itie;</HI> which &s;peech of his is partly &s;encele&s;&s;e, and partly bla&s;phemous: it is &s;encele&s;&s;e to imagine that a man who never learned his Grammar, nor ever was taught Greek or Latine, by hearing onely the Ma&s;&s;e read over, though a thou&s;and times &s;hould come to under|&s;tand
<PB N="171" REF="236" MS="y"> it; &s;econdly, it is bla&s;phemous to &s;ay that to de&s;ire to under&s;tand the particular contents of the Epi&s;tles and Go&s;pels read in the Ma&s;&s;e, or the p&s;almes of <HI>David,</HI> &s;ung in the Church is vaine curio&s;itie, or hereticall pride. Loe here <HI>Flood</HI> his channell falleth againe into the Stygi|an lake.</P>
<P>To the fourteenth. There is no contradiction <MILESTONE N="14"> at all in the <HI>Knights</HI> ob&s;ervations. For though this &s;tory of the &s;hepheards abu&s;ing the words of Con&s;ecration, and &s;trucke dead for it, might peradventure occa&s;ion &s;ome alteration in tho&s;e Churches, where it was beleeved, yet there was no generall command for the practi&s;e of the La|tine Service, in all Chri&s;tian Churches before <HI>Vitalians</HI> time; who in the yeare 666. verified the number of the name of the bea&s;t in him&s;elfe, which according to the interpretation of S. <HI>Ire|naeus,</HI> who flouri&s;hed within two hundred yeares after Chri&s;t, is <HI>lateinos,</HI> as before I noted. But for mine owne part I have no faith at all in that le|gendarie fable of the Sheepheards; Fir&s;t becau&s;e tho&s;e that coyned it, agree not in their tale, for &s;ome &s;ay, that the Bread and Wine were tran&s;ub|&s;tantiated into fle&s;h and bloud, and the &s;heepe|heards for their prophane abu&s;e &s;trucke dead: others tell it otherwi&s;e,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ca&s;&s;and. li|turg. c. <HI>28.</HI> Honorius in Gem. animae, Bellar. l. <HI>2.</HI> de Mi&s;. c. <HI>22.</HI></NOTE> that neither the Bread nor the Wine were tran&s;ub&s;tantiated, but con&s;umed by fire from heaven, nor the &s;heepheards &s;trucken dead, but onely laid for dead. As for the Au|thour of the booke called <HI>Pratum &s;pirituale,</HI> hee
<PB N="172" REF="237"> is of no credit at all. For in his <HI>Spirituall mea|dow,</HI> as hee tearmeth his worke, there are many &s;uch <HI>Eutopian flowers,</HI> as this is, where I leave the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> to gather him a <HI>no&s;egay,</HI> till I have lei&s;ure to meete with him in the next Section.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>Concerning wor&s;hiping of Ima|ges. Spectacles, Sect. 7. <HI>a pag.</HI> 283. <HI>u&s;&abque; ad</HI> 319.</HEAD>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> _THe text of Scripture which the <HI>Knight</HI> quoteth, maketh not any mention of Image-wor&s;hip, but I|doll-wor&s;hip, which hee could not but know to bee a different thing ha|ving beene &s;o often told it.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> It followeth not the Iewes might not adore Ima|ges; <HI>Ergo,</HI> wee may not: for the Iewes might not eate bloud nor &s;wines fle&s;h, nor many other things which wee may.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> If the &s;econd Commandement were morall, and now in force, the <HI>Knight</HI> could not have his wives picture, nor &s;hee his, without breach of that Com|mandement: therefore in that &s;ence hee cannot urge it more again&s;t our pictures, then wee again&s;t his.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="4"> <HI>Cornelius Agrippa</HI> was a Magician, and there|fore no heed to be given to what he te&s;tifieth again&s;t the Roman Church.</P>
<PB N="173" REF="237">
<P><HI>Philo Iudaeus</HI> &s;aith nothing, but that the Iewes <MILESTONE N="5"> admitted no image into the Temple, which is true; for God cannot bee painted, neither could they have the Image of any Saint: for there was none as yet which might have that honour, to have their images or pictures in the Temple, them&s;elves being not yet admitted into the heavenly Temple of God.</P>
<P>It is no marvaile that the Iewes hate crucifixes, <MILESTONE N="6"> &s;ith they could not indure Chri&s;t him&s;elfe.</P>
<P>Notwith&s;tanding the prohibition in the &s;econd <MILESTONE N="7"> Commandement, were it Morall or Ceremoniall, men did adore the Cherubins in the Temple, and the Arke and the Temple it &s;elfe.</P>
<P>There may in the New Te&s;tament bee &s;ome pre|cept, <MILESTONE N="8"> or example both of our Saviour and his Apo|po&s;tles for the adoration of images, though not written in Scripture, becau&s;e as S. <HI>Iohn</HI> &s;aith, that all is not written, or rather a very &s;mall part is writ|ten as his words import.</P>
<P>Wee have the example of our Saviour and his A|po&s;tles <MILESTONE N="9"> te&s;tified by good authenticall hi&s;tories, many great and grave Authours make mention of two &s;everall images made miraculou&s;ly by our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour him&s;elfe, one was that which hee &s;ent to <HI>Abgarus</HI> King of <HI>Ede&s;&s;a,</HI> who had a de&s;ire to &s;ee him: the other was that of <HI>Veronica,</HI> which hee made with wiping his face, as hee was carrying his Cro&s;&s;e: a third was one which <HI>Nicodemus</HI> gave to <HI>Gamaliel,</HI> all which are te&s;tified, not only by grave and learned Authours, but by God him&s;elfe, though not in Scripture, yet by great and wonderfull mi|racles.</P>
<PB N="174" REF="238" MS="y">
<P> <MILESTONE N="10"> S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> taketh not <HI>Simulachrum</HI> for an image, as the <HI>Knight</HI> fal&s;ly tran&s;lateth him, but for an idoll, and &s;o commendeth <HI>Varro</HI> for comming neerer to the knowledge of the true God, and going further from idolatrie then other Gentiles.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="11"> <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> &s;aith not, that images &s;prang from an heatheni&s;h cu&s;tome, but hee meaneth by <HI>mos gen|tilis,</HI> the fa&s;hion of their owne people, and kindred, who were wont to honour &s;uch that had done them a|ny benefit, or helpe by erecting &s;tatues in memorie of them. Moreover, <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> relateth this &s;torie of the womans <HI>&s;tatua</HI> with approbation; upon the ba&s;is or foot thereof, there grew a certaine &s;trange and unu&s;uall kind of herbe, which as &s;oone as it grew up &s;o high as to touch the hemme of the brazen gar|ment, it had vertue to cure di&s;ea&s;es of every kind.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="12"> The Councell of <HI>Elliberis,</HI> was an ob&s;cure pro|vinciall Synod of <HI>19.</HI> Bi&s;hops onely, without any certaintie of the time when it was held, to which we oppo&s;e one of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> another at <HI>Rome,</HI> under <HI>Gregorie</HI> the third, and a third at <HI>Nice,</HI> of <HI>350.</HI> Bi&s;hops. Moreover, this Councell forbiddeth not pictures ab&s;olutely, but painting on walls, and &s;o leaving them to the furie, and &s;corne of the Gen|tiles, and it is plaine, that the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ouncell made the Decree out of honour to images, becau&s;e they thought not the walls a place convenient, becau&s;e the pla&s;ter breaking off in &s;ome places, they might become de|formed, and &s;o contemptible.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="13"> <HI>Valens</HI> and <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI> whom the <HI>Knight</HI> joy|neth in making a law again&s;t images, were not alive
<PB N="175" REF="238" MS="y"> together: <HI>Valens</HI> being killed <HI>23.</HI> yeares before <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI> was borne; be&s;ides <HI>Valens</HI> was a wic|ked Arrian heretique, upon whom God did &s;hew his judgement by a di&s;a&s;terous end, and the law made by him cited by the <HI>Knight</HI> is fowly corrupted, and the meaning wholly perverted, for the law was made in honour of the Cro&s;&s;e, to wit, thus wee com|mand that it &s;hall not bee lawfull for any to carve or paint the &s;igne of our Saviour Chri&s;t, either on the ground, or in any &s;tone or marble lying on it.</P>
<P><HI>Nicolaus Clemanges</HI> was him&s;elfe a <HI>Wiclefi|an</HI> <MILESTONE N="14"> heretique.</P>
<P><HI>Ca&s;&s;ander, Era&s;mus,</HI> and <HI>Wicelius,</HI> are of no <MILESTONE N="15"> account in the Roman Church.</P>
<P>The Councell of <HI>Nice,</HI> held under <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> <MILESTONE N="16"> and <HI>Irene,</HI> was not condemned at <HI>Frankford;</HI> Nay, in that very Councell an Anathema is &s;aid to all &s;uch as deface Images.</P>
<P><HI>Polidore Virgill,</HI> in &s;aying the ancient Fathers <MILESTONE N="17"> condemned the wor&s;hip of images, for feare of Ido|latrie, &s;peaketh not of the Fathers of the New Te|&s;tament, but tho&s;e of the Old; particularly naming <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> and <HI>Hezekias:</HI> nay farther, <HI>Polydore</HI> ac|counteth him a di&s;&s;olute and audacious man, who judgeth otherwi&s;e of the wor&s;hip of Images, then hath beene approved by the Decree of two or three Councels which he there alledgeth.</P>
<P><HI>Pere&s;ius</HI> denieth not the wor&s;hip of Images, but <MILESTONE N="18"> that the picture is to bee adored with the &s;ame wor|&s;hip, as the prototype, or thing repre&s;ented by it, which maketh nothing again&s;t the doctrine of the
<PB N="176" REF="239"> Catholique Church touching the wor&s;hip of Images.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="19"> <HI>Agobardus</HI> his drift in his booke <HI>De picturis &amp; imaginibus,</HI> is onely against the idolatricall u&s;e or abu&s;e rather of images again&s;t which hee &s;peaketh very much, by occa&s;ion of &s;ome abu&s;es in his time.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="20"> Although it were true that &s;ome &s;illy women, or ignorant ru&s;ticks &s;hould bee &s;o blocki&s;h, as to con|ceive &s;ome Divinitie in pictures, and accordingly adore them: yet the u&s;e of pictures mu&s;t not bee ta|ken away for the abu&s;e, for the axiome of the law is, <HI>utile per inutile non vitiatur.</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="response to section">
<HEAD>The Hammer.</HEAD>
<P>AS tho&s;e who beheld the head of <HI>Medu&s;a</HI> were turned into &s;tocks and &s;tones, and pre&s;ently deprived of all life and &s;en&s;e: &s;o tho&s;e who gaze upon with admiration, this head of the Romi&s;h doctrine concerning Image-wor|&s;hip, become &s;o &s;tupid and &s;en&s;le&s;&s;e, as if they were turned into tho&s;e &s;tocks and &s;tones, to which they give religious veneration. A notable expe|riment hereof we have in a conference in <HI>France,</HI> in which a <HI>Sorbon</HI> Doctour pre&s;ent, hearing how ab&s;urdly the Patrones of Images maintained the wor&s;hip of them &s;aid, <HI>of a truth I find the words of P&s;almi&s;t verified, tho&s;e that make them are like un|the to them, and &s;o are all they that put their tru&s;t in them.</HI> But wee need not goe &s;o farre for an in|&s;tance; the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> in this Section maketh good
<PB N="177" REF="239"> that ob&s;ervation, &s;hewing us a forehead of the &s;ame metall the images are made for which hee pleadeth. For he loadeth the <HI>Knight</HI> with &s;hame|le&s;&s;e calumnies, and mo&s;t impudently defendeth &s;uch gro&s;&s;e idolatrie as the wi&s;er of the heathen were a&s;hamed of: hee whetteth his poy&s;onous tooth, and like a mad dogge &s;naps at all hee mee|teth with, and farre out-raileth <HI>Rab&s;ekah</HI> him&s;elfe, as the Reader cannot but judge if hee peru&s;e but a few pa&s;&s;ages en&s;uing, namely fir&s;t, <HI>page</HI> 298. <HI>This is your di&s;cour&s;e Sir</HI> Humphrey, <HI>wherein you have given &s;o &s;ufficient te&s;timonie of notorious bad dealing, e&s;pecially in the two places of</HI> Eu&s;ebius, <HI>and of the civill law: that if there were nothing el&s;e fal&s;ified or corrupted in your whole booke, this were enough utterly to deface all memorie of you, from among hone&s;t men.</HI> And page 301. <HI>What &s;ay you to all this Sir</HI> Humphrey? <HI>looke now into your owne con&s;cience, and &s;ee whether it can flatter you &s;o much, as to &s;ay you are an hone&s;t man.</HI> And page 205. <HI>May not you then beare away the bell from all lying, and corrupting fellowes that have ever gone before you?</HI> Hee that &s;eeth &s;uch foule &s;tuffe come out of the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> mouth, would hee not thinke that he were &s;icke of the di&s;ea&s;e called <HI>mi&s;erere?</HI> but I leave his Grobian language, and come to con&s;ider fir&s;t what hee laieth to the <HI>Knights</HI> charge, and after, how hee di&s;chargeth him&s;elfe of the idolatrie and &s;uper&s;tition, where|with the <HI>Knight</HI> in this chapter burdeneth the Roman Church. Fir&s;t, he chargeth the <HI>Knight</HI>
<PB N="178" REF="240" MS="y"> with fal&s;e tran&s;lation, of the Councell of <HI>Trent. Wee teach that the image of Chri&s;t, the Virgin Mo|ther of God, and other Saints are chiefly in Churches to be had, and reteined, which Decree he might have tran&s;lated a little better, and more clearely by &s;ay|ing, that tho&s;e images are to bee had, and reteined e&s;pecially in Churches, the Latine word being</HI> prae|&s;ertim, <HI>and his tran&s;lating it chiefly, and placing it &s;o odly, gives cau&s;e to thinke he had an evill meaning therein, as if hee would have his reader thinke that the Councell taught that tho&s;e images were the chiefe things to be had in Churches, &amp;c.</HI> It is a &s;igne of a light head to &s;tumble at a &s;traw: yet here lyeth not &s;o much as a &s;traw in the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> way: only he wanted a fe&s;trawe to point to the accent, which is &s;et upon <HI>Churches</HI> not upon <HI>had,</HI> the meaning of the Councell and the <HI>Knights</HI> is all one, to wit, that images by that Decree were to bee had, and reteined chiefly or e&s;pecially in Churches, not to bee had or held to bee the chiefe thing in Churches. For no man would imagine that the Councell could bee &s;o ab&s;urd and impious, as to preferre images before the &s;acred Scriptures, the Font and Chalice, the Altar or communion Ta|ble: much le&s;&s;e the &s;acred Symbols of Chri&s;ts bo|dy and bloud. Secondly, he chargeth the <HI>Knight</HI> with gro&s;&s;e ignorance, in Chronologie, <HI>But I may aske you,</HI> &s;aith hee, <HI>how come you to &s;ay the Iewes never allowed adoration of Images for foure thou|&s;and yeares, when as the people of the Iewes were not &s;uch a people above two thou&s;and yeares; nay</HI>
<PB N="179" REF="240" MS="y"> Moy&s;es <HI>lived not pa&s;t</HI> 1500. <HI>yeares before our Sa|viour, &s;o that of your owne liberalitie and skill in Chronologie you have added</HI> 2000. <HI>yeares to make your doctrine &s;eeme ancient.</HI> There is a gro&s;&s;e mi|&s;take I confe&s;&s;e, but in the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> not in the <HI>Knight:</HI> who &s;aith not 4000. yeares, but for <HI>al|mo&s;t</HI> 4000. yeares in the fir&s;t edition, and in the later editions this &s;cape of the pre&s;&s;e is mended, and the figure altered. For the matter it &s;elfe, the <HI>Knight</HI> might truly have &s;aid, that the people of God, who lived partly under the law of nature, partly under the law of <HI>Moy&s;es,</HI> never allowed adoration of Images for 4000. yeares: &s;o ancient is the doctrine of the reformed Churches in this point. Thirdly, he chargeth the <HI>Knight</HI> with Sim|bolizing with Iewes in the hatred of Chri&s;t, <HI>You</HI> &s;aith hee, <HI>in alledging the Iewes hate of the cro&s;&s;e, as an argument why you &s;hould al&s;o hate the &s;ame, ta|citly confe&s;&s;e that you love Chri&s;t &s;o well as they:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 16.22.</NOTE> <HI>A fearefull charge:</HI> for <HI>who&s;oever loveth not the Lord Ie&s;us, let him bee anathema maranatha,</HI> but a ridiculous proofe; for a man may hate an idoli|zed crucifix, out of love of Chri&s;t, becau&s;e hee cannot endure Chri&s;t his honour to bee given to graven images. Heate of zeale again&s;t idolatrie, doth no way argue coldne&s;&s;e of affection to the true religion;<NOTE PLACE="marg">2 King. 15.4.</NOTE> Witne&s;&s;e King <HI>Hezekiah</HI> the <HI>non pareil</HI> of a religious Prince, who demoli&s;hed the brazen Serpent, and &s;tamped it to powder, cal|ling it <HI>nehu&s;tan,</HI> though it were an image and type of Chri&s;t crucified, as Chri&s;t him&s;elfe teacheth
<PB N="180" REF="241" MS="y"> us.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Io. 3.14.</NOTE> <HI>As</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>lifted up the Serpent in the wilderne&s;&s;e; So mu&s;t the Son of man be lifted up;</HI> Witne&s;&s;e Saint <HI>Peter,</HI> who loved Chri&s;t more then the re&s;t of the Di&s;ciples,<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Pet. 4.3.</NOTE> <HI>Diligis me pl&ugrave;s qu&agrave;m hi?</HI> and yet hee brandeth all Image-wor&s;hip by the title of <HI>abo|minable idolatrie.</HI> Nay, witne&s;&s;e S. <HI>Iohn</HI> the be|loved Di&s;ciple, who went behind none in zeale again&s;t idolatrie,<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Io. 5.21.</NOTE> &s;aying, <HI>babes keepe your &s;elves from idols.</HI> It is one thing to di&s;like crucifixes in Churches out of hatred of Chri&s;t, as Iewes, Turkes, and Infidels may doe: and another thing to di&s;allow them out of hatred of idolatrie and &s;uper&s;tition.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 span"></NOTE> To &s;tab the Kings picture, or any way deface it out of hatred, or contempt of his per|&s;on is di&s;loyaltie: yet to take a piece of counter|feit coyne prohibited by law, though bearing the Kings image, and pricke it full of holes, or naile it to a po&s;t, is no argument of di&s;loyaltie, but contrarie, an act of Loyaltie, and obedience al&s;o to the Kings lawes. La&s;tly, hee chargeth the <HI>Knight</HI> with Sacriledge and prophanation of ho|ly things, &s;aying, <HI>You, and &s;uch as you, have had your &s;hares in pulling downe of images, and &s;ilver &s;hrines, this la&s;t hundred yeares, are more like to be drawne with the love of gaine, to the pulling downe of Images, then wee that lo&s;e all for maintaining and &s;etting them up: for what wee and our Ance|&s;tors have parted with from our &s;elves, and out of our owne pur&s;es for the honour of God and his Saints; you or men of your religion, pull back from God and his Saints, to be&s;tow upon your backs and
<PB N="181" REF="241"> bellies, and upon your Mini&s;ters, their wives and brattes.</HI> I would ca&s;t this dunge backe againe on your Nunnes bellies, and Popes face, and tell you of the brats of the one buried in the earth, and drowned in moates, to cover the &s;hame of the parents, and give you a bill of the expence of the other upon their mi&s;tre&s;&s;es, farre &s;urmoun|ting the charge of all the Mini&s;ters wives in <HI>Eng|land;</HI> but I choo&s;e rather to purge the <HI>Knight</HI> from all foule a&s;per&s;ion herein, who is &s;o farre from having any hand in pulling downe your &s;ilver &s;hrines, and images, and making &s;ale of them, that he was not then borne, when by command of King <HI>Edward</HI> the &s;ixt tho&s;e Monuments of idolatrie were knocked downe and defaced, which yet was accounted a worke &s;o acceptable to God,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Vit. Ed. <HI>6. by Sir</HI> Iohn H.</NOTE> <HI>that the &s;elfe-&s;ame day that the images were broken downe in</HI> London, <HI>God gave us a nota|ble victorie in</HI> Scotland; but the truth is, the <HI>Knight</HI> chargeth the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> home with the exam|ple of <HI>Demetrius</HI> and his followers maintaining images, becau&s;e they were maintained by them. For who &s;eeth not in all popi&s;h countries, how when all other Artificers &s;hut up their &s;hoppes, to wit, on Sundayes and holy dayes the Prie&s;ts open theirs, &s;etting out as it were their <HI>golden puppets</HI> on the &s;talls, <HI>whereof they make no &s;mall advantage?</HI> and therefore to all his railing rheto|rick with which he concludes this &s;ection, I hold fit to returne no other an&s;wer then the French provetbe, <HI>The A&s;&s;e brayeth never &s;o hideou&s;ly, as
<PB N="182" REF="242" MS="y"> when hee is over-hard girt.</HI> Thus having held up my buckler for the <HI>Knight,</HI> and warded off the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> blowes: now I fall on whetting and &s;har|pening the <HI>Knights</HI> &s;word, wherewith he woun|deth the Idolatrous &s;uper&s;tition of the Roman Church, the edge whereof the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> endevoureth to dull by the twentie exceptions above mentio|ned, which now I will &s;can in order.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> To the fir&s;t. It is true that wee have beene oft told by Papi&s;ts, that we ought to make a diffe|rence betweene Image-wor&s;hip, and Idoll-wor|&s;hip: but it is as true that this is a di&s;tinction without difference, which hath beene a hundred times refuted by all tho&s;e who have entred into li&s;ts with Papi&s;ts about the que&s;tion in hand, and did not the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> arme his forehead with the me|tall of his images, he would blu&s;h to &s;ay that the texts alledged by the <HI>Knight</HI> make again&s;t idols,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><P>Vulg. lat. ex e|dit R. Stepha|ni, non facietis vobis idolum, &amp; &s;culptile nec titulos eri|getis, nec in|&s;ignem lapi|dem ponetis in terr&acirc; ve&s;tr&acirc; ut adoretis eum.</P>
<P>Lorinus in Act. <HI>7.</HI> v. <HI>29.</HI> &s;culptilis ima|go di&s;tincti&ugrave;s ac enixi&ugrave;s pro|hibita e&s;t, quo|niam cultus i|dolorum ver&s;a+batur poti&s;&s;i|m&ugrave;m in&s;culpt&acirc; imagine vel &s;tatua quae &s;o|liditate parti|um, at&abque; cra&s;&s;i|tie magis exhi|bet per&s;onam, quae adoranda proponitur, qu&agrave;m &s;i haec in &s;uperficie dun|taxat coloribus exprimatur. Tertul. cont. Marcio. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>22.</HI> nec enim imagines eo|rum, nec &s;ta|tuas populus habui&s;&s;et lege prohibente.</P>
<P>Va&s;quez. di&s;p. <HI>5.</HI> in <HI>3.</HI> p. Tho~. &amp; di&s;p. <HI>94.</HI> c. <HI>2.</HI> &s;ub&s;tantia praecepti fuit, u&s;um quemli|bet imaginum auferre.</P></NOTE> and not at all again&s;t images; for the fir&s;t text, <HI>Levit.</HI> 26.1. word for word according to the ori|ginall, and agreeably to the vulgar Latine is thus to bee rendred, <HI>Yee &s;hall make you no idols nor gra|ven images, neither reare you up a &s;tanding image, neither &s;hall you &s;et up any image of &s;tone in your land to bow downe to it.</HI> The &s;econd text <HI>Exod.</HI> 20.4. is thus to be tran&s;lated, <HI>Thou &s;halt not make thy &s;elfe any thing carved or graven,</HI> in Hebrew <HI>Pe&s;el</HI> derived from <HI>pa&s;al,</HI> &s;ignifying to carve or en|grave, in Greeke <GAP DESC="foreign">, in the vulgar Latine unto which all Papi&s;ts are &s;worne <HI>&s;culptile.</HI> To which Commandement <HI>Tertullian</HI> alluding &s;aith,
<PB N="183" REF="242" MS="y"> Peter <HI>knew</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>and</HI> Elias <HI>by the &s;pirit, when they appeared with Chri&s;t in the Mount, not by any picture or image which hee had &s;eene of them, for the people of the Iewes had no &s;uch, the law prohi|biting it.</HI> And <HI>Va&s;quez</HI> the Ie&s;uit convinced by the evidence of the text confe&s;&s;eth, <HI>that God in the &s;econd Commandement forbiddeth not only to wor&s;hip an image for God, but al&s;o to wor&s;hip God in any &s;imilitude,</HI> and con&s;equently hee thereby <HI>ta|keth away all u&s;e of any image of God.</HI> Yet were there any mi&s;t in the word <HI>pe&s;el,</HI> the words fol|lowing clearely di&s;pell it; <HI>nor the likene&s;&s;e of any thing, that is in heaven above, or in the earth be|neath, or in the waters under the earth, thou &s;halt not bow downe to them, viz. with thy body, nor wor|&s;hip them in thy &s;oule:</HI> Papi&s;ts doe both, and there|fore though they could e&s;cape the net laid for them in the fir&s;t words <HI>(non facies tibi &s;culptile)</HI> yet they are caught and &s;trangled in the next. For albeit they could prove that their images are no <HI>idols</HI> prohibited in the word <HI>pe&s;el,</HI> yet cer|tainly they are the <HI>&s;imilitudes of &s;omething that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth.</HI> The third text alledged by the <HI>Knight</HI> out of <HI>Deut.</HI> 4.15.16. &amp; 17. is thus rendered in their owne vulgar Latine,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cu&s;todite &s;oli|cit&egrave; animas ve&s;tras, ne for|te deceptifaci|atis vobis &s;culptam ima|ginem, vel &s;i|militudinem ma&s;culi vel foeminae.</NOTE> <HI>keepe care|fully your &s;oules, you &s;aw no &s;imilitude in the day in which the Lord &s;pake to you in Horeb out of the mid&s;t of the fire; take heed le&s;t peradventure be|ing deceived, you make to your &s;elves any graven image, or the likene&s;&s;e of male or female.</HI> Neither
<PB N="184" REF="243" MS="y"> is the la&s;t allegation out of <HI>E&s;ay</HI> the fortieth, le&s;&s;e prevalent then the former, to batter downe all popi&s;h images,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>v.</HI> 18.</NOTE> <HI>to whom will you liken God? or what likene&s;&s;e will you compare unto him?</HI> in the vulgar Latine, <HI>quam imaginem ponetis ei;</HI> and ver&s;e the 20. <HI>the worke-man melted a graven image, and the Gold&s;mith &s;preadeth it over with gold, and ca&s;teth &s;ilver chaines, hee that is &s;o im|poveri&s;hed, that hee hath no oblation, choo&s;eth a tree that will not rot, hee &s;eeketh unto him a cunning work-man to prepare a graven image that &s;hall not bee moved, &amp;c.</HI> And this may &s;erve to illu&s;trate the texts alledged by the <HI>Knight.</HI> Now for the words <HI>imago &amp; idolum,</HI> upon which the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> foundeth his di&s;tinction of image-wor&s;hip, and idol-wor&s;hip, if wee re&s;pect the originall, and ancient u&s;e of them, they are all one for <GAP DESC="foreign"> is derived from <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;ignifying the &s;hape, or forme of any thing;<NOTE PLACE="marg">L. de &s;en&s;u &amp; &s;en&s;ibili.</NOTE> and <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> calleth the <HI>&s;pecies</HI> of &s;uch things as we apprehend by &s;ence <HI>idola;</HI> and <HI>Tullie</HI> interpreteth the word <HI>imagines</HI> by <HI>ido|la:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Cic. de fin. i|magines quae idola nomi|nantur.</NOTE> and the &s;econd Councell of <HI>Nice,</HI> action the &s;ixt, tearmeth the images then u&s;ed in the Chur|ches idols, &s;aying, <HI>the&s;e idols may bee converted to other u&s;es.</HI> And la&s;tly, Cardinall <HI>Cajetan</HI> in his Comment upon the 20. of <HI>Exodus</HI> &s;peaking of the images of the Angels in the Arke tearmeth them <HI>idola Cherubinorum,</HI> word for word, <HI>the idols of the Cherubins.</HI> But if wee have regard to the more common u&s;e; the words <HI>imago &amp; ido|lum,</HI> differ as much as <HI>mulier &amp; &s;cortum,</HI> a wo|man
<PB N="185" REF="243" MS="y"> and a &s;trumpet. For as &s;uch women only as are abu&s;ed, and defiled by corporall fornication are tearmed &s;trumpets: &s;o now for the mo&s;t part, tho&s;e images only which are abu&s;ed to &s;pirituall fornication are called idols. Thus <HI>Tertullian</HI> de|fineth idolatrie to be <HI>the con&s;ecration of images,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">De idol. c. <HI>4.</HI> imaginum con|&s;ecratio e&s;t i|dololatria. I&s;id. l. <HI>8.</HI> Orig. c. <HI>11.</HI> idolum e&s;t &s;imulacrum quod humana effigie e&s;t con|&s;ecratum.</NOTE> <HI>or devoting of them to a religious u&s;e, or &s;etting them up to be wor&s;hipped;</HI> and agreeably hereunto S. <HI>I&s;idore</HI> defineth an idoll to be an image, <HI>con&s;e|crated in a humane &s;hape,</HI> and &s;uch were all idols at the fir&s;t, but in proce&s;&s;e of time as men in a quag|mire &s;inke &s;till deeper, and more foule them|&s;elves: &s;o the Pagans fell by degrees into gro&s;&s;er idolatrie, and <HI>turned the glorie of God, not only into the &s;imilitude of a corruptible man, but al&s;o of bea&s;ts and fowles, and creeping things, Rom.</HI> 1.23, 24. The difference which Cardinall <HI>Bellarmine</HI> maketh betweene an image and an idoll, <HI>viz. that an idoll is the repre&s;entation of that which hath no exi&s;tence in nature,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">De tradit. p. <HI>3.</HI> multa idola e|rant in quibus, nec daemon ali|quid re&s;ponde|bat, &s;ed tan|t&ugrave;m benefacto|rum Deum re|pre&s;ent&acirc;runt.</NOTE> <HI>but an image the likene&s;&s;e of &s;omething exi&s;tent,</HI> is very fal&s;e and ab&s;urd. For as <HI>Martinus Pare&s;ius</HI> confe&s;&s;eth, <HI>there were ma|ny idols of the Gentiles, in which they repre&s;ented God as a benefactour.</HI> The mother of <HI>Mica</HI> dedi|cated the hundred &s;hekels of &s;ilver unto the Lord, to make a graven and a molten image,<NOTE PLACE="marg">L. <HI>2.</HI> de imag. c. <HI>24.</HI> idololatria non &s;ol&ugrave;m fit cum adorantur idola relicto Deo &s;ed etiam adoratur ido|lum cum Deo, quod &s;i latria quae exhibetur imagini prop|ter aliud e&s;t i|dem cultus cum eo qui ex|hibetur Deo, aequ&egrave; colitur creatura at&abque; ip&s;e Deus, quae cert&egrave; ido|lolatria e&s;t. Lor. Comment in Act. c. <HI>17.</HI> &s;i verum e&s;t Cherubin ore, manibus, cruri|bus, erectione corporis huma|nam, jubis &agrave; pectore, &amp; cervice pen|dentibus leoni|nam, alis A|quilinam, un|gulis pedum vitulinam fi|guram retu|li&s;&s;e</NOTE> and per|&s;waded her &s;elfe that God would ble&s;&s;e her for it: yet no man doubteth but that was an idoll, and &s;hee an idolatre&s;&s;e, <HI>Iud.</HI> 17.4. Nay, the Car|dinall him&s;elfe ingenuou&s;ly acknowledgeth, that <HI>to exhibit divine wor&s;hip, even to the image of God
<PB N="186" REF="244" MS="y"> is idolatrie;</HI> which, &s;aith he, <HI>is committed not only when an idoll is wor&s;hipped in &s;tead of God, but al|&s;o when an idoll is wor&s;hipped together with God.</HI> By his owne confe&s;&s;ion then, an image made to repre&s;ent the true God, may bee an idol, by attri|buting to it <HI>latria,</HI> or the wor&s;hip proper to God. Moreover, the Cherubins hee will have to bee as they were indeed images, and not idols in his &s;ence: yet never was there any thing in nature exi&s;tent in that forme, as they were expre&s;&s;ed, namely, as the Rabbins teach, and the popi&s;h Painters draw them at this day, in the <HI>&s;hape of a child with wings;</HI> or as <HI>Lorinus</HI> hath it, <HI>with the face, hands, thighes, and body of men, but with the mane of Lyons, wings of Eagles, and parted feet of Calves.</HI> And no man doubteth but that the image which <HI>Aaron</HI> made, and which <HI>Ezekiah</HI> brake downe, and which the Phili&s;tines con&s;e|crated, and the Baalites wor&s;hipped were idolls: yet were they repre&s;entations of things exi&s;tent in nature, the fir&s;t of a calfe, the &s;econd of a Ser|pent, the third of a fi&s;h, the fourth of the Sunne.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> To the &s;econd. The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> maketh a bruti&s;h re|plie unworthy a Chri&s;tian, much le&s;&s;e a Divine. For who knoweth not, that <HI>delectus ciborum,</HI> the difference of meates was a part of the Ceremo|niall law abrogated by Chri&s;t, who teacheth us, <HI>that it is not that which goeth into a man which de|fileth him,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Matth. 15.17</NOTE> <HI>but that which commeth out of him;</HI> Who &s;ent <HI>Peter</HI> to <HI>Cornelius, Acts</HI> 10. and by a miraculous vi&s;ion revealed unto him, <HI>ver.</HI> 14.15.
<PB N="187" REF="244"> <HI>that he might not account any meate common or un|cleane, what God hath clean&s;ed,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>that call not thou common.</HI> Let the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;hew us a like abro|gation of the law concerning making and wor|&s;hipping of images, and then wee will free his Church from idolatrie in this point. But on the contrarie, it is &s;o evident, that the &s;econd com|mandement in the Decalogue is not ceremoniall,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Clemens A|lex. in pro|trept. Tertul. de Idol. c. <HI>4.</HI> Bellar. de i|mag. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>7.</HI></NOTE> and po&s;itive, but morall, that not only the anci|cient Fathers; but their great Cardinall is forced to confe&s;&s;e as much; nay, he is &s;o zealous in the point that he taketh <HI>Pere&s;ius, Catharinus,</HI> and all &s;uch Romani&s;ts to taske, as affirme the &s;econd Commandement to bee <HI>juris po&s;itivi,</HI> and &s;olid|ly proveth out of <HI>Irenaeus, Cyprian,</HI> and S. <HI>Au&s;tine,</HI> that it is a morall, and con&s;equently bindeth us as &s;trict as the Iewes.</P>
<P>To the third. The <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> argument is a <HI>non &s;e|quitur,</HI> <MILESTONE N="3"> for God by <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> forbiddeth not &s;imply to make any image, but to make any <HI>image to our &s;elves, thou &s;halt not make thy &s;elfe any graven image,</HI> to wit, <HI>to bow downe to it, or to wor&s;hip it,</HI> as the words following declare, <HI>thou &s;halt not bow downe to them, nor wor&s;hip them.</HI> Now what a loo&s;e kind of arguing is this of the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> the law forbiddeth us to make any image of God there|by to wor&s;hip him: therefore it forbiddeth us to make any image of man or woman to remember them: the law forbiddeth all &s;uper&s;titious u&s;e of images, therefore it forbids all civill u&s;e of them <HI>&s;cilicet?</HI></P>
<PB N="188" REF="245">
<P> <MILESTONE N="4"> To the fourth. Although <HI>Cornelius Agrippa</HI> wrote bookes <HI>De occult&acirc; philo&s;ophi&acirc;,</HI> wherein he &s;eemeth to hold too neere corre&s;pondencie with Magicians, and Conjurers, yet this doth not al|together di&s;able his te&s;timony. For <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> and <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> the great made good u&s;e, not only of the prophecies of the <HI>Sybbillaes,</HI> who for ought appeares were heatheni&s;h women: but al&s;o of the Oracles of <HI>Apollo,</HI> dictated by the divell him|&s;elfe, <HI>Seneca</HI> would have taught the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> a better le&s;&s;on by precept, <HI>non quis dicat, &s;ed quid dicat;</HI> we are not to con&s;ider &s;o much who it is that &s;peaketh, as what it is that is &s;poken: and <HI>Virgil</HI> by his practi&s;e, who often read the Poemes of <HI>Ennius,</HI> who&s;e skill was little in poetrie, &amp; language ob&s;o|lete, and being que&s;tioned for it, an&s;wered <HI>aurum &egrave; &s;tercore,</HI> I gather gold out of muck. By the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> rule no Phy&s;ician or Apothecarie &s;hould make u&s;e of a pretious &s;tone called <HI>Bufonites,</HI> becau&s;e it is found in the head of a Toad, or of a Turkes; or <HI>Lyncurie,</HI> becau&s;e it i&s;&s;ueth out of the body of a &s;potted bea&s;t, called Lynx. Let <HI>Cornelius Agrip|pa</HI> be in his eyes as ugly as the Lynx or Toad, yet the &s;entence or te&s;timonie rather which the <HI>Knight</HI> taketh from him like the Lyncurie or toad&s;tone, it is of price and of good u&s;e, to wit, <HI>that the Iewes were &s;o farre from making any thing that they wor&s;hipped, or wor&s;hipping any thing that they made, that they abhorred nothing more then images.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="5"> To the fift. <HI>Philo Iudaeus</HI> in this point is <HI>Philo-Chri&s;tianus</HI>
<PB N="185" REF="245" MS="y"> a friend to our orthodox Chri&s;tian doctrine, concerning the unlawfulne&s;&s;e of ma|king any image of God,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Antiquit. l. <HI>18.</HI> c. <HI>11.</HI> Iudaei &s;upplicant ne &s;e adeam nece&s;&s;i|tatem cogeret, nev&egrave; &s;acraram urbem pollueret vetitis imagi|nibus, tum Pe|tronius, pug|nabitis igi|tur cum Cae|&s;are, nec illius opes, nec ve|&s;tram imbecil|litatem adhi|bentes in con|cilium, non pug|nabimus ni|quiunt, &amp; moriemur citi|&ugrave;s quam di&s;ce|damus &agrave; legi|bus &s;imul&abque; procumbentes, nudantes ju|gulos, paratos &s;e aiebant ad excipiendos gladios. Aelius Lamp. in Alex. Strom l. <HI>5.</HI> &amp; <HI>6.</HI> Mo&s;es mul|tis ante &s;eculis apert&egrave; legem &s;anxerit, nul|lam oportere &s;culptilem, vel fu&s;ilem, vel fi|ctam, vel pi|ctam imaginem &s;imulacr&uacute;mve facere, quoni|am inquit nihil in rebus genitis pote&s;t referre Dei imaginem. Lib. de Spectac. c. <HI>23.</HI> jam ver&ograve; ip&s;um opus per&s;onarum quaero an Deo placeat qui omnem &s;imili|tudinem vetat fieri, qunat&ograve; magis imaginis &s;uae, non amat fal&s;um author veritatis, adul|terum e&s;t apud illum omne, quod fingitur. Orig. l. <HI>4.</HI> cont. Cel&s;um; Dei in corporei, &amp; invi&s;ibilis nul|lam effigiem faciunt <GAP DESC="foreign">. Minut. Fel. in Octav. quod e|nim &s;imula|crum Deo fin|gam cum &s;i re|ct&egrave; ae&s;timas &s;it Dei homo ip&s;e &s;imulacrum? Lactant. divin. in&s;tit. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>8.</HI> quare non e&s;t dubium quin religio nulla fit ubicun&abque; &s;imulacrum e&s;t: nam &s;i religio ex divinis rebus e&s;t, divinum au|tem nihil e&s;t ni&s;i in coele&s;tibus rebus; carent ergo religione &s;imulacra, quia nihil pote&s;t e&s;&s;e cre|le&s;te in ea re quae fit ex terra. Concil. Elib. can <HI>36.</HI> placuit picturas in eccle&s;ia e&s;&s;e non debere ne quod colitur, aut adoraturin parietibus pingatur. Orat. cont. Greg. Sabel. &s;tultorum, &amp; vecordium ista &s;unt verba, oculis, &amp; loco volentiam comprehendi id quod incorporale est.</NOTE> or &s;etting it up in the Church or Temple. For in his booke wherein he treateth of his Emba&s;&s;ie to <HI>Cajus</HI> hee writeth, <HI>that the Temple from the fir&s;t beginning to his time never admitted any image, being the hou&s;e of God: for the worke,</HI> &s;aith hee, <HI>of painters and carvers, are the images of materiall gods, but to paint the invi&s;ible God, or to faine any repre&s;entation of him, our Ance&s;tours held a wickedne&s;&s;e. Philo</HI> is &s;econ|ded by <HI>Io&s;ephus, When the Emperour</HI> Caligula <HI>was de&s;irous to have his owne image &s;et up in the Church of</HI> Ieru&s;alem, <HI>the Iewes,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Io&s;ephus, fir&s;t intrea|ted him, that hee would not defile the holy Citie with images forbidden by the law, and for their owne particular, they re&s;olved rather to die, then &s;uffer the law which forbad the &s;etting up of images in Churches to bee abrogated.</HI> Neither was this the common opinion only of tho&s;e learned Iewes, that none could, or ought, expre&s;&s;e the maje&s;tie of God by pictures: but of the Chri&s;tian Doctors in all &s;ucceeding ages, for</P>
<P>In the &s;econd age <HI>Adrian</HI> the Emperour com|manded, <HI>that Temples &s;hould be made in all Cities without images, and thereupon it was pre&s;ently con|ceived, that he intended tho&s;e Temples for Chri&s;ti|ans. Clemens Alexandrinus</HI> teacheth, <HI>that</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>made a law whereby hee plainly and expre&s;ly forbad any image molten, carved, or painted, to be made of God, becau&s;e,</HI> &s;aith hee, <HI>there is nothing in the
<PB N="190" REF="246"> creature that re&s;embleth the image of God. Tertullian</HI> living much about the &s;ame time, in his booke <HI>De &s;pectaculis</HI> affirmeth, <HI>that God hath forbidden the likene&s;&s;e of any thing to be made, much more the likene&s;&s;e of his owne image: the au|thour of truth doth not love any thing that is fal&s;e or counterfeit, and all that is feigned or formed by art of him, is nothing but counterfeit. Origen</HI> &s;pea|king of <HI>the South Church,</HI> &s;aith, <HI>the Chri&s;tians make no image of the incorporall and invi&s;ible God.</HI></P>
<P>In the third age <HI>Minutius Felix,</HI> when the Gen|tiles demanded of the ancient Chri&s;tians, why they had no Images returned this an&s;wer, <HI>What image &s;hall I make to God, when man him&s;elfe, if we rightly judge, is Gods image? Lactantius</HI> conclu|deth peremptorily, <HI>there is no doubt that there is no religion, wher&s;oever there is an image, for &s;eeing reli|gion con&s;i&s;teth of Divine things, and nothing divine is to be found, but in heavenly things; images there|fore are voyd of religion, becau&s;e nothing that is hea|venly can bee in that thing which is made of earth.</HI></P>
<P>In the fourth age, the Councell of <HI>Eliberis</HI> decreed, that <HI>no pictures &s;hould bee in Churches, le&s;t that which is wor&s;hipped and adored, &s;hould be painted on walls. Athana&s;ius</HI> condemneth them for <HI>fooles and &s;en&s;ele&s;&s;e, who liken God to corporall
<PB N="191" REF="246" MS="y"> things:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Eu&s;eb. evan. praef. l. <HI>3.</HI> quid &s;imile habet corpus huma|num menti Dei? &amp; quis tam amens e|rit ut dei for|mam, &amp; ima|ginem &s;tatu&acirc; viro &s;imili re|ferri p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">hibeat?</NOTE> Eu&s;ebius <HI>is as hot in the point as</HI> Athana|&s;ius, <HI>what &s;imilitude hath the body of man with the mind of God, who would bee &s;o mad as to imagine the forme and image of God to be re&s;embled by an image and &s;tatue like unto man;</HI> and in his Epi&s;tle to <HI>Con&s;tantia</HI> the Empre&s;&s;e, who &s;ent to him for an Image of Chri&s;t, he thus debateth the matter, <HI>What image doe you require of Chri&s;t, &s;uch an one as may expre&s;&s;e the characters of his divine nature?</HI> but <HI>I thinke you are &s;ufficiently in&s;tructed of this, that no man hath thus &s;eene the Sonne, but the Fa|ther. Doe you require the image of the forme of a &s;ervant which he tooke?</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Epiph. ep. ad Iohan. Ieru&s;. ep. <HI>60.</HI> in veni ibi velum pen|dens in foribus eju&s;dem eccle|&s;iae tinctum at&abque; de pictum, &amp; habens i|maginem qua|&s;i Chri&s;ti vel &s;ancti alicujus non enim &s;atis memini cujus imago fuerit: cum ergo hoc vidi&s;&s;em in eccle&s;i&acirc; Chri&s;ti contra autho|ritatem &s;crip|turaru~, hominis pendere ima|ginem &s;cidi illud &amp; ma|gis dedi con&s;i|lium cu&s;todibus eju&s;dem loci ut pauperem mor|tuum eo obvol|verent, at&abque; efferrent. Irome in E|zek. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>16.</HI> nos unam ha|bemus vivam, &amp; unam ve|neramur ima|ginem quae e&s;t imago invi&s;i|bilis, &amp; omni|potentis Dei. Amphiloc. ci|tat. &agrave; pat. con|cil. Con&s;tanti|nop. An. <HI>754</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. Aug. de mor. Eccl. c. <HI>34</HI> novi multos e&s;&s;e &s;epulchro|ru~ &amp; pictura|rum adoratores, &amp;c. Ep. <HI>109</HI> ad Ian. in primo praecepto prohibetur coli aliqua in figmen|tis hominum Dei &s;imilitudo, non quia, non habet imaginem Deus, &s;ed quia nulla imago e|jus coli debet, ni&s;i illa quae hoc e&s;t quod ip&s;e. L. de fid. &amp; &s;ymb. tale &s;imulacrum Deo nefas e&s;t Chri&s;tiano in templo collocare.</NOTE> <HI>but you mu&s;t under&s;tand that that was joyned to the glory of his God-head, in &s;o much, that his Apo&s;tles could not behold the glory of his fle&s;h in the mount; much more glorious is it now having put off mortalitie, who is therefore able with dead and livele&s;&s;e colours, and a &s;hadowed picture to expre&s;&s;e tho&s;e bright and &s;hining beames of &s;o great glorie. Epiphanius</HI> as zealous as <HI>either for entring into a Church at</HI> Anablathra, <HI>and fin|ding there a vaile hanging at the doore died, and painted, and having the image as it were of Chri&s;t, or &s;ome Saint, &s;eeing this, that contrary to the au|thoritie of Scriptures the image of a man was hung up in the Church of Chri&s;t, he cut it, and the vaile and gave coun&s;ell to the Keepers of the place, to wrap and burie &s;ome poore dead man in it, and he intreated the Bi&s;hop of</HI> Ieru&s;alem <HI>to give charge hereafter, that &s;uch vailes as that was, being repug|nant to Chri&s;tian religion &s;hould not bee hanged up
<PB N="188" REF="247" MS="y"> in the Church of Chri&s;t.</HI> S. <HI>Ierome</HI> in his Com|ment upon the &s;ixteenth of <HI>Ezekiel</HI> teacheth, that <HI>Chri&s;tians never acknowledge, nor wor&s;hip any image of the invi&s;ible and omnipotent God &s;ave one, to wit, his Sonne.</HI></P>
<P>In the fift age <HI>Amphilochius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Iconium</HI> in&s;tructeth us what account the Church made of images in the&s;e words, <HI>Wee have no care to figure by colours the bodily vi&s;ages of Saints in tables, be|cau&s;e wee have no need of &s;uch things; But by ver|tue to imitate their conver&s;ation;</HI> and S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> treating of the catholique Church profe&s;&s;eth that hee knew many wor&s;hippers of graves and pictures, and withall addeth the Church cen&s;ure of them, <HI>but the Church,</HI> &s;aith hee, <HI>condemneth them, and &s;eeketh every way to correct them as un|gracious children:</HI> and in his 109. Epi&s;tle to <HI>Ia|nuarius,</HI> c. 11. hee writeth that in <HI>the fir&s;t Com|mandement, any &s;imilitude of God devi&s;ed by man, is forbidden to bee wor&s;hipped, not becau&s;e God hath not an image, but becau&s;e no image of him ought to bee wor&s;hipped, but that which is the &s;ame thing that hee is;</HI> as for drawing him after the &s;imili|tude of a man hee utterly di&s;liketh it, &s;aying, <HI>it is unlawfull for a Chri&s;tian to erect any &s;uch image, and place it in the Church;</HI> for as el&s;e-where hee argueth, <HI>images prevaile more to bow downe the
<PB N="193" REF="247" MS="y"> unhappy &s;oule, in that they have a mouth, eyes, eares,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s;al. <HI>113.</HI> Conc. <HI>2.</HI> plus e|nim valent &s;i|mulacra ad curvandam infoelicem ani|mam, qu&ograve;d os babent, oculos habent, aures habent, nares habent, manus habent, pedes habent, quam ad corrigen|dam, qu&ograve;d non loquantur non videant, &amp;c. God. li. <HI>8.</HI> tit. <HI>12.</HI> prohibe|mus ba&s;ilicam alicujus ima|gine ob&s;curari. Greg. Regis l. <HI>7.</HI> ep. <HI>109.</HI> ad Seren. praetere&agrave; judico dudum ad nos perve|ni&s;&s;e, qu&ograve;d fraternitas ve&s;tra quo&s;|dam imaginum adoratores a|&s;piciens ea&s;|dem eccle&s;iae imagines con|fregit at&abque; pro|jecit, &amp; qui|dem zelum vos ne quid manufactum adorari po&s;&s;it, habui&s;&s;e laudavimus, &s;ed frangere ea&s;dem imagines non debui&s;&s;e judicamus, idcirco enim pictura in eccle&s;ia adhibetur, ut hi qui literas ne&s;ciunt &s;altem in parietibus videndo legant, quae legere in codicibus non va|lent. Vid. Concil. Nic. <HI>2.</HI> Act. <HI>6.</HI> Zonoras hi&s;t. Tom. <HI>3.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>no&s;trills, hands and feet, then to correct it, in that they neither heare, nor &s;ee, nor &s;mell, nor handle, nor walke.</HI></P>
<P>In the &s;ixt age. The Emperour <HI>Iu&s;tinian</HI> &s;et|teth downe a law made by <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI> and <HI>Valen|tinian,</HI> which <HI>forbiddeth Churches to bee ob&s;cured with any images or painted tables.</HI></P>
<P>In the &s;eventh age. When Images began to be &s;et up in the Churches, <HI>Serenus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Mar|&s;ilis</HI> brake them downe, which fact of his, though <HI>Gregorie</HI> di&s;liked, becau&s;e he thought that images might profitably be retained as lay-mens books: yet in this hee commended his zeale, that hee would by <HI>no meanes &s;uffer them to bee wor|&s;hipped.</HI></P>
<P>In the &s;eventh age. There was a Councell held at <HI>Con&s;tantinople, Anno</HI> 754. wherein It was de|creed by 338. Bi&s;hops in this manner, <HI>Wee doe de|clare that all images of what nature &s;oever, made by the wicked art of the Painter be ca&s;t out of Chri|&s;tian Churches, who&s;oever from this day forward &s;hall dare to &s;et up any images of God either in the Church, or in a private hou&s;e; if hee be a Bi&s;hop let him bee depo&s;ed, if he be a lay-man let him bee ac|cur&s;ed. Zonoras</HI> &s;aith, <HI>that in the hearing of all the
<PB N="194" REF="248"> people they openly forbad the wor&s;hipping of Images,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">H. de orthodox fid. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>17.</HI> &amp; orat. de imag.</NOTE> <HI>calling &s;uch as adored them idolaters.</HI> And in the yeare 794. <HI>Charles</HI> the great called a Councell of 300. Bi&s;hops of <HI>France, Italie,</HI> and <HI>Germany,</HI> in which the <HI>&s;econd Synod of Nice,</HI> which decreed the erecting and wor&s;hipping of images <HI>is refuted and condemned;</HI> yea, and &s;ome of the patrones of images, as namely <HI>Durand,</HI> and <HI>Gregorie</HI> the &s;e|cond profe&s;&s;edly inveigh again&s;t all Images and Pictures, made to repre&s;ent the Deity or Trini|tie, <HI>it is unpo&s;sible,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Dama&s;cene, that God who can neither bee &s;eene by man, nor circum&s;cribed, &s;hould be expre&s;&s;ed in any &s;hape or figure;</HI> nay, &s;aith hee, <HI>it is extreame madne&s;&s;e and impietie to make a repre&s;entation of the Godhead:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ep. Greg. ad Leo. Imper. de imag. in.</NOTE> and <HI>Gregorie</HI> the &s;econd giveth this rea&s;on to <HI>Leo</HI> the Emperour why they painted not God the Father, <HI>Quoniam quis &s;it non novimus, becau&s;e wee know not who hee is, and the nature of God cannot be painted, and &s;et forth to mans &s;ight.</HI></P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Rhem. cont. Hinc. Laud. c. <HI>20.</HI></NOTE>In the eighth age. <HI>Hincmarus</HI> Archbi&s;hop of <HI>Rhemes</HI> tells us, that not long before his time a generall Synod was called in <HI>Germanie</HI> by <HI>Charles</HI> the great, and therein by the rule of Scriptures and Fathers, <HI>the Councell of Nice</HI> indeed &s;aith he, <HI>a wicked Councell touching images, which &s;ome would have to bee broken in pieces, and &s;ome to bee wor&s;hipped was utterly rejected.</HI> In this age in the yeare 824. a Synod was held at <HI>Paris</HI> under <HI>Lu|dovicus Pius, where the fore&s;aid Councell of Nice was likewi&s;e condemned.</HI></P>
<PB N="195" REF="248">
<P>In the ninth age.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><P>Ionas Aureli|an, de cultu imag l. <HI>1.</HI> quae picturae non ad adorandum, &s;ed &s;olummod&ograve; te&s;te beato Gregorio, ad in&s;truendas ne&s;cientium mentes in ec|cle&s;ijs &s;unt antiquit&ugrave;s fie|ri permi&s;&s;ae. Agob. l. de pict. &amp; Ima|gin. rect&egrave; ni|mirum ad e|ju&s;modi eva|cuandam &s;u|per&s;titionem ab orthodoxis fratribus defi|nitum e&s;t pi|cturas in ec|cle&s;ia fieri non debere, ne quod adora|tur in parieti|bus depirga|tur.</P>
<P>Rhemig. in p&s;al. <HI>96.</HI> non &s;unt adoranda &s;imulacra, nec enim Angelus adorandus e&s;t.</P>
<P>An&s;el. glo&s;&s;. interlin. in Deut. c. <HI>4.</HI> formam non vidi&s;tis ne &s;cilicet volens imitari &s;culpendo fa|ceres idolum tibi. &V;id. Symph. Cathol. p. <HI>822.</HI> Ann. lal 2. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P></NOTE> <HI>Ionas</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Orleans</HI> wrote again&s;t <HI>Claudius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Turin</HI> concer|ning images, wherein he holdeth, <HI>that the images of Saints are not to bee wor&s;hipped, though they may be &s;et up in Churches for ornament, and to bring in|to the mind of &s;imple people the &s;torie of the Bible.</HI> And <HI>Agobardus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Lions</HI> telleth us, that <HI>the orthodox Fathers for the avoiding of &s;uper&s;ti|tion, did carefully provide that no pictures &s;hould bee &s;et up in Churches. Rhemigius</HI> boldly profe&s;|&s;eth, <HI>that neither images nor Angels are to bee wor&s;hipped.</HI></P>
<P>In the tenth age. <HI>An&s;elmus Laudunen&s;is</HI> the authour of the interlineare glo&s;&s;e upon the Bible, compo&s;ed of the Fathers writings, expoundeth that text of Deuteronomie, <HI>Yee &s;aw no manner of &s;imilitude</HI> in this &s;ort, le&s;t <HI>that willing to re&s;emble that &s;imilitude by engraving, thou &s;hould&s;t &s;et up an idoll to thy &s;elfe.</HI></P>
<P>In the eleventh age. <HI>Nicetas Croniates</HI> a Greeke hi&s;torian reporteth in the life and reigne of <HI>I&s;aac Angelus,</HI> one of the Ea&s;terne Emperours, that <HI>when</HI> Frederick <HI>Emperour of the We&s;t made an ex|pedition into</HI> Pale&s;tine, <HI>the Armenians did gladly receive the Almaines, becau&s;e among the Almaines and Armenians the wor&s;hipping of images was forbidden alike.</HI></P>
<PB N="196" REF="249" MS="y">
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Annal. p. <HI>1.</HI> Hi&s;t. eccl. l. <HI>18.</HI> c. <HI>53.</HI> imagines patris, &amp; &s;pi|ritus &s;ancti ef|figiant quod e&s;t pe rab&s;urdum. Durand. in <HI>3.</HI> &s;entent. dist. <HI>9.</HI> q. <HI>2.</HI> facere i|magines ad re|prae&s;entandum deu~ patrem, et &s;piritu~ &s;anctu~, aut venerari ejus imagines fatuu~ e&s;t; unde Dama&s;cenus dicit quod in|&s;ipientiae &s;um|mae, &amp; impie|tatis e&s;t, figu|rare quod e&s;t divinu~. Ave~t. hi&s;t. Bavar. l. <HI>7.</HI> In Deut. <HI>4.</HI> in imaginibus &s;ig|nantibus Deum unde &s;cilicet trinitatem duo inconvenientia &s;equi po&s;&s;unt primu~ idolola|tria ne etiam i|mago colatur, &s;ecundum er|ror, &amp; haere&s;is &s;cilicet attri|buere Deo illam corpore itatem, &amp; e&s;&s;entialem differentiam&punc; quale~ tres illas figuras figura|re co~&s;picimus. Ger&s;on com|pend. theolog. de pri. praecep. ad adorandum, &amp; colendum prohibentur imagines fieri.</NOTE>In the twelfth age. <HI>Roger Hoveden</HI> an Engli&s;h Hi&s;torian condemneth the wor&s;hip of images: for &s;peaking of the Synodall Epi&s;tle written by the Fathers of the &s;econd Nicene Councell, wherein Image wor&s;hip was e&s;tabli&s;hed, hee addeth, <HI>quod omnin&ograve; eccle&s;ia Dei execratur, which the Church of God altogether abhorreth.</HI></P>
<P>In the thirteenth age. <HI>Nicephorus</HI> writing of the Iacobites &s;aith, <HI>that they made images of the Father, and the holy Spirit, which,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>is mo&s;t ab&s;urd. Durand</HI> &s;toutly maintaineth, <HI>that it is utterly unlawfull to picture, or repre&s;ent the Trini|tie, or God, otherwi&s;e then as in Chri&s;t hee tooke our fle&s;h:</HI> and Pope <HI>Iohn</HI> the 22. calleth certaine men that dwelt in <HI>Bohemia</HI> and <HI>Au&s;tria, Anthropomor|phitas</HI> (that is, heretiques a&s;cribing an humane &s;hape to God) <HI>becau&s;e they painted the Trinitie in forme of an old man, with a young man and a Dove.</HI></P>
<P>In the fourteenth age. <HI>Abulen&s;is</HI> is utterly again&s;t all painting of the Trinitie, <HI>becau&s;e from thence two inconveniences may follow; fir&s;t the pe|rill of idolatrie, in ca&s;e the image it &s;elfe &s;hould come to bee wor&s;hipped: &s;econdly, errour and here|&s;ie by a&s;cribing to God &s;uch bodily &s;hapes and formes, as the Trinitie is u&s;ually pictured withall.</HI> And <HI>Ger&s;on</HI> commenting upon the fir&s;t Com|mandement &s;peaketh fully in the Prote&s;tant lan|guage, <HI>all images are forbid to bee made to adore or wor&s;hip them: thou &s;halt not adore nor wor&s;hip them;</HI> that is, <HI>thou &s;halt not adore them with any
<PB N="197" REF="249" MS="y"> bodily reverence, as bowing or kneeling to them, thou &s;halt not wor&s;hip them with any devotion of mind.</HI></P>
<P>But to returne back to <HI>Philo,</HI> who&s;e te&s;timonie the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> would faine put off by a double an&s;wer, fir&s;t, <HI>that the Iewes had not in their Temple any picture of God, becau&s;e hee cannot be painted: next that they had no picture of Saints, becau&s;e there was none as yet might have the honour to have their pictures in the Temple, being not yet admitted them|&s;elves into the Temple of God.</HI> The fir&s;t of the&s;e an&s;wers, the better it is, the wor&s;e it is for him|&s;elfe; the &s;tronger it is, the more it maketh again&s;t the practi&s;e of his owne Church: in which wee &s;ee the Trinitie familiarly painted. In his &s;econd an&s;wer hee palliateth idolatrie by impietie, and that hee may have &s;ome colour to &s;et up images of new Saints in Churches upon earth, hee excludeth all the old Saints before Chri&s;t, out of the heavenly temple of God. Not to digre&s;&s;e here to a di&s;pute about their imaginary <HI>Limbus,</HI> I would faine know of the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> where did <HI>Enoch walke with God after hee was tran&s;lated, that hee &s;hould not &s;ee death?</HI> to what place was <HI>Elias carried in a fierie chariot,</HI> not into heaven? When <HI>Dives</HI> &s;oule was dragd by Divels into hell, was not <HI>Lazarus</HI> &s;oule <HI>carried by Angels into heaven?</HI> the text &s;aith,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Luk. 16.22.</NOTE> <HI>hee was carried into</HI> Abra|hams <HI>bo&s;ome;</HI> and where is that S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> will informe you, even where the &s;oule of his friend &s;aint <HI>Nebridius,</HI> and other ble&s;&s;ed Doctours and confe&s;&s;ours now live: <HI>what&s;oever place,</HI> &s;aith hee,
<PB N="198" REF="250"> <HI>is meant by the bo&s;ome of</HI> Abraham, <HI>ibi vivit Ne|bridius meus quis enim alius locus tam piae animae?<NOTE PLACE="marg">Augu&s;t. Con|fe&s;&s;. l <HI>9.</HI> c. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> there my</HI> Nebridius <HI>liveth, for what other place were meete for &s;o godly a &s;oule?</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="6"> To the &s;ixt. There is nothing &s;o ea&s;ie as for a man with <HI>Antipho</HI> to pur&s;ue his owne fancie, or &s;hadow, to &s;et up a man of &s;traw, and pu&s;h him downe with a fe&s;traw: the <HI>Knight</HI> doth not thus argue, the Iewes hate the Image, and cro&s;&s;e of Chri&s;t, therefore Chri&s;tians ought &s;o to doe: for by the like rea&s;on it will follow that wee &s;hould condemne the very Go&s;pell, yea and hate Chri&s;t him&s;elfe, becau&s;e the Iewes doe &s;o; that is not his argument, but the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> phanta&s;me. The <HI>Knights</HI> argument &s;tandeth thus if of his enthy|mem we make a Syllogi&s;me; <Q><P>None may or ought to give a &s;candall to Iew or Gentile.</P>
<P>But by &s;etting up images or crucifixes in Temples, the Iewes are &s;o &s;candalized, that even tho&s;e among them, who other wayes might be enclined to embrace the Chri&s;ti|an faith are made utterly aver&s;e from it: becau&s;e they cannot per&s;wade them&s;elves that it can bee the true religion which main|taineth image-wor&s;hip, which is &s;o directly and expre&s;ly forbidden by God in the law.</P></Q> That the Iewes are thus &s;candalized at the idola|trous practice of the Roman Church, the <HI>Knight</HI> proveth by an eye-witne&s;&s;e Sir <HI>Edwine Sands,</HI> who in his de&s;cription of the religion in the We&s;t
<PB N="199" REF="250"> parts ob&s;erveth, that the <HI>wor&s;hip of images as it is at this day practi&s;ed by the Roman Church, is &s;uch a &s;tumbling block to the Iewes, and hinderance to their conver&s;ion, that when they come to Chri&s;tian Sermons, as in Rome they are enjoyned at least once a yeare, &s;o long as they &s;ee the Preacher direct his &s;peech to a little woodden crucifix that &s;tandeth on the Pulpit by him, to call it his Lord and Saviour, kneele to it, embrace it and ki&s;&s;e it, to weepe upon it, as it is their fa&s;hion in Italie, it is preaching &s;uffi|cient for them, and per&s;wadeth them more with the very &s;ight of it to hate Chri&s;tian religion, then any rea&s;on the world can alledge to love it.</HI></P>
<P>To the &s;eventh.<NOTE PLACE="marg">De idol c. <HI>5:</HI> Apo&s;tolus af|firmat omnia tunc figurat&egrave; populo acci|di&s;&s;e, &amp; ad|dit ben&egrave; qu&ograve;d idem Deus qui lege vetuit &s;i|militudinem fi|eri, extraordi|nario praecepto &s;erpentis &s;imi|litudinem fieri mandavit, &s;i eundem Deum ob&s;ervas, ha|bes legem ejus ne feceris &s;imi|litudinem, &s;i &amp; praeceptum factae po&s;te&agrave; &s;i|militudinis re|&s;picis, &amp; tu imitare Mo&s;en ne facias ad|ver&s;us legem &s;imulacrum ali|quod, ni&s;i &amp; tibi Deus ju&s;|&s;erit.</NOTE> The argument drawne from <MILESTONE N="7"> the Cherubins, is refelled profe&s;&s;edly by <HI>Tertul|lian, the Apo&s;tle,</HI> &s;aith he affirmeth, <HI>that all things happened to the Iewes in figures, and hee addeth well, the &s;ame God, who in his generall law forbad any &s;imilitude to be made, by an extraordinary pre|cept commanded &s;ome &s;imilitude to bee made, if thou do&s;t &s;erve the &s;ame God, thou ha&s;t his law; Make to thy &s;elfe no graven image, or &s;imilitude, if thou regarde&s;t the Precept of making a &s;imili|tude</HI> (as of the Cherubins, or brazen &s;erpent, &amp;e.) <HI>imitate thou</HI> Mo&s;es, <HI>make thou no image a|gain&s;t the law, unle&s;&s;e God command thee by a Precept.</HI> Whereunto wee may farther adde, that the Cherubins were not made publikely to bee &s;eene and gazed upon by the people: but were kept in the holy place whither the Prie&s;ts only re&s;orted; neither were they wor&s;hipped by the
<PB N="200" REF="251" MS="y"> Prie&s;ts, as <HI>Lyra</HI> (cited by the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI>) who was him&s;elfe a Iew at the fir&s;t, and well knew their practice, profe&s;&s;eth, <HI>the Iewes,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>wor&s;hipped not the Arke nor the Cherubins, nor the mercy &s;eate, but the true God which promi&s;ed to helpe them, neither were they &s;et up in the Temple for adoration, but for ornament,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">L. <HI>9.</HI> c. <HI>6.</HI> q. <HI>7.</HI> non ut adora|rentur &s;ed ob ornatum&punc; &amp; pulchritudinem Taberna <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">l<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> vel Templi, &amp; ad maje&s;tate<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Dei plenius o+&s;tendendam. Lorin. in Act Apo&s;t c. <HI>17.</HI> de Cherubinis ju&s;&s;i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Dei fa|c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">is, &amp; de a|lijs imaginibus a Solomone dice<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">dum, fu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;&s;e duntaxat ut appendices, &amp; addita|menta ornatus alterius rei non vero per &s;e propo&s;itas mo|do accommo|dato ad adora|tionem quam con&s;tat quo&abque; ab Haebreis ip&s;is, non fui&s;&s;e exhibitam, quod utrum&abque; docet Tertullianus erit&abque; id magis verum, &s;i verum e&s;t Cherubin ore, manibus, cruribus, erectione corporis humanam, jubis &agrave; pectore, &amp; cervice pendentibus Leoninam, alis aquilinam ungulis pedum vitulinam figuram retuli&s;&s;e. Va&s;q l de ador it. <HI>2.</HI> di&s;p. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>6.</HI> nunquam cheru|binis honor, aut adoratio adhibita fuit, aut <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;culo, aut genuflexione, aut oblatione thuris, aut alio &s;igno peculiari ad ip&s;os directo, nec qui&s;quam ni&s;i ex &s;uo cerebro, &amp; ab&s;&abque; ullo fundamento contrarium poterit affirmare.</NOTE> as <HI>Azorius</HI> convinced by evi|dence of truth acknowledgeth, &s;aying, <HI>the Che|rubins were not painted or engraven on the Arke, to the end they might bee adored, but only to adorne and beautifie the Tabernacle, and more fully to ex|pre&s;&s;e the maje&s;tie of God,</HI> with whom <HI>Lorinus</HI> and <HI>Va&s;quez</HI> accord, <HI>concerning the Cherubins made by the command of God; and other images in</HI> Solomons <HI>Temple, wee mu&s;t &s;ay that they were there as appendices and additions for the adorning of &s;omething el&s;e, not &s;et forth by them&s;elves in a manner fit for adoration;</HI> which it is manife&s;t that the Iewes never exhibited to them, both which <HI>Tertullian</HI> teacheth. <HI>Va&s;quez</HI> commeth not behind <HI>Lorinus,</HI> teaching a contrarie le&s;&s;on to <HI>Flood</HI> here, his words are, <HI>That the Cherubins were never adored nor wor&s;hipped, neither by ki&s;sing them, nor with bowing of the knee, or by offering Frankin&s;ence, or by any other meanes, neither can
<PB N="201" REF="251"> any man affirm the contrarie, except it be out of his owne braine without any foundation or ground at all.</HI></P>
<P>To the eighth. In this allegation the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> <MILESTONE N="8"> &s;heweth from whence he and his fellowes are de|&s;cended,<NOTE PLACE="marg">L. <HI>3.</HI> cont. hae|re&s;. c. <HI>2.</HI> cum ex &s;cripturis ar|guuntur in ac|cu&s;ationem convertuntur ip&s;arum &s;crip|turarum, qua&s;i non rect&egrave; ha|beant, ne&abque; &s;int ex authori|tate, &amp; quia vari&egrave; &s;int di|ctae, &amp; quia non po&s;&s;it ex his inveniri veritas, ab his qui ne&s;ciunt traditionem, non enim per|literas tradi|tam illam, &s;ed per vivam vocem. Aug. in Io. tract. <HI>49.</HI> San|ctus Evange|li&s;ta te&s;tatur multa Domi|num Chri&s;tum &amp; dixi&s;&s;e, &amp; feci&s;&s;e quae &s;cripta non &s;unt: electa &s;unt autem, quae &s;criberen|tur, quae &s;alu|ti credentium &s;ufficere vide|bantur. Cyr. in Io. <HI>12.</HI> c. <HI>68.</HI> non om|nia quae Do|minus fecit con&s;cripta &s;unt, &s;ed quae &s;cribentes &s;ufficere put&acirc;runt tam ad mores qu&agrave;m ad dogmata, ut rect&acirc; fide, &amp; operibus, &amp; virtute rutilantes, ad regnum coelorum perveniamus.</NOTE> <HI>viz.</HI> from the ancient Gno&s;ticks and Valentinians, who as <HI>Irenaeus</HI> te&s;tifieth again&s;t them, <HI>When they are convinced of their here&s;ies out of Scripture, they fall on accu&s;ing the Scriptures them&s;elves, impeaching their authoritie, and char|ging them with ambiguity, and &s;aying that the truth cannot be found out of them by tho&s;e who know not tradition, for that it was not delivered by letters, but by word of mouth.</HI> But becau&s;e I have <HI>beate</HI> the <HI>Ie|&s;uit</HI> heretofore out of this <HI>dodge,</HI> and have pro|ved abundantly the &s;ufficiencie and perfection of Scriptures, I will &s;pare farther labour herein, and only &s;hew how &s;hamefully he depraveth one text to the derogation of the whole Scripture, S. <HI>Iohn</HI> in the place alledged by him &s;peaketh not of points of faith or manners, precepts, or exam|ples for our imitation, but of miracles, <HI>Io.</HI> 20.30. <HI>Many things truly did Ie&s;us in the pre&s;ence of his Di&s;ciples, which are not written in this booke;</HI> Upon which words S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> and S. <HI>Cyrill</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">hus glo&s;&s;e full in the Prote&s;tant language, <HI>the holy E|vangeli&s;t te&s;tifieth that Chri&s;t did, and &s;aid many things that are not written, but tho&s;e things were cho&s;en to bee written, which &s;eemed &s;ufficient for the &s;alvation of them that beleeve;</HI> and S. <HI>Cyrill, all things which Chri&s;t did are not written, but what
<PB N="202" REF="252" MS="y"> the writers thought to bee &s;ufficient as well for our conver&s;ation as doctrine, that &s;hining with the right faith and vertuous workes, we may attaine to the kingdome of heaven.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="9"> To the ninth. Were the grave authours, the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;peaketh of authenticall, and the&s;e &s;tories go&s;pell: yet the Adver&s;arie would gaine nothing thereby, nor we lo&s;e; For we are none of the I|conomachi that bid battell to Images, and knock them downe where&s;oever they find them with battle-axes. Forbeare the repre&s;entation of the invi&s;ible Deity, and ble&s;&s;ed Trinitie, and remove all &s;candall from the people, and perill of idola|trie, and let the images and pictures of Chri&s;t and his Saints &s;tand where they doe for memorie, hi|&s;torie, and beautifying and adorning the walls and windowes. Wee di&s;like it not as the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> may reade in our bookes, and &s;ee in our Chur|ches, and hou&s;es. But the truth is, neither are the &s;tories of credit, nor the authours of them of that account as the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> would have them.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Comment. in <HI>2</HI> Timoth.</NOTE> Of &s;ome of them wee may truly &s;ay, as <HI>E&s;pencaus</HI> doth of <HI>Nicephorus,</HI> that they are in the&s;e relati|ons, <HI>&s;i non mendaces, &s;altem audaces, if not altoge|ther fabulous, yet very audacious;</HI> for the image &s;ent to King <HI>Abgarus,</HI> it is of no more credit then the letter &s;ent with it, which the Romi&s;h Church, as all other Chri&s;tians, hold to bee Apochrypha were it Canonicall it &s;hould make a part of the
<PB N="203" REF="252" MS="y"> New Te&s;tament. And for the &s;econd we cannot but <HI>wipe our eyes</HI> in bewayling their folly, who beleeve that Chri&s;t by <HI>wiping his face, as hee was carrying his Cro&s;&s;e, &s;hould imprint his image in his handkerchiefe.</HI> Yea but the&s;e images are confir|med by wonderfull miracles wrought by them. I an&s;wer fir&s;t out of <HI>Biel</HI> upon the canon of the Ma&s;&s;e,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Di&s;t. in pro|phano cultu Diabolus plu|rim&ugrave;m delecta|tur, &amp; quan|tum valet co|operatur ac a&s;&s;i&s;tit appa|rentibus mi|raculis. Cic. in Ver. act. <HI>6.</HI> multa prodi|gia vim ejus numen&abque; de|clarant. Strab. l. <HI>8.</HI> Geograph. E&s;penc. loc. &s;up. cit. dae|monum &s;pectris &amp; mulierum &s;omnijs parum verecund&egrave; utebantur. Edwin Sands <HI>di&s;cour&s;e of his Travels,</HI> &amp; Apolog. Herodoti per R. Stev.</NOTE> that <HI>the Divell is much delighted in pro|phane wor&s;hip</HI> (&s;uch is your wor&s;hip of images) <HI>and helpeth it forward as much as hee can by &s;ee|ming miracles;</HI> next, that this was the heathens plea for their wor&s;hipping of images; for <HI>Tully</HI> &s;peaking of the image of <HI>Ceres</HI> in <HI>Sicily,</HI> &s;aith, <HI>many wonders doe &s;hew the divine vertue thereof;</HI> and the Graecians as <HI>Strabo</HI> writeth, u&s;ed to &s;et up in tables <HI>the di&s;ea&s;es cured by Ae&s;culapius</HI> in <HI>Epidaurus,</HI> as the Papi&s;ts at this day doe, the di|&s;ea&s;es cured by the image of the ble&s;&s;ed Virgin in <HI>Lauretto.</HI> Thirdly, that learned Papi&s;ts finde much fault with the &s;eventh generall Councell for founding the wor&s;hipping of images upon <HI>the delu&s;ion of Divels, and old wives tales, and dreames.</HI> La&s;tly, mo&s;t of the Popi&s;h legendary &s;tories in this kind, may ea&s;ily be proved to bee no miracles of God, nor wrought by &s;orcerie or enchantment through the power of Satan, but to be meere impo&s;tures wrought by their Prie&s;ts, who are the greate&s;t <HI>juglers</HI> in the world in this kind.</P>
<P>To the tenth. S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> maketh great ac|count <MILESTONE N="10"> of this &s;peech of <HI>Varro,</HI> for hee twice
<PB N="204" REF="253"> maketh mention of it in this fourth booke. Fir&s;t chapter the ninth,<NOTE PLACE="marg">L. <HI>4.</HI> De civit. Dei, c. <HI>9.</HI> Var|roni &s;imulacra ita di&s;plicue|runt, ut cum tantae civita|tis perver&s;&acirc; con&s;uetudine premeretur, nequaquam tamen dicere &amp; &s;cribere dubitaret, qu&ograve;d hi qui populis in&s;tituerunt &s;imulacra, &amp; metum demp|&s;erunt, &amp; er|rorem addide|runt.</NOTE> <HI>Varro was &s;o farre out of love with images, that though hee were pre&s;&s;ed with the perver&s;e cu&s;tome of &s;o great a City as</HI> Rome <HI>was, yet hee made no bones, both to &s;ay and write that they, who fir&s;t brought in Images, both tooke away religious feare of God, and added errour to boote:</HI> and in his thirtie one chapter he hath this memo|rable ob&s;ervation, the <HI>Romans wor&s;hipped their gods more then a</HI> 170. <HI>yeares without images, and if they had done &s;o &s;till,</HI> &s;aith hee, <HI>the gods had beene more cha&s;tly or purely wor&s;hipped by them.</HI> Yea, but the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> with a wet finger turneth over the&s;e pa&s;&s;ages, as if nothing were &s;aid by S. <HI>Au|&s;tine</HI> or <HI>Varro</HI> to the prejudice of their images &s;hrines, or Altars: for S. <HI>Au&s;tine by</HI> Simulacrum <HI>meaneth not an image, but an Idoll, not the repre|&s;entation of the true, but a re&s;emblance of fal&s;e and feigned deities.</HI> The di&s;tinction of image and i|doll, I have before refelled: nothing remaines for the refutation of this an&s;wer of the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> but that I &s;hew out of S. <HI>Au&s;tine,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">De fide, &amp; Symb. c. <HI>7.</HI> nec id ip&s;um quod &s;ed&ecirc;re pater dicitur flexis po<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">litibus fieri putandum est, tale &s;imula|crum Deo ne|fas e&s;t Chri&s;ti|ano in Templo co locare.</NOTE> that by <HI>Simulacrum</HI> hee meaneth any image, even of the true God. And not to trouble the reader with many in&s;tan|ces tho&s;e words of his in his Treati&s;e of faith, and the Creed, clearely convince the <HI>Ie&s;uit, Wee mu&s;t not thinke,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>that God the Father who is &s;aid to fit, &s;itteth in heaven with bowed knees, as a man &s;itteth in a chaire, &s;uch a</HI> &s;imulacrum <HI>or image, it is not lawfull to &s;et up in the Temple of Chri&s;tians,</HI> had the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> but peru&s;ed the chapter
<PB N="205" REF="253" MS="y"> pointed to by the <HI>Knight,</HI> to which he profe&s;&s;eth to give a direct an&s;wer, hee would have given him&s;elfe the lye, and checked his former inter|pretation of S. <HI>Au&s;tines</HI> words; for immediatly after the former period, the Father addeth, that <HI>Varro in proofe of his a&s;&s;ertion alledgeth the cu&s;tome of the Iewi&s;h nation;</HI> and a little after he &s;aith,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Hujus &s;enten|tiae &s;uae te&s;tem ad hibet gentem Iudaeam. Vnum Deum, &agrave; quo mundum crederet guber|nari, &s;ine &s;imu|lacro colendum cen&s;uit.</NOTE> <HI>that</HI> Varro <HI>thought that God by whom hee beleeved the world was governed, ought to be wor&s;hipped without an image:</HI> by which words it is evident, that by <HI>&s;imulacra</HI> hee meant, not only the images of fal&s;e gods, which alone the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> calls Idolls, but al|&s;o of the true God; For the Iewes who&s;e cu|&s;tome hee bringeth in for him&s;elfe, abhorred all Images or Pictures even of the true God: and <HI>Varro</HI> him&s;elfe by that Governour of the world whom hee would have to bee wor&s;hipped, with|out an image, meant the true God, as S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> him&s;elfe te&s;tifieth of him. How&s;oever the title which hee there giveth him of <HI>anima mundi,</HI> or &s;oule of the world, &s;oundeth har&s;h in a Chri&s;tian eare: yet S. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> alloweth of <HI>Varro</HI> his a&s;&s;erti|on or opinion, as comming neerer to the truth, then other of the heathen Philo&s;ophers, in that hee taught but one God, and him to bee not ma|teriall or corporeall, but of a &s;pirituall and invi&s;i|ble &s;ub&s;tance, and therefore not to bee drawne with pen&s;ill, or counterfeited with colours, with|out errour or impietie.</P>
<P>To the eleventh. <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> relateth the &s;torie <MILESTONE N="11"> of <HI>Veronica</HI> her &s;tatue dedicated to the memorie
<PB N="206" REF="254"> of Chri&s;ts miraculous cure wrought upon her, with approbation thereof as being a la&s;ting mo|nument, and &s;tanding te&s;timonie of her gratitude to our Saviour, and much tending both to the confirmation of the Go&s;pell in generall, and that particular miracle of Chri&s;t, for who would not beleeve that the woman was cured of her bloudy i&s;&s;ue by touching the hemme of Chri&s;ts garment, when hee &s;aw an unu&s;uall kind of herbe growing at the foot of that Statua, which as &s;oone as it grew up &s;o high, as to touch the hemme of the brazen garment, received a miraculous vertue from it to cure di&s;ea&s;es of every kind; notwith|&s;tanding all this <HI>faire weather</HI> Eu&s;ebius <HI>falleth fowle</HI> upon the Originall of this erecting &s;tatuaes to the memorie of the dead, attributing it to a heatheni&s;h rite or cu&s;tome. Neither doth the <HI>Knight</HI> any way wrong <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> in the relation, or tran&s;lation of this pa&s;&s;age. For certaine it is, that the people of God began not fir&s;t to &s;et up images, or erect &s;tatuaes. The fir&s;t which wee ever read of, was con&s;ecrated to <HI>Belus,</HI> the &s;uc|ce&s;&s;our of <HI>Ninus</HI> by the A&s;&s;yrians who were Paynims, and the word <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>ethnicus</HI> or <HI>gentilis,</HI> &s;ignifieth Gentile or Heathen; what&s;oever the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> alledgeth out of <HI>Thoma&s;ius</HI> Dictionarie to the contrarie, &s;aying, <HI>Looke in your Dictionarie of</HI> Thomas Thoma&s;ius, <HI>whether among&s;t all the Engli&s;hes of</HI> Gentilis <HI>which are there &s;et downe,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 300.</NOTE> <HI>you can find heatheni&s;h, which I dare &s;ay you cannot. The Greeke word in</HI> Eu&s;ebius <HI>text is</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>and the
<PB N="207" REF="254"> Latine</HI> gentilis <HI>&s;ignifieth the &s;ame thing,</HI> to wit, <HI>belonging to a countrey, people, &s;tocke, or family,</HI> had the Ie&s;uits, and Seminarie Prie&s;ts at <HI>Doway</HI> and <HI>Rhemes,</HI> better &s;tudied <HI>Thomas Thoma&s;ius</HI> Di|ctionarie, they would not have fraught their Engli&s;h tran&s;lation of the Bible, with &s;o many affected har&s;h-&s;ounding, and uncoth words to Engli&s;h eares, <HI>as announce archi&s;ynagogue, a|zymes, comme&s;&s;ations, depo&s;itum, didrachme, euro|clydon, exinanited, holocau&s;t, ho&s;ts, victimes, pa|raclete pa&s;che, re&s;u&s;citate, neophyte, &s;uperedified,</HI> and the like. Againe, though <HI>Thoma&s;ius</HI> render not the word <HI>Heatheni&s;h,</HI> yet he rendereth it <HI>gentile,</HI> which is all one; and let the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> turne over all his <HI>Thoma&s;ius,</HI> and <HI>Eliots,</HI> and <HI>Riders,</HI> and <HI>Coopers,</HI> and <HI>Calepines,</HI> and &s;ee whether hee can fin<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">ny other proper Latine word an&s;wering to the Engli&s;h Heathen, or heatheni&s;h, then <HI>gentilis</HI> or <HI>ethnicus,</HI> a word derived of the Greeke <GAP DESC="foreign"> or <GAP DESC="foreign">, the very word u&s;ed by <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> in this place. When &s;o often in the holy Scriptures of the old Te&s;tament the word <HI>gentes</HI> occureth, as in the 2 <HI>P&s;al. v.</HI> 1. the 9. <HI>v.</HI> 5. and the 10. <HI>v.</HI> 16. and the 44. <HI>v.</HI> 2. and the 98. <HI>v.</HI> 1. and the 135. <HI>v.</HI> 15. and el&s;e-where, what can the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> meane by it but <HI>Gentile,</HI> or how can he tran&s;late it in pure and proper Engli&s;h,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Orat. de obit. Theodo&s;. regem adoravit, non lignum uti&abque; quia hic genti|lis error e&s;t, &amp; vanitas impio|rum.</NOTE> but <HI>heathen or heatheni&s;h na|tions:</HI> according to the meaning of the holy Gho&s;t in tho&s;e texts? What will hee &s;ay to the words of S. <HI>Ambro&s;e, When</HI> Helena <HI>read the title upon the Cro&s;&s;e then newly found, &s;hee fell downe
<PB N="208" REF="255"> and wor&s;hipped what or whom?</HI> The King (&s;aith that Father) to wit, <HI>Chri&s;t there entitled the King of the Iewes; not verily the wood, for that is a heathe|ni&s;h errour, and a vanity of ungodly men.</HI> Doth not <HI>gentilis</HI> here &s;ignifie prophane, Pagan and heathe|ni&s;h, therefore the <HI>Knights</HI> credit is &s;alved in that his tran&s;lation of <HI>Eu&s;ebius,</HI> and the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> credit and cau&s;e al&s;o lyeth a bleeding. For though the word <GAP DESC="foreign"> in Greeke, and <HI>gentilis</HI> in Latine; &s;ometimes in good authours &s;ignifieth no more then belonging to a countrie or nation,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Veri&s;imile e&s;t quod majores no&s;tri ad gen|tilis con&s;uetu|dinis &s;imilitu|dinem, qu&agrave;m|prim&ugrave;m acce|dentes, eos qui tanquam &s;er|vatores illis fui&s;&s;ent, apud &s;e honore ad hunc modum afficere con|&s;ueverunt.</NOTE> be it Chri|&s;tian or heatheni&s;h: yet in this place of <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> it cannot be otherwayes taken then for <HI>heathen,</HI> for <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> a little before &s;aith, <HI>it is not to be wondered that tho&s;e who are &s;prung of the Gentiles, or came of heatheni&s;h parents, and received benefits of our Sa|viour where he lived, did thus unto him, adding it is very likely, that <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ur ance&s;tours herein followed the cu&s;tome of the heathen; who honoured all &s;uch with Statutes who had been as &s;aviours unto them pre&s;er|ving their lives.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="12"> To the twelfth. The Councell of <HI>Eliberis</HI> is as a thorne in the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> eyes, and therefore he hath many plucks at it: yet he plucks it not out, but pricketh his owne fingers. Fir&s;t, he &s;aith <HI>it</HI> was an <HI>ob&s;cure Councell,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Vid &s;upr&agrave; ver|ba Agobardi.</NOTE> <HI>without any certainty of the time when it was held.</HI> As ob&s;cure as he maketh it, it is a Councell of reverend antiquity cited by S. <HI>A|gobardus,</HI> and approved by him, and honourably mentioned by all Writers, who impugne idola|trous innovations, &amp; corruptions in the Church.
<PB N="209" REF="255"> As for the time <HI>Baronius</HI> and the be&s;t Chronolo|gers affirme, that it was held in the yeare of our Lord 305. in the time of <HI>Marcellus</HI> the fir&s;t, and was con&s;equently more ancient then the fir&s;t mo&s;t famous Councell at <HI>Nice,</HI> if to this Councell the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> oppo&s;e one of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> the other at <HI>Rome</HI> under <HI>Gregory</HI> the third, and the third at <HI>Nice</HI> in favour of images: we in like manner op+po&s;e to tho&s;e idolatrous and hereticall, many Councels of better note, condemning image-wor&s;hip, as namely the Councell of <HI>Constantino|ple,</HI> held in the yeare 754. and another celebrated there in the yeare 814. and a third at <HI>Frankford</HI> in the yeare 794. and a fourth at <HI>Paris</HI> under <HI>Lu|dovicus,</HI> in the yeare 824. together with the book of <HI>Charles</HI> the great, and the Epi&s;tle of the Engli&s;h Bi&s;hops penned by <HI>Alcuinus,</HI> and mentioned by <HI>Houeden</HI> in his &s;torie of <HI>England,</HI> and many other tractates of famous writers of <HI>England</HI> &amp; <HI>France,</HI> who profe&s;&s;edly impugned and refuted the De|crees of the &s;econd Councel at <HI>Nice,</HI> e&s;tabli&s;hing i|mage-wor&s;hip. Yea, but &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> the Canon of <HI>Eliberis &s;hooteth not home</HI> to the point in que&s;ti|on, for <HI>it forbiddeth not pictures ab&s;olutely in Chur|ches,</HI> but only <HI>painting them on the walls.</HI> I reply fir&s;t, that the Councell forbiddeth pictures in Churches ab&s;olutely, the expre&s;&s;e words of the Canon are, <HI>placuit in eccle&s;i&acirc; picturas e&s;&s;e non de|bere, it &s;eemed good to the Councell, that pictures &s;hould not be in Churches;</HI> Whereof the 19. Fathers pre&s;ent at that Synod render this rea&s;on, <HI>ne quod
<PB N="210" REF="256" MS="y"> collitur in parietibus depingatur, le&s;t that which is wor&s;hipped &s;hould be painted on the walls.</HI> Secondly, I reply if the Councell of <HI>Elliberis,</HI> as the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> granteth, forbiddeth any image to be painted on the Church-walls, why doe Papi&s;ts every where in their Churches at this day paint images on the walls? Yea but the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> addeth, who is be&s;t at a dead lift, that we are be&s;ides the matter, in produ|cing the Canon of this Councell again&s;t images, which was made in honour of them, <HI>&s;i credere fas e&s;t.</HI> For the Councell, &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> forbad painting images on the <HI>walls of the Church, becau&s;e they thought not the walls a place convenient, le&s;t the plai&s;ter breaking off in &s;ome places, they might be|come deformed, and &s;o contemptible.</HI> Whereunto I rejoyne, fir&s;t, that if the Councell did this out of honour to images,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Canus loc. theol. non mo|d&ograve; impruden|ter, &s;ed &amp; impi&egrave; decre|tum.</NOTE> why doth their learned Bi&s;hop <HI>Canus</HI> &s;o &s;everely tax this Decree, tearming it not only a <HI>fooli&s;h,</HI> but an impious Canon? Secondly, if the Councell made this Deeree out of honour to images; Why doe not all Papi&s;ts, who &s;tand &s;o much for the honour and wor&s;hip of images, o|bey this Decree, and deface all images that are pointed on Church-walls? Thirdly, if it bee an honour to images to be removed out of all Chur|ches according to the purport of this Decree in the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> under&s;tanding, then the reformed Churches may ju&s;tly be thought to have &s;hewed the mo&s;t re&s;pect, and done the greate&s;t honour to images of all other, by ca&s;heering them out of their Churches, <HI>pra amore exclu&s;erunt foras,</HI> no
<PB N="211" REF="256" MS="y"> doubt <HI>out of love they &s;hut them out of doores.</HI> Fourthly, this rea&s;on taken from <HI>plai&s;ter</HI> brea|king a <HI>plai&s;ter</HI> to make it whole, for if for this rea&s;on images may not bee painted on walls, for feare of being defaced by weather or the plai|&s;ter breaking: by the like rea&s;on they &s;hould not bee painted in cloth, or upon board, be|cau&s;e they are in like manner &s;ubject there to be &s;oyled, razed, &s;tolne away, or many other wayes to be injured. <MILESTONE N="12"> </P>
<P>To the thirteenth. The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;ueth a <HI>Du|plex querela</HI> again&s;t the <HI>Knight</HI> concerning <HI>Va|lence</HI> the Emperour; fir&s;t, becau&s;e hee &s;tileth him <HI>a good Emperour;</HI> next, becau&s;e hee ranketh him with <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI> a Copartner with him of the Empire, whereas <HI>Valence was killed twen|tie three yeares before</HI> Theodo&s;ius <HI>was borne.</HI> Again&s;t his fir&s;t quarrell I need plead nothing, becau&s;e <HI>Valence</HI> is not &s;o &s;tyled by the <HI>Knight</HI> in the la&s;t corrected edition of <HI>Via tuta.</HI> If the <HI>Knight</HI> had &s;o &s;tyled him in any former edition,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bapt. in Chro~.</NOTE> he might have vouched a good authour for it, namely <HI>bap|ti&s;ta Egnatius</HI> who &s;peaking of <HI>Valence,</HI> and his brother <HI>Valentinian</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Digni imperio fratres, &amp; inter bonos referendi, they were worthy the Em|pire, and to bee ranked among good Princes, &s;aving that</HI> Valence <HI>was &s;omewhat blemi&s;hed by being &s;e|duced in judgement by the Arrians;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Invect. in Iu|lian.</NOTE> as al&s;o was <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> the Emperour; and yet <HI>Gregorie Nazianzen</HI> commendeth him for a <HI>religious Prince, that much promoted the affaires of the
<PB N="212" REF="257" MS="y"> Chri&s;tians again&s;t the heathen.</HI> and for the blotte of errour in his judgement hee layes the blame of it <HI>upon the &s;ubtile wits of the Arrian here|tiques, who put tricks upon that other-wayes good Emperour.</HI> For the &s;econd quarrell hee <HI>pickes,</HI> it is not worth a <HI>&s;traw.</HI> For though <HI>Valence</HI> and <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI> lived not together, yet they might both enact the &s;ame law. <HI>Valence</HI> might fir&s;t make it, and after <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI> confirme and revive it, as King <HI>Iames</HI> hath revived many lawes made by Queene <HI>Elizabeth,</HI> and other her predece&s;|&s;ours, though they never reigned together in this Kingdome; how&s;oever if there were any er|ror in relating this law out of the <HI>Coad</HI> as the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> pretendeth,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Zanch in praec. <HI>2.</HI> Sed Petrus Crinitus &s;cri|bit apert&egrave; &s;e vidi&s;&s;e legem ip&s;am in anti|qui&s;&s;imis codi|cib. qaae &s;impli|citer habebat, ne pingeretur nulla mentione &s;oli, aut mar|morum humi po&s;itorum facta. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> he ought to plucke <HI>Petrus Crinitus by the beard for it;</HI> for the <HI>Knight</HI> quoteth not the <HI>Coad</HI> or <HI>Dige&s;ts</HI> for this law, but <HI>Petrus Crini|tus, De hone&s;t&acirc; di&s;ciplin&acirc;, l.</HI> 9. <HI>c.</HI> 9. where hee may find the preci&s;e words alledged by the <HI>Knight,</HI> unle&s;&s;e peradventure his <HI>Petrus Cri|nitus</HI> hath felt the razor of the Popi&s;h Inqui&s;iti|on, and if &s;o, let him looke to more ancient editions of <HI>Crinitus,</HI> quoted by the Authour of the Engli&s;h Homilies, and <HI>Zanchius</HI> in his Com|ment upon the &s;econd Commandement, where this <HI>golden locke</HI> of <HI>Petrus Crinitus</HI> is not <HI>cut off.</HI> For what <HI>Timon</HI> &s;pake concerning the Editions of <HI>Homer,</HI> may bee &s;aid of <HI>Crinitus</HI> and other Ro|mi&s;h Authours, the mo&s;t correct copyes are tho&s;e that were never corrected.</P>
<PB N="213" REF="257">
<P>To the foureteenth. The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;hould have <MILESTONE N="14"> &s;aid a Paulian heretique, for <HI>Clemanges</HI> and <HI>Wickliffe</HI> profe&s;&s;e with <HI>Paul,</HI> Acts 24.14. <HI>That after the way which they (the Papi&s;ts) call here&s;ie, they &s;o wor&s;hip the God of their fathers in &s;pirit and truth, that they beleeve all things written in the Law and the Prophets;</HI> and nothing as nece&s;|&s;arie to &s;alvation, which is not written in them. It is true, <HI>Wickliffe</HI> was condemned for an he|retique: but it was many yeares after his death, when hee could not plead for him&s;elfe: and the Councell which condemned him was a perju|red and a condemned Councell, not only in the judgements of Prote&s;tants, but al&s;o ingenuous Papi&s;ts; for in that Councell three Popes were depo&s;ed, and a fourth cho&s;en, <HI>Martin</HI> the fift <HI>Huz</HI> and <HI>Ierome</HI> of <HI>Prage,</HI> contrary to the &s;afe conduct, &s;ent them under the Seale of the Em|perour <HI>Sigi&s;mund,</HI> were burnt to death, and their a&s;hes throwne in the River. Now as it is an ho|nour <HI>laudar&igrave; &agrave; laudato,</HI> to bee commended by men that them&s;elves de&s;erve commendation: &s;o it is no di&s;grace or di&s;paragement at all <HI>damnari &agrave; damnato,</HI> to bee condemned by a Councell which is condemned, and reproved it &s;elfe even by the Roman Church at lea&s;t in the fir&s;t Se&s;&s;ions of it. And &s;uch as are the fir&s;t fruits,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bellar. de Con|cil. c. <HI>7.</HI> Conci|lium Con&s;tan|tien&s;e quan|tum ad primas Se&s;&s;iones ubi definit concilium e&s;&s;e &s;upra Papam reprobatum e&s;t, in con|cilio Florentino, &amp; Laterananen&s;i ultimo.</NOTE> &s;uch is the whole lumpe.</P>
<PB N="214" REF="258">
<P> <MILESTONE N="15"> To the fifteenth. All the <HI>Ie&s;uits Gee&s;e</HI> are <HI>Swannes,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Multa Dir|coeum levat aura Cygnum, &amp;c.</NOTE> but our <HI>Dircaean Swannes</HI> with him are no better then <HI>gee&s;e, antiquum obtinet;</HI> this was ju&s;t the fa&s;hion of the ancient here|retiques, the Gno&s;ticks, and the Donati&s;ts, if any came over to their &s;ide, hee was pre|&s;ently cryed up for a man of &s;ingular parts and vertues, but if hee returned to the bo|&s;ome of the Church, hee was cryed downe for a Weather-cocke, or a <HI>tre&s;sis aga&s;o.</HI> It was well &s;aith Saint <HI>Au&s;tine,</HI> for <HI>Maximia|nus</HI> and <HI>Primianus,</HI> that they fell to the Do|nati&s;ts &s;ect, whereby pre&s;ently they gained the reputation of great Clarkes and primemen, wheras otherwayes if they had kept their old &s;ta|tion, <HI>Maximianus</HI> would have beene held <HI>Mini|mianus,</HI> and <HI>Primianus Po&s;tremianus:</HI> but let me tell the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> that how much &s;oever he &s;leighteth <HI>Ca&s;&s;ander, Era&s;mus,</HI> and <HI>Wicelius:</HI> that the wor&s;t of them in the time when he lived, was of bet|ter account then <HI>I.R.</HI> or <HI>Leomelius,</HI> or <HI>Daniel a Ie&s;u.</HI> As for gravitie and wi&s;edome, hee commeth farre &s;hort of <HI>Ca&s;&s;ander,</HI> for zeale and integritie, of <HI>Wicelius:</HI> &s;o if wee &s;peake of all kind of learning, hee is not worthy to carry <HI>E|ra&s;mus</HI> bookes after him;
<Q>Di&s;peream, &s;i tu matulam praebere Mamurrae dignus es.</Q></P>
<P>But I &s;pare him in this kind, becau&s;e for his
<PB N="215" REF="258" MS="y"> impudencie and ignorance: two Sorbon Do|ctours, <HI>Aurelius</HI> and <HI>Lallier,</HI> have di&s;ciplined him to the purpo&s;e, and I will bee loth <HI>&s;aevire in plagas &amp; vulnera.</HI> Yea but &s;ome of the&s;e mens Workes are marked in the Roman Index, &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> they are &s;o indeed to the eter|nall pray&s;e of their ingenuity: and to the ever|la&s;ting infamie of the Romi&s;h Inqui&s;itors cru|eltie, who &s;o deale with the witne&s;&s;es of truth, as Pope <HI>Sergius</HI> did with <HI>Formo&s;us</HI> his prede|ce&s;&s;or after his death; they mangle and deface them, cutting off their thumbes and fingers wherewith they te&s;tified and &s;igned the truth in their writings.</P>
<P>To the &s;ixteenth. In this Paragraph the <HI>Ie|&s;uit</HI> <MILESTONE N="16"> is <HI>totus fermento:</HI> it wonderfully tran&s;por|teth him, and putteth him in a cold &s;weat, that the <HI>Knight</HI> &s;hould &s;ay out of <HI>Chemnitius,</HI> that the &s;econd Synod of <HI>Nice,</HI> in which Image-wor&s;hip was e&s;tabli&s;hed, was condemned in the Councell of <HI>Frankford</HI> held in the yeare of our Lord 794. <HI>The Magdeburgians,</HI> &s;aith hee,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 308.</NOTE> <HI>and other your owne Authours affirme, that that very Councell of Frankford did &s;ay an Anathema to all &s;uch as deface images; is not this then abo|minable fal&s;hood in your friend</HI> Chemnitius <HI>to cite, nay forge it again&s;t images, and in you to fol|low him in it? ne Saevi magne Sacerdos:</HI> let not the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> lay about him &s;o furiou&s;ly, le&s;t per|adventure hee lend a blow to his be&s;t friends,
<PB N="216" REF="259"> for be&s;ides other Hi&s;torians of good note, <HI>Hinc|marus</HI> Archbi&s;hop of <HI>Rhemes,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 306. Hincma. Rhem. adver&s;. Hincma. Lau|dunen&s;. c. <HI>20.</HI> Graecorum p&s;eudo-Syno|dus de&s;tructa est, &amp; peni|t&ugrave;s abdicata. Ado. Vien. in cron. aetat. <HI>6.</HI> p&s;eudo-&s;yno|dus quam &s;ep|timam Graeci appellant pro imaginibus a|dorandis abdicata penit&ugrave;s. Idem habet Regino ad. ann. <HI>794.</HI> Bellarmine, lib. de Concil. c. <HI>7.</HI> Concilium Francofordien&s;e reprobatur, quantum ad alteram partem in qua ex errore damnatur &s;eptima Synodus.</NOTE> whom him&s;elfe calleth a <HI>Catholique indeed;</HI> nay, and Cardinall <HI>Bellarmine</HI> him&s;elfe al&s;o <GAP DESC="foreign"> &s;aith as much as <HI>Chemnitius</HI> or the <HI>Knight,</HI> to wit, that the <HI>Councell of</HI> Nice <HI>was condem|ned in the Councell of</HI> Frankford; neither doth the Anathema pronounced in that councell a|gain&s;t &s;uch as deface images, fall upon us who fight not again&s;t images, as the <HI>Iconomachi</HI> did, but again&s;t image-wor&s;hip, as that Councell of <HI>Frankford</HI> doth.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="17"> To the &s;eventeenth. The words of <HI>Polydore Virgill</HI> are the&s;e,<NOTE PLACE="marg">De invent. l. <HI>6</HI> c. <HI>13.</HI> de &s;imu|lacrorum cultu jam agamus quem non mo|d&ograve; no&s;trae rell|gionis exper|tes, &s;ed te&s;te Hieronymo omnes fer&egrave; ve|teres &s;ancti patres damna|bant ob metum idololatriae.</NOTE> <HI>Let us now &s;peake of the Wor&s;hip of images, which not only tho&s;e which were ignorant of our religion, but as Saint</HI> Ie|rome <HI>te&s;tifieth, almo&s;t all the ancient holy Fa|thers condemned for feare of idolatrie.</HI> To this allegation the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;aith, that <HI>Polydore is to be under&s;tood of the Fathers of the Old Te&s;tament only.</HI> Although <HI>Polydore</HI> hath not the word Old Te&s;tament, but ancient Fathers and Saints, which &s;tyle the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> never attri|buted to any before Chri&s;t. But bee it &s;o, let us take what hee granteth, wee have then the te&s;timonie of the true Church before Chri&s;ts
<PB N="217" REF="259"> Incarnation again&s;t image-wor&s;hip: and this is advantage enough, unle&s;&s;e the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> could con|front their judgement by Chri&s;t and his Apo|&s;tles, or &s;ome of the Fathers of the New Te|&s;tament. Yet what if <HI>Polydore Virgill</HI> in that place nameth &s;ome of the Fathers in the New Te&s;tament?<NOTE PLACE="marg">Divus quo&abque; Gregorius Se|renum epi&s;|copum Mar|&s;ilien&s;em re|prehendit qu&ograve;d imagines fre|gi&s;&s;et, &amp; laudat qu&ograve;d coli inhibu|i&s;&s;et.</NOTE> will not that &s;toppe the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> mouth? reade then a little further in <HI>Polydore</HI> in the &s;ame chapter courteous Reader, and thou &s;halt meete with the&s;e words. Saint <HI>Gregorie al&s;o reproveth</HI> Serenus <HI>the Bi&s;hop of</HI> Mar&s;ellis <HI>for breaking downe images, and yet commen|deth him in that hee forbad the wor&s;hip of them.</HI></P>
<P>To the eighteenth. <HI>Pere&s;ius</HI> &s;aith, <HI>that there <MILESTONE N="18"> can bee no &s;ound proofe brought either out of Scripture, or tradition of the Church, or com|mon con&s;ent of Fathers, or determination of a generall Councell, or any other effectuall rea|&s;on to per&s;wade a man, that the image of Chrt&s;t,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">L. de tradit. nullum quod ego viderim, afferunt vali|dum funda|mentum, neque &s;cripturas, ne&abque; traditio|nem eccle&s;iae, ne&abque; commu|nem con&s;en|&s;um &s;ancto|rum, ne&abque; con|cilij generalis determinatio|nem aliquam, nec etiam ra|tionem qu&acirc; hoc efficaciter &s;uaderi po&s;&s;et, &s;cilicet imagines Chri&s;ti, &amp; &s;anctorum adorari debere, eadem adorati|one qu&acirc; &amp; res quae reprae&s;entantur. P. <HI>242.</HI></NOTE> <HI>and the Saints, are to bee wor&s;hipped with the &s;ame adoration that the &s;amplers are.</HI> Is this no|thing again&s;t you? then <HI>Aquinas,</HI> and in a manner all the Schoole-men, <HI>Ludovicus Para|mo, Bernardus, Pind, Franci&s;cus Petigianis, Petrus de Cabrera, Azotius, Lamas, Rubio, Bu|&s;tus,</HI> quoted by the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Ely,</HI> in his re|ply to <HI>Fi&s;her,</HI> with divers others reckoned up by <HI>Bellarmine, l.</HI> 2. <HI>de imag. c.</HI> 20. were no
<PB N="218" REF="260" MS="y"> Papi&s;ts. For all the above-mentioned, hold that opinion for Catholique, whieh <HI>Pere&s;ius</HI> con|demneth.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="19"> To the Nineteenth. The more wee looke into <HI>Agobardus</HI> the greater rea&s;on wee have to make account of him: for the fir&s;t hee alled|geth the Councell of <HI>Eliberis</HI> again&s;t &s;etting up of images in Churches: next hee affirmeth that the ancients had pictures of Saints painted or carved, <HI>ad recordandum non ad colendum, to remember the Saints by them, not to wor&s;hip them.</HI> La&s;tly, hee averreth that <HI>there is no example in all the Scriptures, or Fathers for adoration of ima|ges:</HI> and what doth or can any Prote&s;tant &s;ay more again&s;t the doctrine of the Roman Church in this point, then this <HI>Agobardus</HI> doth, whom this <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> canonizeth for a &s;aint? neither can he put him off by &s;aying, that <HI>hee &s;peaketh again&s;t Idoll-wor&s;hip,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Hic author caut&egrave; legendus e&s;t, quoniam laborat eodem errore quo Agobardus, &amp; reliqui ejus aetatis Galli, qui ne|gabant &s;acris imaginibus ul|lum deberi cul|tum religio&s;um.</NOTE> <HI>or &s;ome abu&s;e of Images which crept in in his time;</HI> for <HI>Bellarmine</HI> who bet|ter &s;tudied <HI>Agobardus,</HI> then this <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> in his booke of Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Writers, <HI>ad an|num</HI> 820. in his cen&s;ure of <HI>Ionas</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Or|leans</HI> &s;aith, this Authour <HI>is to bee read with caution, becau&s;e hee was infected with the &s;ame opinion that Agobardus, and other French Bi&s;hops
<PB N="219" REF="260" MS="y"> of that age were, who denie any religious wor&s;hip to bee due to images.</HI></P>
<P>To the twentieth. <HI>Sententias loquitur <MILESTONE N="20"> Carnifex;</HI> this is the fir&s;t e&s;&s;ay wee heard from this <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> but nothing to the purpo&s;e, for wee grant that things that are good in them&s;elves, and of a nece&s;&s;arie and profitable u&s;e, are not to bee taken away for the abu&s;e: but wee denie that Images in Churches are of that nature; neither is his law-Axiome uni|ver&s;ally true, <HI>Vtile per inutile non vitiatur, that which is profitable, is not corrupted or made bad by that which is unprofitable.</HI> For the brazen Serpent in the Wilderne&s;&s;e was for a time <HI>utilis,</HI> profitable, curing them that had beene &s;tung by the fiery Serpent: yet <HI>per|inutile vitiabatur,</HI> it was corrupted and made &s;candalous and unprofitable by the peoples abu&s;ing it to idolatrie: and if that Image be|ing a type of Chri&s;t, and &s;et up by Gods &s;pe|ciall command, was yet broken in pieces by good King <HI>Ezekiah,</HI> after the people began to wor&s;hip it: how much more ought tho&s;e images to bee knocked downe, and &s;tamped to powder, which are &s;et up in popi&s;h Chur|ches again&s;t GODS commandement, and have beene abu&s;ed to idolatrie above eight hundred yeares in &s;uch a gro&s;&s;e manner, e&s;pe|cially
<PB N="220" REF="261"> by the vulgar, that as <HI>Polydore Virgill</HI> ingenuou&s;ly confe&s;&s;eth, <HI>many of the ruder &s;ort of them,</HI> magis ijs fidunt qu&agrave;m Chri&s;to, <HI>put more confidence in the image then Chri&s;t him|&s;elfe?</HI></P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="section">
<PB N="1" REF="261" MS="y">
<HEAD>Concerning <HI>Indulgences,</HI> Specta|cles, paragraph 8. a page 319. u&s;que ad 345.</HEAD>
<P>_THE <HI>Knight</HI> him&s;elfe granteth the u&s;e <MILESTONE N="1"> of giving Indulgences, to have been in the ancient Church, and that Bi|&s;hops had power to grant them.</P>
<P>Chri&s;ts Merits lying in &s;tore for <MILESTONE N="2"> the need of all men, may be fitly com|pared to a common Trea&s;ure, and be called by that name. So farre forth then as tho&s;e Pardons were grounded on Chri&s;ts merits, or granted by applica|tion of them to the penitent, there is no difference betweene theirs and ours.</P>
<P>Saint <HI>Paul</HI> forgave the ince&s;tuous <HI>Corinthian,</HI> <MILESTONE N="3"> not onely in the per&s;on of Chri&s;t, but for their &s;ake al&s;o: which importeth, the prayer and de&s;erts of Saints to have &s;ome place in the be&s;towing of that Indulgence; and &s;o likewi&s;e, it was the practi&s;e of the Primitive Church: and what was this, but by applying the &s;uperabundant merits in the one, to &s;upply the want in the other?</P>
<P>That the merits of Martyrs were applied to <MILESTONE N="4"> others, appeareth by <HI>Tertullian,</HI> who being become now an Heretike, did reprehend that cu&s;tome, &s;ay|ing,
<PB N="2" REF="262"> that a Martyrs merits were little enough for him&s;elfe, without having any &s;urplu&s;&s;age to helpe others withall.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="5"> Many a man continueth his great au&s;terity of Fa&s;ting, Watching, Praying, and other exerci&s;es of all vertues, after hee hath obtained pardon for the fault it &s;elfe, by hearty contrition and by humble confe&s;sion obtained al&s;o remi&s;sion of the temporall puni&s;hment, within the &s;pace of <HI>1, 2, 3, 7, 10,</HI> or <HI>12</HI> yeares (for example &s;ake) hee then leading the &s;ame life for <HI>20, 30, 40, 50,</HI> or <HI>60</HI> yeares, as many have done; what &s;hall become of all that &s;atisfaction which is over and above, for that &s;inne or &s;innes which hee committed before? It doth not peri&s;h or pa&s;&s;e without fruit, though not of him, yet of others: and if they be not applied pre&s;ently, why may they not then be &s;aid to lye in <HI>depo&s;ito,</HI> as money in a Trea&s;urie?</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="6"> Sith all grant Indulgences for the living, why not for the dead, &s;o long as they pertaine to the Commu|nion of Saints, and have need thereof?</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="7"> The authority which the <HI>Knight</HI> citeth, to make Indulgences applyed to the &s;oules in Purgatorie to be ridiculous, out of the old Sarum booke of the houres of our Lady, doth not mention Purgatorie, but one|ly &s;aith, That who&s;oever &s;hall &s;ay the&s;e and the&s;e prayers, &s;hall gaine &s;o many thou&s;and yeares of pardon, which is no more for the dead than for the living.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="8"> It is fal&s;e which the <HI>Knight</HI> averreth, that wee give Pardons for thou&s;ands of yeares in Purgatory
<PB N="3" REF="262" MS="y"> after death. For wee doe not &s;o, neither doe wee un|der&s;tand tho&s;e Pardons, wherein are mentioned &s;uch number of yeares &s;o, as if men were without tho&s;e Pardons, to remaine &s;o long in Purgatorie: but wee under&s;tand tho&s;e yeares according to the penitentiall Canons, by which, many yeares penance were due for one &s;inne, and many mens &s;innes being both very grievous, and as a man may &s;ay, without number, according to the account of the ancient penitentiall Canons, they may &s;oone amount to thou&s;ands of yeares, which, though a man cannot live to per|forme here in this world, nor even in Purgatory, for the length of time; yet hee may in Purgatorie, in few yeares &s;pace, nay, few months, or few weekes &s;pace, &s;uffer &s;o much puni&s;hment as is an&s;werable to all that penance of many thou&s;and of yeares, which a man &s;hould have performed here, if hee could have lived &s;o long.</P>
<P>The Authours alleaged by the <HI>Knight,</HI> again&s;t <MILESTONE N="9"> Indulgences, prove no more than wee grant, that there is not &s;o expre&s;&s;e mention in Scriptures or an|cient Fathers of them, as of many other points, becau&s;e there was not &s;o much u&s;e of them in tho&s;e dayes.</P>
<P>Though &s;ome Fathers mention them not, wee <MILESTONE N="10"> prove the u&s;e of them out of others more ancient, to wit, out of Saint <HI>Cyprian</HI> and <HI>Tertullian,</HI> as you may &s;ee in <HI>Bellarmine, lib. de indul. c. 3.</HI> and be|&s;ides them, the authority of certaine Councels, as that of <HI>Nice, Ancyra,</HI> and <HI>Laodicea.</HI></P>
<P>Though wee had not either the te&s;timonie of the&s;e <MILESTONE N="11">
<PB N="4" REF="263"> Fathers, nor of tho&s;e Councells, yet would not that follow which the <HI>Knight</HI> groundeth thereon, to wit, that wee want antiquitie, and con&s;ent of Fathers for them; for it is a mo&s;t &s;trong argument of anti|quitie, that it is the practi&s;e of the Catholike Church, time out of mind, and of con&s;ent, that no man is found to have &s;poken again&s;t them, but onely <MILESTONE N="12"> knowne Heretikes,<NOTE PLACE="marg">In contrariu~ e&s;t generalis con|&s;uetudo &amp; do|ctrina eccle&s;iae quae contineret fal&s;itatem, ni&s;i per indulgen|tias dimitte|retur aliquid de paen&acirc; pec|catori debit&acirc;.</NOTE> &s;uch as the <HI>Walden&s;es,</HI> who were the first impugners of Indulgences.</P>
<P><HI>Durand,</HI> whom the <HI>Knight</HI> alleageth in the first place, having propounded the que&s;tion, <HI>in 4. &s;ent. di&s;. 20. q. 5. an aliquid valeant indulgentiae,</HI> after the manner of the Schooles, putteth two arguments again&s;t them in the first place, and then commeth with his arguments. <HI>Sed contra,</HI> agreeing expre&s;ly with his conclu&s;ion. On the contrarie, &s;aith he, is the <MILESTONE N="13"> generall cu&s;tome and doctrine of the Church, which &s;hould containe fal&s;hood,<NOTE PLACE="marg">De here&s;ibus, l. <HI>8.</HI> tit. indulg. verum et&s;i pro indulgentiarum approbatione &s;acrae &s;cripturae te&s;timonium apertum de &s;it, non tamen ideo contemnende erunt quoniam eccle&s;iae catho+licae u&s;us a mul|tis annoru~ cen|turiis tantae e&s;t authoritatis, ut qui illam con|temnat haereti|cus merito cen+&s;eatur.</NOTE> if &s;omething of the puni&s;h|ment due to a Sinner, &s;hould not be forgiven by In|dulgences; and pre&s;ently after, hee nameth Saint <HI>Gregory,</HI> and &s;aith of him, that hee did in&s;titute Indulgences at the &s;tations in <HI>Rome.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Alfon&s;us a Ca&s;tro,</HI> though hee confe&s;&s;e the u&s;e of Indulgences, not to have beene &s;o much in tho&s;e ancient times as &s;ince; yet hee alloweth them &s;o farre, as to condemne any man for an Haeretike that &s;hall deny them.</P>
<P N="14"><HI>14.</HI> The <HI>Knight</HI> prateth very freely of the Popes &s;elling of Indulgences, and bringing money to his owne coffers by them: but to that I need to make no other an&s;wer, but that it is &s;uch riff-raff-&s;tuffe
<PB N="5" REF="263" MS="y"> as their Mini&s;ters are wont to eeke out their bookes, &amp; Sermons, without being able to &s;hew any Bull of Pope, or te&s;timony of good authour of any Indulgence &s;o granted.</P>
<P>For the Knights prophane jea&s;t out of <HI>Guicciar|dine</HI> of playing a game at Tables for an indulgence, <MILESTONE N="15"> &s;uppo&s;e that were true, might not a man thinke you tell as good a tale of &s;ome <HI>Prote&s;tants,</HI> who in their pots have made &s;o bold with Almighty God him|&s;elfe, as to drinke a health to him; and were not this a fine argument to prove that there is no God?</P>
<P>It is intollerable pre&s;umption in the Knight to <MILESTONE N="16"> take upon him to cen&s;ure &s;o great a Councell as that of <HI>Trent.</HI> Wherein the whole flower of the <HI>Catho|lique</HI> Church, for learning and &s;anctity was gathe|red together, the &s;plendour of which Councell, was &s;o great, that your night owle <HI>Heretiques</HI> dur&s;t not once appeare, though they were invited to goe and come freely with all the &s;ecurity they could wi&s;h.</P>
<P>Whereas the Knight &s;aith that it is a &s;en&s;ele&s;&s;e <MILESTONE N="17"> and weake faith that giveth a&s;&s;ent to doctrine, as nece&s;&s;ary to be believed, which wanteth authority out of Scriptures and con&s;ent of Fathers. I an&s;wer, he knoweth not what he &s;aith, for all the Fathers agree, that there are many things which men are bound to believe upon unwritten traditions, who&s;e authority you may &s;ee in great number in <HI>Bellarmine.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">De verbo Dei. l. <HI>4.</HI> c <HI>7.</HI></NOTE></P>
<P>The con&s;ent of Doctours of the <HI>Catholique</HI> <MILESTONE N="18"> Church cannot more erre in one time then another, the authority of the Church, and a&s;si&s;tance of the
<PB N="6" REF="264" MS="y"> Holy Ghost being alwayes the &s;ame, no le&s;&s;e in one time then another,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Tertull. de pre|&s;cript. cap. <HI>28.</HI> quod apud mul|tos unum inve|nitur, non e&s;t er|ratu~ &s;ed tradi|tum.</NOTE> and <HI>Tertullians</HI> rule having &s;till place, as well in one age as another, that which is the &s;ame among&s;t many, is not errour but a tra|dition.</P>
<P><HI>St. Paul</HI> thought, he an&s;wered &s;ufficiently for the <MILESTONE N="19"> defence of him&s;elfe, and offence of his contentious enemy, when he &s;aid <HI>(1 Cor. 11.) If any man &s;eeme to be contentious, we have no &s;uch cu|&s;tome, nor the Churches of God.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="20"> It is fal&s;e which the Knight againe repeateth, that an article of faith cannot be warantable, without authority of Scriptures, for faith is more ancient then Scripture; to &s;ay nothing of the times before Chri&s;t, faith was taught by Chri&s;t him&s;elfe without writing, as al&s;o by the Apo&s;tles after him, for ma|ny yeares without any word written.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="21"> As no le&s;&s;e credite is to be given to the Apo&s;toli|call preaching, then writing, &s;o no le&s;&s;e credit is &s;till to be given to their words, delivered us by tra|dition, then by their writings: the credite and <MILESTONE N="22"> &s;en&s;e of the writings depending upon the &s;ame tra|dition.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">De bapti&s;mo. l. <HI>2</HI> c. <HI>7.</HI> l. <HI>5.</HI> c. <HI>25.</HI> cont. Maximin: l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>3.</HI> et Epi&s;t. <HI>174</HI> de Gene&s;i ad litteram. l. <HI>10.</HI> c. <HI>23.</HI> l. de cu|ra pro mortuis. et Epi&s;t. <HI>118.</HI> de unit. eccle&s;. c. <HI>22.</HI> et tract. <HI>98.</HI> in Iohan.</NOTE><HI>St. Au&s;tine</HI> defendeth many points of faith, ei|ther onely or chiefely by tradition, and the practi&s;e of the <HI>Catholique</HI> Church; as &s;ingle Bapti&s;me again&s;t the <HI>Donati&s;ts,</HI> con&s;ub&s;tantiality of the Sonne, the divinity of the Holy Gho&s;t, and even unbegottenne&s;&s;e of the Father again&s;t the <HI>Arrians,</HI> and the Bap|ti&s;me of children again&s;t the <HI>Pelagians:</HI> to &s;ay no|thing of prayer for the dead, ob&s;ervation of the
<PB N="7" REF="264" MS="y"> fea&s;ts of Ea&s;ter, A&s;cention, Whit&s;ontide, and the like. Nay, this truth was &s;o grounded with him, that he accounted it mo&s;t in&s;olent madne&s;&s;e to di&s;pute again&s;t the common opinion, and practi&s;e of the <HI>Catholique</HI> Church. In his booke of the unity of the Church, he &s;aith, that Chri&s;t beareth witne&s;&s;e of his Church; and in his Tractates upon <HI>John,</HI> ha|ving occa&s;ion to handle tho&s;e words of <HI>St. Paul. If we, or an Angell from Heaven,</HI> &amp;c. where|with the Knight almo&s;t concludeth every Section, he thus commenteth upon them, the Apo&s;tles did not &s;ay, if any man preach more then yee have re|ceived: but be&s;ides that which you have received, for if he &s;hould &s;ay, that he &s;hould prejudicate, that is, goe again&s;t him&s;elfe, who coveted to come to the <HI>The&s;&s;alonians,</HI> that he might &s;upply that which was wanting to their faith, but he that &s;upplieth, ad|deth that which was lacking, taketh not away that which was before: the&s;e are the Saints very words in that place, by which it is plaine, that he taketh the word <HI>praeter</HI> be&s;ides, not in that &s;en&s;e, as to &s;ignifie more then is written, as you would under&s;tand it, but to &s;ignifie the &s;ame that <HI>contra. St. Paul</HI> him|&s;elfe u&s;eth the &s;ame word <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>para,</HI> be&s;ides, <HI>Rom. 16.17.</HI> for <HI>contra,</HI> and you in your owne Bibles tran&s;late it &s;o. I be&s;eech you brethren marke them which cau&s;e divi&s;ions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="response to section">
<PB N="8" REF="265" MS="y">
<HEAD>The Hammer.</HEAD>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Cic. pro Ro&s;c. Amer.</NOTE>AS <HI>Erucius</HI> the accu&s;er of <HI>Ro&s;cius Ame|rinus</HI> having little to &s;ay again&s;t him, to fill up the time, rehear&s;ed a great part of an invective which he had penned in former time again&s;t ano|ther defendant: &s;o the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> here, failing in his proofes for indulgences (for which little or no|thing can be &s;aid) to fill up the Section, tran|&s;cribeth a di&s;cour&s;e of his, which he had former|ly penned, concerning the nece&s;&s;ity of unwritten traditions, which hath no affinity at all with the title of this Chapter, <HI>de Indulgentiis.</HI> In other pa|ragraphs we finde him di&s;tracted, and raving; but in this he turneth <HI>Vagrant,</HI> and therefore I am to follow him with a <HI>whip</HI> as the law in this ca&s;e provideth. Touching the point it &s;elfe of <HI>Indulgences,</HI> which <HI>Rivet</HI> fitly termeth <HI>Emul|gences,</HI> but the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> the <HI>Churches Trea&s;ury:</HI> who&s;oever relieth upon the &s;uperabundant me|rits and &s;atisfaction of Saints for his ab&s;olution, for his temporall puni&s;hment of &s;inne after this life, &s;hall finde according to the Greeke proverbe <GAP DESC="foreign"> in&s;tead of <HI>trea&s;ure,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Era&s;. Adag. The&s;auri Car|bones.</NOTE> <HI>glowing coales heaped upon his head in hell.</HI> For neither are there any merits or &s;uperabundant &s;atisfactions of Saints,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Luk.</HI> 17.10.</NOTE> Chri&s;t &s;aying, <HI>when you have done all, you are unprofitable &s;ervants,</HI> nor were there any, could they be applied or imputed to any other men,<NOTE PLACE="marg">2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.10.</NOTE> the Apo&s;tle teaching that <HI>every man &s;hall receive
<PB N="9" REF="265" MS="y"> according to that which him&s;elfe hath done in his body, whether it be good or evill,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.15.</NOTE> nor hath the <HI>Pope</HI> any more power to di&s;po&s;e of this trea&s;ury for the remi&s;&s;ion of &s;innes; our Saviour, <HI>Matth.</HI> 18. <HI>v.</HI> 18. and <HI>Iohn,</HI> 20.23. conferring the &s;ame power of remitting &s;innes upon all the Apo&s;tles which he promi&s;ed to S. <HI>Peter, Matth.</HI> 16. Nei|ther, if the Pope had any &s;peciall power of grant|ing Indulgences, could it extend to the &s;oules in Purgatory, <HI>quia non &s;unt de foro Papae,</HI> becau&s;e they are not &s;ubject to the Popes court,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Serm.</HI> 2. <HI>de de|funct.</HI> 9 9.</NOTE> as <HI>Ger&s;on</HI> rightly concludeth. Neither la&s;tly, can it be proved, that there is any Purgatory fire for &s;oules after this life, St. <HI>Iohn</HI> expre&s;ly affirming, that the <HI>blood of Chri&s;t purgeth us from all our &s;innes.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">1 <HI>Iohn</HI> 1.7.</NOTE> The fire therefore of Purgatory is rightly ter|med chymerica and chymica, <HI>chymericall and chymicall; chymericall,</HI> becau&s;e a meere fiction, and <HI>chymicall,</HI> becau&s;e by meanes of this fire, they extract much gold. The Apo&s;tle &s;aith, <HI>there is no condemnation to them that are in Chri&s;t Ie&s;us.</HI> If no condemnation, no puni&s;hment,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Rom.</HI> 8.1.</NOTE> eter|nall or temporall. The Prophet &s;aith,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Mica.</HI> 7.18.</NOTE> <HI>he will ca&s;t our &s;innes into the depth of the Sea,</HI> &s;urely there is no fire to purge them: <HI>if we repent us of our &s;innes,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ezek.</HI> 18.22.</NOTE> <HI>God promi&s;ed us that they &s;hall be remembred no more,</HI> if they &s;hall not be &s;o much as mentioned, &s;urely they &s;hall not be &s;entenced to be puni&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ed with fire, either temporall or eternall. In <HI>that time,</HI> &s;ai h the Lord,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ierem.</HI> 50.20.</NOTE> <HI>the iniquity of</HI> I&s;rael <HI>&s;hall bee &s;ought for, and there &s;hall be none, and the &s;innes of</HI>
<PB N="10" REF="266" MS="y"> Iudah, <HI>and they &s;hall not be found, for I will pardon them whom I re&s;erve:</HI> from which text we thus argue. All their &s;innes whom God pardoneth, &s;hall be found no more, if found no more, then to be purged no more, e&s;pecially after this life. Where there is no &s;pot, there needs no purging, or clen&s;ing, but in the &s;oules of all beleevers there remaines no &s;pot, as <HI>Bellarmine</HI> him&s;elfe confe&s;&s;eth,<NOTE PLACE="marg">L. <HI>2.</HI> de Indul: c. <HI>3.</HI> cum dici|mus ex &s;ancto Iohanne quod &s;anguis Ie&s;u Chri&s;ti purgat nos ab omni pec|cato, re&s;pondet Apo&s;tolum lo|qui de remi&s;sio|ne culpae quae maculam pro|prie gignit in anim&acirc;, macula enim e&s;t quae ablutione tolli|tur, non paene quae debitorem non &s;ordidum facit.</NOTE> &s;haping this an&s;wer to our objection, out of St. <HI>Iohn</HI> (that the blood of Chri&s;t purgeth us from all &s;inne) <HI>the Apo&s;tle &s;peaketh of the remi&s;|&s;ion of the fault which properly begets a &s;pot in the &s;oule, for it is the &s;pot which is taken away by wa&s;h|ing.</HI> When we &s;ay that Chri&s;ts merits are applied to us, our adver&s;aries jeare at us, holding it for a mo&s;t ab&s;urd doctrine, that the merits of one &s;hould be imputed to another: and yet what they deny to Chri&s;t, they attribute to Saints: that which they deny to God, they attribute to the Pope: they will by no meanes heare that God imputeth to us the merits and &s;ufferings of his &s;onne, although the Scripture is expre&s;&s;e for it: and yet they teach that the merits and &s;ati&s;|factions of Saints by the Pope, may be applied to us, and that they &s;atisfie for our temporall puni&s;hments. But to leave farther pro&s;ecution of the point in generall, and to graple with the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> in the en&s;uing particulars.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> To the fir&s;t. The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> playeth the Sophi&s;ter, and faine would deceive the &s;imple Reader with the ambiguitie of the word Indulgence, which
<PB N="11" REF="266" MS="y"> the <HI>Knight</HI> accuratly di&s;tingui&s;heth; and &s;hew|eth, that the Indulgences now granted by the Pope, are no more like the Indulgences in u&s;e in the Primitive Church, than an Apple is like to a Nut. The Indulgences wherof we reade in the ancient Fathers, were mittigations of &s;ome cen|&s;ures of the Church, before inflicted on the living for their amendment: the&s;e are reluxations from &s;atisfactorie paines in Purgatorie flames after this life. <HI>After which,</HI> notwith&s;tanding,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cyp ad Demet. po&s;t quam hinc exce&s;&s;am e&s;t nullus datur pe|nitentiae locus, nullus &s;atisfa|ctionis effectus.</NOTE> as Saint <HI>Cy|prian</HI> truly informeth <HI>Demetrian, there remaineth no place for repentance, no effect of &s;atisfaction, here eternall life is either gained or lo&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>To the &s;econd. As the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> doth &s;ometime an|&s;wer <MILESTONE N="2"> to that w^c^h we object not, &s;o he oft proveth that we deny not. We attribute more to Chri&s;ts merits than any <HI>Romani&s;t</HI> doth; for we teach, that they are a <HI>Trea&s;ure of infinite value,</HI> abun|dantly &s;ufficient, without the additio~ of any Saints merits to them, to di&s;charge the infinit debt of all mankind: to relea&s;e all who by faith apply them to them&s;elves, from all temporall, as well as eter|nall puni&s;hment. We profe&s;&s;e, with that religious Divine, <HI>Effu&s;io ju&s;ti &s;anguinis Chri&s;ti tam dives fuit ad pretium, ut &s;i univer&s;itas captivorum redem|torem &s;uam crederet, nullum dia<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">oli vincula retine|rent:</HI> The effu&s;ion of Chri&s;ts righteous blood is &s;o rich in price, that if all the captives did be|lieve in their Redeemer, the devils bands could hold none. And in very deed, this is one of our maine&s;t exceptions again&s;t the <HI>Roman</HI> Church,
<PB N="12" REF="267" MS="y"> that they infinitely wrong the infinite bounty of our Redeemer, by going about as it were, to eeke out his merits by the excre&s;cen&s;ie and &s;uperabun|dancie of Saints &s;atisfactions. What they arro|gate to Saints in this kind, they derogate from our Saviour; wee acknowledge his merits to be <HI>a rich Trea&s;urie,</HI> containing in it, many millions of pure gold; whereunto, to adde the &s;ufferings of any Saints or Martyrs, were no better than to take away <HI>pure gold,</HI> and in&s;tead thereof (to fill up the roome, not the &s;umme) to lay a few <HI>bra&s;&s;e tokens.</HI> This &s;eemed &s;o ab&s;urd to &s;ome of the acute&s;t Schoolemen, as by name, <HI>Durandus a Sancto Portiano,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Durand. in <HI>4.</HI> &s;ent. di&s;t. <HI>20.</HI> q. <HI>3.</HI></NOTE> and <HI>Iohannes de Mayro,</HI> that they <HI>excluded all Saints &s;atisfactions out of this trea&s;urie:</HI> their rea&s;ons are &s;pecially the&s;e, <HI>No|thing needeth, or indeed can be added to that which is of infinite value, but &s;uch are Chri&s;ts merits and &s;ufferings.</HI> Secondly, the Saints are already abun|dantly rewarded, and that far above their de&s;ert, as the Apo&s;tle witne&s;&s;eth, <HI>Rom.</HI> 8.18. <HI>I account, that the afflictions of this pre&s;ent life are not wor|thie the glorie which &s;hall be revealed:</HI> and (2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 4.17.) <HI>our light affliction, which is but for a mo|ment, worketh for us a farre more exceeding and eternall weight of glorie.</HI> Wherefore, the Saints &s;ufferings being &s;o fully recompen&s;ed already, cannot helpe towards the expiation of the &s;innes of others.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ego teneo cum Franci&s;co de Mayro in tra|ctato de indulg. quod cum me|rita &s;anctorum &s;int ultra con|dignum remu|nerata a deo, et &s;ic exhau&s;ta quod &s;olum dantur (indul|gentiae) ex me|rito Chri&s;ti &amp; pa&s;sionis ejus; cujus minima gutta &s;anguinis vel &s;udoris &s;ufficeret ad expiatiorem omnium pecca|torum quae un|quam fuerunt perpetrata aut perpetrabuntur.</NOTE> To which point, <HI>Angelus de Clavatio, verbo Indulg. numero.</HI> 9. <HI>I hold,</HI> &s;aith hee, with <HI>Francis Mayro,</HI> in his Treati&s;e of Indulgences,
<PB N="13" REF="267" MS="y"> <HI>that fora&s;much as the merits of Saints are rewarded of God beyond their merit, and thereby the trea&s;ure of them is exhau&s;ted, that Pardons are onely given for the merit of Chri&s;t and his pa&s;sion: the lea&s;t drop of who&s;e blood, or &s;weat, would have been &s;uf|ficient to expiate all the &s;innes that ever have beene or &s;hall be committed.</HI> Thirdly, <HI>the intention of him that meriteth, is mo&s;t nece&s;&s;arie required to this, that the fruit or reward of his merit redound to another: but, &s;uppo&s;ing that the Saints were &s;o rich in merits and &s;ufferings, that they had any to be&s;tow upon others, yet it cannot be proved, that the Saints had ever any &s;uch intention, to transferre the fruit of their pa&s;sions upon others.</HI> Fourthly, if the Saints &s;ufferings could expiate our &s;innes, the Saints might be accounted our <HI>Redeemers,</HI> which <HI>Aquinas</HI> him&s;elfe blu&s;hed to affirme,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Durand. in <HI>4.</HI> &s;ent. di&s;. <HI>20.</HI> q. <HI>3.</HI> quia inten|tia merentis e&s;t nece&s;&s;aria ad hoc quod fructus &s;eu inten&s;i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> merentis redundet in alterum &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> enim fructus meriti pa&s;sionis Chri&s;ti in nos redundat ex ejus epre&s;s &acirc; intentione quod autem intentio quorumcunque &s;anctorum fuerit fructum pa&s;sionum &s;uarum in nos transferre, nulla hi&s;toria docet. Aquin. &s;um: part. <HI>3.</HI> q. <HI>48.</HI> art <HI>2.</HI> pa&s;siones &s;anctorum proficiunt eccle&s;iae non quidem per modum re|demtionis, &s;ed per modum exempli.</NOTE> and there|fore re&s;olveth the quite contrarie; the <HI>Sufferings of Saints profit the Church, not by way of Redemp|tion, but by way of Example.</HI></P>
<P>To the Third. The in&s;tance is not to the pur|po&s;e: <MILESTONE N="3"> for the <HI>Corinthian,</HI> who&s;e puni&s;hment Saint <HI>Paul</HI> relea&s;ed, was alive; our que&s;tion is of Indulgences, relea&s;ing &s;oules after death. Se|condly, the ince&s;tuous <HI>Corinthian</HI> was excom|municated, and thereby excluded for the time, from the Communion of Saints: our que&s;tion is
<PB N="14" REF="268"> of tho&s;e that died reconciled to the Church, in the &s;tate of grace, Whether they by the Popes Indulgence, may receive ought out of the trea|&s;urie of Saints &s;ufferings, to purcha&s;e their free|dome from Purgatorie, or at lea&s;t, mittigation of their paines there? Thirdly, the Indulgence Saint <HI>Paul</HI> granted the <HI>Corinthian,</HI> was the relea|&s;ing the &s;entence of Excommunication, not aba|ting flames of Purgatorie. Fourthly, Saint <HI>Paul</HI> conde&s;cended more willingly to grant that ex|communicate <HI>Corinthian</HI> his ab&s;olution, for the earne&s;t prayers and intreatie of &s;ome of his neighbours and friends: hee did not impute the &s;ufferings or merits of his friends unto him, and in that con&s;ideration ab&s;olved him. The&s;e things therefore, agree as well as <HI>Harpe and Harrow,</HI> to ab&s;olve the living from &s;entence of Excommuni|cation, at the &s;uit or reque&s;t of per&s;ons that have well de&s;erved of the Church, or have a &s;peci|all intere&s;t in our love: and to relea&s;e the dead out of Purgatorie, by imputing the &s;urplu&s;|&s;age of another mans merits and &s;atisfactions un|to him.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="4"> To the fourth. The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> might have lear|ned of D^r. <HI>Francis White</HI> in his reply to <HI>Fi&s;her</HI> the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> from whom hee borrow'd this ob|jection, an An&s;wer thereunto: or if hee thought much to learne of him, hee might have beene be|holding to his owne <HI>Pamelius,</HI> &s;o farre, as to informe him, that the Indulgences which <HI>Ter|tullian</HI> impugned, were not &s;uch as wee treate
<PB N="15" REF="268" MS="y"> of, but the &s;ame whereof Saint <HI>Cyprian</HI> &s;peaketh,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ep.</HI> 10.11.12.</NOTE> to wit a relaxation of canonicall cen&s;ures, and pe|nance to adulterers and other notorious &s;inners upon the reque&s;t of martyrs, being in pri&s;on and yet alive. Now it &s;eemed to this Father to be unju&s;t and unfitting, both that the Martyrs in &s;uch ca&s;es &s;hould be intreaters, and that the Church &s;hould grant ab&s;olution to &s;uch per&s;ons, or mitigate the cen&s;ures mo&s;t iu&s;tly impo&s;ed upon them. Whether <HI>Tertullian</HI> in this were in the right or not, it makes nothing for the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> or a|gain&s;t us, for he &s;peaketh of living Martyrs and not dead: of forgiving the crime it &s;elfe, not on|ly the temporall puni&s;hment, and that in this life, not in Purgatory. As this is one of the mo&s;t im|pertinent allegations in his booke, &s;o he handles it as &s;trangely and ab&s;urdly; for fir&s;t, he di&s;credit|eth and di&s;ableth his witne&s;&s;e, by branding him with the note of an <HI>Heretique,</HI> and then he pro|duceth him.</P>
<P>To the fift: What <HI>rope of &s;ands</HI> hath the <HI>Ie|&s;uit</HI> here <HI>twi&s;ted;</HI> fir&s;t he can never prove that any <MILESTONE N="5"> man can fully &s;atisfie for the lea&s;t &s;inne commit|ted again&s;t the infinite maie&s;ty of God, much le&s;&s;e by any penance he can endure, though never &s;o long, &s;atisfie over and above as he &s;peaketh. Se|condly, the continuance of his penance, if it bee done in true humility, and &s;incerity, &s;hall not be without fruit to him&s;elfe, for it &s;hall be a meanes to mortifie his fle&s;hly lu&s;ts, and prevent future &s;ins and through faith in Chri&s;t, to obtaine a greater
<PB N="16" REF="269"> reward in heaven. Thirdly, had the Saints any &s;uch <HI>&s;urplu&s;&s;age</HI> of merits, and were there nothing <HI>allowed</HI> to them&s;elves for it here, or hereafter: yet could not the&s;e their merits be communicated to others for their behoofe, becau&s;e God hath &s;et it downe in his law expre&s;&s;ely,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ezek.</HI> 18.20.</NOTE> <HI>that as the &s;in of the &s;inner, &s;o the righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e of the righteous &s;hall be upon him&s;elfe.</HI> To the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> quaere there|fore. <HI>Why may not the over-plus of their &s;ufferings lie in</HI> depo&s;ito <HI>as money in a trea&s;urie, for the bene|fit of others?</HI> I an&s;wer briefly, becau&s;e there is no &s;uch money, nor &s;uch trea&s;urie, nor order from the ma&s;ter of the hou&s;e, to lay up &s;uch &s;uppo&s;ed money in &s;uch an imaginary trea&s;ury, as it were in a Banke, for the benefit of others. Doe we &s;ay this onely,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Iob</HI> 9.3.</NOTE> doe not the Scriptures and the Fathers &s;ay the &s;ame. Doth not <HI>Iob</HI> demaund how <HI>&s;hould man be ju&s;t with God? if he contend with him, he cannot an&s;wer him one for a thou&s;and.</HI> Doth not <HI>David?</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s;al. <HI>19.12.</HI> Pro. <HI>20.9.</HI> E&s;ay, <HI>64.6.</HI> Iames, <HI>3.2.</HI> Ba&s;. l. de penit. non Angeli &s;u|mus &s;ed homi|nes, et cadimus et re&s;urgimus, id&abque; &s;aepius e&acirc;|dem hora. Ambro&s;. apol. David, c. <HI>2.</HI> u|nu&s;qui&s;&abque; no&s;tru~ per &s;ingulas horas quam multa delinquit Bernard de quadrup. Debit quis amplius grunniet dicens nimium labo|ramus, nimium jejunamus, ni|mium vigila|mus, cum nec mille&s;sime nec minime parti d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">bitorum &s;uo|rum quis valeat re&s;ponders. Serm. de virgin. Stulta petitio, vix ju&s;tus &s;al|vabitur, vix Sanctis ju&s;titiae &s;uae oleum &s;uffi|cet ad &s;alutem, quant&ograve; minus &amp; &s;ibi &amp; pro|ximis.</NOTE> <HI>Who knoweth how oft he offend|eth?</HI> Doth not <HI>Solomon? Who can &s;ay, I have made my heart cleane? I am pure from my &s;inne.</HI> Doth not <HI>E&s;ay</HI> ingenuou&s;ly confe&s;&s;e? <HI>We are all as an uncleane thing, and all our righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e is as filthy ragges,</HI> and St. <HI>Iames, in many things we offend all,</HI> and after him St. <HI>Ba&s;il, We are not Angels, but men, we fall and ri&s;e againe, and that often times in one and the &s;elfe-&s;ame houre.</HI> And <HI>Ambro&s;e. Every one of us how often doe we &s;inne? every houre.</HI> And mo&s;t fully of all, St. <HI>Bernard, Who dare gruntle from henceforth, &s;aying?
<PB N="17" REF="269" MS="y"> we labour too much, we fa&s;t too much, wee watch too much, &s;eeing that a man cannot an&s;wer the thou&s;andth, nay, not the lea&s;t part of his debt.</HI> And againe, commenting upon tho&s;e words, 25. of <HI>Matth.</HI> and the 8. <HI>Give us of your oyle, a fooli&s;h petition, the righteous &s;hall &s;carce be &s;aved, the oyle of their owne righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e, hardly &s;ufficeth the Saints to &s;alvation, how much le&s;&s;e will it &s;erve them&s;elves and their neighbours.</HI></P>
<P>To the &s;ixth. The rea&s;on is not alike, for In|dulgences for the living, are the relea&s;ing of Ec|cle&s;ia&s;ticall cen&s;ures inflicted upon their per|&s;ons, which undoubtedly the Bi&s;hops have pow|er to mittigate upon the &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion of the party, whereof they can take notice: which can have no place, in the &s;oules of the decea&s;ed, as the Church hath no power to enjoyne them penance for their mi&s;demeanour, &s;o neither to take it off: for as the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> him&s;elfe confe&s;&s;eth, <MILESTONE N="6"> the <HI>Pope is no &s;uperiour in re&s;pect of the &s;oules in Purgatory, nor are they under his power.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P. <HI>328.</HI> Ab&s;olu|tion is a iuri|dicall act to be performed by a &s;uperiour and judge towards an inferiour and a &s;ubject being under his power, which the &s;oules in Purgatory are not in re&s;pect of the Pope.</NOTE> Here by the way, let the Reader ob&s;erve how the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> un|wittingly &s;triketh a blow at the <HI>Popes triple crowne.</HI> For if the &s;oules in Purgatory are none of his &s;ubiects, where is his third Kingdome? Why &s;hould he weare a triple crowne, if he may not beare his &s;word in Purgatory? the word <HI>My&s;terium</HI> anciently engraven upon the Popes Miter, was wont to be thus declared, that the three Crownes compa&s;&s;ing it, &s;ignifie the <HI>rule he beares in Heaven, Earth, and Purgatory,</HI> but if
<PB N="18" REF="270"> he hath of late lo&s;t that kingdom, and is not now as the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Superior to the &s;oules that frie in Pur|gatory.</HI> What power hath he to mittigat their fine, or relea&s;e their mulct, or abate their fire? much le&s;&s;e wholly ab&s;olve them from the guilt of tem|porall puni&s;hment there <HI>in toto?</HI> As for that he ad|deth, concerning communion of Saints, it yeelds no &s;upport at all to his cau&s;e: for the communion of Saints, which all Chri&s;tians beleeve, is partly in the ble&s;&s;ings of this life, partly in the u&s;e of &s;piri|tuall graces, whereby they pray one for another, admoni&s;h, in&s;truct, and comfort one the other; this communion no way extendeth to inward habits, as faith, hope &amp; charity, nor to outward penall &s;uffe|rings, w^c^h can be imparted to no other, as may be mo&s;t evidently deduced out of Scriptures, and the joynt te&s;timonies of the ancient Fathers. Fir&s;t therefore wee &s;ay, that the Saints have no &s;upera|bundance of merits or &s;atisfactions, as I have pro|ved before: next that admitting they had any, they cannot di&s;po&s;e of them to others, for every <HI>one &s;hal beare his own burdens, every one &s;hall receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath don, whether it be good or bad,</HI> not according to that w^c^h he hath don or &s;uffred in the body of another. The wi&s;e virgins &s;aid to the fooli&s;h that begged of them oyle to fil their lamps,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><P>Gal. <HI>6.5.</HI> de pudicit. c. <HI>22.</HI> Quis alienam mortem &s;ua &s;ol|vet ni&s;i &s;olus fi|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ius Dei, proinde qui illum emu|laris donando de icta &s;i nihil ip&s;e deliqui&s;ti plane patere pro me &s;i vero pec|cator es quomo|do oleum faculae tuae &s;ufficere ti|bi &amp; mihi po|terit.</P>
<P>In Iohan. tract. <HI>24.</HI> Et &s;i fratres pro fratribus moriantur, ta|men in frater|norum pecca|torum remi&s;sio|ne nullius &s;an|guis martyris funditur.</P>
<P>Leo ep. ad Pa|le&s;t. Accepere ju&s;ti non dedere coronas, et de fortitudine fide|lium nata &s;unt exempla patientiae non dona ju&s;titiae &s;ingulares, quippe eorum mortes fuerunt, nec alterius qui&s;quam debitum &s;uo fine per&s;olvit. Bernard. ep. <HI>193</HI> cont. Abelard. Satisfactio unius omnibus imputatur, &s;icut omnium pecca-ta ille unus portavit, nec alter invenietur qui fore fecit, alter qui &s;ati&s;fecit, &s;atisfecit ergo caput pro membris.</P></NOTE> <HI>Not &s;o, le&s;t there be not enough for us &amp; for you; the righteou&s;nes of the righ|teous &s;halbe upon him, &amp; the wickednes of the wicked &s;halbe upon him, Ez.</HI> 18.20. <HI>Who ever</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Tertul|lian) &s;atisfied by another mans death, his owne death,
<PB N="19" REF="270" MS="y"> but only the Son of God: therfore thou, who imitate&s;t him in forgiving &s;ins, if thou ha&s;t &s;inned in nothing thy &s;elfe I pray thee &s;uffer for me; but if thou art a &s;in|ner as I am, how will the oyle of thy little lampe &s;uf|fice for thee and for me?</HI> If <HI>Tertullians</HI> coyne be not currant, I am &s;ure S^t <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> &amp; S^t <HI>Leos</HI> is, <HI>Although,</HI> &s;aith S^t <HI>Au&s;tine, brethren dye for their brethren, yet the blood of no Martyr was ever &s;hed for the remi&s;sion of their brothers &s;innes.</HI> For, as St. <HI>Leo</HI> te&s;tifieth, <HI>the righteous have received, they have not given crowns: from the fortitude of true beleevers; we receive exam|ples of patience, not gifts of righteou&s;nes. For their death was &s;ingular; neither did any of the~ by it di&s;|charg the death of another; the head hath &s;atisfied for the members, &amp; the &s;atisfactio~ of one is imputed to all.</HI> Marke, he &s;aith of <HI>one,</HI> not of more, &amp; the <HI>head</HI> &s;ati&s;|fied for the me~bers, not the <HI>me~bers one for another.</HI></P>
<P>To the &s;eventh. I freely &s;ub&s;cribe to the con|clu&s;ion, and beleeve without any &s;cruple, that the <MILESTONE N="7"> 56000. yeares of pardon granted by the Pope, to every one that &s;hall &s;ay &s;even prayers before the Crucifix, and &s;even <HI>Paterno&s;ters,</HI> and &s;even <HI>Ave|maries,</HI> is no more for the dead then for the li|ving. For done to &s;uch an intent, neither are the better for it, neither the living nor the dead are gainers, but onely the Pope him&s;elfe and his A|gents, who &s;ell paper and lead at a deerer rate,
<PB N="20" REF="271"> than any Merchant or Stationer in Chri&s;ten|dome. Yet, by the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> leave, Pope <HI>Gregory</HI> granting 14000 yeares of Pardon, and <HI>Nicolas</HI> the fir&s;t, as many, and <HI>Sixtus</HI> the fourth, twice as many, which make up the full number of 56000; mu&s;t needs be thought, to intend benefit to the &s;oules in Purgatorie, or in hell: unle&s;&s;e you will make the Pope to be &s;o ab&s;urd, as to &s;uppo&s;e that any were to live upon earth &s;o many thou&s;and yeares, which had beene an errour 55000 times wor&s;e than the errour of the <HI>Mille|naries.</HI> For they taught, that the Saints &s;hould live a thou&s;and yeares with Chri&s;t on earth: but the&s;e, that &s;inners &s;hould live in durance here, or in Purgatorie 56000 yeares, which is 50000 yeares longer than by all computations, the World hath, or as mo&s;t thinke, &s;hall la&s;t.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="8"> To the eighth. What Scripture or Tradition hath the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> for this his incredible paradox? If wee &s;hould grant him &s;uch a Purgatorie as hee de&s;ires, which no man yet could find either in the Map of this world, or in the Table of holy Scriptures: yet is it impo&s;&s;ible to defend with any probability this po&s;ition of his, that in few weekes &s;pace, a &s;oule might &s;uffer puni&s;hment an&s;werable to the Penance of many thou&s;and yeares. For, the learned <HI>Romani&s;ts</HI> generally ac|cord, that Purgatorie fire differeth little from hell, but in time; that the one is eternall, the other temporall: they beleeve it to equalize, or rather exceed any fiery torment on earth. How
<PB N="21" REF="271"> then can they imagine &s;o much fuell to be laid on that fire, and the torments in it &s;o im|proved, that a man may &s;uffer &s;o much puni&s;h|ment in a few weekes, which may weigh downe, or beare &s;cale with the penance of 56000 yeares; or if the torments could be &s;o increa&s;ed, what &s;oule would be able to beare them for tho&s;e few weekes, nay rather a few houres?</P>
<P>To the ninth. The Authours alleaged by the <MILESTONE N="9"> <HI>Knight,</HI> namely, <HI>Durand, Sylve&s;ter Prierias, Major, Fi&s;her</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Roche&s;ter, Alfon&s;us a Ca|&s;tro, Antoninus, Cajetan</HI> and <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> &s;peake not, as the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> would have it, comparatively, but po&s;itively. <HI>Durand</HI> &s;aith,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><P>Durand. <HI>4.</HI> &s;ent. di&s;t. <HI>20.</HI> q. <HI>3.</HI> de indulge~tiis, pau|ca dici po&s;&s;um per certitudi|nem quia nec &s;criptura ex|pre&s;s&egrave; de iis lo|quitur, &s;ancti etiam patres Ambro&s;ius, Hi|larius, &amp;c. minime loquun|tur de indul|gentiis.</P>
<P>Prierias, cont. Luth. de Indul. Indulgentiae au|thoritate &s;crip|turae non in|tuere nobis &s;ed authoritate eccle&s;iae &amp; Romanorum Pontificum. Major, in <HI>4</HI> &s;ent. di&s;t. <HI>2.</HI> q. <HI>2.</HI> Difficile e&s;t modum indulgentiarum fundare authentic&egrave; in &s;criptur&acirc; &s;acr&acirc;. Roffen&s;is, artic. <HI>18.</HI> cont. Luther, Quamdi&ugrave; nulla fuerat de purgatoria cura nemo que|&s;ivit indulgentias, nam ex illo pendet omnis indulgentiarum e&s;timatio ceperunt igitur in|dulgentiae po&s;tquam ad purgatorii cruciatus aliquandi&ugrave; trepidatum erat.</P></NOTE> <HI>The Scriptures &s;peak not expre&s;&s;ely of Indulgences, neither the Fathers,</HI> Au&s;tine, Hilarie, Ambro&s;e&punc; Jerome, &amp;c. <HI>Syl|ve&s;ter Prierias</HI> affirmeth, that <HI>Pardons have not beene knowne to us by the authority of Scriptures, but by the authority of the Church of</HI> Rome, and the Popes. <HI>Fi&s;her</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Roche&s;ter</HI> confe&s;&s;eth, that <HI>of Purgatorie there is little or no mention a|mongst the ancient Fathers, and that as long as Purgatory was not cared for, there was no man &s;ought for Pardons: &s;ith Purgatorie therefore hath beene &s;o lately knowne and received of the whole Church, who can now wonder concerning Indul|gences?</HI> And here Ma&s;ter <HI>Flood</HI> is at a &s;tand,
<PB N="22" REF="272"> his <HI>Flumen</HI> is turned into <HI>Stagnum;</HI> for having made offer to an&s;wer <HI>Durand,</HI> and finding that his an&s;wer would not hold, his heart failed him, and hee dur&s;t not venture to &s;hape any an&s;wer at all to the Authours la&s;t mentioned, namely, <HI>Alfon&s;us a Ca&s;tro,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><P>Alfon. de verbo Indulg. Harum u&s;us in eccle&s;ia videtur &s;er&ograve; receptus, de Tran&s;ubstanti|atione rara in antiquis mentio de purgatorio fere nulla, quid ergo mi|rum &s;i ad hunc modum conti|geret de indul|gentiis ut apud pri&s;cos nulla &s;it mentio?</P>
<P>Antonin part. <HI>1.</HI> tit. <HI>10.</HI> de indulgentiis ni|hil expre&s;s&egrave; ha|bemus in &s;acr&acirc; &s;criptur&agrave; aut etiam patrum &s;criptis.</P>
<P>Cajet. opus. <HI>15.1.</HI> Nulla &s;crip|tura &s;acra nul|la pri&s;corum doctorum gre|corum aut la|tinorum autho|ritas indulgen|tiarum ortum ad no&s;tram deduxit notitiam. Bellar. de indul. l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>17.</HI> Neque mirum videri de|bet &s;i authores antiquiores non habemus, qui harum mentiorum faciunt.</P></NOTE> who&s;e words are; <HI>There is no|thing in Scripture le&s;&s;e opened, or wherof the ancient Fathers have le&s;&s;e written, than of Indulgences; and it &s;eemeth the u&s;e of them came but lately into the Church: there is &s;eldome any mention of Tran|&s;ub&s;tantiation among the Ancients, almo&s;t none of Purgatorie. What marvell then, if it &s;o fall out with Indulgences, that there &s;hould be no mention of them by the Ancients?</HI> Antoninus; <HI>There is not any expre&s;&s;e te&s;timonie, for proofe of Indulgen|ces, either in Scriptures, or in the writings of the ancient Fathers.</HI> Cajetan; <HI>There is no authoritie of Scriptures, or ancient Fathers, Greeke or Latin, that bringeth the originall of Indulgences to our knowledge.</HI> Bellarmine; <HI>It is not to be wondered, if wee have not many ancient Authours which make mention of Indulgences; for, many things are retai|ned in the Church onely by u&s;e and cu&s;tome, without writing.</HI> See how the <HI>Romani&s;ts</HI> &s;econd one the other: <HI>Bellarmine</HI> &s;aith, <HI>That not many ancient Authours make mention of Indulgences. Cajetan</HI> and <HI>Antoninus</HI> &s;ay, <HI>Not any. Durand</HI> &s;aith, that <HI>The Scriptures &s;peake not expre&s;ly of them. Prierias</HI> &s;aith, <HI>That they &s;peake not at all of them.</HI></P>
<PB N="23" REF="272" MS="y">
<P>To the tenth. The Indulgences tho&s;e Fathers <MILESTONE N="10"> and Councells &s;peake of, have no more affinitie with the Pardons the Pope &s;elleth now adaies, than the Rivers of <HI>Paradi&s;e</HI> have with <HI>Styx</HI> or <HI>Avernos;</HI> or <HI>Simon Peter</HI> with <HI>Simon Magus;</HI> or <HI>Phillip</HI> the Apo&s;tle with <HI>Phillip</HI> King of <HI>Macedon,</HI> as I &s;hewed before.</P>
<P>To the eleventh. The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> hath neither pro|ved <MILESTONE N="11"> the practi&s;e of the Catholike Church, nor of the <HI>Romane,</HI> time out of mind, for Indulgen|ces: but onely practi&s;es of later times, &s;ince ma|nifold abu&s;es crept into the <HI>Roman</HI> Church. As for his negative Argument, to wit, that <HI>It is a &s;trong evidence of con&s;ent, for Indulgences, be|cau&s;e none is found to have &s;poken again&s;t them:</HI> unle&s;&s;e hee otherwi&s;e qualifie it, it will no more prove Purgatorie, or the lawfull u&s;e of Indul|gences, than it will prove there is a Common|wealth in <HI>Eutopia,</HI> or Cities, or Countries in the Moone, or many worlds; becau&s;e, peradventure none is found to have &s;poken or written again&s;t them. And for the <HI>Walden&s;es,</HI> that they were the fir&s;t impugners of Indulgences, is &s;aid by the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> but not proved; much le&s;&s;e, that the&s;e <HI>Walden&s;es</HI> were known Heretikes. For they were farre from here&s;ie by the confe&s;&s;ion of their grea|te&s;t adver&s;arie, the Inqui&s;itor <HI>Rainerius.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Cont. Wald. cap. <HI>4.</HI></NOTE> <HI>They live,</HI> &s;aith hee, <HI>justly before men, and believe all things well concerning God, and all the Articles contained in the Creed,</HI> Solummodo Romanam Eccle&s;iam bla&s;phemant &amp; Clerum, <HI>onely they
<PB N="24" REF="273"> &s;peake evill of the Romane Church and Clergie.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="12"> To the twelfth. It was happy for <HI>Durand,</HI> that hee lived before the Inqui&s;ition and Index <HI>Expurgatorius.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Durand. in <HI>4.</HI> &s;ent. di&s;t. <HI>2.</HI> q. <HI>3.</HI> Quod dictu~ e&s;t Petro. Mat. <HI>16.</HI> tibi dabe cla|ves, &amp;c. intel|ligitur de pote|&s;tate ei data in foro poeniten|tiae, de collati|one autem in|dulgentiarum non e&s;t quomo|d&ograve; de beat intel|ligi, &s;ancti enim Ambro&s;ius, Hilarius, Au|gustinus, Hie|ronimus, mini|me loquntur de indulgentiis.</NOTE> For he argueth &s;o &s;trongly again&s;t Indulgences, &s;aying, (that <HI>Little can be &s;poken of any certainty concerning them, becau&s;e the Scrip|ture &s;peaketh not expre&s;&s;ely of them; for what is &s;po|ken,</HI> Matthew the 16. to Peter, <HI>I will give thee the Keyes, and what&s;oever thou binde&s;t on earth &s;hall be bound in heaven; is under&s;tood, of the power given him in the penitentiall Court, and cannot be under&s;tood of the be&s;towing of Indulgences; for the holy Fathers,</HI> Ambro&s;e, Hilarie, Augu&s;tine, Je|rome, <HI>&s;peake not at all of Indulgences</HI>) that his wri|tings, if not his per&s;on, would have beene <HI>purged by fire,</HI> if hee had lived in the&s;e times: yet, true it is, that having argued &s;trongly again&s;t Indul|gences, and the <HI>Church Trea&s;urie,</HI> &s;o farre as it con&s;i&s;teth of the merit of Saints, hee bethought him&s;elfe, and <HI>pro form&acirc;,</HI> alleageth to the contra|rie, the Cu&s;tome and Doctrine of the Church, meaning the Romane Church; who&s;e la&s;h hee feared, if hee &s;hould not have given backe that by <HI>Whole-&s;ale,</HI> which hee had taken away from her by <HI>Re-tale.</HI> Its true al&s;o, that hee mentions Indulgences at the &s;tations of <HI>Rome</HI> in the dayes of Saint <HI>Gregory:</HI> but let it be noted, that <HI>Gregory</HI> is without the compa&s;&s;e of the Pri|mitive times, and that hee was intere&s;ted in the cau&s;e; for, Purgatorie fiers began to &s;inge men in his time, and thereupon, Indulgences to be
<PB N="25" REF="273" MS="y"> in reque&s;t, which afterwards proved a Staple commoditie to the See of <HI>Rome.</HI> La&s;tly,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mart. Epig. de Lab. Non es crede mihi bo|nus: quid ergo ut verum lo|quar optimus malorum Pi&s;o|nes Seneca&s;que Memmio&s;&abque;, et Cri&s;pos mihi redde &s;ed prio|res fies protinus ultimus bono|rum.</NOTE> as <HI>Mar|tial</HI> writeth of <HI>Labulla,</HI> it may be truly &s;aid of this <HI>Gr<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">gory,</HI> that hee was the wor&s;t of the good, and be&s;t of the bad Popes.</P>
<P>To the thirteenth. The <HI>Knight,</HI> after <HI>Alfon|&s;us,</HI> quoted <HI>Antoninus, Cajetan,</HI> and <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> to prove the noveltie of Indulgences, and that there is no ground for them in Scriptures, or the writings of the ancient Fathers: to whom, the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> an&s;wereth not a word; and here the &s;econd time, hee is <HI>Gravelled</HI> in this Section. To <HI>Alfon|&s;us</HI> hee &s;eemeth to &s;ay &s;omething, but upon due <MILESTONE N="13"> examination as good as nothing: fir&s;t hee fal&s;i|fieth his words, &s;aying, <HI>page</HI> 334. that <HI>Alfon&s;us</HI> confe&s;&s;eth the u&s;e of Indulgences to be mo&s;t an|cient, and of many hundred yeares &s;tanding; whereas his words are not, that the u&s;e of In|dulgences was mo&s;t ancient, but that it was &s;aid <HI>by &s;ome, to be mo&s;t ancient among the Romanes: Apud Romanos vetu&s;ti&s;simus praedicatur illarum u&s;us;</HI> this <HI>praedicatur</HI> is of no more credit, than <HI>Plinie</HI> his <HI>fertur,</HI> or <HI>Solinus</HI> his <HI>aiunt.</HI> For not|with&s;tanding this report, <HI>Alfon&s;us</HI> re&s;olves in that very place, <HI>It &s;eemes that the u&s;e of Indul|gences came but lately into the Church.</HI> Secondly, the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> forceth a wrong Inference from <HI>Al|fon&s;us</HI> his words. For albeit, hee affirmeth that Indulgences are not to be <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ontemned, becau&s;e they have beene in u&s;e in the Church for &s;ome hundreds of yeares: yet hee condemneth not
<PB N="26" REF="274"> a man for an <HI>Hae<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">etique</HI> that &s;hall deny them, but any one that &s;hall contemne the Church or de|&s;pi&s;e her autority: his words are <HI>Quoniam eccle&s;i&acirc; Catholic&acirc; tantae e&s;t authoritatis ut qui illam contem|nat Haereticus merit&ograve; cen&s;eatur,</HI> we &s;ay the &s;ame al&s;o,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Matth.</HI> 18.17.</NOTE> and the Scripture beareth us out in it, <HI>tell the Church and if he refu&s;e to heare the Church, let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Publican,</HI> but what if <HI>Alphon&s;us</HI> out of feare <HI>blowes hot and cold with one breath,</HI> whats that to us? He lived and died a profe&s;&s;ed <HI>Papi&s;t,</HI> and therefore what he writeth again&s;t <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> is little to be &s;et by, but what he writeth again&s;t the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> whom he had a minde to defend in all things, and who&s;e <HI>feed advocate</HI> he was, mu&s;t be thougt to be drawne from him by evidence of truth; how&s;oe|ver let it be noted that <HI>Alphon&s;us</HI> calleth not him an <HI>Haereticke,</HI> who denieth Indulgences, as the <HI>Knight</HI> doth,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Vid. Rain. The&s;. Romana eccle|&s;ia nec e&s;t Ca|tholica nec &s;a|num membrum Catholicae eccle|&s;iae.</NOTE> but <HI>who contemneth the</HI> Catho|like <HI>Church,</HI> which neither the <HI>Knight,</HI> nor any <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> doth: we deny not, much le&s;&s;e doe we contemne the authority of the <HI>Catholike</HI> Church. But we deny that the <HI>Roman Church is the Catholike, or a &s;ound member thereof.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="14"> To the fourteenth. Our Mini&s;ters doe not like <HI>Flood,</HI> and other <HI>Ie&s;uits,</HI> bring <HI>muddy &s;tuffe</HI> in their &s;ermons, out of <HI>Petrus de Voragine,</HI> and the like fabulous Authors: but what they produce in this kinde again&s;t the Pope for his ba&s;e &s;ale of In|dulgences, and making merchandize of his gho&s;tly power, they proove out of good Authors,
<PB N="27" REF="274" MS="y"> grave Hi&s;torians, Canoni&s;ts, and Schoolemen, &s;uch as are the author of the lives of Popes, and the booke called <HI>Taxa camerae Apo&s;tolicae &amp; Cen|tum granamina,</HI> together with <HI>We&s;celius Cronin|gen&s;is, Guicciardine, Henricus de Gandavo, &amp; Al|ti&s;iodoren&s;is.</HI> If <HI>Alti&s;iodoren&s;is</HI> words are not plaine enough, <HI>Summ: l.</HI> 4. <HI>d. relap. Dicunt quidam quod relaxatio non valeat quantum eccle&s;ia permit|tit, &s;ed facit ut excitentur fideles ad dandum, et de|cipit eos eccle&s;ia; &s;ome &s;ay that the Popes Indulgence prevailes not &s;o much as the Church promi&s;eth, but that thereby men are &s;tirred up to give more freely and that therein the Church deceav th them;</HI> what &s;ay they to that note in <HI>Taxa camerae Apo&s;tolicae,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Nota diligenter quod huju&s;modi gratiae non con|&s;cedu~tur paupe|ribus; quia non &s;unt, nec po&s;|&s;unt con&s;olari. Matth. Par. in Hen. <HI>3.</HI> Romanorum lo|culos impregna|re.</NOTE> <HI>note diligently that &s;uch favours, to wit, Indulgen|ces are not graunted to poore folke, becau&s;e they have not wherewithall, they cannot be comforted:</HI> or that pregnant phra&s;e of <HI>Matthew Paris, that Chri&s;ts blood alone though it be all &s;ufficient to &s;ave &s;oules, yet the &s;ame without &s;aintly &s;atisfaction applied by the Pope, is not &s;ufficient to impregnate his holine&s;&s;e Coffers.</HI> If the <HI>Ie&s;uit &s;mell</HI> not in the&s;e &s;entences the <HI>fat &s;teame</HI> of the Popes <HI>Kitchin,</HI> he hath no no&s;e.</P>
<P>To the fifteenth. It is well the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> termeth <MILESTONE N="15"> <HI>the drinking of a health to Almighty God, a tale,</HI> and by his quoting no authour for it, &s;heweth that it was a <HI>&s;ignal</HI> lye of his owne inventing, when he was <HI>betweene hawke and buzzard:</HI> Never any but him&s;elfe who can blu&s;h at nothing, affirmed any &s;uch thing of any Prote&s;tant, that ever came to
<PB N="28" REF="275"> that height of impiety and prophannes, as to drinke a health to his Maker:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Hi&s;toria Ital. l. <HI>13.</HI> Leo nullo temporum et locorum habito delectu per uni|ver&s;am orbem ampli&s;sima pri|vilegia quibus non modo vinis delictorum ve|niam con&s;equen|di &s;ed &amp; defun|ctorum animus, ejus ignis in quo delicta ex|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">iari di<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">untur paenis eximendi facultatem pol|licebatur, pro|mulgavit, quae quia pecuniae tantum a mor|talibus extor|quendae gratia concedi notum erat &amp; a que|&s;toribus huic negotio praefe|ctis impudenter administra|bantur magnam pleri&s;&abque; locis indignationem offen&s;ionem&abque; concitarant, &amp; pre&s;ertim in Germania ubi a multis ex ejus mini&s;tris huju&s;modi mortuos penis liberandi facultas parvo pretio vendi, vel in cauponum tabernis aleae &s;ubiici cernebantur.</NOTE> but <HI>Luitprandus</HI> and <HI>Polonus,</HI> telleth us of one <HI>Iohn</HI> the twelfth, a Pope of <HI>Rome,</HI> and con&s;equently no Prote&s;tant: who made &s;o bold with Almighty God, as to <HI>give Orders in a Stable,</HI> and &s;o familiar with the Divell, as to <HI>drinke a health to him.</HI> As for the Knights prophane jea&s;t as he calleth it: it is no jea&s;t, but a &s;erious te&s;timony out of a grave hi&s;to|rian, convincing the Popes agents of Athei&s;me and prophannes, and the Popes them&s;elves, of &s;ordid covetou&s;ne&s;&s;e, his words are, <HI>Leo publi&s;hed large privileges through the whole world without any di&s;tinction of times and places, by which he pro|mi&s;ed not onely pardon to the living, but al&s;o power to deliver &s;oules of the dead out of Purgatory paines; which becau&s;e it was knowne that they were granted onely to fill the Popes coffers, and becau&s;e his farmers carried them&s;elves lewdly in the &s;ale of them, great offence was taken at them, e&s;peceally in</HI> Germanie, <HI>where &s;uch Indulgences were &s;et at a low price, and &s;eene to be &s;taked in Tavernes and Ale-hou&s;es at games of Tables.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="16"> To the &s;ixteenth. The <HI>Trent</HI> Synod was not a Councell, but a Conventicle, wholly &s;wayed by the <HI>Italian</HI> faction, wherein not the <HI>flower of the</HI> Catholique <HI>Church for learning: but the bran of the</HI> Romi&s;h, <HI>boulted by the Pope,</HI> was gathered to|gether.
<PB N="29" REF="275" MS="y"> Let <HI>Andreas Dudithius</HI> the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Quinque eccle&s;.</HI> who was pre&s;ent at this Councell,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ep. ad Maxi|mil.</NOTE> &s;peake his minde of it, <HI>the matter came to that pa&s;&s;e, through the wickedne&s;&s;e of tho&s;e hungry Bi|&s;hops that hung upon the Popes &s;leeve, and were cre|ated on the &s;uddaine by the Pope, for the purpo&s;e, that that Councell &s;eemed to be an a&s;&s;embly, not of Bi|&s;hops, but of Hobgoblins, not of men, but of Images, moved like the &s;tatues of</HI> Daedalus <HI>by the &s;inewes of others.</HI> What the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> addeth of <HI>night owles,</HI> not daring to appeare <HI>in the &s;plendour of that Councell,</HI> hath no colour of truth. For it is no newes for owles to appeare at popi&s;h Councells. At a Councell held at <HI>Rome</HI> by Pope <HI>Heldebrand,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Fa&s;cic. rerum expetend. &amp; fugiend.</NOTE> <HI>Or|twhinus Gratius</HI> writeth, <HI>there appeared an huge great Owle, which could not be frayed away, but &s;ca|red all the Bi&s;hops.</HI> As for Prote&s;tants, whom this <HI>Blacke-bird of Antichri&s;t</HI> termeth <HI>night Owles,</HI> if they had flocked to that Councell, they had &s;hewed them&s;elves <HI>not Owles,</HI> by appearing in <HI>that twi-light at Trent,</HI> but very <HI>Wood-cocks,</HI> to tru&s;t any &s;ecurity offerd them by tho&s;e, who after publike faith given to <HI>Iohn Huz,</HI> and <HI>Ierome</HI> of <HI>Prage,</HI> notwith&s;tanding the &s;afe conduct of <HI>Si|gi&s;mond</HI> the Emperour, for their going to, and comming from the Councell at <HI>Con&s;tance,</HI> mo&s;t cruelly burned them at a &s;take to a&s;hes.</P>
<P>To the &s;eventeenth. Divine faith mu&s;t be grounded upon divine authority, and that cannot <MILESTONE N="17"> be the <HI>Catholike</HI> faith, which wanteth con&s;ent of Fathers. As for tho&s;e Fathers who&s;e authority
<PB N="30" REF="276"> <HI>Bellarmine</HI> draweth <HI>ob torto collo,</HI> to te&s;tifie for unwritten traditions <HI>de verbo Dei. lib.</HI> 4. <HI>cap.</HI> 7. the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> may &s;ee them fully an&s;wered in <HI>Iunius Whitaker, Daniel Chamierus, and Dr. Davenant</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Sarum,</HI> and a farre greater number of Fathers alleaged to the contrary, by <HI>Robert Ab|bot</HI> in his an&s;wer to <HI>William Bi&s;hop, cap.</HI> 7. <HI>Phillip Morney</HI> in his preface to his booke, <HI>de &s;acr&acirc; Eu|chari&s;ti&acirc; and Iacobus Laurentius</HI> in his &s;ingular tractate <HI>de Di&s;putationibus,</HI> and others.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="18"> To the eighteenth. The a&s;&s;i&s;tance of the Holy gho&s;t was more &s;peciall in the times of the Apo|&s;tles then in latter ages: they could not erre in their writings, others might; yet we charge not the <HI>Catholike</HI> Church of Chri&s;t in any age, with any fundamentall errour, though we may the Roman; <HI>Tertullian</HI> his rule may have &s;till place, and as well in one age as another if it be rightly taken, and not mi&s;con&s;trued and mi&s;applied; for if it be taken generally, <HI>that what&s;oever is the &s;ame among&s;t many, is no errour but tradition,</HI> it is it &s;elfe a great errour. For the &s;ame opinion concerning the inequality of the Father and the Sonne is found among&s;t many; to wit, the <HI>Arrian</HI> Chur|ches: the &s;ame doctrine concerning the proce&s;|&s;ion of the Sonne from the Father onely, is found among&s;t many, namely, all the Greeke Chur|ches at this day: the &s;ame practi&s;e of admini|&s;tring the Euchari&s;t to children, was found a|mong&s;t many; namely, all the Churches of <HI>Af|frica</HI> in S^t. <HI>Au&s;tines</HI> time, yea, and in all Chur|ches
<PB N="31" REF="276" MS="y"> &s;ubject to the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> for many ages, as <HI>Maldonat</HI> the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> confe&s;&s;eth; yet the above named Po&s;itions, and this latter practi&s;e are con|fe&s;&s;ed on all &s;ides to be erroneous. But <HI>Tertullian</HI> by <HI>many</HI> under&s;tandeth not the practi&s;e of &s;ome particular Churches,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Tertul. de pre|&s;crip. Age nunc omnes eccle&s;iae erraverint ve|ri&s;imile e&s;t ut tot et tante in unam fidem er|raverint.</NOTE> much le&s;&s;e of factious per|&s;ons of one Sect, but the generall and uniforme doctrine and practi&s;e of the whole Church as his words in the &s;ame Chapter, quoted by the <HI>Ie|&s;uit</HI> declare. <HI>Goe too now, admit that all Churches have erred, is it likely &s;o many, &s;o great Churches &s;hould erringly con&s;pire in one faith?</HI></P>
<P>To the nineteenth. We derogate nothing from <MILESTONE N="19"> any generall cu&s;tome of the <HI>Catholike</HI> Church, let the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> produce out of good Authors any &s;uch cu&s;tome for Indulgences to redeeme &s;oules out of Purgatory flames by Papall Indulgences, and this controver&s;ie will &s;oone be at an end; how&s;oever let me tell the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> the way, that this text of S^t. <HI>Paul</HI> is impertinently alleaged to prove this or any other article of the <HI>Trent</HI> faith. For S^t. <HI>Paul</HI> in this place &s;peaketh not of any Article of faith nor matter of manners nece&s;&s;ary to &s;alva|tion, but of habits, ge&s;tures fa&s;hions, and indif|ferent rites: in matter of which nature there is no que&s;tion at all, but that the cu&s;tome of the Churches of God ought to &s;way, as is abundantly proved by <HI>Dr. Andrewes</HI> late Bi&s;hop of <HI>Winche|&s;ter,</HI> in his printed Sermon upon that text.</P>
<P>To the twentieth. <HI>Di&s;putabamus de alliis re|&s;pondet Ie&s;uita de cepis,</HI> we di&s;pute of Indulgences, <MILESTONE N="20">
<PB N="32" REF="277" MS="y"> the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> an&s;wereth of Traditions in matter of Faith. The&s;e are very di&s;tinct que&s;tions, and &s;o handled by all that <HI>deale Work-man-like</HI> in points of difference betweene the Reformed, and the <HI>Romane</HI> Churches, but the Je&s;uits common place of Indulgences was drawne drie, and therefore hee &s;etteth <HI>his cocke of Traditions on running,</HI> which yeeldeth nothing but muddy water. What though Faith be ancienter than Scriptures, the Argument is incon&s;equent? <HI>Ergo,</HI> Scripture is not now the perfect rule of Faith. Faith neither is, nor can be more ancient than the Word of God, upon which it is built, this Word of God is now written; and &s;ince, the con&s;igning and confirming the whole Canon of the written Word, by Saint <HI>Iohn</HI> in the Apocalyp&s;e, is be|come the perfect, and as the Schooles &s;peaketh, the <HI>adequate rule of Faith.</HI> It is true, Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles fir&s;t taught the Church by word of mouth;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Lib. <HI>3.</HI> adver&s;. heres. cap. <HI>1.</HI> Non enim per alios di&s;po&s;itio|nem &s;alutis, no|strae cognovi|mus quam per eos per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos, quod quidem tunc praeconiaverunt po&s;tea per dei voluntatem in &s;cripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum &amp; columnam fidei no&s;trae futuram.</NOTE> but afterwards, that which they preached, was <HI>by the commandment of God, committed to wri|ting, to be the foundation and pillar of Faith;</HI> as <HI>Irenaeus</HI> te&s;tifieth in expre&s;&s;e words.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="21"> To the twentie one. If the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> could prove as undoubtedly any words of the Apo&s;tles that are not &s;et downe in Scriptures, to be their owne words, as wee can prove the writings we have, to be theirs; wee would yeeld no le&s;&s;e credit to
<PB N="33" REF="277"> them, then to the&s;e: but that neither can hee, nor &s;o much as undertaketh to doe. And where|as he further &s;aith, that the credit of the Scrip|ture depends upon Tradition; unle&s;&s;e hee qualifie the &s;peech &s;ome way, it is not onely erroneous, but al&s;o bla&s;phemous; for it is all one, as if hee &s;hould &s;ay, that man gives credit and authority to God (as <HI>Tertullian</HI> jeareth the Heathen,<NOTE PLACE="marg">In Apolloget.</NOTE> not receiving Chri&s;t for God, becau&s;e the <HI>Romane</HI> Senate would not give their con&s;ent and appro|bation to make him one, <HI>Iam homo deo propitius e&s;&s;e debet</HI>) or that the credit and authority of Gods Word dependeth upon mans receiving it. Whereas in truth, Gods Word is not there|fore of divine and infallible authoritie, becau&s;e the Church delivereth it to be &s;o; but on the contrary, the Church delivereth it to be &s;o, be|cau&s;e in it &s;elfe it is &s;o; and the Church &s;hould erre damnably, if &s;hee &s;hould otherwi&s;e conceive of the&s;e in&s;pired Writings, then as of the un|doubted Oracles of God, to which we owe ab|&s;olute con&s;ent and beliefe,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Vid. Augu&s;t. &s;upr. cit.</NOTE> without any que&s;tion or contradiction.</P>
<P>To the two and twentieth. Saint <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> de|fends <MILESTONE N="22"> no point of Faith again&s;t Heretikes, either onely or chiefly, by the Tradition and practi&s;e of the Catholike Church; but either onely or chiefly by the Scriptures. For example, in his booke of <HI>Bapti&s;me,</HI> again&s;t the <HI>Donati&s;ts,</HI> after hee had debated the point by Scriptures, hee mentioneth the cu&s;tome of the Church, and re|lateth
<PB N="34" REF="278"> <HI>Stephanus</HI> his proceeding again&s;t &s;uch as went about to overthrow the ancient cu&s;tome of the Catholike Church in that point. But hee no where grounds his Doctrine upon that cu&s;tome, though hee doth well approve of it, as wee doe. Againe, in his booke again&s;t <HI>Maxi|minus,</HI> and his 174 <HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> to <HI>Pa&s;centius,</HI> hee con|firmeth the faith of the <HI>Trinity</HI> by the written Word, again&s;t tho&s;e Heretikes: his words, <HI>Ep.</HI> 175,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Haec &s;i placet audire quemad|modum &egrave; Scrip|turis &s;acris a&s;|&s;erantur.</NOTE> to the &s;ame <HI>Pa&s;centius</HI> are; <HI>Here thou mai&s;t heare, if thou wilt, how the&s;e points of our Faith are maintained by Scripture.</HI> So farre is hee from founding tho&s;e, or any other points of faith only, or chiefly upon unwritten Traditions. What the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> alleageth out of his tenth booke, <HI>De Gene&s;. ad literam,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Con&s;uetudo matris Eccle&s;iae in baptizandis parvulis nequa|quam &s;pernen|dus e&s;t, ne&abque; ul|lo modo &s;uper|flua depu|tanda.</NOTE> <HI>cap.</HI> 23. no whit advantageth his cau&s;e; for there Saint <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> &s;aith no more, but <HI>The cu&s;tome of the Church in baptizing Infants, is no way to be de&s;pi&s;ed, or to be accounted &s;uper|fluous.</HI> Wee all &s;ay the &s;ame, and condemne the <HI>Pelagians</HI> of old, and Anabapti&s;ts of late, who deny Bapti&s;me to be admini&s;tred to children, or any way derogate from the nece&s;&s;itie of that Sa|crament. The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;aith, hee will &s;ay nothing of Prayer for the dead, yet hee quoteth Saint <HI>Au&s;tine, de cur&acirc; pro mortuis,</HI> as if in that booke hee taught Prayer for the dead, and grounded it upon unwritten Tradition. Whereas in that booke, hee neither maintaineth Prayer for the dead, nor maketh mention of any unwritten Tradition for it; but on the contrarie, &s;olidly out
<PB N="35" REF="278" MS="y"> of Scriptures proveth,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><P>E&s;aias Prophe|ta dicit, Abra|ham nos ne&s;ci|vit, et I&s;rael non cognovit nos: &s;i tanti pa|triarchae, quid erga populum ex his procreatur, ageretur, igno|raverunt quo|modo mortui vivorum rebus at&abque; actibus cog|no&s;cendis adju|vandi&s;que mi&s;|centur; et paulo po&s;t ibi ergo &s;unt &s;piritus de|functorum ubi non vident que|cun&abque; aguntur, aut eveniunt in i&s;t&acirc; vit&acirc; ho|minibus.</P>
<P>Ep. <HI>118.</HI> Si quid horum &s;ic faciendum di|vinae Scripturae prae&s;cribat au|thoritas, non e&s;t dubitandum quin ita facere debeamus, &s;imi|liter &s;i quid per orbem tota frequentat Ec|cle&s;ia.</P></NOTE> that the Saints departed have <HI>no knowledge of our affaires upon earth:</HI> the Prophet <HI>E&s;ay</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Abraham knoweth us not, and</HI> I&s;rael <HI>is ignorant of us. If &s;o great Patriarchs knew not what befell their po&s;teritie after their death; how can it be</HI> defended, <HI>that the dead inter|meddle with the actions or affaires of the living, to helpe them onward, or &s;o much as to take notice of them?</HI> A little after, he concludes flat upon the Negative, <HI>The Spirits therefore of the dead there remaine where they knowe not what befalleth to men in this life.</HI> To what end therefore, &s;hould wee call upon them in our troubles and di&s;tre&s;&s;e here? Neither hath this Father any thing in his 118 <HI>Epi&s;tle</HI> for the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> or again&s;t us; for there hee &s;peaketh of Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Rites and Cu&s;tomes, as appeares in the very title of that <HI>Epi&s;tle,</HI> not of Doctrines of Faith: and yet, even in the&s;e, hee giveth a preheminence to the Scrip|tures. <HI>If,</HI> &s;aith hee, <HI>the authoritie of divine Scrip|ture pre&s;cribe any Rite or Cu&s;tome to be kept, there is no que&s;tion to be made of &s;uch a Rite or Cu&s;tome: and in like manner, if the whole Church throughout the world con&s;tantly u&s;eth &s;uch a Rite or Cu&s;tome.</HI> The <HI>Ie&s;uites</HI> next allegation out of this Fathers booke <HI>De unitate Eccle&s;. cap.</HI> 22. falleth &s;hort of his marke; hee &s;aith there, that <HI>Chri&s;t beareth wit|ne&s;&s;e to his Church, that it &s;hould be Catholike, that is, &s;pread over the face of the Earth, and not to be confined to any certaine place;</HI> as the Province of <HI>Affrica.</HI> Wee &s;ay the &s;ame, and adde, that the
<PB N="36" REF="279" MS="y"> bounds of it, are no more the territories of the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> than the Provinces of <HI>Affrica.</HI> Wee grant, that <HI>Who&s;oever refu&s;eth to follow the practi&s;e of the Church,</HI> to wit, the Catholike, or univer&s;all Church, <HI>re&s;isteth, or goeth again&s;t our Saviour, who promi&s;ed by his &s;pirit, to leade her into all truth, and to be with her to the end of the World.</HI> Which promi&s;e may yet &s;tand good and firme, though any particular Church erre in Faith, or manners, as did the Churches of <HI>A&s;ia,</HI> planted by the Apo&s;tles them&s;elves, and the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> doth at this day.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cont. lit. Petil. l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>6.</HI></NOTE> Now, becau&s;e that te&s;timonie of Saint <HI>Au&s;tine,</HI> wherewith the <HI>Knight</HI> concludes almo&s;t every Section; <HI>If wee, or an Angell from heaven, preach unto you any thing, whether it be of Chri&s;t, or of his Church, or any thing which concerneth Faith, or manners, be&s;ides that which you have received in the Legall and Evangelicall Scriptures, let him be accur&s;ed;</HI> is as a beame in all Papi&s;ts eyes; therefore, they u&s;e all po&s;&s;ible meanes to take it out, but all in vaine; for the words of the Apo&s;tle, on which Saint <HI>Paul</HI> commenteth, are not as the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> would have them: <HI>If any man preach unto you,</HI> Contra <HI>again&s;t; but if any preach unto you,</HI> Praeter <HI>be&s;ides:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ep. ad Galat. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> as Saint <HI>Chry&s;ostome</HI> and <HI>Theophylact</HI> ac|cutely ob&s;erve. <HI>The Apo&s;tle &s;aith not</HI> (if <HI>Chry&s;o|stome</HI> rightly under&s;tand him) <HI>if they &s;hould preach any thing contrary; but if they &s;hall in their prea|ching, adde any thing, be it never &s;o little, be&s;ides that which wee have preached unto you, let him be
<PB N="37" REF="279" MS="y"> accur&s;ed.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ne&abque; enim in|quit &s;i contra|ria &s;olum pre|dicaverint in|tulit anathema e&s;to, &s;ed &s;i evan|gelizaverint preter id quod ip&s;i evangeli&s;a|vimus, hoc e&s;t, &s;i plu&s;culum quidpiam ad|jecerent.</NOTE> And <HI>Theophylact</HI> is altogether as plaine as <HI>Chry&s;ostome,</HI> in his Glo&s;&s;e upon the words, <HI>The Apo&s;tle inferreth not, if any man preach con|trarie to that yee have received; but if any preach be&s;ides that which wee have preached unto you,</HI> that is, <HI>if they &s;hall pre&s;ume to adde any thing, though never &s;o little, let them be accur&s;ed.</HI> Neither doth Saint <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> in his tractate upon Saint <HI>Iohn,</HI> upon which <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> and after him, <HI>Flood,</HI> &s;o much beare them&s;elves, any whit contradict the for|mer interpretations of Saint <HI>Chry&s;ostome</HI> and <HI>Theophylact.</HI> For his words in that place carry this &s;en&s;e, <HI>The Apo&s;tle &s;aith not, if any man preach more unto you, than you have already received,</HI> that is, <HI>perfectly conceived and apprehended: for then hee &s;hould goe again&s;t him&s;elfe, who &s;aith, that hee de&s;ired to come to the</HI> The&s;&s;alonians, <HI>to &s;upply that which was lacking to their Faith; to &s;upply, I &s;ay, that which was lacking to their Faith,</HI> not to the Go&s;pell which Saint <HI>Paul</HI> preached: hee &s;aith not, let him be accur&s;ed, who further infor|meth you in the Doctrine of the Scriptures, or delivereth you more out of them, than yee have yet received <HI>within that Rule;</HI> but hee that deli|vereth you any thing <HI>be&s;ides that Rule.</HI> And that this is his meaning, appeareth by the words im|mediately following, which the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> cunningly &s;uppre&s;&s;eth, to wit, the&s;e, <HI>Qui praetergreditur re|gulam fidei, non accedit in vi&acirc;, &s;ed recedit de vi&acirc;; Hee that goeth be&s;ides the Rule of Faith, doth not goe on in the way, but departeth out of the way.</HI>
<PB N="38" REF="280" MS="y"> Yea, but the word in the Greeke tran&s;lation, <GAP DESC="foreign">, here u&s;ed, is the &s;ame with that, <HI>Rom.</HI> 16.17. which wee in our Bibles tran&s;late, again&s;t, not <HI>Praeter,</HI> be&s;ides. Yea, but the Je&s;uits in their owne Latine vulgar tran&s;lation, to which they are all &s;worne, (as wee are not to ours) render this <GAP DESC="foreign">, or <HI>Praeter</HI> be&s;ides, and not <HI>Contra</HI> again&s;t: and that this tran&s;lation is mo&s;t agreeable to the A|po&s;tles meaning, appeareth by comparing this text, <HI>Rom.</HI> 16.17. with a parralell'd text, 2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 3.6. <HI>Withdraw your &s;elves from every brother that walketh di&s;orderly, and not after the Tradition which you have received of us.</HI> There is no nece&s;&s;ity therefore, of expounding <GAP DESC="foreign">, in that text to the <HI>Romans,</HI> by <HI>Contra</HI> again&s;t; wee may as well (or better) expound it by <HI>Praeter,</HI> that is, be&s;ides: yet, if in one place <GAP DESC="foreign"> might &s;ignifie <HI>Contra,</HI> it doth not follow that it mu&s;t be &s;o taken, <HI>Galathi|ans</HI> 1.8. for it is well knowne, that the naturall and mo&s;t u&s;uall &s;ignification of <GAP DESC="foreign"> in Greeke, is <HI>Praeter</HI> be&s;ides, not <HI>Contra</HI> again&s;t; and words are to be taken in their mo&s;t proper and u&s;uall &s;ignification, unle&s;&s;e &s;ome nece&s;&s;arie rea&s;on, drawne from the circum&s;tances of the text, or analogie of faith inforceth us to leave it, which here it doth not. As for Saint <HI>Au&s;tines</HI> judge|ment in the point it &s;elfe, to wit, that Scripture is the perfect rule of Faith, hee plainely delivereth it, both in his 49 tractate upon <HI>Iohn,</HI> and in the ninth chapter of the &s;econd booke <HI>De doctrin&acirc; chri&s;tian&acirc;;</HI> and in the la&s;t chapter of his &s;econd
<PB N="39" REF="280" MS="y"> booke <HI>De peccatorum meritis &amp; remi&s;sione,</HI> and in his booke <HI>De bono viduitatis, cap.</HI> 11. What words can be more expre&s;&s;e and direct for the &s;ufficiencie of Scripture, than tho&s;e in his 49 tra|ctate upon <HI>Iohn? The Lord Ie&s;us did,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Quae &s;aluti cre|dentium &s;uffice|re videbuntur. In iis quae aper|te po&s;ita &s;unt in Scriptura inve|niuntur illa om|nia quae conti|nent fidem, mo|re&s;&abque; vivendi. G. ult. Credo e|tiam h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ic divi|noru~ eloquioru~ clari&s;sima au|thoritas e&s;&s;et, &s;i homo illud &s;i|ne di&s;pendeo &s;a|lutis ignorare non po&s;&s;et. Sancta Scriptu|ra no&s;trae doctri|nae regulam fi|xit, ne audere|mus &s;apere ul|tra quam opor|tet.</NOTE> <HI>and &s;pake many things which are not written, as the Evan|geli&s;t testifieth; but tho&s;e things were cho&s;en to be written, which &s;eemed to &s;uffice for the &s;alvation of Beleevers:</HI> unle&s;&s;e tho&s;e in his &s;econd booke, <HI>De doctrina chri&s;tiana, Among tho&s;e things which are openly or plainly &s;et downe in Scriptures, all things are found which concerne or containe Faith or manners:</HI> or tho&s;e in his &s;econd booke of the remi&s;&s;ion of &s;innes, <HI>I beleeve that the autho|ritie of divine Scriptures, would have beene mo&s;t cleere and evident in this point, if a man could not have beene ignorant of it, without perill of his &s;al|vation:</HI> or la&s;tly, tho&s;e in his booke in the com|mendation of Widowhood, <HI>What &s;hould I teach thee more than that which thou reade&s;t in the Apo|&s;tle? for the holy Scripture &s;etleth the rule of our Doctrine, le&s;t wee &s;hould pre&s;ume to be wi&s;e above that wee ought.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="10" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="40" REF="281">
<HEAD>Concerning the infallible certain|ty of the <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> faith, and the un|certainty of the <HI>Romi&s;h;</HI> Spectacles, Chapter the 10. a page 346. u&s;&abque; ad 380.</HEAD>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> _THE <HI>Knights</HI> failing in his proofes of our novelty is a &s;ufficient proofe of our antiquity, and his owne novelty.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> The <HI>Je&s;uits</HI> may not be a&s;hamed of the oath they take to defend the Papa|cy, nay, they may glory in it as an heroicall act, whereby they binde them&s;elves to the defence of that authority whereon the weight and frame of the whole <HI>Catholike</HI> Cburch and &s;alvation of all &s;oules from Chri&s;t his owne time, to the very end of the world; hath, doth, and &s;till &s;hall de|pend.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> <HI>Catholike</HI> Doctors whom the <HI>Knight</HI> chargeth with divi&s;ion among them&s;elves, may indeede differ in opinion &s;o long as a thing is undefined, for &s;o long it is not faith, but when it is once defined, then they mu&s;t be &s;ilent, and concurre all in one, becau&s;e then it is matter of faith.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="4"> The <HI>Knight</HI> can have no certainty of his Chri&s;tia|nity,
<PB N="41" REF="281" MS="y"> becau&s;e that dependeth upon his Bapti&s;me, or the faith of his parents which he cannot know.</P>
<P>He can have no certainty of his Marriage, or the legitimation of his children, becau&s;e the validity <MILESTONE N="5"> of the contract dependeth upon the intention of the parties which marry, and no man can have any certaine knowledge of anothers intention, and &s;o the <HI>Knight</HI> is in no better ca&s;e then his adver&s;aries in this re&s;pect.</P>
<P>It is cleane a different thing to di&s;pute of the cer|tainty <MILESTONE N="6"> of the <HI>Catholique</HI> faith which we maintaine, and of every mans private and particular beliefe of his owne ju&s;tification or &s;alvation, which we deny to be &s;o certaine: the one being grounded upon the authority of Gods divine truth, and revelation, the other upon humane knowledge, or rather conje|cture. How&s;oever though we be not <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ertaine by cer|tainty of divine faith, that this or that man in parti|cular is truely baptized or ordained a Prie&s;t; yet we are certaine by the certainty of divine faith, that not onely there be &s;uch Sacraments, but that they are al&s;o truly admini&s;tred in the <HI>Catholike</HI> Church.</P>
<P>It might be good and profitable as <HI>Bellarmine</HI> <MILESTONE N="7"> noteth, to invoke the Saints, though they them|&s;elves &s;hould not heare us, as the <HI>Knight</HI> would prove out of <HI>Peter Lumbard</HI> and <HI>Gabriel Biel,</HI> who though they doubt of the manner, yet they doubt not of the thing it &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">lfe; <HI>Gabriel</HI> &s;aith, the Saints are invocated not as givers of the good things for which we pray, but as interce&s;&s;ours to God the gi|ver
<PB N="42" REF="282" MS="y"> of all good. And <HI>Peter Lumbard</HI> &s;aith that our prayers become knowne to the Angells in the word of God which they behold, &s;o al&s;o doe Saints that &s;tand before God.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="8"> Though it be true which <HI>Caietan</HI> &s;aith, that it cannot be knowne infallibly that the miracles where|on the Church groundeth the Canonization of Saints be true: yet it followeth not that we are uncertaine whether the Canonized Saints be in Heaven or no, becau&s;e the certainty of Canonization dependeth up|on more certaine ground; to wit, the authority of the See Apo&s;tolique, and continuall a&s;si&s;tance and di|rection of the Holy-gho&s;t, the &s;pirit of truth, to whom it belongeth not to &s;uffer Chri&s;ts Vicar, u&s;ing humane diligence, and proceeding prudently in a matter of that moment,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ep. <HI>68.</HI> vive|bant ut latro|nes, honora|bantur ut mar|tyres.</NOTE> to erre; and whereas <HI>S^t. Au&s;tine</HI> &s;aith that many were tormented with the Devill in Hell, who were wor&s;hipped by men on earth: it may be well under&s;tood of the Martyrs of the Donati&s;ts, who were Canonized by tho&s;e <HI>Haeretikes</HI> to be Martyrs, who&s;e &s;oules were tormented in Hell: and whereas <HI>Sulpitius</HI> and <HI>Ca&s;&s;ander</HI> &s;peake of wicked Robbers and damned per&s;ons honoured by the name of Holy Martyrs, it followeth not that becau&s;e &s;ome peo|ple in <HI>S^t. Martins</HI> time did erre in wor&s;hiping a dead theefe for a Saint, without any approbation of the Church: <HI>ergo Catholikes</HI> may erre in wor|&s;hiping of Saints Canonized and Authorized by the Church.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="9"> Though <HI>Gregorie,</HI> and other Catholike Divines differ about the place, manner, puni&s;hment, and du|rance
<PB N="43" REF="282" MS="y"> of Purgatorie: yet, none rejecteth the beliefe of Purgatorie it &s;elfe. And as for Saint <HI>Au&s;tine,</HI> alleaged by the <HI>Knight</HI> to the contrary, his words are to be meant of the finall and eternall place of &s;oules. For otherwi&s;e, Saint <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> is &s;o expre&s;&s;e for Pur|gatory, in the very booke and place quoted by the <HI>Knight,</HI> to wit, in his <HI>Enchiridian ad Laurentium,</HI> that <HI>M^r. Antonie Alcock,</HI> a zealous Di&s;ciple of <HI>Luther,</HI> as it &s;eemeth, tran&s;lating it into Engli&s;h, is faine to write certaine annimadver&s;ions upon this Chapter, wherein hee confe&s;&s;eth,<NOTE PLACE="marg">C. <HI>110.</HI> Neque negandum e&s;t defunctorum animus, &amp;c.</NOTE> Saint <HI>Au&s;tines</HI> opi|nion is here for Purgatorie. The Saints owne words are, Neither is it to be denied, that the &s;oules of the dead are relieved by the pietie of their friends li|ving, when the &s;acrifice of our Mediatour is offred for them, or almes given in the Church. The &s;ame Father el&s;where &s;aith, The whole time betweene the death of a man, and the generall re&s;urrection, con|taineth the &s;oules in hidden receptacles, as each is worthy, either of ea&s;e or paine.</P>
<P>The Doctrine of Catholikes, concerning wor&s;hip|ping <MILESTONE N="10"> of Images, is not uncertaine, it being this onely, that Images are to be wor&s;hipped, but not as Gods. For the &s;econd Councell of <HI>Nice,</HI> it requireth not onely ki&s;sing of Images, and a civill kind of imbra|cing, but a pro&s;tration on the ground, and praying on the knees before them: <HI>Gregorie de Valen|tia</HI> taketh the word <HI>Simulacrum,</HI> in a good &s;en&s;e, and concludeth out of Saint <HI>Peter,</HI> that &s;ome Image-wor&s;hip is lawfull, not any Idoll wor&s;hip, as the <HI>Knight</HI> impo&s;eth on him.</P>
<DIV2 TYPE="response to chapter">
<PB N="44" REF="283" MS="y">
<HEAD>The Hammer.</HEAD>
<P>IN this Chapter, the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> in the fourth, fift, &s;ixt, &s;eventh, twelfth, fifteene, and &s;ixteene Paragraphs, doth nothing but <HI>&s;eeth againe his old Coleworts,</HI> which were ta&s;ted before, and after ca&s;t into the dunghill. From whence, I purpo&s;e not to gather them againe, or &s;et them before the Reader, le&s;t his &s;tomacke &s;hould ri&s;e at them: but I addre&s;&s;e my &s;elfe to examine onely &s;uch Sophi&s;mes, Cavils and Eva&s;ions, whereby hee indeavoureth to elude or retort the <HI>Knights</HI> ar|guments, brought again&s;t him in this Section, in order as I have &s;et them downe.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> To the fir&s;t. The con&s;equence of the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> drawne from the <HI>Knights</HI> &s;uppo&s;ed failing in his proofes, failes many wayes, as may be proved by manifold in&s;tances. For albeit, many later Mathematitians faile in refuting <HI>Copernicus</HI> his giddy opinion of the earths circular motion, and the heavens &s;tanding &s;till: yet this their fai|ling is no &s;ufficient proofe of <HI>Copernicus</HI> his new fancie: neither will it follow, that the religion of Pagans &amp; Infidels hath &s;ufficient ground, becau&s;e <HI>Lactantius</HI> failes in his proofes of Chri&s;tianitie, in Saint <HI>Ieromes</HI> judgement: and <HI>Cyprian</HI> al&s;o in the judgement of <HI>Lactantius.</HI> The defects of the Patron or Advocate, ought not to be imputed to the cau&s;e. It is a weake and &s;illy Religion, who&s;e whole &s;trength con&s;i&s;teth in the weakene&s;&s;e of
<PB N="45" REF="283" MS="y"> &s;ome of the oppo&s;ers of it. The truth is, the <HI>Knight</HI> hath not failed in his proofes of the no|veltie of the <HI>Trent</HI> Creed, as the judicious Rea|der will find: yet if there were any defect in them, it may be abundantly &s;upplied out of <HI>Iuels</HI> challenge at Saint <HI>Pauls Cro&s;&s;e, Abbots</HI> an&s;wer to <HI>Bi&s;hop,</HI> intituled, The true ancient <HI>Roman</HI> Catholike, and Doctor <HI>Faner</HI> in his Booke of Antiquitie, triumphing over noveltie, and divers others.</P>
<P>To the &s;econd. That the &s;alvation of all &s;oules <MILESTONE N="2"> dependeth upon the Popes &s;upremacie, which the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> are bound by a fourth, and &s;upernu|merary vow to defend, is a bold and bla&s;phe|mous a&s;&s;ertion, derogatorie to Chri&s;t him&s;elfe, who is <HI>the Saviour of his body,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 5.23. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3.11.</NOTE> and only <HI>foundation</HI> which beareth up the waight and frame of the whole Catholike Church. When Chri&s;t &s;aid to <HI>Peter, Thou art</HI> Peter, <HI>and upon this Rocke will I build my Church;</HI> hee meant not, as Saint <HI>Au|&s;tine</HI> rightly ob&s;erveth, <HI>To build him&s;elfe upon</HI> Peter, <HI>but</HI> Peter <HI>and the whole Church upon him|&s;elfe; non &s;uper te edificabo me, &s;ed &s;uper me edifi|cabo te.</HI> The Church was founded and e&s;tabli|&s;hed before there was any Pope or Bi&s;hop at <HI>Rome,</HI> and &s;hall &s;o continue, when <HI>Rome &s;hall,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Tract. de aufe|ribilit. Papae.</NOTE> <HI>perchance, be burnt with fire,</HI> and the Papacie which now tottereth, &s;hall be utterly de&s;troyed. Doth not their owne <HI>Ger&s;on</HI> teach, that the Pope may be quite removed, and yet the Catholike Church &s;till remaine? how then can the Je&s;uit
<PB N="46" REF="284" MS="y"> &s;ay, that <HI>the waight and frame of the whole Catho|like Church&punc; dependeth upon the authoritie of the Pope?</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> To the third. The <HI>Knight</HI> u&s;ed a dilemma, or two-forked Argument. Either the Popes &s;worn-Servants, and our &s;worne enemies, who&s;e depo&s;itions before wee heard, again&s;t divers ar|ticles of the <HI>Trent</HI> Faith, concurred with other Papi&s;ts in judgement, or not: if they concurred, then by the joynt confe&s;&s;ion of all, for tho&s;e points, at lea&s;t, they are de&s;titute of univer&s;ality, which yet they make a prime note of their Church: if others concurred not with them in judgement, then their Doctors are divided a|mong&s;t them&s;elves, and con&s;equently, they want another &s;peciall marke of their Church, which they make unitie in point of Faith. To avoid the <HI>pu&s;h</HI> of this <HI>Ramme,</HI> the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;tarts<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Quintil. In&s;ti|tut. orat. lib. <HI>6.</HI> Diverticula et anfractus &s;uf|fugia &s;unt in|firmitatis, ut qui cur&s;u pa|rum valent fle|xu eludunt.</NOTE> a&s;ide into a Schola&s;ticall &s;peculation, whether any thing is to be held for an article of. Faith before it be defined, and re&s;olveth the matter thus: <HI>When a a thing is once defined, to wit, by the Church, then it becomes a matter of Faith.</HI> Hee &s;hould rather determine, becau&s;e this or that is a matter of Faith, therefore the Church defineth it to be &s;o, and not becau&s;e the Church defineth it to be &s;o, therefore it is a matter of Faith. For Faith, if it be divine, is founded upon Gods Word, not the Churches definition: if nothing be matter of Faith, before it be defined by your Church, then Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation was no article of Faith,
<PB N="47" REF="284" MS="y"> before the Councell of <HI>Laterane,</HI> and <HI>Innocentius</HI> the third his dayes; nor the Doctrine of Con|commitancie, and lawfull communicating in one kind, before the Councell of <HI>Con&s;tance,</HI> under <HI>Martin</HI> the fift; nor the Popes &s;uperioritie to Councels, before the Councell at <HI>Laterane,</HI> un|der <HI>Leo</HI> the tenth; nor mo&s;t of Pope <HI>Pius</HI> the fourth his Articles, before the late Councell of <HI>Trent,</HI> wherein tho&s;e points were fir&s;t defined. Then which, what Argument can be more for|cible, to convince the novelty of the Romi&s;h Faith? But whether an article of Faith is to be accounted &s;uch, becau&s;e it is defined to be &s;uch by the Church; or whether it be defined to be &s;uch by the Church, becau&s;e it is &s;uch in its owne nature; it will little &s;erve the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> turne to make up the breaches of the Roman Church. For certaine it is, that their Doctors differ a|mong&s;t them&s;elves, even in points defined by the Church. For after the bookes of the Old Te&s;tament, with all the parts (knowne by the name of <HI>Apocrypha</HI>) by the Councell of <HI>Trent</HI> were defined to be of Canonicall authoritie; <HI>Six|tus Senen&s;is</HI> makes &s;cruple of &s;ome of them.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Sixtus Senen&s;. bib. Sanct. l. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> Af|ter the immaculate conception of our Lady was defined by <HI>Sixtus</HI> the fourth, and the fea&s;t in te|&s;timonie thereof, authori&s;ed by him; yet, the <HI>Dominicans</HI> generally hold, that &s;hee was con|ceived in &s;inne. After Ju&s;tification by inherent righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e,<NOTE PLACE="marg">De Cau&s;. in&s;tit. l. <HI>7.</HI> c. <HI>21.</HI></NOTE> was defined in the Councell of <HI>Trent, Albertus Pighius</HI> and others, cited by
<PB N="48" REF="285" MS="y"> <HI>Vegas</HI> held the contrary. And though the Coun|cell of <HI>Trent</HI> &s;tigmatize the doctrine touching a&s;&s;urance of &s;alvation, yet <HI>Ambro&s;ius Catharinus,</HI> a learned <HI>Papist,</HI> &s;et forth a learned treati&s;e <HI>de cer|titudine &s;alutis.</HI> La&s;tly, though Pope <HI>Leo</HI> the tenth, in the Councell of <HI>Lateran,</HI> defineth the Pope to be above a generall Councell, yet the <HI>Sorboni&s;ts</HI> at this day maintaine, that a generall Councell is above the Pope. Therefore as S^t <HI>Tho|mas Moore</HI> &s;aid plea&s;antly of a poore Phy&s;itian that he was more then <HI>medicus,</HI> to wit, by one letter,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mor. in Epigr.</NOTE> meaning that he was <HI>mendicus. Vna tabi plus e&s;t litera quam medico;</HI> &s;o it may truely be &s;aid of the unity <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> brag &s;o much of, that it is more then <HI>Vnity</HI> by a letter, to wit, <HI>Vanity.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="4"> To the fourth. If the <HI>Knight</HI> or any Prote|&s;tant &s;u&s;pended the efficacy of their Bapti&s;me up|on the faith of their Parents, or (as all Papi&s;ts doe) upon the intention of the Prie&s;t, the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> might with &s;ome colour object to us the uncer|tainty of our Chri&s;tendome: but let him know if he doth not, that we maintaine generally that the effect of Bapti&s;me dependeth not upon the faith of the Parents and God-fathers, nor yet upon the intention of the Prie&s;t, knowne to God onely and him&s;elfe; but upon his outward acti|on and his words knowne to all the Congrega|tion. We &s;ay that the ob&s;ervation of Chri&s;ts in|&s;titution in baptizing the partie in the <HI>name of the Father, of the Sonne, and of the Holy-gho&s;t,</HI> and not the Prie&s;ts hidden intention makes Bapti&s;me
<PB N="49" REF="285" MS="y"> effectuall to all that belong to the covenant.</P>
<P>To the fift. The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> mo&s;t ab&s;urdly infer|reth ab&s;urdities upon his owne Tenet, &s;uppo|&s;ing <MILESTONE N="5"> it to be ours, whereas we di&s;claime it, affir|ming that although the Church u&s;eth in marriage, all meanes po&s;&s;ible by que&s;tions and an&s;wers, by joyning ha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ds, by plighting their troth in mo&s;t &s;ignificant tearmes, and confirming their mutu|all promi&s;es by giving and receiving a ring, and denouncing Gods judgments again&s;t them in mo&s;t fearfull manner, if they know any thing one by the other, why they &s;hould not be ioyned in marriage, yet becau&s;e the heart is knowne to God alone, the validity of marriage with us de|pendeth upon the outward profe&s;&s;ion, and &s;a|cred action done before &s;ufficient and undoubted witne&s;&s;e and not the &s;ecret intentions of the par|tie. What the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> addeth by way of jeare, that <HI>a &s;mall deale of orders &s;erves our turnes, for he &s;eeth not any thing done by vertue of our ordination which any man or woman may not doe without it.</HI> I hold it not worthy any other an&s;wer then that, &s;ith he profe&s;&s;eth <HI>his eye &s;ight to be &s;o dimme,</HI> he would make u&s;e of the <HI>Spectacles he made for the Knight,</HI> by helpe of them if he be not &s;tarke blinde, he may &s;ee, that by vertue of our ordination, men in holy orders preach the Go&s;pell, admini&s;ter the Sacraments, remit and retaine &s;innes: which if he thinke any man or woman may doe without ordination, like the foole in the Poet,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Dum vitant &s;tulti vitia in contraria cur|runt.</NOTE> he is gone from one extreame to the other, and of a <HI>Papi&s;t</HI>
<PB N="50" REF="286" MS="y"> become an <HI>Anabapti&s;t.</HI> With us none may execute the Prie&s;ts office, but he <HI>that is called thereunto, as was Aaron.</HI> If the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> meane that any man or woman may doe the outward acts of Prie&s;thood <HI>de facto,</HI> though not <HI>de Iure:</HI> may they not doe the like al&s;o &s;ometimes among them? doth not their <HI>Legend</HI> tell us that &s;ome Boyes getting by heart and pronouncing the words of Con&s;ecration, <HI>hoc e&s;t Corpus meum,</HI> turned all the Bakers bread in the &s;treet into fle&s;h? Do not Lady <HI>Abbe&s;&s;es</HI> and <HI>Nuns</HI> chaunt <HI>Mattins</HI> together in Romi&s;h Chap|pels? Do not Midwives chri&s;ten children in their Church? With what face then can he charge us with tho&s;e di&s;orders whereof all the world &s;eeth we are free, but he and his Church mo&s;t guilty?</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="6"> To the &s;ixt. If we can have but a conjecturall and wavering knowledge of our &s;alvation, what comfort can a true Chri&s;tian have in life or death? <HI>If his hope be onely in this life,</HI> the Apo|&s;tle affirmeth expre&s;&s;ely,<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 15.19.</NOTE> <HI>that he is of all men mo&s;t mi&s;erable;</HI> and certainely he is but little bet|ter if all his hope in the life to come be no better then a gue&s;&s;e, or &s;lender conjecture. Iu&s;tly there|fore did <HI>Martin Luther</HI> tearme the Romi&s;h do|ctrine concerning uncertainty of &s;alvation, <HI>non doctrinam fidei &s;ed diffidentiae,</HI> no doctrine of faith but of diffidence and di&s;tru&s;t, which if this <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;tiffely maintaines, I would faine know of him how he interpreteth that Article of the Creed, <HI>I beleeve the remi&s;sion of &s;innes.</HI> Is the meaning onely this, that there is a remi&s;&s;ion of
<PB N="51" REF="286" MS="y"> &s;ome &s;ins in the Church? if &s;o, then the Devill beleeves as much concerning this Article as he, but if as he beleeveth in the Article of the Re&s;ur|rection, the Re&s;urrection of his owne fle&s;h, &s;o in the Article of remi&s;&s;ion of &s;innes, the remi&s;|&s;ion of his owne &s;innes; then his owne ju&s;tifi|cation, and particular beliefe of his owne &s;al|tion is a part of his <HI>Catholike</HI> faith; and if that be but conjecturall, then there is no certainty in the <HI>Catholike</HI> Faith. It is true, that it is a different thing to di&s;pute of the certainety of the Catholike faith in generall, and of every mans private and particular beliefe of his owne ju&s;tification, and &s;alvation: yet there is &s;uch a dependance be|tweene them, that if the former be uncertaine the latter cannot be certaine. Yea but (&s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI>) we are certaine, by the certainty of divine faith, not onely that there be &s;even Sacraments, but that they are al&s;o truely admini&s;tred in the Church, &s;o as there can be no danger of the fai|ling of either, to the notable preiudice of faith and the &s;alvation of &s;oules. I reply fir&s;t, that for five of the &s;even as was di&s;cu&s;&s;ed at large, Section the fourth, the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> is &s;o farre from any certainty that indeede he can bring no probability that there be any &s;uch Sacraments in the <HI>Catholike</HI> Church; and for the other two which we ac|knowledge to be Sacraments properly &s;o called, he cannot be certaine that they are ever effectual|ly admini&s;tred in his Church according to their owne Tenents, who &s;u&s;pend the efficacy of them
<PB N="52" REF="287"> upon the Prie&s;ts intention. Nay farther, he can|not be certaine that they have any Church at all among&s;t them, for there can be no Church (as they teach) without a vi&s;ible &s;ucce&s;&s;ion of lawfull Pa&s;tours, whereof hee cannot be certaine, &s;ith no man knoweth whether the Bi&s;hops, who or|dained their Prie&s;ts, or the Archbi&s;hop, who or|dained their Bi&s;hops, or the Pope, who con&s;e|crated their Archbi&s;hops, intended that which your Church intendeth; and if there failed an intention in any of all the&s;e, or in him who bap|tized or ordained their fir&s;t Pope, (&s;ince the Bi|&s;hops of <HI>Rome</HI> began to be Popes) hee hath no certainty according to his owne grounds, of any Prie&s;thood or Chri&s;tianitie in his Church.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="7"> To the &s;eventh. I never heard before, that it could be good, or any way profitable, <HI>&s;urdo fa|bulum narrare,</HI> to tell a <HI>Tale in the eare of a deafe man.</HI> Where doe the Scriptures, or ancient Fa|thers give any approbation to &s;uch &s;en&s;le&s;&s;e de|votion? can a man call upon him with faith, or any hope of obtaining his &s;uit, whom hee con|ceiveth to be out of his hearing? Yea, but <HI>Ga|briel Biel</HI> &s;peaketh not doubtfully, but certainly, of Invocation, though hee &s;eeme to doubt of the manner how Saints in heaven know our nece&s;&s;i|ties on earth. <HI>Biel</HI> indeed <HI>li&s;peth &s;omewhat that way,</HI> but hee &s;peaketh not plaine; hee &s;aith, <HI>In|vocantur &s;ancti,</HI> not <HI>&s;ancti &s;unt invocandi;</HI> hee &s;peaketh confidently and certainly of the pra|cti&s;e of the Romane Church, but not of the truth
<PB N="53" REF="287" MS="y"> of this point of the <HI>Romi&s;h</HI> Faith, that Saints ought to be called upon: for that hee taught,<NOTE PLACE="marg">In Can. Mi&s;&s;ae Di&s;t. <HI>31.</HI> videri probabile.</NOTE> that <HI>It may &s;eeme probable that God revealeth to Saints, all tho&s;e &s;uits which men pre&s;ent unto them:</HI> con&s;equently holdeth, that it may &s;eeme al&s;o probable, that the living may pray unto them. But what is this his <HI>probabile,</HI> or <HI>Peter Lumbards</HI> not <HI>incredibile,</HI> to build an Article of Faith upon? Yea, but <HI>Pe|ter Lumbard,</HI> though hee make &s;ome doubt, whe|ther the Saints heare our Prayers as they pro|ceed from us, (they being in Heaven,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Sicut enim An|gelis, ita etiam &s;anctis qui Deo a&s;si&s;tant, petiti|ones no&s;trae innote&s;cunt in verbo Deo quod contemplantur.</NOTE> and wee in Earth, they being but in one place, and tho&s;e that call upon them in a million of places, di|&s;tant farre one from the other) yet, <HI>Hee maketh no doubt of their knowing and &s;eeing our Prayers in the Word of God, as the Angels doe.</HI> I an&s;wer, that this imaginarie Gla&s;&s;e of the Schoolemen, wherein they conceive, that the Saints and An|gels &s;ee all things by the contemplation of God, in whom are all things, hath beene long agoe battered in pieces. For if, becau&s;e they &s;ee God, they mu&s;t needs &s;ee all things that are in him, and know all that hee knoweth; it would hereupon in&s;ue, that the Saints knowledge &s;hould be infi|nite, as Gods is: that they &s;hould know the day and houre when Chri&s;t &s;hall come to judgement, contrary to the expre&s;&s;e words of our Saviour, <HI>Marke</HI> 13.32. that they &s;hould know the &s;ecrets of all hearts, which the Scripture a&s;cribeth as a &s;ingular prerogative to God. To avoid the&s;e Rockes, if our Adver&s;aries will confine the
<PB N="54" REF="288" MS="y"> knowledge of the Saints or Angels, to &s;uch things onely, as God &s;hall be plea&s;ed to reveale unto them, they beg then the point in que&s;tion, which they ought to prove: <HI>viz.</HI> That God will reveale to every Saint, what every man on earth pray|eth to him for.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="8"> To the eighth. Fir&s;t the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> in this an&s;wer flatly contradicteth <HI>Cajetan,</HI> whom hee under|taketh to defend: for, if the Church groundeth not the canonization of Saints upon the report of miracles voyced on them: <HI>Cajetans</HI> Argument in that place is weak, and of no force. Secondly, for the authoritie of the See Apo&s;tolike, and the infallibility of the Popes judgement, they are as uncertaine, or more then that &s;uch per&s;ons ca|nonized by the Pope are Saints.<NOTE PLACE="marg">L. <HI>3.</HI> ep. <HI>3.</HI> nec qui&s;quam &s;ibi quod &s;oli filio tribuit pater vindicare &s;e putet, ut ad areum purgan|dam, &amp;c. <HI>1</HI> Kings <HI>8.39.</HI></NOTE> Saint <HI>Cyprian</HI> in his time, &s;everely cen&s;ured tho&s;e who <HI>arroga|ted to them&s;elves that which the Father hath gi|ven to the Sonne onely; to wit, in the floore of the Church, to take the fanne in his hand, and &s;ever the Wheat from the Chaffe.</HI> If God onely <HI>knoweth the hearts of all the children of men,</HI> either the Pope mu&s;t be God, as the Canoni&s;ts bla&s;phemou&s;ly called him, or hee cannot infallibly know who are true Saints, and &s;incerely beleeve, and love God. As for Saint <HI>Au&s;tines</HI> complaint (that many were wor&s;hipped by men on earth that are tormented by the devill in hell) they are in|definitely &s;poken, and not re&s;trained to <HI>Dona|ti&s;ts,</HI> or any other Heretikes: yet, were it &s;o, wee may &s;ee in tho&s;e <HI>Donati&s;ts</HI> a perfect picture of
<PB N="55" REF="288" MS="y"> Papi&s;ts. For what <HI>Donatus</HI> did in <HI>Affrica,</HI> that doth the Pope in <HI>Europe;</HI> hee canonizeth tho&s;e of his faction for Saints. And as the <HI>Donati&s;ts</HI> gave the honour of Martyrs to tho&s;e, who ju&s;tly &s;uffered death for Robberies and Murders, &s;o doe the Papi&s;ts crowne the heads of Murderers and Traitours with the garland of Martyrdome; witne&s;&s;e <HI>Becket, Campian, Oldcorne,</HI> and <HI>Garnet;</HI> whereof the fir&s;t &s;tandeth in the Kalender of Ro|mi&s;h Saints, the later in the Regi&s;ter of Je&s;uiticall Martyrs. Neither can the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;o ea&s;ily fillip off the te&s;timonie of <HI>Ca&s;&s;ander,</HI> as if hee taxed the ignorant for making a Saint of a Thiefe,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ca&s;&s;an. con&s;ult. art. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> and no way touched upon the Pope or your Church; for hee layeth not the blame upon the people, as the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> here doth, but &s;aith &s;imply, that Saint <HI>Martin</HI> found a place honoured in the name of a holy Martyr, to be the &s;epulcher of a wic|ked Robber. Secondly, 'tis well knowne that the people cry not up at fir&s;t a Saint, or Martyr after his death, but the Prie&s;ts, who voyce mi|racles upon them, and keepe their Shrines and Reliques, and by &s;hewing them to the people, make no le&s;&s;e gaine, than <HI>Demetrius</HI> and his fellow Crafts-men did of their &s;ilver Shrines of <HI>Diana.</HI></P>
<P>To the ninth. As hee that plucks the &s;tickes <MILESTONE N="9"> out of the Chimney one by one, at la&s;t puts out the fire: &s;o the <HI>Knight</HI> by loo&s;ening, or quite removing the fuell of Purgatorie fire, con&s;e|quently extingui&s;heth it. If all the parts and cir|cum&s;tances
<PB N="56" REF="289" MS="y"> of the Doctrine of Popi&s;h Purgatory are doubtfull and uncertaine, the whole certainly can be no Article of Faith: but the Antecedent the <HI>Knight</HI> proves out of <HI>Bellarmine, Dominicus a Soto, Fi&s;her</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Roche&s;ter, Gregorie</HI> the great, and venerable <HI>Bede,</HI> let the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> there|fore looke to the Con&s;equent. The Church of <HI>Rome</HI> commandeth every one upon paine of hell-fire, to beleeve a temporarie purging fire after this life. Fir&s;t, upon what ground, Scripture, or unanimous con&s;ent of Fathers, or Tradition of the Catholike Church? no &s;uch thing. But upon apparitions of dead men, and te&s;timonie of Spirits, whether good Spirits or evill they can|not tell. Next, wee demand what &s;oules, and how long doe they continue there? To this they mu&s;t an&s;wer likewi&s;e <HI>Ignoramus. Soto</HI> think|eth that none continueth in this purgation ten yeares. If this be true, &s;aith <HI>Bellarmine, No &s;oule needs to &s;tay in purging one houre.</HI> Thirdly, the &s;oules that are &s;uppo&s;ed to be there, till their &s;innes are purged, wherewith are they purged? With fire onely; &s;o &s;aith Sir <HI>Thomas Moore,</HI> and proves it out of <HI>Zacharie</HI> 9.11. <HI>Thou ha&s;t delive|red the pri&s;oners out of the place where there is no water:</HI> or with water and fire: &s;o &s;aith <HI>Gregorie</HI> in his Dialogues, <HI>lib.</HI> 4. <HI>Some are purged by fire, and &s;ome by bathes:</HI> and <HI>Fi&s;her</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Roche|&s;ter,</HI> proves it out of tho&s;e words of the <HI>P&s;almi&s;t, Wee have pa&s;&s;ed thorow fire and water.</HI> Fourthly, admit they are purged by fire, whether is this
<PB N="57" REF="289" MS="y"> fire materiall or metaphoricall? <HI>Ignoramus, Wee know not,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Bellarmine, lib.</HI> 2. <HI>de Purg. cap.</HI> 6. La&s;tly, is there any mittigation of this paine in Purgatorie, or no? They cannot tell this nei|ther. For venerable <HI>Bede, hi&s;t. Ang. lib.</HI> 5. tels us of the apparition of a Gho&s;t, reporting that <HI>There was an infernall place where &s;oules &s;uffered no paine, where they had a brooke running through it. Neither is it improbable,</HI> &s;aith <HI>B<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">llarmine,</HI> l. 2. de Purg. cap. 7. <HI>that there &s;hould be &s;uch an hono|rable pri&s;on, which is a mo&s;t milde and temperate Purgatorie.</HI> Yea, but &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> Saint <HI>Au&s;tin is a firme man for Purgatorie, and hee will prove it out of that booke of</HI> Enchiridion, <HI>and place quoted by the</HI> Knight. Re&s;olutely &s;poken, but &s;o fal&s;ly,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Encharid. ad Laurent. c. <HI>69.</HI> Tale aliquid e|tiam po&s;t hanc vitam fieri in|credibile non e&s;t, et utrum ita &s;it quaeri potest et ut inveniri, aut latere po&s;sit, nonnullos fide|les per ignem quendam purga|torium &s;alvari non tamen tales de quibus dictu~ e&s;t regnum Dei non po&s;sidebant.</NOTE> that in this very booke, <HI>chapter</HI> 69, Saint <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> &s;peaking of a purging fire, and commenting upon the words of Saint <HI>Paul, Hee &s;hall be &s;aved as it were by fire;</HI> addeth immediately, <HI>It <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> not unlikely that &s;ome &s;uch thing may be after this life: but whether it be &s;o or no, it may be argued; and whether it can be found, or not found, that &s;ome Beleevers are &s;aved by a purging fire; yet it is certaine, that none of them &s;hall be &s;aved, of whom the Apo&s;tle &s;aith, they &s;hall not inherit the Kingdome of God.</HI> And in the &s;ame booke, <HI>chapter</HI> 109. he re&s;olves, that <HI>All &s;oules from the day of their death to their re&s;urrection, abide in expectation what &s;hall become of them, and are re&s;erved in &s;ecret receptacles accordingly as they de&s;erve, either torment or ea&s;e.</HI> The&s;e hidden Cells or Receptacles where&s;oever
<PB N="58" REF="290" MS="y"> they are &s;cituated in S^t. <HI>Au&s;tins</HI> judgment,<NOTE PLACE="marg">C. <HI>109.</HI> Tempus quod inter ho|minis mortem &amp; ultimam re|&s;urrectionem interpo&s;itam e&s;t animus abdi|tis receptaculis continet, &s;icut unaque&abque; digna e&s;t vel requiae vel arumn&acirc;.</NOTE> cer|taine it is, they are not in the Popi&s;h Purgatory; for S^t. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> placeth in the&s;e &s;ecret Man&s;ions all &s;oules indifferently, good or bad, whereas the Popi&s;h Purgatory is re&s;trained only to tho&s;e of a middle condition, being neither exceeding good nor exceeding bad. Againe, in S^t. <HI>Au&s;tines</HI> hid|den repo&s;itories, &s;ome &s;oules have ea&s;e, and &s;ome paine, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">s each de&s;erveth: but in the Ro|mi&s;h Purgatory, all &s;oules <HI>are in little-ea&s;e,</HI> being tormented in a flame little differing from Hell fire, or rather nothing at all, &s;ave onely in time, the paines are as grievous but not &s;o durable. El&s;e where S^t. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> is mo&s;t direct again&s;t Purga|tory, and wholly for us, as namely, <HI>de peceat. meritis de remi&s;sione, l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 28. <HI>There is no mid|dle or third place,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>but he mu&s;t needs be with the Devill who is not with Chri&s;t.</HI> And <HI>Hy|pog. l.</HI> 5. <HI>The fir&s;t place the faith of</HI> Catholikes <HI>by divine authority beleeveth to be the Kingdome of Heaven, the &s;econd to be Hell, tertium locum pe|nit&ugrave;s ignoramus, the third place, we are alltogether ignorant of; and in his booke de vanit. &s;eculi cap.</HI> 1. <HI>Know that when the &s;oule is &s;eperated from the body,</HI> &s;tatim, <HI>pre&s;ently, it is either placed in Para|di&s;e for his good worke, or ca&s;t headlong into the bot|tome of hell for his &s;innes.</HI> Neither can the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> evade by &s;aying that there are two onely places where the &s;oules remaine finally and eternally, to wit, Heaven and Hell, but yet that there is a third place where the bodies fry in purging for
<PB N="59" REF="290" MS="y"> a time; for S^t. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> &s;peakes of all &s;oules in generall both good and bad, and &s;aith that <HI>&s;tatim, that is, pre&s;ently upon death, they are receaved into Heaven, or throwne into Hell;</HI> and therefore &s;tay no time in a Third place. What then &s;ay we to the pa&s;&s;age in which the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;o triumpheth? <HI>Enchirid. ad Laurenc. c.</HI> 110. <HI>Neither is it to be denied, that the &s;oules of the dead are relieved by the piety of their friends living, when the Sacrifice of our Mediatour is offered for them, and Almes given in the Church.</HI> We an&s;wer, that where S^t. <HI>Au|&s;tine</HI> is not con&s;tant to him&s;elfe, we are not bound to &s;tand to his authority, and therefore we appeale from Saint <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> mi&s;&s;ing his way in this place, to the &s;ame <HI>Au&s;tine,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><P>Nullum auxili|um mi&s;ericor|diae pote&s;t pre|beri a ju&s;tis de|functorum ani|mabus etiam &s;i ju&s;ti praebere velint, quia e&s;t immutabilis divina &s;enten|tia</P>
<P>Qualis qui&s;que moritur talis a Deo judicatur, nec pote&s;t muta|ri, corrigi, vel minui dimia &s;ententia.</P></NOTE> hitting his way el&s;ewhere, namely, <HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>Que&s;t. Evan. c.</HI> 38. <HI>There can be no helpe of mercy afforded by ju&s;t men to the &s;oules of the decea&s;ed, although the righteous would never &s;o faine have it &s;o, becau&s;e the &s;entence of God is immutable: and Ep.</HI> 80. <HI>ad He&s;ich: &s;uch as a man is when he dieth, for &s;uch he is judged of God, neither can the &s;entence of God be changed corrected, or dimini&s;hed.</HI> As for M^r. <HI>Anthony Al|cots</HI> confe&s;&s;ion, that Saint <HI>Au&s;tines</HI> opinion was for purgatorie, it maketh not for the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> but again&s;t him; for he &s;aith, <HI>it was his opinion, not his re&s;olved judgment, and his opinion at one place and at one time, which after he retracted and re&s;olved the cleane contrary,</HI> as M^r. <HI>Alcots</HI> there in part &s;heweth, and <HI>Danaeus</HI> mo&s;t fully in his Comment upon S^t. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> his <HI>Enchiridian ad Laurentium.</HI></P>
<PB N="60" REF="291" MS="y">
<P> <MILESTONE N="10"> To the tenth. If all Papi&s;ts did agree in this, that all Images were to be wor&s;hipped, but not as Gods; yet are they at odds in other Quillets concerning Images; namely, whether they are to be wor&s;hipped in them&s;elves, and for them|&s;elves, or onely <HI>ratione prototypi,</HI> in regard of that they repre&s;ent: whether properly, or im|properly: whether with ki&s;&s;ing and imbracing, and other civill complements, as <HI>Thara&s;ius</HI> the Patriarke of <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> teacheth, or with pro|&s;tration, or corporall &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion before Images, as the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> indeavoureth to prove out of the Acts of the &s;econd Councell of <HI>Nice.</HI> Neither is it certaine, and re&s;olved among all Papi&s;ts, that Images are to be wor&s;hipped, but not as Gods. For &s;ome of them deny, that they are at all to be wor&s;hipped, others over-lavi&s;h on the contra|ry, and teach, that they are to be wor&s;hipped as God.<NOTE PLACE="marg">De Imag. &s;anct. l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>22.</HI></NOTE> For though <HI>Bellarmine</HI> him&s;elfe approve not the opinion of tho&s;e Roman Catholikes, who teach that <HI>Latria,</HI> or divine honour is due to Ima|ges, unle&s;&s;e it be improperly, and by accident; yet hee confe&s;&s;eth that <HI>Alexander de Hales, Aquinas, Cajetanus, Bonaventure, Mar&s;ilius, Almaine, Carthu&s;ian, Capreolus,</HI> and <HI>Henricus</HI> teach, that <HI>The Images of God are to be wor&s;hipped with the &s;ame wor&s;hip wherewith God him&s;elfe is wor&s;hip|ped;</HI> and what is this le&s;&s;e, than to wor&s;hip Ima|ges as God? As for the Canons and cur&s;es of the Councell of <HI>Nice,</HI> they are but <HI>Bruta fulmi|na,</HI> and if the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> be not as &s;en&s;ele&s;&s;e as the
<PB N="61" REF="291" MS="y"> Images which hee wor&s;hippeth, hee mu&s;t needs confe&s;&s;e as much. For to &s;peake nothing of the ridiculous arguments u&s;ed in that Councell, &s;uch as the&s;e are; <HI>God made Man after his owne Image, therefore we may make or wor&s;hip Images:</HI> and the <HI>Angels are to be painted,</HI> quia corporei &s;unt, <HI>be|cau&s;e they are bodily &s;ub&s;tances.</HI> What is there &s;po|ken in the 115 <HI>P&s;alme,</HI> the 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 ver|&s;es, again&s;t Idols, which may not be applied to your Popi&s;h Images? It is &s;aid of them, <HI>They are the workes of mens hands;</HI> are yours the worke of Angels, or Devils? It is &s;aid of them, <HI>They have mouthes and &s;peake not, eyes and &s;ee not, eares and heare not, no&s;es and &s;mell not, hands and han|dle not, feet and walke not:</HI> doe any of your vene|rable Images made of &s;ilver and gold (or rather, of which you make &s;o much &s;ilver and gold of) &s;peake, &s;ee, heare, &s;mell, handle or walke? I conclude therefore in the words of the <HI>P&s;almist, They that make the&s;e Images are like unto them, and &s;o are all they that defend the wor&s;hip of them.</HI> For <HI>Gregorie de Valentia,</HI> the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> telleth but a &s;orry tale; for fir&s;t, hee di&s;parageth his lear|ning in the Greeke, &s;aying, that alleaging a Text out of Saint <HI>Peter,</HI> who wrote in Greeke, hee followed the Latine tran&s;lation, never look|ing to the originall: which argueth in him, ei|ther gro&s;&s;e ignorance in the Greeke, or gro&s;&s;e negligence. After hee hath thus di&s;graced their noble Champion, hee leaveth him in the open field, &s;aying, <HI>pag.</HI> 377. <HI>Neither doe I allow</HI> Valen|tia
<PB N="62" REF="292"> <HI>his u&s;e of the word</HI> Simulacrum, <HI>nor his explica|tion of Saint</HI> Peters <HI>text, neither this his argument drawne from thence.</HI> The truth is, <HI>Gregorie de Valentia</HI> is unexcu&s;able;<NOTE PLACE="marg">De Idolatr. l. <HI>2.</HI> Quid attinebat ita determina|t&egrave; cultus &s;i nu|lacrorum illi|citos notare, &s;i omnino nullos &s;imulacrorum cultus licitos e&s;&s;e cen&s;ui&s;&s;et.</NOTE> for how&s;oever hee di|&s;tingui&s;heth of Image and Idoll-wor&s;hip, and intendeth to prove no more out of Saint <HI>Peter,</HI> then that &s;ome Image-wor&s;hip is lawfull: yet, if his collection were good out of Saint <HI>Peter,</HI> it would prove &s;ome Idoll-wor&s;hip to be lawfull. For Saint <HI>Peters</HI> word is, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>un|lawfull Idolatries;</HI> and if becau&s;e Saint <HI>Peter</HI> bran|deth Idolatrie with the epithet of <HI>Vnlawfull,</HI> he will infer that therefore &s;ome <HI>Idolatrie is lawfull:</HI> by the &s;ame rea&s;on he might conclude, that &s;ome Adulterie or Theft were good and profitable, becau&s;e the Apo&s;tle, <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 5.21. biddeth us to <HI>have no fellow&s;hip with the unfruitfull workes of darkne&s;&s;e.</HI> For the di&s;tinction of an Image and an Idoll, I have &s;poken at large heretofore; here onely I ob&s;erve, that the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> (in &s;aying that <HI>Idolum, according to the prime &s;ignification of the word, might be taken more indifferently, becau&s;e it &s;ignifieth the &s;eeming &s;hape or beauty of a thing or per&s;on</HI>) contradicteth him&s;elfe, and the whole current of his owne Doctours, and &s;trength|neth our Arguments again&s;t them, drawne from the prohibition of making or wor&s;hiping Idols,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Flood, pag. <HI>337.</HI></NOTE> that is, the <HI>&s;hape or beauty of any thing or per&s;on.</HI> The &s;hape or beauty of any thing or per|&s;on, according to the prime &s;ignification and ety|mologie of the word is an Idoll: but all Popi&s;h
<PB N="63" REF="292" MS="y"> Images are the &s;hapes of &s;ome thing or per&s;on, they are all therefore Idolls, and the wor&s;hipers of them Idolaters, according to the primitive &s;ignification of the word. The truth is, every I|doll is an Image, and every Image an Idoll, ac|cording to the fir&s;t &s;ignification of the word: but according to the pre&s;ent u&s;e, an Idoll for the mo&s;t part is taken in the wor&s;t &s;en&s;e, and &s;igni|fieth &s;uch an Image onely as is idolized, that is made for religious wor&s;hip, or rather irreligious, as all Popi&s;h Images are: and becau&s;e they are &s;o, the places of Scripture which we bring a|gain&s;t the wor&s;hip of Idolls, as this of Saint <HI>Pe|ter,</HI> are &s;trong and in force again&s;t them and their Wor&s;hippers. And this may &s;erve for an&s;wer of the fourteenth Paragraph of this tenth Chapter. In the 15. and 16. following, <HI>he doth but champe &s;omewhat of that which before he chewed,</HI> and there|fore I conclude this Chapter with his owne words a little altered: <HI>we finde not<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="4 letters"> in matter of faith uncertaine in the Prote&s;tant Church, no|thing certaine on the Ie&s;uits &s;ide but onely this, that he is alwayes and every where him&s;elfe,</HI> that is <HI>a Proteus:</HI> who&s;e motto may be that of the Hea|thens Godde&s;&s;e, Fortune: <HI>con&s;tans in levitate &s;u&acirc;,</HI> con&s;tant to his incon&s;tancy, and true to his fal&s;e dealing.</P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="11" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="64" REF="293" MS="y">
<HEAD>Concerning the greater &s;afety and comfort in the Prote&s;tant faith then in the Romi&s;h; Spectacles, Chap. 11. a page. 381. u&s;&abque; ad 404.</HEAD>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> _THE <HI>Knight</HI> though he talke &s;o much of proving the &s;afety, and comfort of the Prote&s;tant faith out of <HI>Catho|like Roman</HI> Authors, yet he cannot name that man that &s;aith any &s;uch thing: for &s;uppo&s;e he finde one or two Authors that &s;ay &s;ome thing different from the com|mon opinion, doth he pre&s;ently &s;ay, the Prote&s;tant faith is &s;afe?</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="4 letters">e points of Prote&s;tant religion, which of them&s;elves perhaps might &s;eeme indifferent, their di&s;obedience and &s;pirit of contradiction makes dam|nable.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> The Prote&s;tant religion is not &s;afer then the Ro|man, in regard of the all-&s;ufficiency of Scripture, on which the Protestants relie, for the <HI>Catholikes</HI> relie upon the &s;ame ground of &s;afety, acknowledging and reverencing the authority of Scripture, as much, nay much more then Prote&s;tants.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="4"> It is not &s;afer to adore Chri&s;t (as Prote&s;tants doe) &s;itting at the right hand of his Father in Heaven,
<PB N="65" REF="293"> then to adore the Sacrament: for Chri&s;t is as &s;urely in the Sacrament as in heaven, the &s;ame Catholique faith teaching both verities; and to make you &s;tudy a little, &s;aith hee, I may &s;ay in &s;ome &s;ort, more &s;ure; for a man that would be contentious, may deny Chri&s;t to &s;it at the right hand of his Father, becau&s;e his Fa|ther hath neither right hand, nor left.</P>
<P>There is no more fafety in the Prote&s;tant doctrine <MILESTONE N="5"> of Iu&s;tification, than the Romane. For Catholikes tru&s;t wholy in God, attributing no more to their owne good workes, than that they cooperate to Iustifica|tion, meriting grace and glorie: and on the contra|rie, Prote&s;tants teach vaine confidence in mo&s;t of the&s;e points, as that a man mu&s;t a&s;&s;ure him&s;elfe that his &s;innes are forgiven, that hee mu&s;t a&s;&s;ure him&s;elfe of his &s;alvation, and that he cannot fall from grace, and the like: which ground &s;uppo&s;ed, how can hee worke out his &s;alvation with feare and trembling? <MILESTONE N="6"> </P>
<P>Though &s;ome Catholikes &s;ay, that there is more perfection of the Sacrament, which con&s;isteth in the repre&s;entation in both kinds, than in one; yet there is the &s;ame &s;afety and fruit in one, and in both kinds.</P>
<P>Though the &s;acrifice of the Ma&s;&s;e is more profi|table, <MILESTONE N="7"> when the people comnunicate with the Prie&s;t, as the <HI>Knight</HI> proveth out of the Councell of <HI>Trent, Harding</HI> and <HI>Bellarmine:</HI> yet hee proveth not, that there is any danger in private Ma&s;&s;es, or that it is unlawfull for the Prie&s;t to &s;ay Ma&s;&s;e without hee have &s;ome to communicate with him, which is the Controver&s;ie between Catholikes and Prote&s;tants.</P>
<PB N="66" REF="294">
<P> <MILESTONE N="8"> <HI>Aeneas Sylvius, Ca&s;&s;ander,</HI> and <HI>Panormitan</HI> are of opinion indeed, that Prie&s;ts &s;hould have libertie to marry: yet they would not have them marry a|gain&s;t the law &s;tanding in force, but they would have the law taken away: which is a farre different Doctrine from that of Prote&s;tants. How&s;oever, it is &s;afer to follow the judgement of all other Doctours of the Catholike Church, all other Fathers and Councels teaching the contrarie; of all which, there is abundant proofe in <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> and which was never contradicted by any, but knowne wicked men.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="9"> Though publike Prayers in Latine may not be &s;o profitable to the people, yet they are lawfull and &s;afe, and the fruit of refection of the under&s;tanding by Prayer in a knowne tongue, whereof <HI>Aquinas</HI> &s;pea|keth, will not countervaile the tenth part of the in|convenience which may happen by having publike Prayers in a knowne tongue. The inconveniences are vanitie, curio&s;itie, contempt of Superiours, di&s;|putes, &s;chi&s;mes, prophanation, and divulgation of &s;ecret Mysteries: be&s;ides, the very ignorance of the Latine tongue, and con&s;equently, of all learning which would follow thereof onely in Clergie men, is ten hundred times more harme, than that fruit in the Laitie is good. <HI>Cajetan</HI> was greatly mi&s;taken, when hee expoundeth the fourteenth chapter of the first Epi&s;tle of Saint <HI>Paul</HI> to the <HI>Corynthians,</HI> of publike Prayers in the Church: and hee is al&s;o mi&s;|taken in the very end of Prayer, which is not edifi|cation, or in&s;truction of the people, but the honour of
<PB N="67" REF="294"> God immediately. <HI>Gabriel Biel</HI> &s;peaketh not of Prayer in a knowne tongue, nor of publike Prayers, but onely of mentall Prayer, and vocall; and giveth tho&s;e &s;even rea&s;ons which the <HI>Knight</HI> alleageth, to &s;hew, that be&s;ides mentall Prayer, it is convenient to u&s;e vocall.</P>
<P>There is no danger in wor&s;hipping Images, or <MILESTONE N="10"> praying to Saints: and <HI>Era&s;mus, Ca&s;&s;ander,</HI> and <HI>Chemnitius,</HI> who teach the contrary, are of none authoritie.</P>
<P>Neither <HI>Bernard,</HI> nor <HI>Walden&s;is,</HI> nor <HI>Bellar|mine,</HI> <MILESTONE N="11"> contradict the Doctrine of the Romi&s;h Church in the point of Merit. For Catholikes acknowledge with <HI>Bernard,</HI> that there is no &s;afe re&s;t or &s;ecuritie for a weake &s;oule, but in the wounds of our Saviour; which doth not hinder but a man may &s;ay, God re|wardeth the good workes of his &s;ervants, out of his justice and fidelitie, which out of his mercie he gave them grace to doe: and though <HI>Walden&s;is</HI> and &s;ome other Divines, approve not of the word of Me|rit, e&s;pecially <HI>De condigno;</HI> yet in the thing it &s;elfe, they all agree, to wit, that eternall life is gi|ven to men, as the reward of their good workes: which is all that others meane by condigne Merit. The Doctrine of <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> to wit, that it is mo&s;t &s;afe to tru&s;t wholly in the Merits of Chri&s;t, is as well the Catholike Doctrine, as the Prote&s;tants: who condemne not Prote&s;tants for not tru&s;ting in their workes, or tru&s;ting wholly in Chri&s;t; if &s;o be they deny not the nece&s;sitie and efficacie of good workes, for purcha&s;ing grace and glorie.</P>
<DIV2 TYPE="response to chapter">
<PB N="68" REF="295" MS="y">
<HEAD>The Hammer.</HEAD>
<P>AS <HI>A&s;ia Minor</HI> is called by &s;ome <HI>Geographers A&s;ia A&s;iae,</HI> and the field of <HI>Agrigentum, Sicilia Siciliae,</HI> and <HI>Attica, Graecia Graeciae,</HI> and the Ball or Apple in the eye, the eye of the eye: &s;o this Chapter of the <HI>Knight</HI> may be not unfitly termed <HI>via viae, the &s;afe&s;t path in his &s;afe way,</HI> other Chapters tend to the proofe of his title <HI>Via Tuta:</HI> but this is full upon it. For here he proves by many remarkable in&s;tances, that <HI>our rocke is much more &s;ure then theirs, our very adver&s;aries being judges;</HI> his in&s;tances are prayers in a knowne tongue, communicating in both kindes, partaking of the Sacrament with the Prie&s;t, immediate addre&s;&s;e to God by Chri&s;t, adoring the Creator onely, re&s;olution of our faith upon Gods word, relying wholly upon his Grace and mercy, and renouncing mans merit. And who&s;e under&s;tand|ing apprehendeth not, that it is &s;afe&s;t to pray to God with under&s;tanding; who&s;e &s;pirituall &s;en|&s;es tell him not that it is more comfortable and profitable to communicate with a Prie&s;t then to looke on, and to receive the Sacrament in both kindes, then in one onely; who&s;e rea&s;on per|&s;wadeth him not that it is &s;afer to wor&s;hip God in &s;pirit, then by an Image; to adore Chri&s;t in Heaven, then in a peece of bread; to expect ayde from God, then Saints; to tru&s;t in Gods word, then in mans; in his Grace, then our will;
<PB N="69" REF="295" MS="y"> and in Chri&s;ts merits, then our owne? yet as re&s;tie jades &s;tumble in faire way: &s;o the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> in this faire&s;t rode of the &s;afe way &s;tumbleth of|ten, and tumbleth al&s;o, as the Reader may ob|&s;erve in the &s;everall annotations at his particular &s;lips, or rather downefalls in this Chapter.</P>
<P>To the fir&s;t. The <HI>Knight</HI> doth not conclude <MILESTONE N="1"> out of any one particular, but maketh an inducti|on out of many particulars in this manner. The Prote&s;tant faith by the be&s;t learned among Pa|pi&s;ts in the point of Communion in both kindes, of Prayer in a knowne tongue, ju&s;tification by Faith alone, <HI>et &s;ic de ceteris,</HI> is &s;afer then the Ro|man: <HI>ergo,</HI> &s;imply and generally it is &s;afer. Though <HI>Silurus</HI> his Son could breake every Ar|row by it &s;elfe, which his Father gave him, yet he could not in like manner the bundle or &s;heafe of Arrowes which he put in his hand, and bid him a&s;&s;ay to breake them if he could, &mdash;<HI>nam vis unita fortior. Et quae non pro&s;unt &s;ingula multa ju|vant;</HI> but the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> hath not beene able to breake any one of the <HI>&s;ingle Arrowes &s;hot</HI> by the <HI>Knight</HI> in the former Sections, how then will he be able to <HI>breake the &s;heafe</HI> in this?</P>
<P>To the &s;econd. By the uncharitable cen&s;ure <MILESTONE N="2"> of the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> he &s;heweth of what &s;pirit he is. The &s;earcher of all hearts knoweth that we con|tradict Romi&s;h doctrines, not out of di&s;obedi|ence to man, but out of obedience to him who commandeth us to <HI>contend for the true faith:</HI> and to <HI>reprove and convince all gaine&s;ayers.</HI> What Pa|pi&s;ts
<PB N="70" REF="296" MS="y"> intentions are, we take not upon us to judge: their doctrines we <HI>put to the te&s;t of Gods word,</HI> and finde them <HI>fal&s;e and adulterine,</HI> and all be it &s;ome points of their beliefe, con&s;idered in them|&s;elves, might &s;eeme indifferent: yet as they hold them they are not, becau&s;e they are not of faith,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Rom.</HI> 14.23.</NOTE> and <HI>what&s;oever is not of faith is &s;inne.</HI> Now no point of the Romi&s;h Creed as they hold it, is of that faith the Apo&s;tle &s;peaketh of, that is, divine faith; becau&s;e they ground and finally re&s;olve all their articles not upon Gods word, but upon the authority of the Pope,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Re&s;p ad Archi- epi&s;. Spalaten. c. <HI>47.</HI> Firmitas fundamenti et firma licet implicita in aureo hoc fun|damento veri|tatis adhae&s;io valebit, ut in Cypriano &s;ic in nobis ad &s;alu|tem: faenum &amp; &s;tipula im|becilitas &amp; ca|ries in tecto &amp; contignatione, &amp; explicita erroris opinio non valebit, nec in Cypriano, nec in nobis ad per|nitiem.</NOTE> or Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> which is but the authority of man; whereas on the con|trary as Doctor <HI>Crakenthorpe</HI> demon&s;trateth, <HI>If any Prote&s;tant build hay or &s;tubble upon the true foundation, he may be &s;aved; becau&s;e he holdeth the true foundation, which is, that every doctrine of faith ought to be built upon Scripture.</HI> If the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> wonder at this conclu&s;ion, let him weight the Au|thors rea&s;ons, and he will be forced to confe&s;&s;e, that the errors, if there be any in Prote&s;tants, in regard they &s;ticke clo&s;e to the true foundation, and implicitly deny them, cannot in them be damnable, whereas the very true doctrines of faith in Papi&s;ts, becau&s;e they hold them upon a wrong ground and foundation, very much dero|gatory to God and his truth, are not &s;o &s;afe.</P>
<P>To the third. With what face can the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> <MILESTONE N="3"> avow this? con&s;idering that <HI>Prieras</HI> before al|leaged, and other writers approved by the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> mainetaine this bla&s;phemous
<PB N="71" REF="296" MS="y"> a&s;&s;ertion, that the <HI>authority of the Church is greater then the authority of Scripture,</HI> and all Papi&s;ts of note at this day, hold that the <HI>Scripture is but an imperfect and partiall rule of faith;</HI> all Prote|&s;tants on the contrary teach, <HI>that it is an entire and perfect rule of faith; Papi&s;ts</HI> believe the Scrip|ture for the Churches &s;ake, <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> the Church for the Scripture &s;ake; <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> re&s;olve all points of faith generally into the Popes infalibility, or Churches authority, <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> into the written word of God, which as <HI>Bellarmine</HI> him&s;elfe con|fe&s;&s;eth,<NOTE PLACE="marg">De verbo Dei non &s;cript. l. <HI>4.</HI> c. <HI>1<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.</HI></NOTE> <HI>containeth all things nece&s;&s;ary for all men to beleeve, and is a mo&s;t certaine and &s;afe rule of beleeve|ing.</HI> Yea but &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> out of <HI>Vincentius Lerinen&s;is,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">De verbo Dei l. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> <HI>he that will avoid the deceits and &s;nares of</HI> Haeretikes, <HI>and remaine &s;ound in the faith, mu&s;t &s;trengthen his faith two wayes, to wit, by the authority of the divine law, and the tradition of the</HI> Catholike <HI>Church.</HI> This advi&s;e of <HI>Vincentius</HI> is &s;ound, and good if it be rightly under&s;tood, and not in the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> &s;en&s;e. <HI>Vincentius</HI> there by tradi|tion of the <HI>Catholike</HI> Church under&s;tandeth not unwritten verities, but the <HI>Catholike</HI> expo&s;itions of holy Scriptures, extant in the writings of the Doctors of the Church in all ages, and we grant that this <HI>Catholike</HI> expo&s;ition of the Doctors where it can be had, is of great force to con|firme faith, and confound <HI>Heretikes.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Vt Scripturae eccle&s;ia&s;tice in|telligentiae jun|gatur authori|tas.</NOTE> For the &s;top|ping of who&s;e mouth that Father &s;aith, and we de|ny it not, <HI>that there is great neede to add to the Scrip|ture the Churches &s;en&s;e or interpretation,</HI> albeit as he
<PB N="72" REF="297"> there addeth, which cutteth the throat of the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> cau&s;e, <HI>The Canon of Scripture is perfect, and &s;ufficient of it &s;elfe for all things:</HI> nay ra|ther, as hee correcteth him&s;elfe, <HI>Over and above &s;ufficient; cum &s;it perfectus &s;cripturae canon &s;ibi&abque; ad omnia &s;atis &s;uper&abque; &s;ufficiat.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="4"> To the fourth. Here the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> would make his Reader &s;tudy a little, <HI>and his Adver&s;arie to mu&s;e;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Vero nihil ve|rius, certo nihil certius.</NOTE> but it is indeed, whether hee be in his right wits, or no. For fir&s;t, as <HI>Seneca</HI> well re&s;ol|veth, one thing cannot be &s;aid truer than another; one truth in Divinitie may be more evident to us than another, but in it &s;elfe it cannot be truer or &s;urer. Secondly, admitting there could be de|grees of certainty, at lea&s;t <HI>quoad nos,</HI> there can be yet no compari&s;on, in regard of &s;uch certain|tie betweene an Article of the Creed a&s;&s;ented unto by all Chri&s;tians, and a controverted con|clu&s;ion, maintained onely by a late faction in the We&s;terne Church. But the <HI>&s;itting of Chri&s;t at the right hand of his Father,</HI> is an Article of the Creed, &s;et downe in expre&s;&s;e words in holy Scripture,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Mark</HI> 16.19. <HI>Luke</HI> 24.</NOTE> con&s;ented unto by all Chri&s;tians in the world; whereas the carnall pre&s;ence of Chri&s;t in the Sacrament by Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, is no Article extant in any Creed, &s;ave onely that of Pope <HI>Pius</HI> his coyning, in the yeare of our Lord, 1564. It is neither in words &s;et downe in Scripture, as the other Articles are; neither can it be nec&s;&s;arily inforced or deduced by con|&s;equence, as foure great Cardinals of the Roman
<PB N="73" REF="297"> Church confe&s;&s;e, <HI>Cameracen&s;is, Cajetan, Roffen|&s;is,</HI> and <HI>Bellarmine.</HI> Neither was this Doctrine of the Romane Church ever a&s;&s;ented unto by the Greeke Church, nor by the Latine anciently, or generally, as I &s;hewed before. Thirdly, the <HI>Ie|&s;uit</HI> contradicteth him&s;elfe within eight lines: for having &s;aid in the eighteenth line,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 384.</NOTE> that <HI>Chri&s;t his corporall pre&s;ence in the Sacrament was more &s;ure, than his pre&s;ence in heaven at the right hand of his Father;</HI> about &s;even lines after, forgetting him&s;elfe, hee &s;aith, that <HI>Wee &s;hall find as much to doe</HI> (marke as much, not more) <HI>in expounding that Article of the Creed, as they doe in expounding the words, This is my Body.</HI> Wherein it is well hee confe&s;&s;eth, that Papi&s;ts make much to doe in ex|pounding the words, <HI>This is my Body,</HI> which is mo&s;t true; for by the demon&s;trative <HI>Hoc,</HI> they under&s;tand they know not what. Neither this Body, nor this Bread, but an <HI>Individum vagum,</HI> &s;omething contained under the accidents of Bread, which when the Prie&s;ts &s;aith <HI>Hoc,</HI> it is Bread; but when hee hath <HI>muttered out an Vm,</HI> it is Chri&s;ts Body. Likewi&s;e by the <HI>Copula e&s;t (is)</HI> they under&s;tand they know not what; either &s;hall be, as &s;oone as the words are &s;poken, or is converted unto, or is by Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation. La&s;t|ly, by Body, they under&s;tand &s;uch a body as in|deed is no body, without the exten&s;ion of place, without di&s;tinction of Organs, without facultie of &s;en&s;e, or motion: and will hee make this fig|ment &s;o incredible, &s;o impo&s;&s;ible, as &s;ure, nay
<PB N="74" REF="298"> more &s;ure than the Article of Chri&s;ts a&s;cen&s;ion into heaven, and his &s;itting at the right hand of his Father there? Yea, but the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> deman|deth, <HI>Wherein are you more &s;afe than wee? if hee be not there, wee are in danger of adoring him where hee is not; if hee be there, then are you,</HI> &s;aith hee, <HI>in danger, by not adoring him where hee is.</HI> I an|&s;wer, wee are every way &s;afe, and they both wayes in danger: wee are &s;afe, becau&s;e if hee be there, wee who wor&s;hip him there in &s;pirit and truth, not under any corporall &s;hape, are in no danger at all; becau&s;e wee wor&s;hip him at his Table, as hee requireth: if hee bee not there, wee can be in no danger, for not wor&s;hipping him there where hee is not. They are in danger both wayes, of Will-wor&s;hip if he be there; of Idolatrie, if hee be not there. Of Will-wor&s;hip, I &s;ay, if hee be under the accidents of Bread and Wine, becau&s;e they are no where commanded to wor&s;hip him under &s;uch formes: if hee bee not there, then are they apparantly guiltie of gro&s;&s;er Idolatrie, by exhibiting <HI>Cultum latriae,</HI> divine wor&s;hip to a piece of Bread.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="5"> To the fift. Here the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> like an Adder, thru&s;teth out his forked &s;ting, pricking with one of his forkes, the <HI>Knight,</HI> for calumniating their Doctrine: with the other, the Doctrine of the Reformed Church, touching a&s;&s;ured hope of &s;alvation, as matter of vaine confidence, and a dangerous precipice of the &s;oule. The fir&s;t is ea|&s;ily plucked out; for the <HI>Knight</HI> chargeth them
<PB N="75" REF="298" MS="y"> with nothing, but what the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> him&s;elfe con|fe&s;&s;eth. For if men cooperating to their ju&s;tifica|tion, merit both grace and glorie, they doe not a&s;cribe the whole glorie of it to God; but as the Romans, for the victorie they gained over the <HI>Cimbri,</HI> &s;acrificed <HI>Deo &amp; Mario:</HI> &s;o doe the Pa|pi&s;ts at this day, for the conque&s;t of their gho&s;tly enemies, and their purcha&s;e of heaven, burne incen&s;e <HI>Deo &amp; Mariae,</HI> to Chri&s;t and <HI>Mary,</HI> and attribute their ju&s;tification and &s;alvation, partly to Chri&s;ts merits, partly to their owne; together with the &s;uperabundant &s;atisfaction of the ble&s;|&s;ed Virgin <HI>Mary,</HI> and other Saints. The other forke reacheth not home to invenome our mo&s;t whol&s;ome doctrine, concerning a&s;&s;ured hope of &s;alvation: for though wee teach, that a man ought to be a&s;&s;ured that his &s;innes are forgiven him: yet withall wee teach, that this a&s;&s;urance is upon condition of Repentance and Faith. And withall wee affirme, becau&s;e hee &s;tan|deth not by his owne &s;trength, but by Gods power, <HI>Who worketh in him both the will and the deed; hee ought not to be high minded, but to feare, and in this feare to worke out his &s;alva|tion.</HI> I meane, in feare:<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Phil.</HI> 2.13.</NOTE> as feare is oppo&s;ed to carnall &s;ecurity and pre&s;umption, not as it is oppo&s;ed to religious confidence: and as hee mu&s;t worke out his &s;alvation with this feare, &s;o al&s;o with trembling; as trembling is taken for an awfull and filiall reverence, not for a &s;ervile affrighting. For the trembling here meant, is
<PB N="76" REF="299" MS="y"> not onely joyned with a&s;&s;ured hope, that God will worke both the will and the deede, but al&s;o <HI>with joy, rejoyce unto him with trembling.</HI></P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P&s;al.</HI> 11.</NOTE>To the &s;ixt. Though the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> tug hard, yet <MILESTONE N="6"> the <HI>Knight</HI> holdeth him fa&s;t in <HI>Hales, Va&s;quez,</HI> and <HI>Valentia</HI> his net. For if it be true that the Sa|craments effect what they repre&s;ent, it will fol|low upon the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> owne confe&s;&s;ion, that in re|gard the Sacrament is perfecter in both kindes then in one, in regard of repre&s;entation, it mu&s;t needs be more perfect al&s;o in the fruit and ope|ration: and if &s;o, then more &s;afety and comfort <MILESTONE N="7"> in our entire, then in their halfe communion.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><P>Bell. de Mi&s;&s;a, l. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>10.</HI> Ne|gari non pote&s;t quin &s;it magis perfecta et le|gitima, mi&s;&s;a ubi co~munican|tes ad&s;unt qua~ ubi non ad&s;unt. Harding, art. <HI>1.</HI> of privat Ma&s;se, <HI>Where the people co~mu|nicate, it is more co~men|dable, &amp; more godly.</HI></P>
<P>Concil. Trent, &s;e&s;. <HI>22.</HI> cap. <HI>6. more fruitfull, and more pro|fitable.</HI></P></NOTE>To the &s;eventh. The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> would faine con|tradict the <HI>Knight,</HI> but indeede he contradi|cteth him&s;elfe. For in granting that which <HI>Bellar|mine, Harding,</HI> and the Councell of <HI>Trent</HI> extor|teth from him, <HI>that it is more profitable for the people to communicate with a Prie&s;t at the Ma&s;&s;e, then to looke on;</HI> he &s;ayes by con&s;equent that there is more &s;afety in it: which is the proper point in controver&s;ie in this Chapter. For as that which is unprofitable for the &s;oule, cannot but be dange|rous: &s;o that which is profitable to the &s;oule cannot but be &s;afe, nothing is profitable to the &s;oule but that which &s;ome way tendeth too, and furthereth the &s;alvation thereof: and is not that &s;afer which more tendeth to &s;alvation?</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="8"> To the eight. <HI>Aeneas Silvius</HI> maketh no men|tion at all of any Law of &s;ingle life, but &s;imply &s;aith,<NOTE PLACE="marg">De ge&s;tis con|cil. Ba&s;il. l. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> that <HI>It were &s;afer for Prie&s;ts to marry; for
<PB N="77" REF="299" MS="y"> that meanes many Prie&s;ts might be &s;aved in married Prie&s;thood,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Co&s;&s;. de caelib. Sacerd. art. <HI>23.</HI> Panor. de cler. conjug. c. Quum olim. Credo pro bono et &s;alute anima|rum &s;tatutum nunc iri ut non valentes conti|nere po&s;sint contrahere.</NOTE> <HI>which now in barren Prie&s;thood are damned. Ca&s;&s;ander</HI> and <HI>Panormitan</HI> make men|tion of the law, which tieth Prie&s;ts to &s;ingle life, and both thinke that the abrogation of it would <HI>be good and behoovefull to the &s;oules of many Prie&s;ts that tho&s;e who cannot attaine to the fir&s;t degree of cha&s;tity in a &s;ingle life, may be permitted to live in the &s;econd degree of cha&s;te marriage.</HI> And what is it el&s;e that we contend for, but that it may be left free to the Mini&s;ters of the Go&s;pell to marry if they thinke good? which liberty implieth two things; Fir&s;t, that where there is a law re&s;trai|ning them from marriage, that law may be abro+gated: Secondly, for the future, that no law pro|hibiting marriage in the Clergie may be enacted. Yea but &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit, all the Doctors, all the Fathers, all the Councells, and the continuall pra|ctice of the Church from the very beginning is a|gain&s;t Prie&s;ts marriage, of all which you have abun|dant proofe in Bellarmine.</HI> I an&s;wer, of all this, nay, none of all this, as you may &s;ee in <HI>Chemnitius</HI> Hi&s;tory <HI>de celibatu &s;acerdotum, Iunius,</HI> and <HI>Chaume|rus</HI> their reply to <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> and mo&s;t larg<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ly and plentifully in <HI>Dr. Hall</HI> now Bi&s;hop of <HI>Exon.</HI> his three bookes again&s;t <HI>Co&s;fin;</HI> intituled, <HI>The honour of the married Clergy.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 392.</NOTE> Yea but &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> in the la&s;t place, the law re&s;training Prie&s;ts marriage was never contradicted by any but knowne wicked men. What a lowd and <HI>Stentori|an</HI> untruth is here uttered by a foule mo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">thed
<PB N="78" REF="300" MS="y"> <HI>Ie&s;uit?</HI> Was <HI>Paphnutius</HI> the confe&s;&s;or, <HI>Spiridion</HI> the Saint, were all the Fathers of the fir&s;t gene|rall Councell of <HI>Nice,</HI> together with Pope <HI>Pius</HI> the &s;econd, and the Fathers at the Synod at <HI>Ba&s;ill,</HI> be&s;ides infinite others, produced by the Authors above named, all knowne wicked men? <HI>The Lord rebuke thee thou fal&s;e tongue.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="9"> To the ninth. The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> here onely troubleth the water, that the truth may not be clearely &s;eene in the bottome; let the water but &s;ettle a little, and we &s;hall pre&s;ently di&s;cerne it: for though the tearmes be different, profitable, and lawfull, as likewi&s;e unprofitable and unlawfull: yet the que&s;tion, whether prayers in an unknown tongue be profitable and &s;afe for the &s;oule, and whether they be lawfull or coincident. For what|&s;oever is unlawfull, is con&s;equently unprofitable, and what&s;oever is unprofitable in divine &s;ervice is unlawfull, becau&s;e again&s;t the rule of the A|po&s;tle, <HI>let all things be done to edification;</HI> now in a prayer which a man under&s;tandeth not, how is the under&s;tanding bettered? or as <HI>Aquinas</HI> &s;peaketh, <HI>fed by the fruit of refection.</HI> As for the inconveniences that are pretended to come by prayers in the vulgar tongue, neither the <HI>He|brew</HI> nor the <HI>Greeke</HI> Churches, nor all the refor|med in the Chri&s;tian world finde any &s;uch: and if there &s;hould fall any &s;uch, they are not to be imputed to Gods Holy Ordinances, but to mens abu&s;es. Yea, but &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit, the very igno|rance of the Latine tongue, and con&s;equently of all
<PB N="79" REF="300"> learning that would follow thereon onely in Clergie men, is a thou&s;and times more harme, than the fruit in the Laitie is good.</HI> Here the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;traineth ve|ry high, but without all &s;hew of rea&s;on, or &s;ha|dow of Truth, and again&s;t daily experience: for who knoweth not, that the Clergie in the refor|med Churches, where Divine Service is in the vulgar tongue, are as ready and expert (to &s;ay no more) in the Latine tongue, as your ordinary Ma&s;&s;e-prie&s;ts. Againe, you are exceedingly over|lavi&s;h, in &s;aying, that ignorance in Latine in Clergiy-men, is a thou&s;and times more harme than that fruit is good which the Laitie might reape by the publike &s;ervice in a knowne tongue. For the Clergie are but exceeding few, in com|pari&s;on of the Laitie, &s;car&s;e one for a hundred, I may &s;ay a thou&s;and; and the &s;aving knowledge which the Laitie might, and doe reape by the Divine Service, and Sacred Scripture read in a knowne tongue, is a thou&s;and times more worth, than the knowledge of the Latine tongue in the Clergie. La&s;tly, his con&s;equence, that the ig|norance of the Latine tongue would bring with it the ignorance of all Sacred learning, is mo&s;t ignorantly ab&s;urd. For who knoweth not, that the Scriptures them&s;elves (the trea&s;urie of all Sacred learning) were written in Hebrew and Greeke. To &s;ay nothing of the fir&s;t generall Councels, and the prime and flower of all the Greeke Fathers, to the knowledge of whom a man may attaine without any Latine at all. But
<PB N="80" REF="301"> becau&s;e <HI>Latine</HI> is your be&s;t <HI>mettall,</HI> you under|value Gold and Silver. For Cardinall <HI>Cajetan,</HI> hee may for the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> goe with <HI>Cra&s;&s;us,</HI> and ga|ther cockles and pibles at the &s;hore of <HI>Cajeta;</HI> for he maketh no more account of Allegations out of this Cardinall, than of
<Q>Tricae apinaeque aut &s;i quid vilius i&s;tis;</Q> Me thinkes the Scarlet robes of the learned&s;t of all the Romane Cardinals, and Schoolemen of his time, &s;hould produce a like colour in the cheekes of this <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> if hee have not lo&s;t all tin|cture of mode&s;ty. Doth <HI>Cajetan</HI> &s;ometime <HI>nodd?</HI></P>
<Q>Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus?</Q>
<P>And doth the <HI>noddie Flood</HI> never? Cardinall <HI>Cajetan</HI> affirmeth, that Saint <HI>Paul</HI> in the four|teenth chapter of the fir&s;t Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Coryn|thians,</HI> &s;peaketh of publike Prayer; the Je&s;uit <HI>Flood</HI> denieth it, <HI>utri credemus?</HI> Whethers autho|ritie will beare downe the &s;cales? Cardinall <HI>Ca|jetan</HI> &s;aith, that edification is the end of publike Prayer; and hee hath Saint <HI>Paul</HI> of his &s;ide, pre|&s;cribing in this chapter,<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.</NOTE> that <HI>All things be done to edification:</HI> but <HI>Sus docet Minervam,</HI> the Je&s;uit <HI>Flood</HI> in&s;tructeth the Cardinall better, that the end of Prayer is the honour of God, as if <HI>Subor|dinata pugnarent,</HI> things that are &s;ubordinate were contrarie; or as if the edification of the people tended not to the honour of God, or there might not be &s;everall ends of Prayer: the fir&s;t and chiefe, the immediate wor&s;hip of God; the &s;econdary and le&s;&s;e Principle, yet nece&s;&s;ary
<PB N="81" REF="301" MS="y"> al&s;o, the in&s;truction and edification of the people. For <HI>Biels</HI> &s;even rea&s;ons,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Can. mi&s;&s;ae. lect. <HI>62.</HI></NOTE> in&s;i&s;ted upon by the <HI>Knight,</HI> though they were not alleaged profe&s;|&s;edly to preferre Prayer in a knowne tongue, before Prayer in an unknowne; yet the rea&s;ons there &s;et downe, as &s;trongly inferre the <HI>Knights</HI> conclu&s;ion, as that which there <HI>Biel</HI> intendeth. The evidence whereof is &s;o cleere, that the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> him&s;elfe is con&s;trained to confe&s;&s;e,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 401. <HI>l.</HI> 11.</NOTE> that <HI>Some of his rea&s;ons indeed, have no place where the words are not under&s;tood.</HI> Tho&s;e rea&s;ons therefore fight for us, and the re&s;t with a little helpe, will be brought to doe good &s;ervice again&s;t Romi&s;h and unintelligible Prayers; for how can a Prayer whereof never a &s;yllable is under&s;tood, <HI>Stir up the mind to inward devotion?</HI> which is <HI>Biels</HI> fir&s;t rea&s;on: <HI>Or enlighten the under&s;tanding?</HI> which is his &s;econd: <HI>Or cau&s;e the remembrance of things &s;poken in the time of Prayer?</HI> which is his third: <HI>Or keepe the thoughts from wandering?</HI> which is his fourth rea&s;on: <HI>Or cau&s;e a more full performance of dutie, both in body and &s;oule?</HI> which is the fift: <HI>Or a better redoundance from the &s;oule to the body, by a vehement affection?</HI> which is the &s;ixt: <HI>Or &s;erve for the in&s;truction of our Brethren?</HI> which is the la&s;t.</P>
<P>To the tenth. The <HI>Knight</HI> needed not here <MILESTONE N="10"> to alleage any more authorities again&s;t the perill of Idolatrie and Invocation of Saints, becau&s;e before in the &s;eventh Section, hee had cloyed his Reader with te&s;timonies in this kind; for
<PB N="82" REF="302"> the worth of <HI>Era&s;mus</HI> and <HI>Ca&s;&s;ander,</HI>
<Q>Quos rumor alb&acirc; gemmeus vehit penn&acirc;;</Q> their Epitaphs, and printed Eulogies before their workes, which have kept their fame alive this hundred yeares, make good proofe to the world, that they are like to flouri&s;h in perpetuall memo|rie, after the leaves of a thou&s;and &s;uch &s;cribblers as the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> is, &s;hall be withered. In <HI>Chemnitius</HI> the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> eyes failed him; for the <HI>Knight</HI> in this place, alleageth not his words, but the words of S. <HI>Au&s;tine;</HI> and them, not to prove that we can|not pray to any Saint living or dead: but accor|ding to the title of his whole booke, and &s;pe|ciall Argument of this chapter, that it is the &s;afe&s;t and &s;weete&s;t way to have immediate addre&s;&s;e to our Saviour: <HI>Tuti&ugrave;s,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>&amp; jucundi&ugrave;s loquor ad meum Ie&s;um; I &s;peake with more &s;afety and de|light to my</HI> JESVS.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="11"> To the eleventh. Here the <HI>Knight</HI> may well &s;ay,
<Q>Dicite Io~ Pean &amp; I&ouml; bis dicite Pean:</Q> For here twice hee hath brought his Adver&s;a|ries to &s;ub&s;cribe unto <HI>Iustification by Faith alone;</HI> and to confirme with his owne hand, the title of the <HI>Knights</HI> booke with advantage. The ti|tle is but <HI>Via tuta,</HI> but the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> confe&s;&s;eth over and above, that the Prote&s;tants way, who relye upon Chri&s;ts merits onely for &s;alvation, is <HI>Via tuti&s;sima, The &s;afe&s;t way.</HI> And if <HI>Va&s;quez</HI> and <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> and other pleaders for merit by con|dignitie, meane no otherwi&s;e than the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> in|terpreteth
<PB N="83" REF="302" MS="y"> them, we &s;hall all &s;oone &s;hake hands; for who ever denied, that God rewarded our good workes? but here, either wittingly or ig|norantly, the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> concealeth the conditions required, to every meritorious Act, <HI>ex condigno.</HI> Fir&s;t, that the worke be properly ours, and not his, of whom wee pretend to merit. Secondly, that it be <HI>opus indebitum,</HI> a worke to which other|wi&s;e wee are not bound. Thirdly, that it be &s;ome way profitable and beneficiall to him from whom wee expect our reward. Fourthly, that it have condignity to the reward expected; or as <HI>Va&s;|quez</HI> &s;peaketh, <HI>Be worthy of the reward, and have an equall value of worth to the obtaining thereof.</HI> Vpon all the&s;e conditions wee conte&s;t with Pa|pi&s;ts, and con&s;equently deny any merits of con|dignitie; yet freely acknowledge a reward of good workes, and this reward to be due unto us, (but a reward of grace and free bounty) and due to us by his promi&s;e, no way by our de|&s;erts.</P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="12" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="84" REF="303">
<HEAD>Concerning the Fathers, whether Prote&s;tants or Papi&s;ts attribute more unto them; Spectacles, chap. 12. a page 405. u&s;&abque; ad 434.</HEAD>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> _IT cannot be unknown to any man of lear|ning, or that hath but any the lea&s;t ac|quaintance with the Controver&s;ies of this age, what great advantage wee Catholikes have by the writings of the ancient Fathers, how highly wee e&s;teeme them, what confidence wee place in them, and how wee appeale to them for deci&s;ion of our Controver&s;ies; and how &s;mall re&s;pect on the other &s;ide Heritikes &s;hew, either to their per&s;ons or writings, as being in their opi|nions but men, and &s;ubject to errour. Or rather how contemtibly they &s;peake of them; for proofe whereof, a man need not goe no farther than that little Trea|ti&s;e of <HI>Campian's</HI> ten rea&s;ons, the fift of which is of the Fathers.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> In the thirteene In&s;tances, by which the <HI>Knight</HI> will prove, that <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> and <HI>Stapleton,</HI> and <HI>Senen&s;is,</HI> and <HI>Gregorie de Valentia,</HI> and <HI>Sanders,</HI> and <HI>Ribera,</HI> and <HI>Canus,</HI> and <HI>Salmeron,</HI> either elude or reject the Fathers, the <HI>Knight</HI> dealeth not &s;quarely. For, though hee quote the words for the
<PB N="85" REF="303"> mo&s;t part truly, yet hee concealeth their rea&s;ons which they give of their an&s;wers. Neither doe tho&s;e Writers in&s;ist onely upon tho&s;e an&s;wers to the places objected out of the Fathers, but adde many other unto them, to give the Reader better &s;atisfaction, as will appeare by the particular examination of each pa&s;&s;age.</P>
<DIV2 TYPE="response to chapter">
<HEAD>The Hammer.</HEAD>
<P>ALthough in this Chapter the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> lye as open to the la&s;h, as in any of the former; yet partly becau&s;e hee is like him in the Poet, that was &s;o tawed and fleade with rods, that there was no skin left on his body for a new &s;troke to fetch off: partly becau&s;e, <HI>Page</HI> 406, hee confe&s;|&s;eth hee cannot tell what to &s;ay to the <HI>Knight;</HI> but e&s;pecially, becau&s;e the Argument of this Chapter is mo&s;t fully and accurately handled by D^r. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> and D^r. <HI>Whitaker,</HI> in their an&s;wer to <HI>Campian</HI> his fift rea&s;on, and in a &s;ingular Trea|ti&s;e lately &s;et forth by <HI>Laurentius,</HI> intituled, <HI>Re|verentia Eccle&s;iae Romanae erga &s;anctos patres.</HI> I will forbeare to examine the &s;everall Paragraphs in this Chapter, (wherein, what&s;oever is mate|riall, is refuted in the an&s;wers to the former Se|ctions) onely I will point at &s;ome notorious fal|&s;ities and ab&s;urdities, if not to rectifie the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> judgement, yet to di&s;abu&s;e the credulous Reader. Fir&s;t, hee denieth not that the Romane Doctors above mentioned, utter tho&s;e di&s;gracefull &s;pee|ches
<PB N="86" REF="304"> of Saint <HI>Au&s;ten, Origen, Theodoret, Cyprian, Tertullian,</HI> and the re&s;t, but he addeth that they <HI>gave other an&s;wers to our objections out of tho&s;e Fa|thers.</HI> What is that to the purpo&s;e, or again&s;t the <HI>Knight?</HI> who denieth not that Popi&s;h writers have other &s;hifts and eva&s;ions to our arguments drawne from the te&s;timony of ancient Fathers be&s;ids tho&s;e, which are here &s;et down in this chap|ter, which are refuted by <HI>Chamierus, Iunius:</HI> and for the better part of them by me in the for|mer Sections: but he produced the&s;e pa&s;&s;ages onely to &s;hew the <HI>Romani&s;ts</HI> di&s;re&s;pect and &s;leigh|tening of the ancient Fathers, if in any thing they cro&s;&s;e their <HI>Trent</HI> Faith. Secondly, to touch up|on &s;ome particulars, how ridiculou&s;ly and ab&s;urd|ly doth the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;peake, Pag. 417. <HI>Epiphanius &s;aith in plaine manner, that the Image which he &s;aw hang in the Church at</HI> Anablatha, <HI>and tare downe the vale in which it was drawne, was not the Image of Chri&s;t or any Saint, but the Image of a man, he knew not whom; which if it had bin Chri&s;ts, or any Saints he would have knowne who&s;e it was, neither would he have called the Image of Chri&s;t or any Saint the Image of a man.</HI> Why I pray you? is not Chri&s;t a man? were not Saints men? What &s;hould <HI>E|piphanius</HI> have &s;aid el&s;e, who &s;aw there the re|pre&s;entation of the feature, and liniaments of a man, but knew not what man that was? he &s;aith, <HI>he &s;aw a vaile having on it the Image as if it had beene of Chri&s;t, or &s;ome Saint, for he knew not who&s;e it was.</HI> If he knew not who&s;e it was, for
<PB N="87" REF="304"> ought he knew it might be made for the Image of Chri&s;t, or any Saint. Vpon what ground then doth the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;ay, that <HI>it was neither the I|mage of Chri&s;t nor of any Saint?</HI> Thirdly,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 423.</NOTE> he &s;aith it is <HI>evident that Saint</HI> Chry&s;o&s;tome <HI>did &s;ay Ma&s;&s;e every day;</HI> whereas neither in that place quoted by him, neither in any place in all his workes can it be gathered, that he ever &s;aid Ma&s;&s;e, or admini&s;tred the Sacrament without communi|cants: the Romi&s;h Ma&s;&s;e is of a farre later date, then the age of Saint <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome.</HI> Fourthly,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 425.</NOTE> he mo&s;t &s;hamefully and fal&s;ely traduceth the <HI>Prote|&s;tants</HI> (whom he tearmes the <HI>Haeretikes</HI> of this age) <HI>that they &s;peake generally, very meanely and contemptibly of the mo&s;t &s;acred Virgine.</HI> I mar|vaile his heart did not &s;mite him, when his hand wrote the&s;e words &s;o directly again&s;t the truth, and his owne con&s;cience. For he cannot be igno|rant that King <HI>Iames</HI> in his admonition to all Prin|ces, &s;et forth in <HI>Latine, French,</HI> and <HI>Engli&s;h,</HI> and our Church in the booke of Common Prayer, &s;peake mo&s;t honourably and reverently of that mo&s;t Sacred and ble&s;&s;ed Virgine, religiou&s;ly ob|&s;erving the fea&s;ts of her Annuntiation, and Puri|fication, and rehear&s;ing at every Even&s;ong, her <HI>Magnificat.</HI> Fiftly,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 427.</NOTE> he &s;aith that Saint <HI>Ierome al|loweth the the booke of</HI> Judith <HI>to be Canonicall Scrip|ture:</HI> whereas in the place quoted by him, the preface to <HI>Iudith</HI> he &s;aith onely <HI>that it is read, or that he had read &s;omewhere, that the</HI> Nicene <HI>Synod did reckon the booke of</HI> Judith <HI>among the holy Scrip|tures,</HI>
<PB N="88" REF="305"> but for him&s;elfe he &s;aith in that very Pre|face, that this <HI>booke is not fit to be alleaged for the confirmation of tho&s;e things that are in controver|&s;ie.</HI> And in his Preface to the booke of <HI>Proverbs,</HI> he &s;aith expre&s;&s;ely, <HI>that the booke of</HI> Judith <HI>is not accounted by the Church for Canonicall. Iudith &amp; Tobie,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 430.</NOTE> <HI>&amp; Machabeorum libros legit quidem eccle&s;ia, &s;ed eos inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipit.</HI> Sixt|ly, he affirmeth that there is no controver&s;ie be|tweene them and us concerning the immaculate conception of our Lady; whereas both <HI>Chemni|tius</HI> and <HI>Reynolds,</HI> &amp; many other <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> writers have overthrowne the ground of their fea&s;t of the immaculate conception of our Lady; and all reformed Churches in generall have &s;trucke that fea&s;t out of the <HI>Calender,</HI> and the title of the 15. Article of <HI>religion of Chri&s;t alone without &s;inne,</HI> &s;heweth to the world, that we beleeve it to be the prerogative of our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, among all the Sonnes of <HI>Adam,</HI> that he alone was free from all originall and actuall &s;inne. And now Ma&s;ter <HI>Flood,</HI> &s;ith you are taken in &s;o many and fowle untruths in one Chapter; I hope the Reader will not envie you that <HI>Guerdon,</HI> which <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> be&s;towes upon a lewd and lowd Lyer, <HI>not to be credited when he &s;peaketh the truth.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="13" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="89" REF="305" MS="y">
<HEAD>Concerning Razing of Records and clipping Authors tongues; Spe|ctacles, Chap. 13. a page 435. u&s;&abque; ad 446.</HEAD>
<P>_BECAVSE there have beene ma|ny <MILESTONE N="1"> bookes publi&s;hed this la&s;t age, by occa&s;ion of Haere&s;ie, and liberty which came therewith to the great prejudice of the <HI>Catholike</HI> faith: there hath beene a cour&s;e taken for the re&s;traint of all &s;uch, not onely writings of <HI>Haere|tikes,</HI> but even of <HI>Catholikes</HI> which have any tang of haere&s;ie: and this kinde of care hath beene ever u&s;ed in the <HI>Catholike</HI> Church. So wee &s;ee in Scripture it &s;elfe &s;ome that followed curio&s;ities be|comming Chri&s;tians, confe&s;&s;ed their deedes and burnt their bookes.</P>
<P><HI>Gela&s;ius</HI> in the yeare <HI>490.</HI> maketh a Catalogue of haereticall bookes, which he forbiddeth: and I would know of the <HI>Knight,</HI> or any man el&s;e that cry|eth &s;o bitterly again&s;t our <HI>Index Expurgatorius,</HI> what he can &s;ay again&s;t it, that he may not &s;ay a|gain&s;t this Decree, and Councell of <HI>Gela&s;ius,</HI> and again&s;t which we may not defend our &s;elves by oppo|&s;ing
<PB N="90" REF="306" MS="y"> it as a buckler again&s;t all their darts?</P>
<P>Sith all &s;warving from the rule of faith is a decli|ning <MILESTONE N="3"> to haere&s;ie, it appertaineth to the Catholike Ro|man Church, which as <HI>Gela&s;ius</HI> &s;aith, hath neither &s;pot, nor wrinkle, to prevent the danger that may come by &s;uch bookes forbidding the u&s;e of them.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="4"> It were a more dangerous and unnaturall part in the Church not to u&s;e this care, then it were in a mo|ther that &s;hould &s;ee &s;ugar and rat&s;-bane lie together, and &s;eeing her child going to ta&s;te thereof, &s;hould for|beare to warne it.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="5"> I will not &s;tand particularly to examine every Au|thor, and ju&s;tifie the inqui&s;ition: onely I cannot omit one Author called <HI>Bertram,</HI> whom of all men living me thinkes the <HI>Knight</HI> &s;hould never &s;o much as have named, con&s;idering how much di&s;grace he hath &s;u|&s;tained by tran&s;lating that booke, and ventring his owne credit, and the credit of his Church, upon the faith thereof.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="6"> Another thing I am to note concerning his quo|ting the Canon of the Councell of <HI>Laodicea,</HI> where|in fir&s;t is to be noted his error in Chronologie concer|ning the time of this Councell, which he maketh to be in the yeare <HI>368.</HI> forty three yeares after the fir&s;t Councell at <HI>Nice;</HI> whereas it was celebrated before that Councell. Secondly his corruption in the tran&s;la|tion and cutting off the Canon, which is thus; <HI>non oportet relict&acirc; eccle&s;i&acirc; ad angelos abominandae idolatriae congregationes facere, quicunque au|tem inventus fuerit occult&egrave; huic idololatriae va|cans anathema &s;it.</HI> Now where in this Canon doth the
<PB N="91" REF="306" MS="y"> <HI>Knight</HI> finde the word invocation of Angells, which is the thing he pretendeth, to be forbidden.</P>
<P>Whereas the <HI>Knight</HI> objecteth to us the recantati|on <MILESTONE N="7"> of <HI>Henry Buxhorne,</HI> who was &s;ometime appointed to put in execution the tyrannicall Decree of the in|qui&s;itors, and had noted <HI>600.</HI> &s;everall pa&s;&s;ages to be &s;punged and blotted out; which animadver&s;ions of his he wi&s;hed he could have wa&s;hed away with his teares and blood, his heart being &s;mitten, and his eyes open by the mercy of God: I an&s;were, if &s;uch matter will &s;erve the <HI>Knights</HI> turne he may have enough: neither neede I &s;earch corners to finde out &s;uch ob&s;cure fellowes, as this <HI>Buxhorne;</HI> he might bring the Fathers of the <HI>Knights</HI> religion: for ex|ample, <HI>Luther, Calvine, Zuinglius, Beza, Carol|&s;tadius,</HI> and who not? for though they might pre|tend &s;everall cau&s;es, yet there was one principall one, which con&s;i&s;ted indeede in the &s;miting of their hearts with a fiery dart of carnall love, and when they found an <HI>Eve</HI> to give them an Apple, then their eyes were opened, and &s;o it proved al&s;o with their friend <HI>Buxhorne,</HI> as I &s;hall &s;hew by a briefe &s;tory of his life, mo&s;t authentically related by that grave and Holy man <HI>Oliverius,</HI> of the &s;ociety of <HI>Je&s;us. Henry Buxhorne,</HI> a licentiate of Divinity, &amp;c. It was not the razing then of evidences that made <HI>Buxhorne</HI> fall from his faith, but there were certaine <HI>Luthe|ran</HI> baites wherewith many of them were catched, which were <HI>aurum, gloria, delitiae, veneres,</HI> gold, glory, delights and <HI>Venus,</HI> of which &s;ome are cat|ched with one, and &s;ome with another.</P>
<DIV2 TYPE="response to chapter">
<PB N="92" REF="307" MS="y">
<HEAD>The Hammer.</HEAD>
<P>IN the former Section, the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;hewed him|&s;elfe a prevaricatour, but in this a cowardly runnagate. For to the mangling of authors, and ra|zing out of Records objected again&s;t him, name|ly, this marginall note out of <HI>Stephanus</HI> his Bible, <HI>Deus prohibet &s;culptilia fieri.</HI> This <HI>Glo&s;se</HI> upon <HI>Gra|tian the Prie&s;t, cannot &s;ay &s;ignificatively of the bread, This is my Body, without telling a lie, Ca&s;&s;anders</HI> ob&s;ervation upon the &s;ame words, that <HI>&s;etting a&s;ide the authoritie of the Church, they prove not &s;ufficiently Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, Ca&s;&s;anders</HI> whole Tract concerning the Communion in both kinds, <HI>Vdalricus</HI> his Epi&s;tle touching the lawfulne&s;&s;e of Prie&s;ts marriage, <HI>An&s;elmes</HI> Treati&s;e concerning the vi&s;itation of the &s;icke, together with divers pa&s;&s;ages in <HI>Ca&s;&s;ander</HI> again&s;t merit, in <HI>Polydor Vir|gil</HI> again&s;t Images, in <HI>Langus</HI> again&s;t Tran&s;ub|&s;tantiation, in <HI>Ferus</HI> again&s;t the Popes &s;uprema|cie. The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> an&s;wereth nothing at all in parti|cular, but onely applies <HI>Salves in generall,</HI> which no way <HI>heale the wounds given</HI> by the <HI>Knight</HI> to the Inqui&s;itors, as the Reader &s;hall &s;ee by taking <HI>them off</HI> one after another, and viewing the <HI>Sores.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> To the fir&s;t. The <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> in&s;tance is wide from the purpo&s;e. For tho&s;e Books were not burnt by any decree of the Church, much le&s;&s;e the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> which was not then in being: but by
<PB N="93" REF="307" MS="y"> the owners of them, to te&s;tifie their unfeined Re|pentance; for &s;o wee reade, <HI>Acts</HI> 19.19. <HI>Many al&s;o of them, brought their Bookes together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it</HI> 50000 <HI>pieces of &s;ilver.</HI> Secondly, the&s;e Bookes which the owners burnt of their owne accord, were Bookes of &s;uch as u&s;ed <HI>curious Arts;</HI> that is, Books of Art-magick, Necromancie, Sorcerie, and the like. Whereas, the Bookes which the Romi&s;h Inqui&s;itours either mangle or utterly deface are Chri&s;tian Treati&s;es, written for the mo&s;t part by them, that lived and died in the bo&s;ome and peace of the Church of <HI>Rome.</HI></P>
<P>To the &s;econd. This Decree of <HI>Gela&s;ius</HI> which <MILESTONE N="2"> the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> oppo&s;eth, as a Buckler again&s;t all our darts, is not altogether approved by the pre&s;ent Romane Church; for in reckoning the Canoni|call bookes of Scripture, the Pope there exclu|deth the booke of <HI>Baruch,</HI> and the &s;econd booke of the <HI>Macchabees,</HI> and the booke of <HI>Nehemiah,</HI> which the pre&s;ent Romane Church receiveth for Canonicall. Secondly, <HI>Gela&s;ius</HI> with his Roman Councell, freely give their cen&s;ure of all Theo|logicall bookes then extant, but they clip not the tongues of any Authors, nor burne their bookes. If the Romi&s;h Inqui&s;itors had done no more, if they had let the Records and Evidences remaine, and onely cen&s;ured them at their plea&s;ure; wee would not &s;o much have blamed them, for u&s;ing the freedome of their judgements: wee would
<PB N="94" REF="308" MS="y"> only freely have <HI>cen&s;ured their Cen&s;ures,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Lip&s;. Epi&s;t. Critica no&s;tra non effug&ecirc;re <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> and left all to the judicious and intelligent Readers judge|ment. An errour in Critici&s;me is pardonable, but the making away of the evidence of Truth,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Adver&s;. Gen|tes, l. <HI>3.</HI> Inter|cipere &s;cripta, &amp; publicatam velle &s;ubmer|gere lectionem, non e&s;t Deos de|fendere &s;ed ve|ritatis te&s;tifica|tionem timere.</NOTE> and defacing authenticall Records, is a damnable practi&s;e, and an undoubted Argument, both of an evill con&s;cience, and a de&s;perate cau&s;e; as <HI>Ar|nobius</HI> layeth the Law to the Gentiles.</P>
<P>To the third. <HI>Gela&s;ius</HI> his te&s;timonie of the Romane Church, whereof hee was then Bi&s;hop, can be of no great moment. It &s;eemeth at that <MILESTONE N="3"> time, the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> wanted good neigh|bours, that the Pope was faine to <HI>blazon his owne armes, and guild his owne Dioce&s;e;</HI> not thinking of the old Proverbe, <HI>Laus propria &s;ordet in ore.</HI> Howbeit, wee grant in <HI>Gela&s;ius</HI> his time, the Ro|mane Church had not <HI>many &s;pots and wrinkles,</HI> for then &s;hee was young in compari&s;on; now &s;he is <HI>old and decrepit, and all full of wrinkles: and after the manner of crooked old age, boweth downe,</HI> to wit, <HI>to rood-lofts, Images, and Pictures.</HI> But nei|ther then nor now, hath &s;hee any power to forbid the u&s;e of any Books through the whole Church: but onely within her owne juri&s;diction.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="4"> To the fourth. This Plai&s;ter is a great deale too narrow for the Sore of the Romane Church, to which the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> applieth it. For it is not their admonitions to the Children of their owne Church, which we here complaine of; but their <HI>cutting out of the tongues of learned Authors, when they witne&s;&s;e the truth:</HI> not the cen&s;uring their
<PB N="95" REF="308" MS="y"> own Writers, but the mangling of &s;ome of them, and utterly aboli&s;hing others. Vnder colour of taking away <HI>Rats-bane out of the way,</HI> they take away <HI>Sugar</HI> from their Children; and which is wor&s;e, debarre them from the <HI>&s;incere Milke of the Word,</HI> I meane, the Scriptures in the vulgar language. Yet were there <HI>Rats-bane,</HI> in &s;ome of the Writers with whom the Inqui&s;itours have to deale, they &s;hould have onely given notice there|of, or pre&s;cribed &s;ome Antidote again&s;t it, con|&s;idering that Phy&s;itians, and Apothecaries, and Hou&s;holders al&s;o, make good u&s;e of <HI>Rats-bane</HI> &s;ometimes.</P>
<P>To the fift. The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> doth well, not to under|take <MILESTONE N="5"> ju&s;tifying of the Inqui&s;ition, which hee well knoweth hee is not able: onely here and there hee nibleth at &s;ome Author or other that hath falne into their hands, as <HI>Bertram</HI> in this place: whom the <HI>Knight</HI> long agoe re&s;cued, and gave unto him the <HI>wings of the Pre&s;&s;e to flie abroad;</HI> whereby hee hath received no di&s;grace, but ma|ny thankes from all that <HI>love the Truth in &s;ince|ritie.</HI> For the tran&s;lation thereof, which the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> imputeth to the <HI>Knight,</HI> as a great di&s;pa|ragement to him; the truth is, the <HI>Knight</HI> tran|&s;lated not <HI>Bertram,</HI> but publi&s;hed the tran&s;lation of another, by re-printing it, and gracing it with a learned and elegant Preface of his owne. Which, I marvell not that the <HI>Ie&s;uit kicketh</HI> at, becau&s;e hee and his fellow <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> are <HI>&s;ore Galled</HI> with it. When the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;hall prove any fal&s;i|fication
<PB N="96" REF="309" MS="y"> in the tran&s;lated Copie, or any errour in&s;erted into it, hee &s;hall receive a further an|&s;wer. Till then, let the brand remaine upon the Romane Index, for damning the originall; and upon the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> for defaming the true tran&s;lated Copie of &s;o learned and orthodox a Writer as <HI>Bertram</HI> was.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="6"> To the &s;ixt. In citing the Councell of <HI>Laodi|cea,</HI> and detecting the Inqui&s;itours foule dealing with it, by turning <HI>Angels into Angles,</HI> to gaine a <HI>&s;tarting hole</HI> for their Idolatrie: the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> by recrimination objecteth to the <HI>Knight,</HI> errour in Chronology, and corruption of the Councell. To the fir&s;t I an&s;wer, that the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">imate of <HI>Armath,</HI> and other learned Antiquaries have &s;et this Councell about the yeare mentioned by the <HI>Knight;</HI> your <HI>Binius</HI> ingeniou&s;ly confe&s;&s;eth, <HI>quo anno celebratum fuit incertum e&s;t;</HI> It is uncertaine in what yeare of our Lord this Councell was held; hee &s;aith, it was celebrated before the Councell of <HI>Nice,</HI> but hee brings no proofe of it. If wee &s;hould grant him that this Councell were elder by 40 or 50 yeares, than the <HI>Knight</HI> accoun|teth it, it would be more for our advantage, and again&s;t him; &s;ith Councels, the more ancient they are, <HI>caeteris paribus,</HI> the more authority they car|rie with them. To the &s;econd I an&s;wer, that the tran&s;lation which the <HI>Knight</HI> followed, agreeth <HI>verbatim</HI> with the originall, <GAP DESC="foreign">: which words, two of the Romi&s;h Tran&s;lators &s;et
<PB N="97" REF="309" MS="y"> in Columnes one again&s;t the other by <HI>Binius,</HI> render, as followeth. The fir&s;t thus, <HI>Quod non oporteat Chri&s;tianos relict&acirc; dei eccle&s;i&acirc; abire, &amp; Angelos nominare.</HI> The other thus, <HI>Quod non opor|te&agrave;t eccle&s;iam dei relinquere atque Angelos nomi|nare.</HI> That is, that <HI>Chri&s;tians ought not to leave the Church of God, and goe their wayes, and name An|gels:</HI> that is, mention them in our Prayers, or take their names in our lips, as the <HI>P&s;almi&s;t</HI> &s;pea|keth of Idoll-wor&s;hippers;<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P&s;al.</HI> 16.4.</NOTE> <HI>Their drink-offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take their name in my lips.</HI> And thus <HI>Theodoret</HI> in his Comment upon the &s;econd Chapter of S^t. <HI>Paul</HI> to the <HI>Colo&s;sians,</HI> ver&s;. 18. alleageth the Canon of this Councell: <HI>Becau&s;e,</HI> &s;aith hee, <HI>they commanded men to wor&s;hip Angels; Saint</HI> Paul <HI>enjoyneth on the contrarie, that they &s;hould &s;end up Thank&s;giving to God the Fa|ther by him that is Chri&s;t, and not by the Angels. The Synod of</HI> Laodicea <HI>al&s;o following this rule (of the Apostle) and de&s;iring to heale that old di&s;ea&s;e, made a Law, that they &s;hould not pray unto Angels,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. Here the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> hath both the <HI>Canon, and the Report;</HI> the <HI>Canon</HI> of the ancient Councell held at <HI>Laodicea, thun|dring</HI> again&s;t their Invocation of Angels: and the learned and ancient Father <HI>Theodoret</HI> his <HI>Re|port</HI> of it.</P>
<P>To the &s;eventh. Tho&s;e men whom the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> <MILESTONE N="7"> nameth, were not Fathers of our Religion, but Brethren onely of our profe&s;&s;ion; neither was their motive for the change of their Religion
<PB N="98" REF="310" MS="y"> <HI>carnall love</HI> as the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> like impure <HI>Nero, judging others by him&s;elfe,</HI> conceiveth; but <HI>a voyce from Heaven &s;aying unto them, goe out of</HI> Babylon <HI>my people,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Apoc.</HI> 18.4.</NOTE> <HI>le&s;t you partake of her Plagues.</HI> It is true, tho&s;e in&s;truments of Gods glory were married as the Apo&s;tles S^t. <HI>Peter</HI> and S^t. <HI>Phillip,</HI> and many of the chiefe Bi&s;hops and Pa&s;tours in the Primi|tive Church were, of whom it may be &s;aid as <HI>Sozomen</HI> &s;pake of <HI>Spiridion</HI> that famous Bi&s;hop of <HI>Cyprus:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Eccle&s;. Hi&s;t. l. <HI>1.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>they lived in wedlocke, and had many chil|dren, without any</HI> di&s;paragement <HI>at all to their Sa|cred function.</HI> As the <HI>Rod of Aaron</HI> in the&s;e brought &s;orth <HI>fruit</HI> in Holy Matrimony: &s;o it <HI>budded al&s;o</HI> in others in our Church, who fol|lowed virginall cha&s;tity, and lead a &s;ingle life, as <HI>Iewell, Reinolds, Andrewes, Lakes,</HI> and many o|ther reverend Prelates and Doctors, who for e|minent learning and examplary life, may com|pare with any of the Romi&s;h Mitred Prelates, or late Canonized Saints. Neither can they pre|tend that any <HI>Eve gave the&s;e an Apple, whereby their eyes were opened:</HI> but on the contrary we can produce many a <HI>Lucretia</HI> who have given <HI>Apples to their Popes,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Lucretia nomi|ne, &s;ed re Thais, Alexandri filia, &s;pon&s;a nurus.</NOTE> whereby their eyes have beene blinded, and their reputation for ever bla|&s;ted. See <HI>Picus Mirandula</HI> his oration extant in <HI>Fa&s;ciculus rerum expetendum &amp; fugiendum,</HI> and <HI>Mantuan</HI> his Poem.</P>
<Q><L>Sanctus ager &s;curris, venerabilis ara cinaedis</L>
<L>Servit honorandae Div&ucirc;m Gany medibus aedes.</L></Q>
<P>As for <HI>Olivereus Manareus</HI> his Legend of <HI>Bux|horne,</HI>
<PB N="99" REF="310" MS="y"> if the Reader will be plea&s;ed to peru&s;e an apologie for this <HI>Buxhorne,</HI> written to the Chan|cellor of <HI>Lovan,</HI> wherein the true cau&s;e is rela|ted, for which this licentiate Divine abandoned the Papacy, he &s;hall finde in that treati&s;e printed in the yeare of our Lord, 1625, a <HI>Rowland for his Oliver,</HI> or <HI>Oliverius Manareus</HI> the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> to who&s;e relation as much credit is to be given as to <HI>Cocleus</HI> his Hi&s;tory of <HI>Luther,</HI> and <HI>Bol&s;ecs</HI> of <HI>Cal|vin.</HI> The Devill, the grand Calumniator hath &s;uborned in all ages men of pro&s;tituted con&s;cien|ces, and corrupt mindes and mouthes, to <HI>&s;taine</HI> with their <HI>impure breath, the golden and the &s;ilver ve&s;&s;ells</HI> of the <HI>Sanctuarie:</HI> but <HI>Illi linguarum, nos aurium domini &s;umus, their tongues are their owne,</HI> they may &s;peake what malice dictateth; <HI>our eares are our owne,</HI> and we will hearken unto, and a&s;&s;ent onely to what truth confirmeth. As for their <HI>Lu|theran</HI> baits, he mentioneth, <HI>aurum, gloria, dilitiae, veneres;</HI> gold, glory, delights and <HI>Venus,</HI> if the&s;e things abound any where, it is in the <HI>Roman</HI> Church, where the Pope who pretends him&s;elfe to be the &s;ucce&s;&s;or of <HI>Peter</HI> the fi&s;her; fi&s;heth with a golden hooke, and baits it with fle&s;hly lu&s;ts; what &s;o pompeous and glorious as his Holine&s;&s;e triple Crowne, and his Cardinals Hats, and his Bi&s;hops Miters and Croziours; for what &s;ence hath not the <HI>Romi&s;h</HI> Religion baits? for the eyes they have gawdie &s;hewes; for the eares, mo&s;t me|lodious mu&s;icke; for the &s;mell, &s;weete&s;t incen&s;e and perfumes; for the ta&s;te, fea&s;ts without num|ber;
<PB N="100" REF="311" MS="y"> for the touch, whole &s;treets of Curtezans, not onely in <HI>Rome</HI> it &s;elfe, but in all the Popes Townes which are commonly knowne by this fowle Cognizance.</P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="14" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>Concerning our adver&s;aries their bla&s;phemous exceptions again&s;t the Scripture; Spectacles, Chap. 14. &agrave; page 447. u&s;&abque; ad 463.</HEAD>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> _THough <HI>Catholikes</HI> hold for mo&s;t certaine, that the Scripture is not the &s;ole rule of faith, nor that out of it alone all controver&s;ies can be decided, as for example in particu|lar, which bookes be Canonicall Scrip|ture, which not: yet for mo&s;t things now a dayes in controver&s;ie, many <HI>Catholikes</HI> have offered to trie the matter onely by Scripture.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> Though <HI>Catholikes</HI> ground many points upon tradition and practice of the Church: yet they ground others upon plaine and expre&s;&s;e authority of Scripture, from which, Prote&s;tants are faine to flie, running to this or that corner of I know not what fi|gurative, or tropicall interpretation.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> Though the Pope que&s;tion not, much le&s;&s;e con|demne
<PB N="101" REF="311" MS="y"> Scriptures of ob&s;curity and in&s;ufficiency: yet his Apo&s;tles and Evangeli&s;ts have left &s;ome things in writing, of which &s;ome are hard even by the judg|ment of Scripture it &s;elfe, for &s;o &s;aith <HI>Saint Peter</HI> of the Epi&s;tle of <HI>Saint Paul,</HI> which &s;aith he, the un|learned and uncon&s;tant doe abu&s;e as they doe other Scriptures, to their owne perdition.</P>
<P>If any condemne the Scripture of in&s;ufficiency, it <MILESTONE N="4"> is <HI>S^t. John</HI> in &s;aying, that all things are not written, and <HI>S^t. Paul</HI> in willing the <HI>The&s;&s;alonians</HI> to hold the traditions which they had learned, whether by &s;peech or letter.</P>
<P>Whereas the <HI>Knight</HI> chargeth us with ranking the Bible in the fir&s;t place of prohibited bookes: wee <MILESTONE N="5"> &s;ay it is fal&s;e; for it is not in the Catalogue of &s;uch bookes: onely in the rules which concernes the In|dex there is mentioned, how the free u&s;e of vulgar tran&s;lations is not to be permitted; but for the La|tine vulgar tran&s;lation there is no manner of re|&s;traint, though if there had beene, we might very well have warranted it by the authority of <HI>S^t. Je|rome,</HI> who did no way admit &s;uch free u&s;e even of the Latine Bibles.</P>
<P>It is no &s;uch crime to forbid the reading of Scrip|ture <MILESTONE N="6"> to &s;ome &s;ort of people, as may appeare by the te|&s;timony of this holy Father, who in the &s;ame place &s;aith moreover, that the beginning of <HI>Gene&s;is,</HI> and the beginning and end of <HI>Ezekiel</HI> were not to be read by the Iewes, till they came to thirties yeare of age.</P>
<P>A kinde of forbidding of reading the Scripture <MILESTONE N="7">
<PB N="102" REF="312"> is no derogation, but a great commendation of it, for they are forbidden to be read out of reverence and honour due unto them, and in regard of the danger which may come by them, not of them&s;elves, but in regard of the weakene&s;&s;e of the Reader for want of nece&s;&s;ary learning and humility.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="8"> For <HI>Cornelius Agrippa,</HI> it maketh no more matter what he &s;aith, then what the <HI>Knight</HI> &s;aith, for it is but aske my brother if I be a theefe.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="9"> Not to an&s;wer the places objected by the <HI>Knight,</HI> out of <HI>Lindan, Le&s;&s;ius, Turrian,</HI> and <HI>Pighius,</HI> I &s;ay in generall, that tho&s;e things are &s;poken not of the Scripture, as it is in it &s;elfe, that is, con&s;i&s;ting of both words and meaning, but of bare words and letters only, which <HI>Haeretikes</HI> &s;till do, and ever have abu|&s;ed, as the Devill him&s;elfe did to our Saviour; and in this &s;en&s;e it is a wood of theeves.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="10"> Our Authors &s;ay no more then <HI>S^t. Jerome</HI> doth in effect; <HI>Marcion, Ba&s;ilides,</HI> and other plagues of <HI>Haeretikes</HI> have not the Go&s;pell of God,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Comment. in <HI>1.</HI> ad Gal.</NOTE> becau&s;e they have not the Holy Gho&s;t, without whom it be|commeth the Go&s;pell of man which is taught; nor let us thinke that the Go&s;pell con&s;i&s;teth in the words of Scripture, but in the &s;en&s;e; not in the &s;uperficies or barke, but in the pith; not in the leaves of &s;peech, but in the roote of rea&s;on: &s;o that if the <HI>Knight</HI> will &s;ay any more of this matter, he mu&s;t undertake the quarrell again&s;t <HI>S^t. Ierome.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="11"> <HI>Le&s;&s;ius</HI> in particular, whom the <HI>Knight</HI> mo&s;t o|braideth to us, is farre from &s;aying that the Scrip|ture is uncertaine in it &s;elfe; that is, that the do|ctrine
<PB N="103" REF="312" MS="y"> thereof is doubtfull, but onely that our rule will be uncertaine, or rather wee uncertaine of the rule, becau&s;e wee cannot know the Scripture by it &s;elfe.</P>
<P>It is not all one to &s;ay that Scripture alone is no <MILESTONE N="12"> &s;ufficient Rule, and to &s;ay it is imperfect. For al|though the <HI>Knight</HI> imagineth, that the All-&s;uffi|ciencie, or containing of all things expre&s;&s;ely, is a nece&s;&s;arie point of perfection, hee is deceived; for then would it follow, that the Go&s;pell of Saint <HI>Mat|thew,</HI> Saint <HI>Marke,</HI> and other particular Bookes &s;hould be imperfect, and e&s;pecially that of Saint <HI>John,</HI> wherein hee &s;aith expre&s;&s;ely, that all things are not written.</P>
<P>Were the Scripture perfect in the <HI>Knights</HI> &s;en&s;e, <MILESTONE N="13"> yet would it not then be a &s;ufficient rule of Faith of it &s;elfe alone; for it would &s;till be a booke or wri|ting, the very nature whereof, doth not &s;uffer it to be the &s;ole rule of Faith, or judge of Controver|&s;ies; for a Iudge mu&s;t be able to &s;peake, to heare, and to an&s;wer, whereas, the nature of a Booke is, as it were, to leave it &s;elfe to be read, and expounded by men.</P>
<P>No Catholike declineth the triall of Scripture, in <MILESTONE N="14"> regard of imperfection, but onely in regard that it being a written Word; no Heretike can be convinced by it, as I &s;hewed you even now out of <HI>Tertullian,</HI> who &s;aith, It is lo&s;t labour to di&s;pute with an Here|tike out of Scripture.</P>
<P>Let any man by the effects, judge who reverence <MILESTONE N="15"> the Scripture mo&s;t, Catholikes or Prote&s;tants: let
<PB N="104" REF="313"> him compare the labours of the one in tran&s;lating and expounding Scriptures, with the labour of the other, and hee &s;hall find the truth of this matter.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="16"> In admitting any triall with Prote&s;tants by Scrip|tures,<NOTE PLACE="marg">De prae&s;cript. c. <HI>15.</HI> Non e&s;&s;e admitten|dos haereticos ad ineundam de &s;cripturis provocationem, quos fine &s;crip|turis probamus ad &s;cripturas non pertinere. Vos qui e&s;tis? quando &amp; unde veni&s;tis? quid in meo agi|tis non mei. Quo denique Mar|cion jure &s;yl|vam meas cae|dis.</NOTE> wee conde&s;cend more to their infirmitie than wee need, or they can of right challenge. For wee acknowledge that &s;aying of <HI>Tertullian</HI> mo&s;t true, that Heretikes are not to be admitted to the Scrip|tures, to whom the Scripture in no wi&s;e belongeth; who are you, when, and whence are you come? What do you in my ground, you that are not mine? By what right, &ocirc; <HI>Marcion,</HI> do&s;t thou fell my wood? By what leave, &ocirc; <HI>Valentine,</HI> do&s;t thou turne my fountaines? By what authoritie, &ocirc; <HI>Apelles,</HI> do&s;t thou remove my bounds? &amp;c. This is <HI>Tertullians</HI> di&s;cour&s;e and words, where it is but changing the names of <HI>Mar|cion, Valentine,</HI> and <HI>Apelles,</HI> into <HI>Luther, Calvin,</HI> and <HI>Beza;</HI> and it will fit as well, as if it were made for them.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="17"> You mu&s;t fir&s;t &s;hew your &s;elves owners of the Land, before you can claime the writings and evi|dences belonging to it, and which make good the Title.</P>
<DIV2 TYPE="response to chapter">
<HEAD>The Hammer.</HEAD>
<P>VVHereas many other things argue, that our Adver&s;aries maintaine a de&s;perate cau&s;e: &s;o e&s;pecially their excepting again&s;t the holy Scriptures of God, and refu&s;ing to be tried by them in the points of difference betweene
<PB N="105" REF="313"> us and them. For what was the rea&s;on why the <HI>Manichees</HI> called in que&s;tion the authoritie of the Go&s;pell of Saint <HI>Matthew,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Aug. l. <HI>28.</HI> cont. Fau&s;t. cap. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> and the <HI>Acts of the Apo&s;tles?</HI> De&s;peration; becau&s;e by tho&s;e writings they were convinced of bla&s;phemous Errour.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Irenaeus, l. <HI>8.</HI> cap. <HI>26.</HI></NOTE> What was the rea&s;on why the <HI>Ebionites</HI> rejected all Saint <HI>Pauls</HI> Epi&s;tles? De&s;peration; becau&s;e by them their here&s;ie was mo&s;t apparantly con|futed.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Iren. l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>2.</HI> Cum ex &s;crip|turis arguuntur in accu&s;atio|nem convertun|tur ip&s;arum &s;cripturarum, qua&s;i non recte habeant, nec &s;int ex authori|tate nec po&s;sit ex iis inveniri veritas ab his, qui ignorunt traditionem. Tertul. prae&s;c. adver&s;. haret.</NOTE> What was the rea&s;on why the <HI>Gno&s;ticks</HI> and <HI>Valentinians</HI> di&s;parage the Scriptures, &s;aying, that <HI>They were not of authoritie, and the truth could not be found out of them by tho&s;e who were ig|norant of Tradition?</HI> De&s;peration. What was the cau&s;e why <HI>Papias,</HI> and the <HI>Millenaries</HI> pre|ferred word of mouth before Scriptures, and pretended <GAP DESC="foreign">, unwritten tradition for many of their fables? De&s;peration. What was the rea&s;on why the Heretikes in <HI>Tertullians</HI> daies refu&s;ed to examine their Doctrines by the touch|&s;tone of the Scriptures, &s;aying, <HI>More things were required than the Apostles had left in writing, for that either the Apo&s;tles knew not all, or delivered not all to all.</HI> In like manner, wee can impu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e it to nothing el&s;e but diffidence, and di&s;tru&s;t of their cau&s;e; that <HI>Lyndan, Turrian, Le&s;sius,</HI> and <HI>Pig|hius</HI> &s;peake &s;o di<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">gracefully of holy Scriptures as they doe, terming them <HI>dead Characters; a dead and killing Letter, a &s;hell without a kirnell, a leaden rule, a boot for any foot, a no&s;e of wax,</HI> Sy|bils <HI>Prophe&s;ies,</HI> Sphinx <HI>his riddles, a wood of Thieves, a &s;hop of Heretikes, imperfect, doubtfull,
<PB N="106" REF="314"> ob&s;cure, full of perplexities.</HI> If they &s;hould be&s;tow the like &s;candalous Epithets upon the Kings Let|ters patents, or the Popes Buls or Briefes, they would bee &s;oone put into the Inqui&s;ition, or brought into &s;ome Court of Judicature, and there have either their tongues or their eares cut, or their fore-heads branded: yet the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> is &s;o farre from condemning the&s;e bla&s;phemous &s;peeches in his fellow-Je&s;uits and Romani&s;ts, that hee devi&s;eth excu&s;es for them, <HI>and &s;owes fig|leaves together, to cover the&s;e their Pudenda:</HI> which I will plucke off one after another, in my an&s;wer to his particular exceptions again&s;t the <HI>Knight.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> To the fir&s;t. It is true, that &s;ome Roman wri|ters of late have made an a&s;&s;ay to prove &s;ome of their Popi&s;h doctrines out of Scripture: but with no better &s;ucce&s;&s;e than <HI>Horantius</HI> had in un|dertaking to refute <HI>Calvin</HI> his In&s;titutions, as ap|peareth by <HI>Pilkington</HI> his Parallels. If the Scrip|tures were &s;o firme for our Adver&s;aries, why are not they as firm for them? why doth the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> in the fore-front of this Section, bid, as it were, defiance to them, profe&s;&s;ing in plaine termes, that <HI>The Scripture is not the &s;ole rule of Faith;</HI> nor <HI>that out of it alone, all Controver&s;ies can be decided.</HI> Doubtle&s;&s;e, any indifferent Reader will con|ceive, that the Scriptures make mo&s;t for them who &s;tand mo&s;t for their authoritie, and per|fection, as all the reformed Divines doe, not onely affirming, but al&s;o confirming, that the
<PB N="107" REF="314"> Scripture is not only a mo&s;t perfect, but the only infallible rule of faith:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ep. <HI>112.</HI> Si di|vinarum Scrip|turarum earum &s;cilicet quae in Eccle&s;i&acirc; Cano|nicae nominan|tur, per&s;picu&acirc; firmatur autho|ritate, &s;ine ull&acirc; dubitatione cre|dendum e&s;t: a|liis ver&ograve; te&s;ti|bus vel te&s;ti|moniis quibus aliquid creden|dum e&s;&s;e &s;ua|detur, tibi cre|dere vel non credere liceat, quantum ei mo|menti ad faci|endam fidem vel habere, vel non habere per|penderis. Ep. <HI>97</HI> Solis iis Scripturarum libris qui jam Canonici appel|lantur, didi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">i hunc timorem honoremque de|ferre, ut nullum earum autho|rem &s;cribendo aliquid erra&s;&s;e firmi&s;sim&egrave; cre|dam. lib. de Nat. &amp; Grat c. <HI>61.</HI> Me in huju&s;modi quorumlibet Scriptis hominum liberum, quia &s;olis Canonicis debeo &s;ine recu&s;atione con&s;en&s;um, l. <HI>11.</HI> c. <HI>5.</HI> &amp; Ep. <HI>48.</HI></NOTE> every article of divine faith mu&s;t be grounded upon a certaine and infallible ground to us, but there is no certaine and infalli|ble ground to us of &s;upernaturall truth but Scrip|ture, as is abundantly proved by Saint <HI>Au&s;tine; If any thing be confirmed by per&s;picuous authority of Canonicall Scriptures, we mu&s;t without any doubt or hae&s;itation beleeve it, but to other witne&s;&s;es or te&s;ti|monies, we may give credit as we &s;ee cau&s;e,</HI> and in his 97. Epi&s;tle to S^t. <HI>Ierome, I have learned to yeeld that honour and reverence onely to the Cano|nicall Scriptures, that I most firmely beleeve, that no Author of them could erre in any thing he wrot:</HI> and in his booke <HI>de natura &amp; gratia, I profe&s;&s;e my &s;elfe free in all &s;uch writings of men, becau&s;e I owe ab&s;olute con&s;ent without any demurre or &s;taggering onely to the Canonicall bookes of Scripture.</HI> To the &s;ame purpo&s;e he writeth again&s;t <HI>Fau&s;tus</HI> the <HI>Ma|nichee l.</HI> 11. <HI>c.</HI> 5. <HI>and ep.</HI> 48. But what neede I pre&s;&s;e S^t. <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> when the evident letter of Scripture is for this truth, <HI>Titus,</HI> 1.2. <HI>Rom.</HI> 3.4. <HI>God cannot lie, and let God be true and every man a lier</HI> that is &s;ubject to error and fal&s;ehood. A|gaine, the Scriptures are &s;ufficient to in&s;truct us in all points nece&s;&s;ary to &s;alvation: therefore every article of divine faith is evidently grounded upon Scripture. The Antecedent I thus prove, 2 <HI>Tim.</HI>
<PB N="108" REF="315"> 3.15.16. what&s;oever is profitable for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction, for in&s;truction in righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e, in &s;uch &s;ort that it is able to make a man wi&s;e unto &s;alvation, and perfect to every good worke, is &s;ufficient to in&s;truct in all points of &s;alvation: but the Scripture is &s;o profitable, that it is able to <HI>make wi&s;e unto &s;alvation and per|fect to every good worke: Ergo,</HI> It is &s;ufficient to in|&s;truct in all points nece&s;&s;ary to &s;alvation. The <HI>major</HI> is evident <HI>ex terminis:</HI> the <HI>minor</HI> is the let|ter of the text;<NOTE PLACE="marg">L. <HI>3.</HI> Adver&s;. haer. c. <HI>1.</HI> Non per alios di&s;po|&s;itionem &s;alutis no&s;trae cognovi|mus quam per eos per quos e|vangelium ad nos pervenit, quod quidem tunc preconia|verunt, po&s;tea per Dei volun+tatem nobis in Scripturis tra|diderunt fun|damentum &amp; columnam fidei no&s;trae futuram. Aug. l. <HI>3.</HI> cont. Lit. Petil. c. <HI>6.</HI> Sive de Chri&s;to &s;ive de ejus ec|cle&s;ia, &s;ive de quacunque re quae pertinet ad fidem vitam&abque; no&s;tram, non dic<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">m &s;i nos, nequaquam comparandi ei quid dixit &s;i nos, &s;ed omnino quod &s;eturus adjecit, &s;i Ange|lus de Coelo vobis annunciaverit praeterquam quod in Scripturis Legatibus &amp; Evangelicis accepi&s;tis, anathema &s;it.</NOTE> and that the adver&s;ary may not except that this is my collection onely, I will pro|duce to him impregnable te&s;timonies of the anci|ent Fathers. <HI>Irenaeus, We have not knowne by o|thers, the meanes which God hath appointed for our &s;alvation, then by tho&s;e by whom the Go&s;pell came unto us, which at the fir&s;t the Apostles preached by word of mouth, but afterwards by the will of God, de|livered in writing to be the foundation and pillar of our faith.</HI> The &s;econd is Saint <HI>Au&s;tine, Whether concerning Chri&s;t, or concerning his Church, or con|cerning any thing that pertaineth to our faith and life, I will not &s;ay, if we but even as he going forward addeth, if an Angell from Heaven &s;hall preach unto you any thing but what you have received in the Scriptures of the law and the Go&s;pell, accur&s;ed be hee.</HI> Yea but the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> objecteth again&s;t us and the&s;e
<PB N="109" REF="315"> Holy Fathers, that by the Scriptures we cannot prove, which bookes of Scripture are Canonicall, and which are not. I an&s;were: fir&s;t, our que&s;ti|on here, is not of the principles of Divinity, but of Theologicall conclu&s;ions. Now that Scripture is the word of God, and that the&s;e bookes are Canonicall Scriptures, are principles in Divinity, and therefore not to be proved (according to the rule of the great Philo&s;opher) in the &s;ame &s;cience: It is &s;ufficient to make good our Tenet, that the Canonicall Scriptures being pre&s;uppo&s;ed as prin|ciples, every conclu&s;ion <HI>de fide,</HI> may be deduced out of them. Secondly, that &s;uch bookes of Holy Scriptures are Canonicall, and the re&s;t which are knowne by the name of <HI>Apochrypha,</HI> are not Canonicall, is proved by arguments and te&s;timo|nies drawne out of Scripture it &s;elfe, by <HI>Whitaker, Di&s;putatione de &s;acr&acirc; Scriptur&acirc;, controver&s;i&acirc; prim&acirc;;</HI> by <HI>Reynolds</HI> mo&s;t copiou&s;ly in his <HI>Cen&s;ura librorum Apochryphorum.</HI> Thirdly, I retorte the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> argument again&s;t him&s;elfe, when they teach tra|dition is part of Gods word, how prove they it to be &s;o? by Scripture, or Tradition? by Scrip|ture they cannot prove, that unwritten traditions are Gods word: if they prove it by Tradition, then they begge the point in que&s;tion, and prove <HI>idem per idem.</HI></P>
<P>To the &s;econd. The <HI>Romani&s;ts</HI> ground &s;ome <MILESTONE N="2"> doctrines of their faith upon the letter of Scrip|ture, but it is <HI>that letter which killeth,</HI> as for ex|ample; they ground their carnall pre&s;ence of
<PB N="110" REF="316" MS="y"> Chri&s;t in the Sacrament, upon tho&s;e words in the &s;ixt of S^t. <HI>Iohn; unle&s;&s;e yee eate the fle&s;h of the Sonne of God and drinke his blood, you have no life in you:</HI> which words, <HI>if you take according to the letter, this letter killeth,</HI> &s;aith Origen; <HI>but it is the &s;pirit</HI> &s;aith our Saviour, <HI>that quickeneth, the fle&s;h profi|teth nothing, the words which I &s;peake unto you, they are &s;pirit, and they are life, Iohn,</HI> 6.63. He that pierceth the barke, and commeth to the &s;ap, runneth not from the tree of life, but rather run|neth to it: &s;o doe we when we leave the <HI>barke</HI> of the letter upon nece&s;&s;ary occa&s;ions, and <HI>pierce into the heart,</HI> and draw out the <HI>&s;ap</HI> of the &s;piritu|all meaning. To pre&s;&s;e the letter of Scripture a|gain&s;t the &s;pirituall meaning and analogie of faith, is not onely <HI>Iewi&s;h</HI> but <HI>Haereticall.</HI> For ex|ample, The <HI>Anthropomorphites</HI> ground their hae|re&s;ie upon plaine and expre&s;&s;e words of Scrip|ture: from which to u&s;e the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> owne words, <HI>All Orthodox Divines are faine to flie to figurative and tropicall interpretations.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> To the third. Fir&s;t, Saint <HI>Peter</HI> &s;aith not, <GAP DESC="foreign"> but <GAP DESC="foreign">, not <HI>in which Epi&s;tles of S^t. Paul, but in which points and heads of doctrine many things are hard to be under&s;tood.</HI> Secondly, though &s;ome points be hard to be under&s;tood in them&s;elves, or are ob&s;curely &s;et downe in Scripture, it fol|loweth not from thence, that all things nece&s;&s;ary to &s;alvation are not plainely delivered therein. For, as before I proved out of Saint <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> and Saint <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome, Among tho&s;e things which are
<PB N="111" REF="316" MS="y"> plainly delivered in Scriptures, all &s;uch points are found as containe faith and manners, all things that are nece&s;&s;arie are manifest.</HI> Thirdly, tho&s;e things which are ob&s;curely &s;et downe in Saint <HI>Pauls</HI> Epi&s;tles, may be, and are el&s;ewhere in holy Scriptures more per&s;picuou&s;ly delivered. La&s;t|ly, Saint <HI>Peter</HI> &s;aith not, that tho&s;e things are <HI>hard to be under&s;tood</HI> &s;imply, and to all men; but <HI>to the ignorant and un&s;table, who wre&s;t all Scripture to their owne de&s;truction.</HI> Among which number, the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> mu&s;t reckon him&s;elfe and his a&s;&s;ociates, before they can fit this text to their purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>To the fourth. Fir&s;t, this pa&s;&s;age out of Saint <MILESTONE N="4"> <HI>Iohn</HI> hath beene di&s;cu&s;&s;ed before, and cleered; where I &s;hewed, that it maketh nothing again&s;t, but &s;trongly for the &s;ufficiencie of Scripture, to in&s;truct in all points nece&s;&s;arie to &s;alvation. For, though all Chri&s;ts &s;peeches and actions are not regi&s;tred by the Evangeli&s;t, yet as Saint <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> rightly inferreth out of the words following, <HI>(haec &s;cripta &s;unt ut credatis &amp; credentes vitam aeternam habeat is) electa &s;unt quae &s;aluti creden|tium &s;ufficerent:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">2 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 2.15.</NOTE> <HI>Such things were made choice of to be written, as might &s;uffice for the &s;alvation of all Beleevers.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ver. <HI>2.</HI> And Paul as his manner was went unto them of The&s;|&s;alonica, and three sabbath dayes rea&s;oned with them out of the Scrip|tures.</NOTE> Neither is that text of Saint <HI>Paul</HI> any whit derogatorie to the perfection of Scrip|tures: for what&s;oever hee meanes by Tradition <HI>(per Sermonem)</HI> taught by word of mouth, it is certaine out of the &s;eventeenth of the <HI>Acts,</HI> that all Saint <HI>Pauls</HI> &s;peech and di&s;cour&s;e to the <HI>The&s;&s;aloinans,</HI> whereunto the words have
<PB N="112" REF="317" MS="y"> reference were out of Scripture. Secondly, the words them&s;elves, <HI>Tenete traditiones quas dedi|ci&s;tis &s;ive per &s;ermonem, &s;ive per Epi&s;tolam;</HI> im|port not that the Apo&s;tle delivered divers things to them in writing by an Epi&s;tle, and without writing, by word of mouth: but that he prea|ched to them, and taught them the Chri&s;tian doctrine both wayes, by Letters, and by &s;peech: and that they &s;hould have as much care of his writings, as of tho&s;e things hee &s;pake to them in pre&s;ence. Thirdly, admit they were different things which hee &s;pake to them, and which hee wrote: all that can be from thence inferred, is but this, that all points of &s;aving Doctrine are not written in this Epi&s;tle of Saint <HI>Paul</HI> to the <HI>The&s;&s;alonians:</HI> which may be granted without any prejudice to our Tenet. For tho&s;e things that are not written in that Epi&s;tle, might be, and undoubtedly are written in other of his Epi&s;tles, or other bookes of holy Scripture.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="5"> To the fift. Saint <HI>Ierome</HI> is not again&s;t the free u&s;e of Scripture in the vulgar tongue, for hee him&s;elfe tran&s;lated the Scriptures into the vulgar tongue of the <HI>Dalmatians;</HI> hee dedicates his Commentarie upon Scripture to Lay-per&s;ons, yea many of them to women: whom he exhor|teth,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Haec monilia in pectore, haec in auribus he|reant.</NOTE> to <HI>account them as their chiefe casket of Iewels; let the&s;e Iewels hang upon your neckes, and in your eares, Epi&s;t. ad Demetriad:</HI> wherein hee much commendeth the Husbandmen about <HI>Bethlem,</HI> for being &s;o perfect in Scriptures, that <HI>They had
<PB N="113" REF="317" MS="y"> the P&s;almes of</HI> David <HI>by heart, and &s;ang them as they followed the Plow. Arator &s;tivam tenens can|tat Davidicum melos:</HI> he in&s;tructeth <HI>Laeta</HI> a reli|gious Matron, how to bring up her daughter in the knowledge of the Scriptures, and what me|thod to ob&s;erve in the reading thereof, <HI>Pro gem|mis &amp; &s;erico divinos codices amet,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">In fleed of &s;ilks and precious &s;tones, let her handle the books of holy Scripture: let her first learne the P&s;alter, &amp;c.</NOTE> <HI>di&s;cat primo P&s;alterium his &s;e Canticis avoret, &amp; in Proverbiis Salomonis erudiatur ad vitam. In Eccle&s;iaste con|&s;ue&s;cat quae mu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">di &s;unt calcare. In Iob virtutis &amp; patientiae exempla &s;ectetur. Ad evangelia tran&s;eat nunquam ea po&s;itura de manibus, &amp;c.</HI> Neither are the words you quote out of him, again&s;t the free u&s;e of the Scripture, but again&s;t the practi&s;e of &s;ome forward per&s;ons, who, Lapwing-like, offer to flye with a piece of the &s;hell on their head, taking upon them to expound holy Scriptures to others, which they under&s;tand not them&s;elves, and to teach that which they never learned, <HI>do|cent quod nunquam didicerunt.</HI></P>
<P>To the &s;ixt. This practi&s;e of the <HI>Iewes</HI> con|cludeth nothing at all, but that tho&s;e pa&s;&s;ages of <MILESTONE N="6"> Scripture above mentioned are very difficult, and &s;ubject to mi&s;con&s;truction; and therefore require a di&s;creet Reader of ripe yeares, and judgement. Whether this their practi&s;e be commendable or no, in re&s;training all before they arrive to thirty, from reading tho&s;e pa&s;&s;ages of Scripture, I di&s;|pute not: but this is certaine, that even this cu|&s;tome of theirs which the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> brings again&s;t us, makes for us; for they permitted all men be|fore
<PB N="114" REF="318" MS="y"> thirty, to reade all other chapters of holy Scriptures, and after thirty, the&s;e al&s;o.</P>
<P>To the &s;eventh. The honour the Papi&s;ts doe <MILESTONE N="7"> the Scriptures, in prohibiting them to be read, is like the favour &s;he did her Paramour in the Poet, <HI>Quae prae amore exclu&s;it foras,</HI> which <HI>out of pure love thru&s;t him out of doores.</HI> The greate&s;t honour wee can doe Gods holy Oracles, is diligently to reade them, attentively to heare them, humbly to obey them, and daily to &s;earch them, as the deeds and evidences of our &s;alvation;<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ioh.</HI> 5.39.</NOTE> according to the Precept of our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, <HI>Search the Scriptures, for in them yee thinke yee have eternall life, and they are they which te&s;tifie of mee.</HI> As for the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> rea&s;on, drawne from the weakne&s;&s;e of the Readers, it is very weake, and of no force at all.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P&s;al.</HI> 19 7. <HI>Prov.</HI> 1.4.</NOTE> Fir&s;t, becau&s;e the Scriptures were written <HI>to give knowledge to the &s;imple, and wi&s;edome to the unlearned.</HI> Secondly, becau&s;e if this his rea|&s;on were good, their Church &s;hould prohibit all other bookes as well as Scriptures, or rather much more than Scriptures, in regard there are errours in them, but none in Scriptures: and God hath promi&s;ed a &s;peciall ble&s;&s;ing to tho&s;e, who in obedience to his ordinance, diligently reade and &s;tudy the holy Scriptures, which hee hath not to tho&s;e that reade other books.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="8"> To the eight. This Proverb might mo&s;t right|ly have beene applied to the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> in the former Section, when he, a <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> produced <HI>Oliverius Manerius</HI> a Je&s;uit, again&s;t <HI>Henry Buxhorne,</HI> Deane
<PB N="115" REF="318"> of <HI>Tyelmond,</HI> then hee &s;aid in effect, Aske my brother Je&s;uit if I be a thiefe, or rather a &s;lande|rer. But it no way fitteth <HI>Cornelius Agrippa,</HI> and the <HI>Knight,</HI> the one being a zealous Prote&s;tant, the other a profe&s;&s;ed Papi&s;t, though di&s;covering, and ingeniou&s;ly confe&s;&s;ing divers abu&s;es in the Papacie. If hee were as the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;ayes, a Ma|gician, becau&s;e hee wrote of Art-magicke; what were Pope <HI>Hildebrand</HI> and <HI>Sylvester,</HI> who not onely &s;tudied, but al&s;o practi&s;ed the black-Art, as <HI>Benocardinalis, Platina,</HI> and others write.</P>
<P>To the ninth. The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> will not &s;tand an|&s;wering <MILESTONE N="9"> every one &s;everally, becau&s;e hee dare not keepe that &s;tation for feare of Gun-&s;hot. For the an&s;wer hee giveth in generall, it is fal&s;e and ab&s;urd, if not impious: fal&s;e, becau&s;e it is cer|taine, that tho&s;e &s;imilitudes cannot be applied to the letter onely, without the meaning; nor doe the Heretikes now a dayes, nor did the Devill him&s;elfe alleage onely the letter and &s;yllables of Scripture, but the meaning al&s;o,<NOTE PLACE="marg">2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 4.16.</NOTE> though perver|ting and wre&s;ting it to an evill end, and drawing fal&s;e conclu&s;ions from it. Hee that calleth the Scriptures <HI>Sybils Prophecies</HI> bla&s;phemou&s;ly car|peth at the ob&s;curitie of the meaning: and <HI>Pig|hius,</HI> who compared it to a no&s;e of wax, impi|ou&s;ly taxeth the diver&s;itie of &s;en&s;es, and interpre|tations which the Scripture is &s;ubject unto in it &s;elfe. La&s;tly, the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> taketh him&s;elfe by the <HI>no&s;e,</HI> in &s;aying, Heretikes in all Controver&s;ies run to the letter of the Scriptures, leaving the true
<PB N="116" REF="319" MS="y"> &s;en&s;e, and &s;pirituall meaning: for &s;o doe the Ro|mani&s;ts apparantly, namely, in the Controver&s;ie of Supremacie, <HI>Ecce duo gladii; Loe here two &s;words:</HI> therefore the Pope hath the temporall and &s;pirituall Sword at command. <HI>Peter, ri&s;e up, kill and eate:</HI> therefore the Pope hath power to put Princes to death. In the que&s;tion about the number of Sacraments, they alleage the letter of that text in the vulgar tran&s;lation, <HI>Hoc e&s;t mag|num Sacramentum,</HI> to prove marriage a Sacra|ment; whereas the Apo&s;tle in the &s;ame place &s;aith, that hee &s;peaketh not of corporall mar|riage of a man and his wife: but of the &s;pirituall marriage of Chri&s;t and his Church. Likewi&s;e in the Controver&s;ie about the reall pre&s;ence, they <HI>run to the letter, Except yee eate the fle&s;h of the Sonne of man, and drinke his blood:</HI> though Chri&s;t in the &s;ame place expounding him&s;elfe, &s;aith, <HI>The words which I have &s;poken unto you, are &s;pirit and life:</HI> the like may be ob&s;erved in other Controver&s;ies. For an&s;wer to all which texts, wee tell him out of Saint <HI>Ierome,</HI> whom him&s;elfe quoteth in the next Paragraph; <HI>That the Go&s;pell con&s;i&s;teth not in the words of Scripture, but in the &s;en&s;e: not in the &s;uperficies or barke, but in the pith: not in the leaves of &s;peech, but in the root of rea&s;on.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="10"> To the tenth. How neere neighbours the Ro|mani&s;ts are to <HI>Marcion,</HI> who denied, or by con&s;e|quence, overthrew the truth of Chri&s;ts humaine nature; as the Papi&s;ts doe in the Sacrament, vail|ing him under the out&s;ide, or accidents of a round
<PB N="117" REF="319" MS="y"> wafer; and what affinitie the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> hath with the re&s;t of the ancient Heretikes, the <HI>Knight</HI> &s;hewed him before in his &s;eventh Section: and if hee de&s;ire to know more of his pedegree from them, I referre him to an Appendix to <HI>Whita|kers</HI> an&s;wer to <HI>Sanders</HI> his Demon&s;tration, <HI>page</HI> 801. As for the a&s;per&s;ion of old Here&s;ies, which hee ca&s;ts upon us, they are wa&s;hed away by Bi|&s;hop <HI>Morton,</HI> and Doctor <HI>Field,</HI> in their Treati|&s;es of the Church, <HI>Ad notam &s;extam.</HI> But why hee denies that wee have the Spirit, arrogating it onely to him&s;elfe, I &s;ee no rea&s;on but the pride of his owne &s;pirit, together with the malice of the evill &s;pirit, who &s;ugge&s;ted unto him this un|charitable cen&s;ure of us.</P>
<P>To the eleventh. The Scripture is a <HI>Light, <MILESTONE N="11"> P&s;al.</HI> 119. and the nature of a light is, fir&s;t to di&s;cover it &s;elfe, and then all things el&s;e: there|fore <HI>Calvin</HI> to his fond que&s;tion, how know you Scripture to be Scripture? an&s;wereth acutely by retortion, how know you the Sun to be the Sun? If hee &s;ay, by his bright lu&s;tre and beames; wee &s;ay the &s;ame of holy Scripture, that it is di&s;cer|ned by its owne light. Which, if the Papi&s;ts &s;ee not, the fault ought not to be laid upon the Sun-beames, but upon their Owles eyes.</P>
<P>To the twelfth. That rule which needeth any <MILESTONE N="12"> thing to be added to it, is imperfect: but all Pa|pi&s;ts teach, that to the written Word unwritten Traditions mu&s;t bee added to make a compleat and perfect rule of Faith: all Papi&s;ts therefore
<PB N="118" REF="320" MS="y"> teach, the Scripture alone to be an imperfect Rule. We on the contrary &s;tand for the perfecti|on of Scripture, and con&s;tantly and unanimou&s;ly defend that not onely the whole Scripture is per|fect, but that every part al&s;o hath its owne per|fection, but not the perfection of the whole. Be|cau&s;e the eyes have not the perfection of the whole head; or the head, the perfection of the whole body; a man cannot conclude, that the eye, or the head is imperfect: no more can the <HI>Ie|&s;uit</HI> conclude that the Go&s;pell of Saint <HI>Matthew,</HI> Saint <HI>Marke,</HI> or Saint <HI>Iohn</HI> are therefore imper|fect, becau&s;e they containe not in them all do|ctrines in particular nece&s;&s;ary to &s;alvation. It is &s;ufficient that they together with the re&s;t, per|fectly in&s;truct us in all points of faith: by them|&s;elves they perfectly informe us &s;o farre as the Holy Gho&s;t intendeth, that we &s;hould be infor|med by each of them in particular, and this is their perfection, that they have no defect in mat|ter or forme, and that they concurre with the re&s;t of the bookes of Scripture, to the maine end of the Holy Gho&s;t in committing the word of God in writing, for the infallible and perfect in|&s;truction of the Church, and every faithfull &s;oule in all Doctrines needfull to &s;alvation.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="13"> To the thirteenth. Although many <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> have written <HI>de Scriptur&acirc; judice,</HI> and they have warrant out of Scripture &s;o to &s;tile it; <HI>(the words which I have &s;poken they &s;hall judge you)</HI> yet in pro|priety of &s;peech, which e&s;pecially ought to be
<PB N="119" REF="320" MS="y"> u&s;ed in &s;tating que&s;tions, the Scripture is rather to be termed a rule and law, or &s;entence of the judge, then the judge him&s;elfe: the &s;upreame and infallible judge of all controver&s;ies, we teach to be the Holy Gho&s;t, &s;peaking to us out of Scrip|tures, and the &s;ubordinate or inferior Judge the con&s;encient authority of the Catholique Church. <MILESTONE N="14"> </P>
<P>To the fourteenth. The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;hewed no &s;uch thing, nor can &s;hew out of <HI>Tertullian,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">De prae&s;crip. ad|ver&s;. haeret. c. <HI>17.</HI></NOTE> who con|vinced the greater part of <HI>Haeretikes</HI> in his time by Scripture, as appeareth in his writings. In the place which the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> quoteth, he hath no &s;uch words as he alleageth out of him: <HI>viz.</HI> that there is no good to be done with <HI>Haeretikes</HI> by Scriptures. He &s;aith indeede in that place, that it <HI>was but in vaine to con|ferre with a certaine kinde of Haeretikes by Scriptures alone, quia i&s;ta haere&s;is non recipit qua&s;dam Scriptu|ras, et &s;i recipit, non recipit integras et &s;i aliquatenus integras prae&s;tat, &amp;c.</HI> That is, <HI>This haere&s;ie admits not of certaine Scriptures, or not intire, or if in &s;ome &s;ort intire, it perverts them by divi&s;ing divers inter|pretations.</HI> In which words he no way di&s;para|geth the holy Scriptures, or derogateth from their perfection: but di&s;covereth the wicked practi&s;e of <HI>Haeretikes,</HI> and their eva&s;ions and tergiver&s;ations, when they are mo&s;t evidently convinced by Scrip|tures. Will you &s;ay that if a <HI>Bedlam</HI> or willfull ma|lefactor either by puffing out the Candle, or &s;hut|ting his eyes, or looking another way, will not reade or &s;ee the evidence that is brought again&s;t him, that therfore the evidence is not able to con|vince him?</P>
<PB N="120" REF="321" MS="y">
<P> <MILESTONE N="15"> To the fifteenth. Though it were granted the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> that the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> have written more upon the Scriptures then <HI>Prote&s;tants,</HI> it will not from thence follow, that they more reverence or ho|nour the Scripture: &s;ithence in their very Com|mentaries upon Scripture, they derrogate from the authority, &s;ufficiency, and perfection of them, by refu&s;ing to referre all points of faith in contro|ver&s;ie to their deci&s;ion: by re&s;olving their faith la&s;t of all not into them, but into the Church: by teaching, that they are ob&s;cure even in points ne|ce&s;&s;ary to &s;alvation; and that unwritten Tradi|tions are equally to be reverenced with them. Secondly, compare men with men, and oportu|nities with oportunities; it may ea&s;ily be proved that the <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> in their preaching, and wri|tings upon Scripture, have beene farre more la|borious then the <HI>Papi&s;ts.</HI> Name me one <HI>Papi&s;t</HI> who Preached &s;o often, and wrote &s;o accu|rately upon the Holy Scriptures, as <HI>Calvin.</HI> I grant their bookes exceede in bulke and number, becau&s;e they have a hundred to one, and they a|bound with lei&s;ure, and meanes, having many thou&s;ands maintained in their mona&s;teries, who are not charged as our Divines are, with care of &s;oules, and perpetuall labours in their Pa&s;torall function.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="16"> To the &s;ixteenth. If it were &s;ufficient to ban|dy &s;entences without proofe, and words without rea&s;ons, how ea&s;ily could we &s;ay, <HI>mutato nomine de te fabula narratur.</HI> It is but changing the names
<PB N="121" REF="321" MS="y"> of <HI>Marcion, Valentine</HI> and <HI>Apelles,</HI> into <HI>Bellarmine Valentia</HI> and <HI>Le&s;sius,</HI> or if you will, into <HI>Iohn Flood,</HI> and it will fit as well as if it were made for him. How proves he that <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> are in the Church, and <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> out of it? He &s;hall ne|ver prove but that we have as good title, and much better, to the Holy Scriptures, the deedes and evidences of our &s;alvation then they.</P>
<P>To the &s;eventeenth. Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of a land, pro|veth <MILESTONE N="17"> not nece&s;&s;arily a right to the writings, and evidences belonging unto it. For po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion may be got by violent u&s;urpation, or intru&s;ion; but on the contrary, the writings and evidences left by the di&s;po&s;er and bequeather of the land, be|ing examined, will &s;hew who hath the true title to the land, that is, the Church. By the&s;e deedes and evidences, we offer to be tried, but they re|fu&s;e the triall, pretending I know not what <HI>nun|cupatory will</HI> by word of mouth, and di&s;paraging the&s;e <HI>writings, and evidences</HI> as uncertaine, am|biguus and unperfect, as the <HI>Knight</HI> hath made good again&s;t him in this Section.</P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="15" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="122" REF="322" MS="y">
<HEAD>Concerning the te&s;tomonies of Cardinall <HI>Bellarmine;</HI> Chapter 15. Spectacles, a page 464. u&s;&abque; ad 485.</HEAD>
<P>_THE te&s;timonies alleaged by the <HI>Knight</HI> out of Cardinall <HI>Bellarmine</HI> for the Prote&s;tant faith, in the points of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, private Ma&s;&s;e, Prayer in an unknowne tongue, Com|munion in both kindes, the number of Sacraments, the nece&s;sity of good workes, and ju&s;tifi|cation by faith alone, have beene all an&s;wered in the former Sections, and that which he addeth concer|ning univer&s;ality and miracles, maketh for the <HI>Ca|tholike</HI> and again&s;t the <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> faith.</P>
<DIV2 TYPE="response to chapter">
<HEAD>The Hammer.</HEAD>
<P>THe te&s;timony of an adver&s;ary is of great force,<NOTE PLACE="marg">I&s;id. Polu&s;. ep. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> e&s;pecially a learned one, mo&s;t of all one his death-bed, when he looketh every houre to be &s;ummoned before the Judge of all fle&s;h: and therefore we have all rea&s;on to make great dainties of the noble confe&s;&s;ion of the learnede&s;t of all our <HI>Romi&s;h</HI> adver&s;aries in the maine point of faith, wherewith he gave up the gho&s;t: <HI>Domi|ne
<PB N="123" REF="322" MS="y"> me admittas in numerum &s;anctorum tuorum, non meriti a&s;timator, &s;ed veniae largitor. Lord admit me into the number of thy Saints, not weighing my merits, but pardoning my offences:</HI> this te&s;timony and prayer of his, printed in his will, the <HI>Knight</HI> in this Section backeth with another taken out of his third booke <HI>De ju&s;tificat. c.</HI> 17. <HI>Vel habet homo vera merita, vel non habet, &amp;c. Either a man hath true merit, or he hath not; if he hath not, he is dan|gerou&s;ly deceived, and &s;educeth him&s;elfe, while&s;t he tru&s;teth in fal&s;e merits; for the&s;e are deceitfull ri|ches,</HI> &s;aith Saint <HI>Bernard, which rob a man of the true: but if he hath true merits, he loo&s;eth nothing by this, that hee regardeth them not, but putteth his whole tru&s;t in Gods mercie only.</HI> This is not on|ly <HI>Forte,</HI> but <HI>Fulgens telum:</HI> to u&s;e the words of <HI>Quintilian, Not onely a &s;trong, but a beautifull, bright, and &s;hining weapon:</HI> wherwith the <HI>Knight</HI> giveth his Adver&s;ary &s;uch a deadly wound, that hee panteth as it were for life, through all this Section. Much adoe hee hath to &s;ay any thing, which yet is as good as nothing: to wit, that <HI>Bellarmine</HI> in his fir&s;t booke <HI>De Iustificatione, cap.</HI> 1. &s;aith, that <HI>Hee will indeavour by five principall Arguments, to demon&s;trate that a man is not justi|fied by Faith onely.</HI> What will the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> conclude from hence? that the Cardinall contradicteth him&s;elfe? I grant it, and I take it for a &s;ingular Ar|gument and Evidence of Truth on our &s;ide, which inforced this great Cardinall, after hee had &s;pent all his &s;trength in ju&s;tifying the Ro|mi&s;h
<PB N="124" REF="323"> Tenet concerning ju&s;tification by workes, and the merit therof, in the end to undoe all that he had done, and conclude fully with the <HI>Knight,</HI> that <HI>In regard of the uncertainty of a mans owne justice, and the danger of vaine-glory, it is &s;afe&s;t to renounce all mans merit, and to put our tru&s;t onely in Gods mercie. Sufficit ad meritum &s;cire, quod non &s;ufficiant merita.</HI> For other pa&s;&s;ages in this chap|ter, I &s;hall pa&s;&s;e them over with a drie foot, be|cau&s;e there is nothing materiall in them &s;aid in excu&s;e of <HI>Bellarmine</HI> his <HI>warping</HI> from the Ro|mi&s;h Religion, which hath not beene di&s;cu&s;&s;ed before. As for &s;uch <HI>Rotten-&s;tuffe</HI> wherewith hee pieceth it up in his later Paragraphs, namely, five, &s;ix, &s;even, and eight; fetched from <HI>Romi&s;h Broker-&s;hops</HI> concerning the name <HI>Catholique,</HI> and multitude of Profe&s;&s;ours, and miracles, becau&s;e none of it <HI>&s;utes</HI> with the title or argument of this Chapter, I will not defile my hands with it: one|ly I wi&s;h the Reader to take notice, that the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> twice in this Chapter convinced by evidence of Truth, yeeldeth the <HI>Knight</HI> the Bucklers, ac|knowledging out of Cardinall <HI>Bellarmine, That our Doctrine is &s;afer than theirs, in two maine points:</HI> the one concerning the Sacrament, the other ju&s;tification by Faith onely. For the fir&s;t,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Linea</HI> 28.</NOTE> <HI>Page</HI> 465, hee is con&s;trained to con|fe&s;&s;e, that though hee holdeth Private Ma&s;&s;e to be lawfull; yet, that <HI>It is a more perfect, and in a certaine &s;ort more lawfull Ma&s;&s;e, where there be &s;ome to communicate with the Prie&s;t:
<PB N="125" REF="323"> for then it hath both the ends for which it was or|dained.</HI> Certainly, that which is more lawfull, is &s;afer: our Communion therefore, wherein &s;ome of nece&s;&s;itie communicate with the Prie&s;t, is &s;afer than their Private Ma&s;&s;e by the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> owne confe&s;&s;ion. For the &s;econd, I find, <HI>page</HI> 471. that, though much again&s;t his will, yet in <HI>Terminis,</HI> hee concurres with <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> in ac|knowledging our Doctrine concerning relying onely on Chri&s;ts merits, and Gods mercie for &s;alvation, to be &s;afe&s;t: and what el&s;e doe all Pro|te&s;tants contend for in the point of Ju&s;tification by Faith alone; but that all men renounce their owne inherent righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e, and tru&s;t onely to Gods mercie in Chri&s;t for Ju&s;tification and Sal|vation? If at Chri&s;ts dreadfull Tribunall, the &s;afe&s;t Plea are Chri&s;t his merits applied to us by Faith, I wonder any dare to u&s;e any other? If there be <HI>&s;afety,</HI> nay <HI>mo&s;t &s;afety,</HI> as the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> con|fe&s;&s;eth in this point of Prote&s;tant doctrine, there mu&s;t needs be truth in it; for there can be no &s;afe|tie for the &s;oule in a lye.</P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="16" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="126" REF="324">
<HEAD>Concerning Romi&s;h Martyrs; Spectacles, Chapter 16. a page 485. u&s;que ad 490.</HEAD>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> _THE ble&s;&s;ed Martyr <HI>Edward Cam|pian</HI> in his tenth rea&s;on, bringing all &s;orts of witne&s;&s;es for proofe of the Catholike Faith, beginneth with Martyrs; tho&s;e particularly, who being Pa&s;tours of the Roman Church, &s;uffered Martyrdome &s;ucce&s;sively one after another, to the number of thirty three. The&s;e (&s;aith <HI>Cam|pian</HI>) were ours, and nameth &s;ome of them, as <HI>Te|le&s;phorus, Victor, Sixtus, Cornelius,</HI> with the particular points, which they held conformably with us again&s;t Prote&s;tants.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> That the&s;e Martyrs are ours, notwith&s;tanding they died not for any of tho&s;e points the <HI>Knight</HI> men|tioneth, is plaine, becau&s;e they profe&s;&s;ed the &s;ame Catholike Faith which wee doe; which wee al&s;o prove by the Faith of their &s;ucce&s;&s;our <HI>Vrban</HI> the eigth, who, as hee holdeth their &s;eat, &s;o al&s;o their Faith; for <HI>Peters</HI> Chaire and Faith goe together, as the very Heretike <HI>Pelagius</HI> confe&s;&s;ed to Pope <HI>So|zimus,</HI> &s;aying to him, <HI>Tu qui Petri fidem &amp; &s;edem tenes.</HI> Not to &s;tand here upon the mo&s;t effectuall and
<PB N="127" REF="324"> infallible Prayer of our Saviour him&s;elfe, <HI>Oravi pro te Petre ut non deficiat fides tua:</HI> which proofe mu&s;t &s;tand firme till Sir <HI>Humphrey</HI> can tell us what Pope began to vary from his predece&s;&s;ors.</P>
<P>For adoration of Images, whereas the <HI>Knight</HI> <MILESTONE N="3"> asketh whether any of the&s;e three and thirty were canonized for it: though there be no &s;peciall men|tion of any of the&s;e three and thirty, their adoration of Images, yet there is very pregnant pre&s;umption thereof by this, that Pope <HI>Sylve&s;ter,</HI> who was the very next after the three and thirtieth, and was Pope in time of <HI>Con&s;tantines</HI> conver&s;ion, had the pictures of Saint <HI>Peter</HI> and Saint <HI>Paul,</HI> which it is mo&s;t like, he received from his Predece&s;&s;ors.</P>
<P>Moreover it is plaine, that tho&s;e three and thirty <MILESTONE N="4"> were ours, by their owne decretall Epi&s;tles, which are &s;o full of tho&s;e points which Father <HI>Campian</HI> citeth, that the Heretikes have no other &s;hift, but to denie the authority of the &s;ame Epistles.</P>
<P>That the con&s;ecrated Bread depending upon the <MILESTONE N="5"> Prie&s;ts intention, is the reall Fle&s;h of Chri&s;t: or that this Prie&s;t, <HI>Garnet</HI> by name, hath power to con&s;e|crate, is no matter of Faith; but that in the Sacra|ment, the matter, forme, intentton, and all things requi&s;ite concurring, the Bread and Wine is really and truely converted into the Body and Blood of Chri&s;t: this is a matter of Faith, and this a man is to die for. Neither maketh it any matter whether any man have died for it, or not; for that is more in the per&s;ecutors power, to appoint what point of a mans Faith hee will put him to death for, than in
<PB N="128" REF="325" MS="y"> the Martyrs owne, who mu&s;t be readie to die for all and every one, as well for one as for another.</P>
<DIV2 TYPE="response to chapter">
<HEAD>The Hammer.</HEAD>
<P>IN this Chapter the <HI>Knight</HI> pulleth the gar|land of Red Ro&s;es off from the heads of all <HI>Pa|pi&s;ts:</HI> I meane the Crowne of Martyrdome, by three mo&s;t forcible arguments, which may thus be reduced into <HI>Syllogi&s;ticall forme.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. None of tho&s;e who &s;uffered death for the common Articles of the Chri&s;tian Faith, which we all profe&s;&s;e: are to be accounted <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> Martyrs.</P>
<P>But the 33. <HI>Popes</HI> and all the Martyrs in the Primitive Church, &s;uffered death for the common Articles of faith, which we all pro|fe&s;&s;e.</P>
<P><HI>Ergo</HI> none of them were <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> Martyrs: neither can they lay any more or better claime to them then we, if &s;o good.</P>
<P N="2">2. All that may be tearmed truely <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> Mar|tyrs, mu&s;t &s;uffer death either for the profe&s;|&s;ion of the <HI>Trent</HI> Faith in generall, or &s;ome &s;peciall point of it, wherein they differ from the reformed Churches.</P>
<P>But none of the Primitive Martyrs &s;uffered death for the profe&s;&s;ion of the <HI>Trent</HI> Faith in generall, or any point thereof wherein
<PB N="129" REF="325" MS="y"> they differ from the beliefe of the reformed Churches.</P>
<P><HI>Ergo,</HI> none of the Primitive Martyrs were <HI>Popi&s;h.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. If the Articles of the <HI>Romi&s;h</HI> Creed publi&s;hed by Pope <HI>Pius</HI> were either unknowne to the Primitive Church, or not then declared to be <HI>de fide,</HI> none in tho&s;e dayes could &s;uffer Martyrdome for them.</P>
<P>But the twelve new Articles of Pope <HI>Pius</HI> his Creed were altogether unknowne to the Primitive Church, or not then declared and defined to be <HI>de fide,</HI> as the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> Page 490. in part acknowledgeth.</P>
<P><HI>Ergo,</HI> none in the Primitive Church could &s;uffer Martyrdome for them.</P>
<P>What wards the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> hath for the&s;e blowes, we &s;hall &s;ee in the examination of the particular exceptions before mentioned.</P>
<P>To the fir&s;t. It is as true that tho&s;e 33. marty|red Popes were Martyrs of the Romi&s;h Religion, <MILESTONE N="1"> as that <HI>Campion</HI> the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> who &s;uffered death for Trea&s;on again&s;t Queene <HI>Elizabeth,</HI> was a Martyr. The truth is, that although <HI>Campion</HI> in his tenth Rea&s;on, <HI>&s;earch Heaven, and rake Hell</HI> al&s;o, for wit|ne&s;&s;es to prove the truth of the Romi&s;h Religion, yet he findeth none, as D. <HI>Whitaker</HI> clearely de|mon&s;trateth in his an&s;wer to that tenth rea&s;on, and his defence thereof again&s;t <HI>Dureus.</HI> To let
<PB N="130" REF="326" MS="y"> others pa&s;&s;e, tho&s;e 33. Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome,</HI> the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> mentioneth, who now weare Crownes of Mar|tyrdome in Heaven, never ware the Popes tri|ple Crowne on Earth.<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. <HI>486.</HI> l. <HI>16.</HI> I an&s;wer that tho&s;e Martyrs &s;uffered death not for the points now in controver&s;ie with Haeretikes, but for the pro|fe&s;sion of Chri|&s;tianity at the hands of the enemies of Chri&s;t.</NOTE> They &s;ate as Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome,</HI> they &s;ate not as Lords over the whole Church: neither was the cau&s;e of their death any conte&s;tation with Princes for Soveraignty, nor the maintenance of any points now in con|trover&s;ie, as the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> him&s;elfe confe&s;&s;eth, but the profe&s;&s;ion of Chri&s;tianity. They were not therefore Martyrs of the <HI>Roman</HI> Church as &s;he is at this pre&s;ent, nor of their <HI>Trent</HI> Creed; but of the <HI>Catholike</HI> Church and the <HI>common faith once given to Saints.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> To the &s;econd. The <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> argument drawne from the&s;e 33. Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome</HI> to Pope <HI>Vrbane</HI> the eighth fall &s;hort at lea&s;t by 1300. yeares. If he &s;hould thus argue in the Schooles: Pope <HI>Vr|bane</HI> the eighth, in the yeare of our Lord, 1633. held the <HI>Trent</HI> faith, and beleeved Pope <HI>Pius</HI> the fourth his Creed: therefore the 33. Bi&s;hops that &s;uffered Martyrdome under the Heathen Empe|rours within 300. yeares after Chri&s;t, held the &s;ame faith, and &s;ub&s;cribed to the &s;ame Articles of <HI>Trent;</HI> he would be &s;tampt at, and hi&s;&s;ed out by all pre&s;ent; for who knoweth not that <HI>George</HI> the <HI>Arian</HI> immediatly &s;ucceeded <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> the mo&s;t Orthodox Bi&s;hop, and that all the <HI>Arian</HI> Bi|&s;hops in <HI>Con&s;tantius his</HI> time, held the Sees of tho&s;e Orthodox Bi&s;hops, who in the fir&s;t Coun|cell at <HI>Nice</HI> condemned that bla&s;phemous haere|&s;ie.
<PB N="131" REF="326" MS="y"> In our memory, did not Cardinall <HI>Poole</HI> a <HI>Papi&s;t,</HI> &s;ucceede <HI>Cranmer,</HI> a <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> Bi&s;hop and Martyr? againe, did not <HI>Parker,</HI> in Q. <HI>Elizabeths</HI> daies, a learned Prote&s;tant &s;ucceed Cardinall <HI>Poole</HI> an Arch-papi&s;t, in his Arch-bi&s;hoprick of <HI>Canter|bury?</HI> What a <HI>wooden Argument</HI> then is this, to in|ferre &s;ucce&s;&s;ion in Doctrine from &s;ucce&s;&s;ion in the &s;ame Chaire? This wretched Argument the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> proves as lewdly, by the te&s;timonie of <HI>Pelagius</HI> the Heretike. This is indeed to <HI>Aske his brother if he be a thiefe,</HI> or no: to aske an Heretike whether your Romi&s;h Doctrine be not hereti|call. Yet &s;o unfortunate is hee in his proofe, that even this his onely witne&s;&s;e, how liable &s;oever to exception, &s;aith nothing for him: <HI>Pelagius</HI> was not &s;o ab&s;urd as to hold this po&s;ition, that <HI>Peters</HI> Chaire and Faith goe alwaies together; but only &s;pake in a glozing manner thus to Pope <HI>Sozi|mus, Thou holde&s;t</HI> Peters <HI>Chaire and Faith:</HI> and will the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> inferre an univer&s;all from a parti|cular? Pope <HI>Sozimus</HI> held <HI>Peters</HI> Chaire and Faith: therfore all that hold <HI>Peters</HI> Chaire, hold his Faith. What holdeth the&s;e two together?<NOTE PLACE="marg">Luke <HI>22.32.</HI> Que&s;t. vet. &amp; N. Te&s;t. q. <HI>75.</HI> Quid ambigi|tur pro Petro rogabat &amp; pro Iacobo et Ioha~|ne non rogabat? ut caeteros ta|ceam manife|&s;tum e&s;t in Pe|tro omnes con|tineri.</NOTE> a mo&s;t &s;trong and effectuall Bond, &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> namely, Chri&s;ts promi&s;e to <HI>Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thy Faith faile not.</HI> The time will faile me to declare particularly how many waies this Argument of the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> failes: fir&s;t, Chri&s;t prayed not here for <HI>Peter</HI> onely, as Saint <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> affirmeth, <HI>What doth any man make que&s;tion here|of? did Chri&s;t pray for</HI> Peter, <HI>and not for</HI> James
<PB N="132" REF="327" MS="y"> <HI>and</HI> John? <HI>To &s;ay nothing of the re&s;t, it is manife&s;t, that in</HI> Peter <HI>all the re&s;t are contained.</HI> This prayer then no more privilegeth the See of <HI>Rome</HI> from error, than of <HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI> or of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> or any other See of the Apo&s;tles. Secondly, Chri&s;t prayed not that <HI>Peter</HI> might not erre, who afterwards erred,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Gal.</HI> 2.14.</NOTE> and was reproved by Saint <HI>Paul, Galathians</HI> the &s;econd: but that his <HI>Faith might not faile,</HI> that is, be overcome in that fearfull temptation, in &s;uch &s;ort, that hee might not ri&s;e againe after his fall. Thirdly, Chri&s;ts prayer is for <HI>Peter</HI> him&s;elfe in his per&s;on, and the Apo&s;tles whom Satan winnowed, not for his See. Fourthly, if this promi&s;e any way belonged to his Succe&s;&s;ors, certainly no more to tho&s;e of <HI>Rome,</HI> than <HI>Artio|chia;</HI> &s;o infirme is this the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> proofe, which yet hee &s;aith, <HI>Mu&s;t &s;tand firme, till</HI> Sir Humphrey <HI>can tell what Pope began to varie from his Predece&s;|&s;ours.</HI> Agreed: Sir <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;hall pre&s;ently tell him by name, <HI>Liberius</HI> the <HI>Arnian, Vigilius</HI> the <HI>Eutychian, Honorius</HI> the <HI>Monothelite</HI> condem|ned in three generall Councels &s;ixth, &s;eventh, and eighth; <HI>Iohn</HI> the three and twenty, depo&s;ed in the Councell at <HI>Con&s;tance:</HI> as for other enormous crimes, &s;o for this his damnable here&s;ie, that <HI>Hee denied the immortalitie of the &s;oule, and the life to come.</HI> To which, after the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> hath replied, in|&s;tance &s;hall be given in many other Popes, which have beene branded with the note of here&s;ie in like manner.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> To the third. A &s;trange and loo&s;e inference,
<PB N="133" REF="327"> three and thirty Popes adored Images becau&s;e their Predece&s;&s;or had the pictures of Saint <HI>Peter</HI> and Saint <HI>Paul.</HI> Pope <HI>Gregorie</HI> allowed of the &s;tanding of pictures in the Church,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Vid. &s;upr.</NOTE> yet would have them by no meanes adored: <HI>Helena</HI> the mo|ther of <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> had the wood of Chri&s;ts cro&s;&s;e, yet adored it not, &s;aith Saint <HI>Ambro&s;e.</HI> If to have the picture of Saint <HI>Peter,</HI> or Saint <HI>Paul,</HI> nay, or of Chri&s;t him&s;elfe, maketh a man an Idolater, or a Papi&s;t, then not onely all the <HI>Lu|therans</HI> generally, but very many of the mo&s;t or|thodoxe Divines in our, and other reformed <MILESTONE N="4"> Churches, will be proved as good Papi&s;ts as Pope <HI>Sylve&s;ter.</HI></P>
<P>To the fourth. Not only Prote&s;tants, whom the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> nick-nameth <HI>Heretikes,</HI> but al&s;o <HI>Contius,</HI> and other Romani&s;ts have di&s;paraged the&s;e Epi|&s;tles: and if the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> no&s;e be not very <HI>flat, and &s;tuffed</HI> al&s;o, hee may &s;mell the forgerie of the&s;e Decretals by the barbari&s;me of the &s;tile, di&s;a|greeing to tho&s;e times, and many ab&s;urdities and <MILESTONE N="5"> contradictions noted in them by <HI>Coqueus</HI> and others.</P>
<P>To the fift. If it be no matter of Faith, that this particular Prie&s;t Tran&s;ub&s;tantiateth the Bread, becau&s;e no man knowes his intention, nor that particular Prie&s;t, <HI>Et &s;ic de caeteris:</HI> It followeth, that it is no matter of Faith to beleeve, that any Prie&s;t in the Roman Church, by the words of Con&s;ecration, turneth the Bread into Chri&s;ts Body. As for that, hee
<PB N="134" REF="328" MS="y"> addeth, that it is no matter whether any ever died for this point in particular; I an&s;wer, it is a matter of great moment: for if <HI>Garnet</HI> would not take it upon his &s;alvation, that this Bread hee con&s;ecrated, immediately before he death, was turned into Chri&s;ts Body; nor any ever would, or did pawne his life for Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation: it is evident, that Papi&s;ts them&s;elves doubt of the certainty of that Arti|cle. On the contrarie, wee can produce hundreds, nay thou&s;ands, who for denying Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, have beene put to death, and have &s;igned the truth of the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, concerning the Sa|crament with their blood: and therefore the Doctrine of the Prote&s;tants in this point, is of more credit than the contrarie, becau&s;e it is &s;trengthened and fortified by a <HI>Noble armie of Martyrs.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="17" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="135" REF="328" MS="y">
<HEAD>Concerning the <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> chari|table opinion of the &s;alvation of <HI>Pa|pi&s;ts;</HI> Spectacles, Chap. 17. &agrave; page 491. u&s;&abque; ad 508.</HEAD>
<P>_THE <HI>Knights</HI> di&s;cour&s;e in this Chap|ter <MILESTONE N="1"> is wholly from his purpo&s;e, which he pretendeth in the title of his Chapter, which is to an&s;wer our objections.</P>
<P>The <HI>Knights</HI> eight in&s;tances in <MILESTONE N="2"> the Doctrine of Merits, Communion in both kinds, publike u&s;e of Scripture, Prie&s;ts marriage, Service in a knowne tongue, Wor&s;hip of Images, Adoration of the Sacrament, and Traditions, are all an&s;wered before, and proved &s;ome fal&s;e; for the things wherewith he chargeth us are all ab&s;urd, if we con&s;ider the proofes of Scripture which he bringeth.</P>
<P>All testimonies from an enemy proceede not from <MILESTONE N="3"> charity, but from truth, and &s;uch are tho&s;e which <HI>Catholikes</HI> bring out of learned <HI>Prote&s;tants,</HI> to prove that a man dying in the Romi&s;h Religion, may be &s;aved.</P>
<P>Free-will, Prayer for the Dead, Honouring of Re|likes, Reall Pre&s;ence, Tran&s;ubstantiation, Communion <MILESTONE N="4">
<PB N="139" REF="329" MS="y"> in one kinde, Wor&s;hiping of Images, the Popes Pri|macy, Auricular Confe&s;sion, and the like, are all ac|knowledged, &s;ome by one <HI>Prote&s;tant,</HI> &s;ome by ano|ther, not to be materiall points; &s;o as a man may without perill beleeve either way: the &s;everall au|thors are, <HI>Perkins, Cartwright, Whitgift, Fulke, Penrie, Somes, Sparks, Reynolds, Bunnie,</HI> and <HI>Whitaker.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="5"> <HI>John Frith,</HI> a <HI>Foxean</HI> Martyr, acknowledgeth, that the matter touching the &s;ub&s;tance of the Sacra|ment bindeth no man of nece&s;sity to &s;alvation or damnation, whether he beleeve it or not.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="6"> <HI>John Huz</HI> held the Ma&s;&s;e, Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, Vowes, Freewill, Merit of workes, and of the haere&s;ies now in controver&s;ie held onely one, to wit, commu|nion in both kindes.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="7"> Dr. <HI>Barrow</HI> acknowlegeth the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> to be the Church of God, <HI>Hooker,</HI> a part of the hou&s;e of God, and limbe of the vi&s;ible Church of Chri&s;t; Dr. <HI>Somes,</HI> that all learned and reformed Churches, confe&s;&s;e that in Popery there is a Church, a Mini&s;try, and true Chri&s;t: <HI>Field</HI> and <HI>Morton,</HI> that we are to be accounted the Church of God, who&s;e words may be &s;eene in the <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> Apologie, <HI>Tract. 1. Sect. 6.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="8"> Whereas the <HI>Knight</HI> &s;aith, that men otherwayes morally good, relying wholly on the merits of Chri&s;t, that is, living <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> and dying <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> in the principall foundation of our faith, may finde mercy, becau&s;e they did it ignorantly: where hath the <HI>Knight</HI> learned this Theologie, that a man may be
<PB N="137" REF="329" MS="y"> &s;aved in one Religion, yet &s;o as he mu&s;t die in ano|ther. This is a new conceite never heard of before, that a man may be &s;aved in a Religion, but &s;o as not to die of it.</P>
<P>To conclude, &s;ince <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> Doctors make no <MILESTONE N="9"> doubt, but we may be &s;aved in our faith: and no Doctour of ours &s;aith &s;o of your faith, it is out of doubt the &s;afer way to embrace ours. The force of which argument, the <HI>Knight</HI> goeth not about to a|void, otherwi&s;e then by denying that to be the opini|on of learned <HI>Pote&s;tants,</HI> which being proved to be &s;o manife&s;tly, the argument &s;till hath his force, and the more, becau&s;e he cannot an&s;wer it.</P>
<DIV2 TYPE="response to chapter">
<HEAD>The Hammer.</HEAD>
<P>IN the former Chapters the <HI>Knight</HI> brandi&s;h|ed his &s;word: but in this he holdeth up his Buckler to beare off a blow, wherewith &s;ome Profe&s;&s;ors e&s;pecially of the Female Sex, are &s;aid to have beene wounded to death. For thus they <HI>whet their &s;word,</HI> and <HI>&s;hape</HI> it on the <HI>Prote&s;tant an|vile:</HI> Prote&s;tants <HI>confe&s;&s;e, at lea&s;t, many of them, that there may be &s;alvation in the</HI> Roman <HI>Church; but</HI> Papi&s;ts <HI>ab&s;olutely deny that there may be any &s;alvation in our Churches:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Fi&s;her relation of a <HI>3.</HI> confe|rence.</NOTE> <HI>therefore it is &s;afer to come to theirs, then to &s;tay in ours; to be where al|mo&s;t all grant &s;alvation, then where the greate&s;t part of the world deny it.</HI> Hereunto the <HI>Knight</HI> truely and &s;olidly an&s;wers.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, that our <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> Tenents are of that na|ture,
<PB N="138" REF="330"> that the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> them&s;elves cannot pretend with any probability, that there is any danger in them, but rather in the contrary; as he ma|keth it evident by eight remarkeable in&s;tances.</P>
<P>Secondly, that our Religion is not to be ac|counted the wor&s;e, but rather the better for our charitable opinion of our Adver&s;aries: for true piety is ever joyned with compa&s;&s;ionate charity.</P>
<P>Thirdly, that though we leave the per&s;ons of <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> to their and our judge,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. <HI>14.4.</HI> What have I to doe to judge another mans &s;ervant, &s;eeing he &s;tandeth or falleth to his owne ma&s;ter?</NOTE> not pronouncing damnation on them, as they doe on us: yet we proclaime confidently to all the world, that their doctrine is not &s;afe.</P>
<P>Fourthly, he di&s;tingui&s;heth al&s;o the per&s;ons of <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> &s;ome are invincibly ignorant, who are compelled to re&s;igne up their own eye-&s;ight, and to look through &s;uch Spectacles as their <HI>Prie&s;ts</HI> and <HI>Pa&s;tors</HI> have tempered for them; for the&s;e poore &s;oules if they make as good u&s;e as they can of the publike and private means afforded them for &s;a|ving knowledge, and hold fa&s;t the Articles of the Apo&s;tles Creed, without oppo&s;ition to any ground of Chri&s;tian Religion; and furthermore have a minde and purpo&s;e to obay God, and keepe his Commandements, according to that mea&s;ure of knowledge and grace which they have recei|ved, and live for outward things in the unity of the Church where they dwell, much may be &s;aid: other live under Princes and States, who as Gods true Watchmen and Shepherds, de&s;ire they &s;hould be better informed, and take care,
<PB N="139" REF="330"> that they may have meanes to be in&s;tructed in the true &s;aving knowledge of Chri&s;t; &s;uch <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> &s;hutting their eyes again&s;t Gods light, and per|&s;i&s;ting in their ignorance, and &s;aying in effect, <HI>Wee will not the knowledge of thy wayes, Iob</HI> 21.14. goe not &s;afely out of the world. How the <HI>Ie|&s;uit</HI> refuteth the&s;e an&s;wers, wee &s;hall &s;ee in the examination of his particular exceptions.</P>
<P>To the fir&s;t. That cannot be farre from the <MILESTONE N="1"> <HI>Knights</HI> purpo&s;e, which agreeth with the title of his whole Booke, <HI>Via tuta,</HI> The &s;afe Way: this &s;afe way hee proves to be the Prote&s;tants way by divers in&s;tances, in which the Papi&s;ts af|firmation is dangerous, but our Negation cannot but be &s;afe. For example, there is apparant dan|ger in maintaining the adoration of Images, and the creatures of Bread and Wine in the Sacra|ment: becau&s;e it is expre&s;&s;ely forbidden under many fearfull cur&s;es; to offer Sacrifice, burne In|cen&s;e, or exhibit any Divine Wor&s;hip to any &s;ave God onely, <HI>P&s;alm.</HI> 97.7. <HI>Confounded be all they that wor&s;hip graven Images, and boa&s;t them&s;elves of Idolls:</HI> but there can be no danger in not <HI>Wor&s;hipping the Creature in&s;teed of the Crea|tour, who is ble&s;&s;ed for ever, Rom.</HI> 1.25. They are in danger of a cur&s;e that forbid Marriage, and hold it in &s;ome per&s;ons to be unlawfull and un|cleane; which Saint <HI>Paul</HI> calleth, <HI>The Doctrine of Devils,</HI> 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.1, 3. But there can be no danger in not prohibiting Marriage in any, which is <HI>Honorable in all, and the bed undefiled,
<PB N="140" REF="331"> Heb.</HI> 13.4. They are in danger who equall Traditions with Scripture, becau&s;e it is written, <HI>Cur&s;ed be hee that addeth or taketh away from the words of the Law, or the Go&s;pell, Deut.</HI> 4.2. <HI>Apoc.</HI> 22.18. There is danger in confidence in our owne merits; becau&s;e, <HI>Cur&s;ed is hee that putteth his tru&s;t in man, or maketh fle&s;h his arme, Ier.</HI> 17.5. but there can be no danger in not relying upon our owne merits; for <HI>Ble&s;&s;ed are they that tru&s;t in Chri&s;t,</HI> and him onely, <HI>P&s;alm.</HI> 2.12. for that the Cardinall him&s;elfe confe&s;&s;eth to be <HI>Tuti&s;simum.</HI> There is danger in taking away the Cup from the Laity, for it is a violation of Chri&s;ts in&s;ti|tution; for Je&s;us &s;aid unto them, <HI>Iohn</HI> 6.53. <HI>Ex|cept yee eate the fle&s;h of the Son of man, and drinke his blood, yee have no life in you:</HI> but there can be no danger in not taking away the Cup from the Laity, but reaching it to them; for <HI>Who&s;oever eateth Chri&s;ts fle&s;h, and drinketh his blood, hath eternall life,</HI> ver&s;. 54. There is danger in keeping the Scriptures from the Laity; for <HI>The people peri&s;h for want of knowledge:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ho&s;.</HI> 4.6.</NOTE> and <HI>God powreth his wrath upon the people that know not his name:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P&s;al.</HI> 79.6.</NOTE> but there can be no danger in permitting them to <HI>Search the Scriptures, for in them they have eternall life, Ioh.</HI> 5.39. and, <HI>Ble&s;&s;ed are they who&s;e delight is in the Law of the Lord, and that exerci&s;e them|&s;elves in that Law both day and night, P&s;al.</HI> 1.2. There is danger in praying in an unknowne tongue; for they which doe &s;o, <HI>Wor&s;hip they know not what; draw neere to God with their lips,
<PB N="141" REF="331" MS="y"> but their hearts is farre from him:</HI> but there can be no danger in Service in a knowne tongue; for the Apo&s;tle &s;aith, <HI>I will pray with the &s;pirit, I will pray with under&s;tanding al&s;o: I will &s;ing with the &s;pirit, I will &s;ing with under&s;tanding al&s;o,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.15. It was a cur&s;e inflicted upon the builders of <HI>Babel,</HI> that they under&s;tood not what was &s;po|ken: and the gift of tongues hath beene ever e&s;teem'd a &s;ingular ble&s;&s;ing conferred upon the Church, whereby the people of all Nations and Countries under&s;tood the Apo&s;tles, and their Succe&s;&s;ors preaching to them, and praying for them.</P>
<P>To the &s;econd. I reply, that all his an&s;wers <MILESTONE N="2"> are refuted in my Animadver&s;ions upon the for|mer Chapters, onely &s;ome Cavils hee addeth, which I will an&s;wer in a word.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>Flood.</HEAD>
<P>I pre&s;ume, his Father had &s;ome Apprenti&s;e bound not to marry during his Apprenti&s;hip: I would then know of him, whether his Father in that ca&s;e did forbid marriage, and teach the Do|ctrine of Devils.</P>
<DIV4 TYPE="response">
<HEAD>An&s;wer.</HEAD>
<P>It had beene fitter for the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> to be <HI>bound Prenti&s;e</HI> than &s;et to &s;choole, hee is &s;o dull and &s;tu|pid that hee maketh it all one to forbid a Boy
<PB N="142" REF="332" MS="y"> under age to marry during the time of his Ap|prenti&s;hip, and that under a legall penalty, with|out any vow or oath: and to forbid the whole Clergie to marry at all, by tying them to &s;ingle life by a vow and &s;olemne oath, whether they have the gift of continencie, or not.</P>
</DIV4>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>Flood.</HEAD>
<P>Saint <HI>Paul</HI> &s;aith, the gift of Tongues is a &s;igne for Infidels; but Prophecie, that is, Exhortation or Interpretation, is for the Faithfull, or tho&s;e that believe already: wherein, I would know what any man can find again&s;t Prayer in the La|tine tongue.</P>
<DIV4 TYPE="response">
<HEAD>An&s;wer.</HEAD>
<P>I will ea&s;ily helpe the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> ignorance herein: Prayer in the Latine tongue, when it is not un|der&s;tood, is Prayer in a <HI>Strange tongue,</HI> which the Apo&s;tle here implyeth, <HI>No way tendeth to edi|fication.</HI> Nay farther, he proveth it to be a cur&s;e out of the Prophet <HI>E&s;ay,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">28.11.</NOTE> to a people to heare a <HI>Language which they under&s;tand not:</HI> and if that people were accur&s;ed, in that they heard a Lan|guage which they under&s;tood not; our people in this regard mu&s;t needs be ble&s;&s;ed, who heare in the Church the Word of God read, and Divine Service &s;aid in a Language which they under|&s;tand.</P>
</DIV4>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 TYPE="part">
<PB N="143" REF="332" MS="y">
<HEAD>Flood.</HEAD>
<P>The Catholike Church doth draw in &s;everall Nations to unity of Language, making all to &s;peake one and the &s;ame Tongue: whereas He|retikes in the &s;everall places, by u&s;e of other Lan|guages, under&s;tand not one the other, and there|in mo&s;t perfectly re&s;emble the <HI>Babel</HI>-builders, as well in their diver&s;itie of tongues, as in the di|ver&s;ities of Doctrines.</P>
<DIV4 TYPE="response">
<HEAD>An&s;wer.</HEAD>
<P>The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> here ignorantly <HI>babbleth about Babel,</HI> and the builders thereof, upon whom God &s;ent as a cur&s;e, not &s;imply the diver&s;itie of Languages which <HI>Acts</HI> 2. was given to the Apo&s;tles by mi|racle for a ble&s;&s;ing: but <HI>confu&s;ion of Languages,</HI> whereby it came to pa&s;&s;e, that though they all &s;pake one to another, yet none under&s;tood one the other. This cur&s;e cannot be denied to be fal|len upon the Lay-people in Poperie in the time of their benediction; and hereby the Romane Church, as by many things el&s;e, may be di&s;cer|ned to be <HI>Spiritually Babylon.</HI> Now whereas the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;aith, that they make all Nations to &s;peake one and the &s;ame tongue, his tongue runneth be|fore his wit: for though the Pope by injoyning Latine Service, make all Nations under the Ro|mane juri&s;diction, heare one and the &s;ame tongue
<PB N="144" REF="333"> in their Service: yet hee maketh them not to &s;peake it, nor &s;o much as under&s;tand it. Where|as all the Reformed Churches, as they agree in the unity of their Doctrine again&s;t Romi&s;h er|rours and &s;uper&s;titions; &s;o they al&s;o concurre in this, that they have all their Liturgies in their Mother tongue, that all the children of our Chur|ches may heare their heavenly Father &s;peake un|to them in his Word, and they to him in their Prayers in a language under&s;tood.</P>
</DIV4>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>Flood.</HEAD>
<P>But for that which hee &s;aith, that hee acknow|ledgeth univer&s;alitie of Nations and people, not to be a marke of his Church, I cannot but won|der at it; for what is this, but even in plaine termes to confe&s;&s;e his Church, not to be the Church of Chri&s;t? <HI>E&s;ay</HI> &s;aying, <HI>All nations &s;hall flow unto it:</HI> and the Prophet <HI>David</HI> de&s;cribing the kingdome of Chri&s;t, &s;aith, that <HI>Hee &s;hall beare &s;way from Sea to Sea:</HI> and <HI>Daniel</HI> de&s;cribeth the kingdome of Chri&s;t, <HI>Like a mountaine growing from a little &s;tone, and filling the whole Earth:</HI> Saint <HI>Iohn</HI> &s;eeth a <HI>Multitude which no man could reckon, of all Nations, and Tribes, and People.</HI></P>
<DIV4 TYPE="response">
<HEAD>An&s;wer.</HEAD>
<P>Wee doe not &s;ay that the Church of <HI>England</HI> is the Church of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> that is, the whole, or
<PB N="145" REF="333"> only Church of Chri&s;t, but a Church of Chri&s;t; or to &s;peake more properly, a member of the Catholike Church &s;cattered over the face of the the whole earth. The texts alleaged by the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> are meant of the Catholike or univer&s;all Church, not of a particular; for it implieth a kind of contradiction, that a part &s;hould be the whole, and all Nations compri&s;ed in one. Secondly, the <HI>Knight</HI> &s;peaketh not, <HI>Page</HI> 312. &s;imply of multi|tudes, nations, and tongues, when hee denieth that wee have any &s;uch in our Church: but of multitudes, and nations, and tongues that are at the Woman her command in the <HI>Apocalyp&s;e: The Citie which raigneth over the Kings of the Earth,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Apoc.</HI> 17.4, 5, 6, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></NOTE> <HI>which &s;itteth on &s;even mountaines, and is drunke with the blood of Saints and Martyrs: of whom it was foretold, that &s;hee &s;hould a&s;cend out of the bot|tomle&s;&s;e pit, and goe into perdition.</HI> The&s;e can be no markes of our Church, as all the world &s;eeth: and if they be, as indeed they are mo&s;t vi&s;ible and apparant markes of the Romane Church, let them lay claime to her, and keepe her to them|&s;elves, wee no way grudge or repine at it. But if the que&s;tion be, where it is &s;afer being with the Woman that fled into the wilderne&s;&s;e, or this Queene-regent of the world, wee give warning to all that have <HI>Care of their &s;alvation, to come out of</HI> Babylon, <HI>that they be not partaker of her plagues.</HI></P>
<P>To the third. It is not true, that all te&s;timonies <MILESTONE N="3"> proceeding from an enemie, are from evidence of
<PB N="146" REF="334" MS="y"> Truth; for a te&s;timonie may proceed from an enemie &s;ometimes from weakne&s;&s;e of judgement, as <HI>Tertullian</HI> long agoe hath ob&s;erved, conclu|ding, that it is no certaine and undoubted Argu|ment of &s;trength and valour to conquer an Ene|mie: for many times the victorie is gotten, not becau&s;e the conquerour was a man of might, and well handled his weapons; <HI>Sed quia qui vinceba|tur infirmis erat viribus:</HI> but <HI>becau&s;e hee had the good hap to enter into the li&s;ts with a weake Adver|&s;arie.</HI> Yet, let the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> Ob&s;ervation be gene|rall, the <HI>Knight</HI> will gaine by it; for the greate&s;t part of his booke con&s;i&s;teth of Te&s;timonies ta|ken from the mouth of learned Romani&s;ts: and therefore by this Rule laid downe by the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> all mu&s;t be pre&s;umed to proceed from evidence of Truth. For the te&s;timonies which hee here alleageth out of Prote&s;tants again&s;t us, though they have beene long agoe an&s;wered, in the <HI>Pro|&s;tants Apologie,</HI> written again&s;t <HI>Brerely</HI> his fal&s;ly &s;o called <HI>Catholike Apologie:</HI> yet in the due place I &s;hall &s;hew, that they make nothing for, but ra|ther again&s;t the Romi&s;h Church.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="4"> To the fourth. The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> cannot be ignorant, that the mi&s;named <HI>Catholike Apologie</HI> &s;et forth by <HI>Brerely,</HI> was refuted &s;even and twenty yeares agoe by a <HI>Catholike Appeale for Prote&s;tants;</HI> there all the&s;e &s;hafts which <HI>Brerely</HI> taketh out of the Prote&s;tant Quivers, are either broken, or their heads &s;o taken off, that they can doe no hurt to any that hath his Buckler of Faith on, or his eyes
<PB N="147" REF="334" MS="y"> in his head. To which Appeale I referre the di&s;|creete Reader; when the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;hall quote any of the&s;e Authors for any particular point, he &s;hall have a punctuall an&s;wer.</P>
<P>To the fift. <HI>Frith</HI> was a worthy and glorious <MILESTONE N="5"> Martyr, who&s;e faith may be knowne by his bookes yet extant: wherein he no way appro|veth of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, but condemneth it expre&s;&s;ely. Neither doth he &s;ay that a right be|liefe in the Sacrament touching the &s;ub&s;tance thereof is no matter of &s;alvation: but that it is no matter of &s;alvation to beleeve after what manner the &s;ub&s;tance of Chri&s;ts body is in the Sacra|ment, whether by Con&s;ub&s;tantiation, or Tran|&s;ub&s;tantiation which is mo&s;t true: for as Doctor <HI>Andrewes,</HI> late Bi&s;hop of <HI>Winton</HI> acutely ob&s;er|ved, Chri&s;t &s;aid <HI>hoc e&s;t Corpus meum, non hoc mo|do e&s;t,</HI> or <HI>fit Corpus meum, this is my Body, not the bread is after this manner my body.</HI></P>
<P>To the &s;ixt. If communion in both kindes be <MILESTONE N="6"> an haere&s;ie, Chri&s;t, his Apo&s;tles, and the Primi|tive Church which admini&s;tred and received the Communion in both kinds, as is confe&s;&s;ed in the Councell at <HI>Con&s;tance,</HI> cannot be free from hae|re&s;ie. And whereas the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> &s;aith, that this Martyr in all other points held with <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> the contrary appeares in his printed bookes, and by the prayer he made at his death, mentioned by <HI>Cocleus</HI> in the hi&s;tory of the <HI>Huzzites,</HI> wherein he prayeth to God, <HI>that his &s;oule after his death might be where the &s;oule of</HI> Wickliffe <HI>is.</HI></P>
<PB N="148" REF="335" MS="y">
<P> <MILESTONE N="7"> To the &s;eventh. To the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> his allegations out of <HI>Barrow, Hooker, Some, Bunnie,</HI> and <HI>Covell; Dr. Morton</HI> now Bi&s;hop of <HI>Dure&s;me</HI> an&s;wereth at large in his Catholike appeale, <HI>l.</HI> 4. from the fir&s;t Section to the &s;ixth, where he proveth, that the te&s;timonies them&s;elves, and the rea&s;ons an|nexed to them doe &s;hew, that the above cited <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> yeeld no more &s;ecurity to the <HI>Romi&s;h</HI> Church, then they doe to any other erroneous Church, wherein there is true bapti&s;me and the the profe&s;&s;ion of the chiefe principles of faith. <HI>Barrow</HI> acknowledgeth the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> to be a Church of God, that is a Church profe&s;&s;ing Chri&s;tianity, in which there may be a po&s;&s;ibili|ty of &s;alvation, not an Orthodox or right belie|ving Church, in which there is certainty of &s;al|vation. <HI>Hooker</HI> &s;aith, that <HI>the Church of</HI> Rome <HI>is a member of the vi&s;ible Catholike Church, a member, not the Catholike Church, and no &s;ound member nei|ther,</HI> according to that <HI>The&s;is</HI> of Doctor <HI>Rey|nolds, Romana eccle&s;ia nec e&s;t Catholica, nec &s;anum membrum Catholicae.</HI> D^r. <HI>Somes</HI> &s;aith, as likewi&s;e <HI>Iunius,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Iunius de Ec|cle&s;. l. &s;ing. Pa|patus e&s;t in Ec|cle&s;ia &s;eu in pa|patu e&s;t Eccle|&s;ia, Papatus ta|men non e&s;t Ec|cle&s;ia.</NOTE> that <HI>in Popery there is a Church, that is, under the Popes dominion Chri&s;t hath his Church, or that Popery is in the Church: yet that Popery is not the Church. Bunnie</HI> &s;aith, <HI>that we are not a &s;everall Church from the Papi&s;ts, that is, not e&s;&s;entially deffe|rent from it, no more then a &s;icke man differeth from a &s;ound. Covell</HI> &s;aith, <HI>the Church of</HI> Rome <HI>is a part of the Church of Chri&s;t, but a very unfound part.</HI> From all which pa&s;&s;ages, this onely may be con|cluded
<PB N="149" REF="335" MS="y"> of the Roman Church, as of other erro|neous a&s;&s;emblies, that though in regard of their manifold errors, they mu&s;t be e&s;teemed &s;icke and un&s;ound Churches; yet in regard of the be|ing and e&s;&s;ence of a Church, they mu&s;t be ac|knowledged vi&s;ible Churches of Chri&s;t. Nei|ther <HI>Field</HI> nor <HI>Morton</HI> &s;aith, that the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> is <HI>the Church of God, but a Church of God. Fields</HI> words are, <HI>Romana eccle&s;ia e&s;t ver&egrave; eccle&s;ia, non vera eccle&s;ia; is truely a Church, not a true Church: Morton</HI> proveth in one whole Section, <HI>that the Church of</HI> Rome <HI>is not properly the Catho|like Church, but a particular Church &s;ubject to er|ror. Sect.</HI> 6. <HI>Prote&s;t. appeal, l.</HI> 4. But in this point, in what &s;en&s;e the <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> call the Church of <HI>Rome a true Church,</HI> &s;ee a late Trea|ti&s;e &s;et forth by Doctor <HI>Hall,</HI> the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Ex|ton,</HI> called the <HI>Reconciler;</HI> wherein, both he and Bi&s;hop <HI>Davenet,</HI> and <HI>Morton,</HI> in their letters affixed thereunto, cleare the matter nothing at all I a&s;&s;ure you to your advantage.</P>
<P>To the eight. The Knight &s;aith not that a <MILESTONE N="8"> man may be &s;aved in one Religion, yet &s;o as he mu&s;t not die in it: but that a man living in one Religion, to wit, the Popi&s;h, may be &s;aved: &s;o that he renounce it before his death, and dye in a better: for not onely the bo&s;ome of the Church, but al&s;o the gates of Heaven are alwayes open to the penitent, as the Prophet <HI>Ezekiel</HI> teacheth:<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>C.</HI> 18. 23.</NOTE> neither is this any new conceit of the <HI>Knight,</HI> but the generall opinion of all <HI>Prote&s;tants,</HI> as the <HI>Ie|&s;uit</HI>
<PB N="150" REF="336" MS="y"> may read in the <HI>Catholike</HI> Appeale, <HI>l.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 1. The Reverend Bi&s;hop now mentioned, <HI>under|&s;tanding how that great and honourable per&s;onage in the la&s;t Act of her life, renounced all pre&s;umption of her owne inherent righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e, and wholly af|fianced her &s;oule to Chri&s;t in beliefe to be ju&s;tified onely by his &s;atisfactory ju&s;tice, did therefore con|ceive hope of her &s;alvation by vertue of that Cordiall pre&s;cribed by the Holy Apo&s;tle,</HI> viz. <HI>that where &s;inne aboundeth, the grace of God doth &s;uper abound, which the Apo&s;tle hath mini&s;tred for the comfort of every Chri&s;tian, who erring by ignorance, &s;hall in &s;incere repentance for all his knowne &s;innes, de|part this mortall life, having the heele or end of his life &s;hod with the preparation of the Go&s;pell of peace, not of the new</HI> Romi&s;h, <HI>but of the old Catholike faith, which is the faith of all Prote&s;tants.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>C.</HI> 15. <HI>p.</HI> 363.</NOTE> And againe, in his booke intituled, <HI>the Grand Imposture, If you demand why Prote&s;tants have &s;o charitable opinion of &s;ome Romani&s;ts, you are to under&s;tand, that it is in regard of that, without which the<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> cannot be &s;a|ved, that they died in the beliefe of this Prote&s;tant Article of Faith, which is to be ju&s;tified by remi&s;si|on of all their &s;innes, through the &s;atisfactory righte|ou&s;ne&s;&s;e of Chri&s;t, apprehended by faith, and not by the legall ju&s;tice or perfection of inherent righteou&s;|ne&s;&s;e in them&s;elves,</HI> as your Councell of <HI>Trent</HI> hath decreed: and this opinion we finde verified in the experience of many Papi&s;ts, who how&s;oe|ver in their life time they profe&s;&s;e and magnifie your doctrine of perfection of works: yet on their
<PB N="151" REF="336" MS="y"> death-bed as &s;oone as the lea&s;t glimp&s;e of the ma|je&s;ty of Chri&s;ts tribunall is revealed unto them, and the booke of their con&s;cience begins to be unclap&s;ed, and &s;o laid open before them that they cannot but reade their &s;innes, which in their life|time they held as veniall, to be deadly and written in Capitall litters: then they take Sanctuary in the wounds of Chri&s;t, from whence floweth the Ocean of all expiatory merit and &s;atisfaction, by which it is impo&s;&s;ible but that every faithfull pe|nitent &s;hould receive life.</P>
<P>To the ninth. To this argument I &s;ay, that it <MILESTONE N="9"> is paralyticall and weake in the &s;inewes. For how doth this follow? the <HI>Donati&s;ts</HI> held as the <HI>Pa|pi&s;ts</HI> doe, that all men were damned that were not of their &s;ect; S^t. <HI>Au&s;tine de unit eccle&s;. c.</HI> 12. and other Catholike Bi&s;hops thought that &s;ome of them might be in the &s;tate of grace, and that their Bapti&s;me was good, <HI>Ergo,</HI> it is a &s;afer way to embrace the <HI>Donati&s;ts</HI> haere&s;ie then the Ca|tholike Faith: or at lea&s;t &s;end their children to the <HI>Donati&s;ts</HI> to be baptized,<NOTE PLACE="marg">L. <HI>1.</HI> De bap|ti&s;. cont. Do|nat. c. <HI>3.</HI> E&s;&s;e vero apud Do|nati&s;tas bapti&s;|mum, &amp; illi a&s;|&s;erunt &amp; nos concedimus.</NOTE> becau&s;e <HI>both parties granted that there was true Bapti&s;me among the Do|nati&s;ts, whereas the Donati&s;ts denied that there was any true Bapti&s;me among the Catholikes;</HI> or this, the <HI>Indian</HI> Prie&s;ts teach, that it is unlawfull to take bread from the hand of a Chri&s;tian; the Chri&s;ti|ans teach that it is lawfull to take bread from an <HI>Indian:</HI> therefore it is &s;afer to take bread from an <HI>Indian</HI> then from a Chri&s;tian, or have fellow|&s;hip with an Infidell <HI>Indian</HI> then with a charita|ble
<PB N="152" REF="337" MS="y"> Chri&s;tian, becau&s;e a Chri&s;tian hath a better opinion of the Infidell, then the Infidell hath of him: as Prote&s;tants have a more charitable opi|nion of Papi&s;ts, then Papi&s;ts have of them. When the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> is &s;ober let him thinke how to give an an&s;wer to Bi&s;hop <HI>Morton</HI> his in&s;tance, whereby he &s;heweth the invalidity of this mad argument of <HI>Ie&s;uits, A mad man thinketh other men to be bea&s;ts, a &s;ober man confe&s;&s;eth that a mad man is a man and no bea&s;t: is a mad man therefore in the right or in the better ca&s;e then the &s;ober man, becau&s;e the &s;ober man judgeth better of the mad man, then the mad man doth of the &s;ober?</HI></P>
</DIV4>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="18" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>Concerning the confe&s;sion of all &s;ides for the &s;afety of the <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> Religion; Spectacles, Chapter 18. &agrave; page 509. u&s;&abque; ad finem.</HEAD>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> _THAT the ground of &s;afety which the <HI>Knight</HI> thinketh he taketh from <HI>Ca|tholikes,</HI> is fooli&s;h, impertinent, and without &s;en&s;e as he &s;etteth it downe; for thus he &s;aith, it is the &s;afer way to per&s;i&s;t in that Church, where both &s;ides agree that &s;alvation may be had, then where one
<PB N="153" REF="337" MS="y"> part &s;tandeth &s;ingle by them&s;elves in opinion: for I would know what Church is that wherein there be two &s;ides to agree or di&s;agree? or what Church that is, that doth not &s;tand &s;ingle in opinion by it &s;elfe, if it be a Church of a different faith (as we &s;peake here of a Church?) A Church mu&s;t have unity, it being a company of men, all profe&s;sing the &s;ame faith and Re|ligion, therefore it is plaine there is no &s;en&s;e in this principle of his.</P>
<P>I would aske him whether the Prote&s;tants doe not <MILESTONE N="2"> &s;tand &s;ingle as well as we, by affirming of what we deny, or denying what we affirme: or rather whe|ther he and his Church be not &s;o much more &s;ingle then we, as they have not one on their &s;ides for every million, which we have or have had on ours.</P>
<P>By the <HI>Knights</HI> argument, a man may prove any <MILESTONE N="3"> haere&s;ie that ever was, nay, Iudia&s;me and Turci&s;me to be a &s;afer way then the Catholike, or even the <HI>Knights</HI> Prote&s;tant faith: for <HI>Arius</HI> may &s;ay, he a|greeth with us Catholikes in all things, &s;ave onely in the Divinity of the &s;econd Per&s;on of Trinity, whom he acknowledgeth with us to be an Holy Man: and that we &s;tand &s;ingle by our &s;elves in the a&s;&s;ertion of his Divinity. <HI>Macedonius</HI> may &s;ay the &s;ame of the Holy-Gho&s;t: <HI>Ne&s;torius</HI> of the plurality of per|&s;ons in Chri&s;t: <HI>Eutyches</HI> of the &s;ingularity of Na|tures: <HI>Sergius Pyrrus,</HI> and the <HI>Monothelites</HI> of the unity of will in Chri&s;t: <HI>Ebion, Ceri<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">thus, Mar|cion,</HI> and almo&s;t all haeretikes in their &s;everall haere|&s;ies, may &s;ay as the <HI>Knigh<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"></HI> doth, of the points con|troverted, that we &s;tand &s;ingle by our &s;elves in them:
<PB N="154" REF="338" MS="y"> and &s;o it is the &s;afer way to beleeve onely that wher|in they and wee agree; nay, the Iewes may make the &s;ame argument thus, That they agree with us, that there is one God Creatour of heaven and earth, and that the old Te&s;tament is Canonicall Scripture; for the re&s;t wee &s;tand &s;ingle: and the Turke may &s;ay that hee agreeth with us, that Chri&s;t was an holy man, and a Prophet; for the re&s;t wee &s;tand &s;ingle: and therefore hee is in the &s;afer way.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="4"> What can the <HI>Knight</HI> &s;ay for defence of his Argu|ment? For though Iewes and Turkes doe not agree with us in the profe&s;sion of the Chri&s;tian Faith, yet I &s;ee not why that &s;hould be nece&s;&s;ary by the <HI>Knights</HI> Argument; and thereby a man may &s;ee what a good guide he is, and how &s;afe a way he goeth: and whether the &s;aying of <HI>Salomon</HI> be not truly verified of his <HI>Safe Way;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Prov.</HI> 14.12.</NOTE> <HI>There is a way which &s;eemeth to a man &s;traight, and the end of it leadeth to death,</HI> and con&s;equently to hell: for what other is the end of Here&s;ie, <HI>Judai&s;me,</HI> and <HI>Turci&s;me?</HI> whereto the <HI>Knights</HI> rule doth leade all &s;uch as will be ruled thereby.</P>
<DIV2 TYPE="response to chapter">
<HEAD>The Hammer.</HEAD>
<P><HI>SEmper ego auditor tantum nunquam ne reponam?</HI> Hitherto the <HI>Knight</HI> held up his Buckler, and &s;tood upon his owne defence: but here hee &s;et|teth upon his Adver&s;arie, clo&s;eth with him, wre&s;teth his owne Sword out of his hand, and therewith giveth him as many wounds as <HI>Iulius
<PB N="155" REF="338"> Cae&s;ar</HI> received in the Senate. For, be&s;ides the 12. Articles of Pope <HI>Pius</HI> the fourth his Creed., in all which, the Papi&s;ts &s;tand &s;ingle, hee in&s;tan|ceth in eleven points more, wherein the Papi&s;ts agree with us in our affirmative po&s;itions, but they alone maintaine their affirmative addition; wher|upon hee condemneth the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> as Chri&s;t doth the <HI>Evill Servant</HI> in the Go&s;pell, <HI>out of his owne mouth</HI> thus:
<Q><P>That Religion is le&s;&s;e &s;afe, in which the Profe&s;&s;ours &s;tands &s;ingle, than that in which the parties, other wayes di&s;&s;ident, a|gree.</P>
<P>But in all or mo&s;t of the affirmative points of Popi&s;h Religion, they &s;tand &s;ingle; but in all &s;uch po&s;itive points of the reformed Faith, not only Papi&s;ts, but in a manner all Chri&s;tians of the world concurre with us.</P>
<P>Therefore the Popi&s;h Religion, by the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> owne rule, is le&s;&s;e &s;afe.</P></Q></P>
<P>To illu&s;trate this by a few in&s;tances, the po&s;i|tive points of our Doctrine are chiefly the&s;e:
<LIST>
<ITEM N="1">1. That the three Creeds; the <HI>Apo&s;tles,</HI> the <HI>Nicene,</HI> and that of <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> are to be recei|ved upon paine of damnation.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="2">2. That religious wor&s;hip is due to God.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="3">3. That God is to be called upon.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="4">4. That Chri&s;t is h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ad of the Church.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="5">5. That hee is our Mediatour and Advocate.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="6"><PB N="156" REF="339">6. That hee was conceived without &s;inne.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="7">7. That wee are &s;aved by his merits and &s;ati&s;|faction.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="8">8. That the Scripture is a rule of Faith.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="9">9. That there are two and twenty Canonicall Bookes of the old Te&s;tament.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="10">10. That the originals in the Greek and Hebrew are authenticall.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="11">11. That there are two Sacraments of the new Te&s;tament, Bapti&s;me, and the Lords Sup|per.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="12">12. That Children of the Faithfull are to bee chri&s;tened.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="13">13. That in Bapti&s;me, water is nece&s;&s;arily to be u&s;ed.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="14">14. That Chri&s;t is truly pre&s;ent at his Supper; and that the worthy Receiver is by faith made &s;piritually partaker of the true and reall body and blood of Chri&s;t.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="15">15. That the Sacrament may be admini&s;tred in both kinds.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="16">16. That the Images of Chri&s;t and his Saints may &s;erve for Ornaments and Memorials, and that there is a lawfull hi&s;toricall u&s;e of them.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="17">17. That <HI>Peter</HI> had a Primacie of Order among the Apo&s;tles.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="18">18. That there are two places for &s;oules depar|ted, Heaven and Hell.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="19">19. That there are three holy Orders in the Church, Bi&s;hops, Prie&s;ts, and Deacons.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="20"><PB N="157" REF="339">20. That Confe&s;&s;ion to a Prie&s;t, in ca&s;e the Con|&s;cience be troubled with any grievous Sin, is profitable and behoovefull.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>To all the&s;e points, and many more like unto the&s;e, the Papi&s;ts a&s;&s;ent; but in all their additions they &s;tand &s;ingle, as namely: <LIST>
<ITEM N="1">1. <HI>That a fourth Creed made by</HI> Pius <HI>the fourth, is likewi&s;e to be received under paine of dam|nation.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="2">2. <HI>That religious wor&s;hip is due to Saints.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="3">3. <HI>That Saints and Angels are to be called upon.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="4">4. <HI>That the Pope is the vi&s;ible head of the Church.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="5">5. <HI>That Saints are our Mediatours and Advo|cates.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="6">6. <HI>That the Virgin</HI> Mary <HI>al&s;o was conceived with|out &s;inne.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="7">7. <HI>That wee are justified and &s;aved in part by our owne Merits, and &s;uperabundant &s;atisfactions of Saints.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="8">8. <HI>That Tradition is a rule of Faith as well as Scripture.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="9">9. <HI>That be&s;ides tho&s;e two and twenty, there are other Books of the old Te&s;tament, to wit,</HI> Tobit, Judith, Baruch, The Wi&s;dome of Salomon, Eccle&s;ia&s;ticus, <HI>and the</HI> Maccabees, <HI>to be ad|mitted into the number of Canonicall Scrip|tures.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="10">10. <HI>That the vulgar Latin tran&s;lation of the Scrip|ture is mo&s;t pure and authenticall.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="11">11. <HI>That be&s;ides Bapti&s;me and the Lords Supper,
<PB N="158" REF="340"> there are five other Sacraments; Confirmation, Order, Penance, Matrimonie, and Extreme Vnction.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="12">12. <HI>That Gallies and Bels may, and ought to be chri&s;tened.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="13">13. <HI>That be&s;ides Water; Creame, Salt, and Spittle are to be u&s;ed in Bapti&s;me.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="14">14. <HI>That Chri&s;t is pre&s;ent in the Sacrament by Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, and that his body and blood is not onely received &s;piritually by Faith, but al&s;o carnally by the mouth.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="15">15. <HI>That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may lawfully be admini&s;tred to the Laity in one kind onely.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="16">16. <HI>That be&s;ides an hi&s;toricall, there is a religious u&s;e of Images; and that they are to bee wor|&s;hipped.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="17">17. <HI>That</HI> Peter <HI>had not onely a Primacie of Order, but a power al&s;o, and juri&s;diction over the Apostles.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="18">18. <HI>That be&s;ides Heaven and Hell, there is a third place of abode for &s;oules, to wit, Purga|torie; and a fourth al&s;o, termed</HI> Limbus in|fantum.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="19">19. <HI>That be&s;ides tho&s;e three holy Orders of Bi&s;hops, Pri&s;ts, and Deacons, there are others, as namely, Exorci&s;ts, Acolyts, &amp;c.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="20">20. <HI>That confe&s;sion of every knowne Sin to a Prie&s;t, is nece&s;&s;arie.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>Now becau&s;e Negatives are not properly Ar|ticles
<PB N="159" REF="340"> of Faith, but Po&s;itives or Affirmatives; it appeareth evidently, that the Faith of the refor|med Churches is a&s;&s;ented to by Papi&s;ts them|&s;elves, and all Chri&s;tians in the world, and ther|fore is mo&s;t certain &amp; &s;afe by the confe&s;&s;ion on all &s;ides: wheras the Popi&s;h additions, wherein we &s;tand onely upon the Negative, and they are to make good the Affirmative, are a&s;&s;ented to by none but them&s;elves; and therefore by the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> rule, are weak, doubtful, and le&s;&s;e &s;afe. This is <HI>Vul|caneum telum et argumentum palmarium,</HI> the main and principall argument whereby the <HI>Knight</HI> de|mon&s;trateth the title of his Booke; and hee is &s;o confident of it, that if that be to be accounted the &s;afer way, wherein different parties agree both in one, as the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> laid it downe in the former chapter, hee will joyne i&s;&s;ue with all Papi&s;ts in the world in this very point: and if in this hee make not good the title of his Booke, that wee are therefore in the &s;afer way, becau&s;e they agree in the principall and Po&s;itive points of Religion with our Doctrine; hee will reconcile him&s;elfe to the Roman Church, and creepe upon all foure to his Holine&s;&s;e for a Pardon. At this the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> is &s;o <HI>mad,</HI> that he <HI>fometh at the mouth,</HI> and raveth, &s;aying,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 512.</NOTE> <HI>That to creepe upon all foure is a very fit gate for men &s;o devoid of rea&s;on, as to make &s;uch Di&s;cour&s;es, and to u&s;e &s;uch malicious in&s;inuations, as if men u&s;ed to creepe upon all foure to the Pope,</HI>
<Q><L>Parce &s;epulto</L>
<L>Parce pias &s;celerare manus:</L></Q>
<PB N="160" REF="341" MS="y"> be not &s;o inhumane and barbarous, in tearing the fame of the dead; there is no cau&s;e at all given of &s;uch rage and furie. The <HI>Knight</HI> doth herein no way bla&s;pheme, or fal&s;ly traduce <HI>Dominum deum Papam;</HI> for tho&s;e that ordinarily ki&s;&s;e the Popes toe, unle&s;&s;e his Holine&s;&s;e be the more courteous to hold up his foot the higher, mu&s;t needs be neere creeping on all foure. To &s;ay nothing of <HI>Dandalus</HI> King of <HI>Creete</HI> and <HI>Cyprus</HI> who was upon all foure, and that under the Table before the Popes Holine&s;&s;e, as <HI>Iewell</HI> in his Apo|logie, and the defence thereof undeniably pro|veth out of good Authors again&s;t M^r. <HI>Harding;</HI> yet the <HI>Knight</HI> in this place chargeth not the Pope with any &s;uch imperious demand of <HI>Lucife|rian</HI> pride: but onely profe&s;&s;eth what penance hee would willingly enjoyne him&s;elfe, if hee &s;hould abu&s;e the Reader, and not make good the Title of his booke by the argument above pro|pounded; again&s;t which, what the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> here particularly Articleth and objecteth, I will now con&s;ider.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> To the fir&s;t. The words which the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> would make &s;eem &s;o ridiculous, are related by the <HI>Knight,</HI> as their owne words not ours, as any may perceive by the Preface to them, <HI>therefore &s;ay they,</HI> and by this that they are written in a le&s;&s;er Character, and is it not &s;en&s;le&s;&s;e in the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> and mo&s;t ridiculous to laugh at him&s;elfe, and put his owne non&s;en&s;e upon the <HI>Knight,</HI> who taking the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> words as he found them, &s;corning to nible
<PB N="161" REF="341" MS="y"> at &s;yllables, interpreted the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> words at the be&s;t, and taking his meaning, joynes i&s;&s;ue with him upon the point in this manner. <Q>In a Church profe&s;&s;ing Chri&s;tianity, where the Scriptures of the old and new Te&s;tament are received, and the two Sacraments in&s;tituted, by Chri&s;t admi|ni&s;tred, &s;uppo&s;e we there to be two &s;orts of Profe&s;&s;ors, either publikely allowed as in <HI>France,</HI> or at lea&s;t tollerated, as in other King|domes, both the&s;e entituling them&s;elves to be members of the pure Orthodox Church, and neither of them having beene particularly con|demned in any generall Councell, received through the Chri&s;tian world; the probleme then is, whether of the&s;e two, that party is not in the &s;afer way, who holdeth no po&s;itive Arti|cle of faith, to which both parties (be&s;ides all other Chri&s;tians) give not their a&s;&s;ent unto: then the other who maintaineth twelve Arti|cles of faith at lea&s;t, wherein they them&s;elves &s;tand &s;ingle, and are for&s;aken by all Chri&s;tians, not onely of the reformed Churches, in <HI>Eng|land, France, Germany, Denmarke, Swethland, Norway, Poland, Tran&s;ylvania,</HI> but al&s;o in the <HI>Ea|&s;tern,</HI> and <HI>Greek</HI> Churches di&s;per&s;ed through the large Dominions of the <HI>Turke</HI> in <HI>Europe, A&s;ia,</HI> and <HI>Africa.</HI> But thus it &s;tandeth betweene us and Papi&s;ts, all the po&s;itive Articles which we hold nece&s;&s;ary to &s;alvation, they them&s;elves, and all other Chri&s;tian Churches in the world a&s;&s;ent unto: whereunto the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> hath ad|ded
<PB N="162" REF="342" MS="y"> many other po&s;itive Articles in joyning all under paine of damnation to beleeve them; in all which additions, &s;he &s;tandeth alone by her &s;elfe: therefore it is &s;afer to adhere to the do|ctrine and faith of the reformed Churches, then the Pope his new <HI>Trent</HI> Creed.</Q> The <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> ex|ceptions again&s;t this argument are very idle, and all his in&s;tances in <HI>Turkes, Iewes,</HI> and <HI>Haeretikes,</HI> nothing to the purpo&s;e: for the unbeleeving <HI>Iewes</HI> and <HI>Turkes</HI> never were, nor yet are mem|bers of the Catholike Chri&s;tian Church: the <HI>A|rians, Ne&s;torians, Eutychians,</HI> and <HI>Marcionites</HI> have beene long agoe excluded out of the true Church of Chri&s;t, and their Haere&s;ies are by name condemned in ancient generall Councells approved by the whole Chri&s;tian world. The&s;e therefore come not within the verge of the <HI>Knights</HI> propo&s;ition, which is re&s;trained to Chri|&s;tian Churches, and &s;uch who&s;e Tenets have not in particular as yet beene cryed downe, and cen|&s;ured as erroneous in any oecumenicall Councell: among &s;uch, doubtle&s;&s;e tho&s;e are in the &s;afer way, who hold nothing for an Article of faith nece&s;&s;a|ry to &s;alvation, which is not clearely deduced out of Holy Scripture, and a&s;&s;ented unto, even by the oppo&s;ite part, who&s;e te&s;timony, &s;aith the <HI>Ie&s;uit,</HI> Page 498. <HI>mu&s;t needs proceede from evidence of truth.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> To the &s;econd. The <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> hath received an|&s;wer already to the former of the&s;e demands, where I &s;hewed by twenty in&s;tances that we
<PB N="163" REF="342" MS="y"> &s;tand not &s;ingle as they doe, by affirming what they deny, and denying what they affirme: for the mo&s;t, if not all the affirmative Articles of our Creed, are firmed and &s;ub&s;cribed by Papi&s;ts them|&s;elves, whereas their additionalls to them are fir|med by none but them&s;elves: and therefore herein our cau&s;e hath a great advantage on theirs. For if their beliefe be true, our beliefe in all the affirmative Articles thereof mu&s;t needs be &s;o; but not on the contrary, becau&s;e they have many affirmative Articles which we give no credit un|to. To his &s;econd demand I an&s;wer, that though a multitude of Profe&s;&s;ors is no perpetuall and in|fallible marke of the true Church:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Luke <HI>12.32.</HI> Matth. <HI>7.13.</HI> Apoc. <HI>13.17.</HI> Apoc. <HI>20.2.</HI> Apoc <HI>17.4.</HI> The woman ar|rayed in purple and &s;carlet, called <HI>The Whore of Ba|bylon,</HI> had a cup of gold in her hand, &amp;c. Apoc. <HI>13.3.</HI> All the world wondered, and followed the Bea&s;t. <HI>&amp;</HI> ver. <HI>8.</HI> All that dwell upon the e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rth &s;hall wor&s;hip him&punc; who&s;e names <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">re not written in the Booke of Life.</NOTE> for <HI>Chri&s;ts flocke is but a little flocke</HI> in compari&s;on, <HI>and broade is the way that leadeth to death and de&s;truction;</HI> and though it is true that in the latter and wor&s;er ages of the Church, e&s;pecially after the yeare 666. <HI>which is the number of the name of the Bea&s;t,</HI> and much more after the <HI>thou&s;andth yeare wherein Satan was let loo&s;e,</HI> the Romi&s;h Church was much more vi&s;ible to the eye of the world then the Prote&s;tant, as it is prophecied in the <HI>Apocalyp&s;e</HI> the 16.6. that the fal&s;e and malignant Church &s;hould be farre more glorious and pompous then the true Spou&s;e of Chri&s;t: yet in the fir&s;t and be&s;t ages of the Church, our adver&s;aries have not &s;o much as one &s;ingle witne&s;&s;e, who can be pro|ved to have given te&s;timony to their <HI>Trent</HI> faith, and &s;ince the happy reformation began by <HI>Mar|tin Luther</HI> in King <HI>Henry</HI> the eights dayes, the
<PB N="164" REF="343" MS="y"> better part of <HI>Europe</HI> is fallen from the Pope; adde we to them all tho&s;e, who in <HI>A&s;ia</HI> and <HI>Africa</HI> profe&s;&s;e the Chri&s;tian faith, and yet acknowledge not the Pope, nor &s;ub&s;cribe to the <HI>Trent</HI> faith: and it will appeare we have neere a thou&s;and for one in the Catholike vi&s;ible Church &s;cattered far and wide over the face of the earth, as may be &s;eene in the Mapps &s;et forth in a booke printed the la&s;t yeare, and intituled <HI>Chri&s;tianographie, or the De|&s;cription of the multitude and &s;undry &s;orts of Chri|&s;tians in the World, not &s;ubject to the Pope, with their unity, and how they agree with the Prote&s;tants in the principall points of difference betweene them and the Church of</HI> Rome.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> To the third. If the argument bee &s;o weake, let the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> remember that it is his owne, and that he confe&s;&s;eth as much in the fir&s;t words of this Chapter, which are the&s;e, <HI>The &s;ub&s;tance of this Section is contained in the title, and it is nothing but to turne the Catholike argument, mentioned in the former Section the other way for the Prote&s;tant &s;ide.</HI> The argument then is a Catholike argument of their owne, and if it make for Haeretikes, <HI>Iewes,</HI> and <HI>Turkes,</HI> as he &s;aith it doth, the blame and &s;hame thereof mu&s;t light upon the <HI>Ie&s;uits,</HI> that fir&s;t framed it, and not upon the <HI>Knight</HI> who re|torteth it onely upon them: <Q>for thus it <HI>mooveth upon their Axletree,</HI> that wherein Profe&s;&s;ors of different religions both agree, is &s;afer to beleeve then that wherein they &s;tand &s;ingle, but <HI>Iewes</HI> and <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> agree in the beliefe of the old
<PB N="165" REF="343" MS="y"> Te&s;tament; <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> and <HI>Turkes</HI> agree in the truth of Chri&s;ts humane nature, in other points the Chri&s;tians are &s;ingle, therfore the beliefe of a <HI>Iew</HI> or a <HI>Turke</HI> is &s;afer then the beliefe of a Chri&s;tian.</Q> The conclu&s;ion is here fal&s;e and bla&s;phemous, the minor or a&s;&s;umption is evi|dently true, and confe&s;&s;ed on all &s;ides: the fault therfore mu&s;t needs be in the major or ground of this argument, but the major or ground is your owne, as will appeare by reducing the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> Ar|gument, propounded in the former Section, into forme: <Q>That Church wherein parties of a dif|ferent Religion, as Papi&s;ts and Prote&s;tants a|gree, is a &s;afer way than that wherein one party &s;tand &s;ingle. But Papi&s;ts and Prote&s;tants both agree, that &s;alvation may be had in the Romi&s;h Church; but the Prote&s;tants &s;tand &s;ingle, in that they &s;ay, &s;alvation may be had in the Pro|te&s;tant Church: therefore it is &s;afer living and dying in the Papi&s;ts Church than in the Prote|te&s;tant.</Q> In this Syllogi&s;me, the <HI>Knight</HI> and all Prote&s;tants, though they an&s;wer to the A&s;&s;ump|tion by di&s;tingui&s;hing, as is expre&s;&s;ed in the for|mer chapter: yet they &s;imply &amp; ab&s;olutely deny the Major, which is not univer&s;ally true, nor at all nece&s;&s;arie. Secondly, <HI>Dato &amp; non conce&s;&s;o:</HI> that the Major is true, the <HI>Knight</HI> nimbly turnes the <HI>mouth of the Papi&s;ts owne Canon, to batter their owne walls,</HI> thus: <HI>That po&s;ition, &s;ay you, in which both Papists and Prote&s;tants agree, is &s;afer than that wherein one partie &s;tandeth &s;ingle: but in the
<PB N="166" REF="344"> eleven Points mentioned by the</HI> Knight, <HI>Papi&s;ts and Prote&s;tants agree: in the twelve Articles coy|ned by Pope</HI> Pius <HI>the fourth, the Papists &s;tand &s;ingle; therefore the Protestant Faith is the &s;afer.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="4"> To the fourth. A &s;trange Argument, for the <HI>Ie&s;uit</HI> to conclude other mens &s;ight from his owne blindne&s;&s;e: becau&s;e hee &s;eeth not how the <HI>Knight</HI> can avoid the in&s;tances in Jewes, Here|tikes, and Turkes, whereby hee goeth about to di&s;able the <HI>Knight</HI> his retorted Argument; ther|fore will hee inferre, that any man may &s;ee that the <HI>Knight</HI> is no good guide. For pitty let &s;ome <HI>fit the Ie&s;uit with a paire of Spectacles, that he may bet|ter &s;ee the Knight his way,</HI> and his own <HI>wandrings.</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">How far the Romi&s;h Religio~ is di&s;tant from Here&s;ie, Iu|dai&s;me, and Turci&s;me, or rather trench|eth upon all three; See <HI>P: Croy</HI> his booke of Conformi|ties, and <HI>Sut|cliffe</HI> his <HI>Turco papi&s;mus.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Iews</HI> and <HI>Turks</HI> are out of the Chri&s;tian Church, hold not all Po&s;itive Articles nece&s;&s;ary to &s;alva|tion, and therefore they come not in the <HI>Knights</HI> way at all; nor hath hee to doe with them in this Argument, which proceedeth from profe&s;&s;ed Chri&s;tians, and not open enemies to the Faith. For the <HI>Knight</HI> from his heart dete&s;teth all pathes leading to any of tho&s;e dangerous pre|cipices; and chaulketh to all men <HI>Viam vere tu|tam, certam, rectam &amp; regiam;</HI> a faire and <HI>Safe Way, and the very Kings High-way to his Pallace,</HI> wherein wee have Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles for our <HI>Leaders;</HI> the holy Spirit for our <HI>Guide;</HI> the ble&s;&s;ed Angels for our <HI>Convoy;</HI> the ancient Fa|thers and Doctors of the Church for our fellow <HI>Travellers</HI> through the whole, and the be&s;t lear|ned
<PB N="167" REF="344"> of the Romane Popes, Cardinals, Bi&s;hops, and Schoolemen to beare us companie the grea|ter part of our way. Wherefore, I doubt not, but that the indifferent peru&s;er of the <HI>Knights</HI> Book, and the <HI>Ie&s;uits</HI> An&s;wer, and my Reply unto it; will breake out into the Apo&s;tles exclamation, and &s;ay to this Romi&s;h <HI>Sorcerer,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Acts</HI> 3.13.</NOTE> or rather if hee will &s;o, <HI>fal&s;e Spectacle-maker,</HI> Flood: <HI>O full of all &s;ubtiltie and mi&s;chiefe, thou child of the devill, wilt thou not cea&s;e to per|vert the right way of the</HI> LORD?</P>
</DIV2>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
<TRAILER><HI>Laus</HI> DEO <HI>&s;ine fine.</HI></TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="345">
<PB REF="345">
<P>A SERMON PREACHED AT THE FVNERALL OF THE RIGHT WORSHIPFVLL, Sir <HI>Humphrey Lynd,</HI> Knight.</P>
<P>A <HI>Cobham, June</HI> the 14^t^h. 1636.</P>
<P>By DANIEL FEATLEY, Doctor in Divinitie.</P>
<Q><BIBL><HI>NVMB: 23.10.</HI></BIBL>
<P>Let my last end be like unto his.</P></Q>
<P><HI>LONDON,</HI> Printed by <HI>M. Par&s;ons,</HI> for <HI>Robert Milbourne,</HI> at the &s;igne of the <HI>Vnicorne</HI> in <HI>Fleet-&s;treet,</HI> neere Fleet Bridge. 1638.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="sermon">
<PB REF="346">
<PB N="171" REF="346">
<HEAD>A SERMON PREACHED AT THE Funerall of the Right Wor&s;hipfull, SIR <HI>HVMPHREY LYND,</HI> K^t. At <HI>Cobham,</HI> June the 14^t^h. 1636.</HEAD>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q><BIBL><HI>NVMB: 23.10.</HI></BIBL>
<P>Let my last end be like unto his.</P></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
<P><HI>_THeocritus</HI> termeth the dart of love <GAP DESC="foreign">,<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Theocr. Idull. de cup. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>Dulce acerbum:</HI> and <HI>Seneca</HI> compareth the Remem|brance of a decea&s;ed Friend to a kind of Apple called <HI>Suave ama|rum, A &s;weet bitter,</HI> or <HI>bitter &s;weet.</HI> Such is the fruit I am to pre&s;ent you with at this pre&s;ent, partly bitter, and partly &s;weet; and that both in re&s;pect of the Doctrine, and the Application thereof: bitter in the Do|ctrine,
<PB N="172" REF="347"> as it giveth you a <HI>ta&s;t</HI> of death, <HI>Let mee die the death, &amp;c.</HI> but &s;weet, as it gives you a <HI>reli&s;h</HI> of the ble&s;&s;ed e&s;tate of the righteous both at, and after death, &s;o ble&s;&s;ed, that it is de&s;ired even by the wicked; <HI>Let my la&s;t end,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Balaam, be like unto his.</HI> Againe, bitter in the Application, as it rub|beth your memorie with the con&s;ideration of your irrecoverable lo&s;&s;e of &s;uch a Friend as here lieth before you: yet &s;weet, as it pre&s;enteth to you his invaluable gaine, and unconceiveable bli&s;&s;e.</P>
<Q>Let my la&s;t end be like his.</Q>
<P>I find &s;ome difference in the tran&s;lation of this Text: for the &s;eventy Interpreters th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s render it, <GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>Let my &s;eed be as this &s;eed:</HI> and indeed &s;ometimes the word u&s;ed in the originall is taken for Po&s;teritie, or children which come after, as in<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Not to his po|&s;teritie.</NOTE> <HI>Daniel,</HI> 11.14.<NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">None to rai&s;e her up.</NOTE> <HI>Amos,</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&punc; 2.<NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg">Let her po|&s;terity be cut off.</NOTE> <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 109.13. and according to this tran|&s;lation, <HI>Balaam</HI> prophe&s;ieth a ble&s;&s;ing, not onely to the righteous <HI>I&s;raelite,</HI> but to his <HI>&s;eed al&s;o:</HI> ac|cording unto his promi&s;e made unto<NOTE N="e" PLACE="marg">Gen. <HI>17.7.</HI> And I will e|&s;tabli&s;h my co|venant be|tween thee and mee, and thy &s;eed after thee in their genera|tion, for an everla&s;ting co|venant, to be a God unto thee, and thy &s;eed af|ter thee.</NOTE> <HI>Abraham,</HI> and <HI>his &s;eed after him.</HI> Saint <HI>Ierome</HI> readeth the Text thus, <HI>Moriar ego morte Iu&s;torum, &amp; &s;int no|vi&s;sima mea &s;imilia illius: Let mee die the death of the Righteous, and let my la&s;t things be like unto his.</HI> In the Calde paraphra&s;e <GAP DESC="foreign">, it is, <HI>Let my end be like his:</HI> which word is often u&s;ed for a<NOTE N="f" PLACE="marg">Hen. Ain&s;|worth in Num.</NOTE> reward which is after labour,<NOTE N="g" PLACE="marg">Surely there is an end, and their expecta|tion &s;hall not be cut off.</NOTE> <HI>Prov.</HI> 23.18.<NOTE N="h" PLACE="marg">Receiving the end of our faith, the &s;al|tion of our &s;oules.</NOTE> 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1.9. which al&s;o may be implyed here: and the word under&s;tood of the ble&s;&s;ed reward
<PB N="173" REF="347" MS="y"> which the righteous have after this life in hea|ven, <HI>Math.</HI> 5.12. <HI>Rejoyce, and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven.</HI> But <HI>Baalam</HI> be|ing a <HI>&s;pell-man</HI> of Satan, though for a moment, and in a trance transformed into a Mini&s;ter of the Go&s;pell,<NOTE N="i" PLACE="marg">2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.14, 15.</NOTE> <HI>His end was according to his workes,</HI> as the Apo&s;tle telleth us of all &s;uch; and no marvell, for <HI>Satan him&s;elfe is transformed into an Angell of light:</HI> therefore it is no great thing if his Mini|&s;ters al&s;o be transformed as the Mini&s;ters of righ|teou&s;ne&s;&s;e, <HI>Who&s;e end &s;hall be according to their workes..</HI> The originall hath <GAP DESC="foreign"> that is, word for word, <HI>Let the la&s;t of mee be like unto his:</HI> which &s;eemeth to be no other, than an explication of the former part of the ver&s;e, <HI>Let me die the death of the Righteous;</HI> for the <HI>la&s;t of man</HI> in this world is his death. I retaine therefore the la&s;t tran&s;la|tion as being mo&s;t agreeable to the originall, and pertinent to <HI>Baalam</HI> his &s;cope at that time, and <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> my intention at this pre&s;ent.</P>
<P>Now for the Coherence<NOTE PLACE="marg">The Cohe|rence.</NOTE> of this ver&s;e with the former, I need &s;peake little: becau&s;e &s;ome kind of incoherence in the pa&s;&s;ionate &s;peech of a man be&s;ides him&s;elfe, is no incongruitie. For as the herbe<NOTE N="k" PLACE="marg">Plin. nat. hi&s;t. lib. <HI>26.</HI> cap. <HI>14.</HI> Herba Anony|mus non in|veniendo nomen invenit.</NOTE> <HI>Anonymus, got that name by the lacke of a name:</HI> and as the &s;igne of an indefinite propo&s;i|tion, is the want of a &s;igne &s;et before it: and as the Rhetorick of an Epi&s;tle, according to the de|finition of <HI>Politian,</HI><NOTE N="l" PLACE="marg">Epi&s;t. lib <HI>1.</HI> Ornamentum e&s;t ornamentis carere.</NOTE> <HI>is &s;uch as weedeth out the figures and flowers of Rhetorick:</HI> &s;o, it is congruity and corre&s;pondencie in the &s;peech of a di&s;tracted
<PB N="174" REF="348" MS="y"> man, to be like him that uttereth it, that is, <HI>di&s;tra|cted.</HI> When the body is in good temper, the <HI>pul&s;e</HI> beateth <HI>evenly</HI> and <HI>regularly;</HI> but in a Fever, or any other di&s;temper, it beateth <HI>unevenly</HI> and <HI>&s;tar|tingly,</HI> holding no proportion at all: &s;o, when the mind is in <HI>frame,</HI> our &s;peech is <HI>compo&s;ed,</HI> and the parts of it have good connection; but it is otherwayes when the braine is di&s;tempered, or wee are through any violent perturbation, <HI>lift off the hookes;</HI> for pa&s;&s;ion exceeds rea&s;on, and exta&s;ie exceeds pa&s;&s;ion. In &s;uch a ca&s;e wee are not ma|&s;ters of our owne conceits, and much le&s;&s;e of our words; it is much if they carry good &s;en&s;e with them, it is too much to expect compo&s;ure and exact coherence in them: as wee may &s;ee in<NOTE N="m" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>Lycophron</HI> his <HI>Ca&s;&s;andra.</HI> Yet for <HI>Balaams</HI> words here, if by <HI>Righteous,</HI> wee under&s;tand the people of <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> not in regard of their inherent righte|ou&s;ne&s;&s;e, but in regard of Gods gracious calling them to the knowledge of his judgements, and by his holy ordinances and &s;tatutes &s;evering and di&s;tingui&s;hing them from the prophane and im|pure <HI>Gentiles:</HI> &s;omething may be &s;aid for the co|herence of this ver&s;e, which followeth after this manner: <Q>How &s;hall I cur&s;e whom God hath not cur&s;ed? and how &s;hould I defie whom the Lord hath not defied? for from the top of the rocks I &s;ee him, and from the hils I behold him; loe the people &s;hall dwell alone, and &s;hall not be reckoned among the na|tions. Who can count the du&s;t of <HI>Iacob,</HI> and
<PB N="175" REF="348" MS="y"> the number of the fourth part of <HI>I&s;rael?</HI> Let me die the death of this righteous people and let my la&s;t end, or my po&s;terity be like unto his.</Q> Howbeit it &s;eemeth to me more probable that <HI>Balaam</HI> being in a <HI>tran&s;e,</HI> had a glimp&s;e of the ble&s;&s;ed e&s;tate of the elect after this life, and be|ing ravi&s;hed therewith in &s;pirit, breaketh off his propheticall prediction, and falls into a pa&s;&s;ionate prayer for him&s;elfe, that he might goe away in this plea&s;ant trance, and enter pre&s;ently by the gate of death into the po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of ble&s;&s;ed im|mortality.</P>
<P><Q>Let me dye faith he the death of the righte|ous,<NOTE PLACE="marg">The Sen&s;e.</NOTE> which thou ha&s;t fore&s;hewed me by thy &s;pi|rit to be &s;o ble&s;&s;ed, and let my la&s;t end be like unto his, which I &s;ee hath no end of joy or hap|pine&s;&s;e. Lord now let thou thy <HI>Seer</HI> depart in peace, becau&s;e his eyes hath &s;eene the Salvation of thy people, and felicity of thy cho&s;en, and glory of the Saints, triumphing in Heaven. When I thinke hereupon, my foule danceth for joy, and faine would leape out of my body, were it not tyed fa&s;t with <HI>Nerves, Arteries,</HI> and other <HI>Ligaments</HI> of fle&s;h, which I may not break, and cannot of my &s;elfe untie: come Death ther|fore, and cut them all a&s;under, that my &s;oule may even now e&s;cape as a bird out of the net of my body and fly up immediatly into Hea|ven, and ne&s;t with the <HI>Cherubins</HI> by the mercy Seat. Others de&s;ire to live, but I to die, and becau&s;e I may not<NOTE N="n" PLACE="marg">Virg. Aeneid. <HI>6.</HI> projecere ani|mas.</NOTE> <HI>throw away</HI> my life, give me
<PB N="176" REF="349" MS="y"> leave to re&s;igne it into thy hands. Let me die the <HI>death,</HI> not the <HI>deathes,</HI> for the fir&s;t death may upon &s;ome tearmes be de&s;ired, but the &s;e|cond upon none at all. When I die let me die as the righteous doth, that is, mo&s;t comforta|bly and joyfully, and let my la&s;t end be like un|to his; that is, let it be peace, and in peace abun|dance; and in abundance, joy; and in joy, varie|ty; and in variety, &s;ecurity, and in &s;ecurity, eternity.</Q></P>
<P>A Divine rapture, a Saint-like wi&s;h, a Heaven|ly ejaculation: yet darted out of a foule Quiver, out of the heart and mouth of <HI>Baalam,</HI> which in this regard may not unfitly be compared to the <HI>Lyncurie,</HI> a pretious Stone, i&s;&s;uing out of the bo|dy of the <HI>Lynx</HI> an uncleane and &s;potted Bea&s;t: or the <HI>Bufonites,</HI> a Stone of great vertue, yet found in the head of a <HI>Toad.</HI> Certainely if ever whol|&s;ome Sugar was found in a poy&s;oned Cane; if ever out of a &s;inke there exhaled a &s;avour of life: if ever a bitter Fountaine &s;ent forth medicinall water: if ever the Divells Charmer &s;et or &s;ung a Divine &s;pell it is this in my Text.<NOTE PLACE="marg">The Divi|&s;ion.</NOTE></P>
<P>Wherein are pre&s;ented to your religious thoughts, 3 points of &s;peciall ob&s;ervation.</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM N="1"><NOTE PLACE="marg">The Parts.</NOTE>1. The de&s;ire of the Per&s;on,</ITEM>
<ITEM N="2">2. The object of the de&s;ire,</ITEM>
<ITEM N="3">3. The condition of the object.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<PB N="177" REF="349" MS="y">
<ITEM N="1">1. The de&s;ire of the Per&s;on, <HI>Strange,</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="2">2. The object of the de&s;ire, <HI>Dreadfull,</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="3">3. The condition of the object, <HI>Comfortable.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<ITEM N="1">1. The de&s;ire of the Per&s;on is, <HI>Let me dye</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="2">2. The object of the de&s;ire is, <HI>the death</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="3">3. The condition of the object, <HI>of the righ|teous, and let my la&s;t end be like unto his.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>From the de&s;ire of the per&s;on I inferre;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Doctrinall points.</NOTE></P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>That the mouthes and tongues of wicked men are not their owne to u&s;e them alwayes as they li&s;t.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>That gratious &s;peeches &s;ometimes fall from un|gratious lips.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>That a &s;uddaine good motion, or a pious eja|culation, is no &s;ufficient ground of hope for &s;alvation.</HI></P>
<P>How&s;oever the wicked are brought in by the <HI>P&s;almi&s;t</HI> vaunting in this manner;<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P&s;al.</HI> 12.4.</NOTE> <HI>with our tongues we will prevaile, our lips are our owne, who is Lord over us?</HI> yet they &s;hall one day <HI>gnaw their</HI><NOTE N="o" PLACE="marg">Apoc. <HI>16.10.</HI> And the Angell powred out his violl upon the &s;eat of the Bea&s;t, and they gnawed their tongues.</NOTE> <HI>tongues for it:</HI> for their lips and tongues are not their owne, but his who made them: who though he permit them ordinarily to u&s;e them at their plea&s;ure, yet when he will, he either &s;ilenceth them, or formeth &s;uch words by them, as the wicked of their owne accord would never have uttered. Was<NOTE N="p" PLACE="marg"><HI>1</HI> Sam. <HI>10.11.</HI> What is this that is come to the Sonne of Ki&s;h? is Saul al&s;o among the Prophets. <HI>&amp; 19.24.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Sauls</HI> tongue his owne, when after he had heard <HI>David</HI> play upon his <HI>In&s;trument,</HI> he &s;uddenly him&s;elfe became an <HI>In&s;trument of Gods glory,</HI> &s;ounding out his prai&s;es by the gift of Prophecy. Was <HI>Pilats</HI> wifes tongue her owne,
<PB N="178" REF="350" MS="y"> when relating her dreame to her husband, &s;hee charged him to<NOTE N="q" PLACE="marg"><HI>Matth.</HI> 19.27.</NOTE> <HI>have nothing to doe with that righ|teous one, by rea&s;on of whom &s;hee &s;uffered many things in her dreame.</HI> Was<NOTE N="r" PLACE="marg">Aug. confen. l. <HI>8.</HI> c. <HI>2.</HI> Victo|rinus qui tot an|nos ore terricre|po Deos genti|lium defen&s;i|ta&s;&s;et non eru|buit e&s;&s;e infans fontis tui &amp;c. <HI>4.</HI> Victorini lingua quo telo grandi. v. <HI>51.</HI> Et. acuto multos pereme|rat, &amp;c.</NOTE> <HI>Victorinus</HI> tongue his owne, when of a &s;harpe and dangerous weapon that had wounded the Catholike faith; it was &s;uddenly turned into an armed Sword drawne for the defence of the truth? Was<NOTE N="&s;" PLACE="marg">Iohn. <HI>11.50.51.52.</HI> Implet. puerum, &amp; citharaedum facit: implet armentarium, &amp; facit Pro|phetam: implet pi&s;catorem, &amp; Principem A|po&s;tolorum fa|cit: implet per&s;ecutorem, &amp; Doctorem Gentium facit: implet publica|num, &amp; Evan|geli&s;tam facit. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> In <HI>1.</HI> Reg. <HI>10.</HI> Deus <HI>corda &s;anctorum tangit</HI> quando iis &s;p. S. grati|am tribuit &amp; ejus tactum &s;entiunt, quia recepto internae virtutis munere a carnalitatis &s;uae delibitate Comm<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ve<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">|tur, <HI>qui protenus Coele&s;tis exercitus milites fiant,</HI> &amp;c.</NOTE> <HI>Caiphas</HI> tongue his owne, when he delivered that Prophe&s;ie? <HI>it is expedient that one man die for the people,</HI> which the Text &s;aith, <HI>he &s;pake not of him&s;elfe, but being High-Prie&s;t that yeare, he Prophe&s;ied that Ie&s;us &s;hould dye for that Nation, &amp; not for that Nation on|ly, but that he &s;hould gather together in one, the chil|dren of God that were &s;cattered abroad;</HI> God &s;aith S^t. <HI>Gregory</HI> by his <HI>&s;pirit toucheth the tongue of an Heardman and maketh him a Prophet; of a Fi&s;her|man, and maketh him an Apo&s;tle; of a child, and ma|keth him a Mu&s;itian; of a Publican, and maketh him an Evangeli&s;t; of a Per&s;ecutor, and maketh him the Doctor of the Gentiles;</HI> whereunro I may adde, he toucheth the tongue of an accur&s;ed <HI>Balaam,</HI> and maketh him a ble&s;&s;er, even after he had received the wages of iniquity, to dimini&s;h by his cur&s;e the &s;eede of the righteous, and &s;et his heart and tongue again&s;t the people of God, and tooke his journy with <HI>Balaac,</HI> and the Princes of <HI>Moab</HI> to the high places, from whence he might di&s;cover the Ho&s;t of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> as it pa&s;&s;ed, with a full purpo&s;e
<PB N="179" REF="350" MS="y"> from the top of tho&s;e high hills, to have cur&s;ed them downe to the deepe pit of Hell: at the very in&s;tant God turneth his tongue within his mouth, and as if he had <HI>mi&s;tooke his Q</HI> and fell upon a wrong part, he ble&s;&s;eth where he thought to have cur&s;ed, and cur&s;eth where he intended to have ble&s;&s;ed, &s;aying, <HI>how goodly are thy Tents O</HI> Jacob,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Numb.</HI> 24.5.6.7.8.</NOTE> <HI>and thy habitations O</HI> I&s;rael, <HI>as the valleyes are they &s;tretched forth, and as gardens by the River &s;ide; God brought him out of</HI> Egypt, <HI>his &s;trength &s;hall be as an Vnicorne, he &s;hall eate the Nations, his enemies, and brui&s;e their bones, he coucheth and lieth downe like a young Lion, who &s;hall &s;tirre him, and ble&s;&s;ed is he that ble&s;&s;eth thee, and cur&s;ed is he that cur&s;eth thee:</HI> whereas the promi&s;e of the ble&s;&s;ing to <HI>Abraham</HI> con&s;i&s;ted of two branches.</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM N="1">1. That God would give the land of <HI>Canaan</HI> to him and to his &s;eed.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="2">2. That he would make his &s;eede as the du&s;t ^v^v of the earth:<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Gen.</HI> 13.15, 16.</NOTE></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>under which, &s;pirituall graces in Chri&s;t were al&s;o comprehended: the Lord cau&s;eth <HI>Balaam</HI> here to ratifie them both for their dwelling alone in the land, and for their innumerable encrea&s;e, and whereas <HI>Balaac</HI> envied their multitude, and would therefore have them ^x cur&s;ed that they might be dimini&s;hed;<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Numb.</HI> 22.3, 5, 6.</NOTE> <HI>Balaam</HI> is here forced to ut|ter a ble&s;&s;ing for their further encrea&s;e. Thus God re&s;i&s;ted him in all his coun&s;ells and enterpri&s;es.</P>
<PB N="180" REF="351" MS="y">
<P>Some peradventure, would have thought this prophecie fitter to have come out of any mans mouth than <HI>Baalams.</HI> Could God make no bet|ter choice of a <HI>Ve&s;&s;ell to containe,</HI> or a <HI>Conduit to convey the water of Life,</HI> than the <HI>wind-pipe of Baalam?</HI> what is <HI>Saul among the Prophets? Paul</HI> among the Preachers of the Go&s;pell? <HI>Baalam</HI> turned a Ble&s;&s;er? how many quea&s;ie &s;tomackes are there that will loath the daintie&s;t meats, if they be &s;erved in a &s;lutti&s;h di&s;h? In which regard, the Senatours of <HI>Lacedemon</HI> hearing an excellent motion made by an infamous per&s;on, and percei|ving many aver&s;e from it, onely out of a di&s;ta&s;te of the per&s;on of the &s;peaker, powred out, as <HI>Plu|tarch</HI> ob&s;erveth, <HI>Sweet liquor into a &s;weet ve&s;&s;ell,</HI> commanding a per&s;on of qualitie and reputation among them, to owne the motion, and propound it as from him&s;elfe; and &s;o it pa&s;&s;ed with generall applau&s;e. God could have done &s;o; but here it plea&s;ed him to utter his goodne&s;&s;e by the mouth of <HI>Baalam,</HI> as before hee uttered wi&s;dome by the mouth of his A&s;&s;e: by<NOTE N="y" PLACE="marg"><HI>2</HI> Pet. <HI>2.16.</HI> The dumb A&s;se &s;peaking with mans voice, forbad the madne&s;&s;e of the Prophet.</NOTE> whom hee reproved the madne&s;&s;e of the Prophet, both to teach us, that his power dependeth not upon meanes, but all meanes upon his power; and that hee is able to <HI>draw</HI><NOTE N="z" PLACE="marg"><HI>2</HI> Cor. <HI>4.6.</HI> God comman|ded the light to &s;hine out of darkne&s;&s;e.</NOTE> <HI>light out of darkne&s;&s;e,</HI> and life out of the jawes of death, and &s;weetne&s;&s;e out of the gall of malice and bitterne&s;&s;e.</P>
<P>Therefore, when wee &s;ee not onely <HI>good</HI><NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg"><HI>Matth.</HI> 12.35.</NOTE> <HI>men out of the good trea&s;urie of their heart, bring forth good things:</HI> but al&s;o &s;ometimes (according to
<PB N="181" REF="351" MS="y"> my &s;econd Ob&s;ervation) evill men, out of the evill <HI>&s;hop</HI> of their mouth, utter good <HI>wares.</HI> When wee heare not onely <HI>Holy</HI><NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg"><HI>2</HI> Pet. <HI>1.21.</HI> Holy men of God &s;pake as they were mo|ved by the holy Gho&s;t.</NOTE> <HI>men,</HI> of whom Saint <HI>Peter</HI> &s;peaketh, but al&s;o &s;ometimes unholy men &s;peake as they are moved by the holy Gho&s;t: let us be advi&s;ed by <HI>Seneca,</HI> to con&s;ider <HI>non quis di|cat, &s;ed quid dicatur;</HI> not who it is that &s;peaketh, but what it is that is &s;poken: and imitate the wi&s;dome of <HI>Virgil,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ennius ingenio maximus ar|te rudis.</NOTE> who being demanded why hee turned over &s;o many leaves in <HI>Ennius,</HI> who&s;e language was impure, and skill in Poetrie very &s;mall: an&s;wered, <HI>E &s;tercore &s;e colligere aurum;</HI> that hee <HI>raked gold out of muck:</HI> and with <HI>Ae&s;ops</HI> cock, <HI>found a Pearle in a dunghill.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ae&s;op. fab. gal|lus gallinatius dum verit &s;ter|corarium offen|dit gemmam.</NOTE> Doe you the like; the Muck is <HI>Balaams</HI> dirty and filthy mouth; the Pearle, or gold you are to take up, is this gol|den &s;entence, in which the&s;e three divine verities gli&s;ter:
<LIST>
<ITEM N="1">1. That the righteous dye as well as the wicked.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="2">2. That their death is ble&s;&s;ed.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="3">3. That this ble&s;&s;edne&s;&s;e of their death is de&s;ired, even by the wor&s;t men that breath.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>The French have a Berry which they name <HI>Vve de &s;pine, The grape of a thorne:</HI> &s;uch is the fruit of this branch of my Text, <HI>Vva de &s;pina,</HI> a &s;weet and whol&s;ome <HI>grape,</HI> yet growing upon a <HI>thorne.</HI> You will aske (it is very like) how may this be?<NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg"><HI>Matth.</HI> 7.16.</NOTE> <HI>Doe men gather grapes of thornes, or figs of thi&s;tles,</HI>
<PB N="182" REF="352" MS="y"> &s;aith the true Vine, Chri&s;t Je&s;us? I di&s;tingui&s;h therefore of two &s;ort of grapes: <LIST>
<ITEM N="1">1. Of a holy profe&s;&s;ion.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="2">2. Of a religious conver&s;ation.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>The&s;e later cannot be gathered of thornes: the former may. There is a great deale of difference between the fruits of our <HI>lips,</HI> and the fruit of our <HI>lives; Si bene dixerimus ve&s;trum e&s;t, &s;i bene vixe|rimus no&s;trum e&s;t:</HI> the fruit of our lives is to our &s;elves e&s;pecially, but the fruit of our lips to you; you may be the better for them, though &s;ome|times &s;ome of us are not. For, the water that pa&s;|&s;eth through a leaden pipe into a garden, watereth the garden, yet leaveth little or no moy&s;ture in the pipe: the influence which is coveighed by the beames of the Sunne into the minerals, inricheth them; yet, not the beame, nor the ayre through which it is carried: the Font water that clean&s;eth the child, is it &s;elfe ca&s;t into the draught: the builders of <HI>Noahs</HI> Arke were overwhelmed in the deluge, and<NOTE N="e" PLACE="marg">Virg. En. <HI>3.</HI> Mortuus in nu|d&acirc; Palinure jacebis aren&acirc;.</NOTE> <HI>Palinurus Aeneas</HI> his Pilot &s;aved the Ship, yet was him&s;elfe drowned. Are there not many, who like Watermen, looke one way, and row another way? looke towards heaven, but row with all their &s;trength to hell? whom<NOTE N="f" PLACE="marg">Lact. diu in|&s;tit. l. <HI>3.</HI> c. <HI>15.</HI> Redundant in ip&s;os maledi|cta in publicum mi&s;&s;a quos non alitur intueri decet, quam medicos quoru~ tituli habent medicamenta pyxides ve|nena.</NOTE> <HI>Lactantius</HI> fitly compares to Apothecaries boxes which containe in them poy&s;ons, having the title of Antidotes or Remedies written on the out|&s;ide: &s;uch are they who will claime aquaintance with Chri&s;t at the la&s;t day, &s;aying,<NOTE N="g" PLACE="marg"><HI>Math.</HI> 7.22, 23.</NOTE> <HI>Have we not
<PB N="183" REF="352" MS="y"> prophecied in thy name, and in thy name ca&s;t out de|vils, and in thy name done many wonderfull works? to whom hee will profe&s;&s;e, I never knew you; depart from mee, ye that worke iniquitie. The &s;pirit,</HI><NOTE N="h" PLACE="marg"><HI>Ioh.</HI> 3.8.</NOTE> <HI>as it bloweth where it li&s;teth;</HI> &s;o al&s;o, how much it li&s;t|eth, le&s;&s;e in <HI>aur&acirc;</HI> than in <HI>vento;</HI> and le&s;&s;e in it, than in <HI>procell&acirc;</HI> or <HI>turbine:</HI> &s;ome are in&s;pired with the &s;pirit of Prophecie, yet not of Prayer: &s;ome with the &s;pirit of Prayer, yet not of com|punction: &s;ome with the &s;pirit of Illumination, yet not of Renovation or Sanctification: <HI>Baalam</HI> prophecied of the birth of Chri&s;t, yet was not him&s;elfe regenerated; and <HI>Caiphas</HI> of his death, yet was not thereby mortified.</P>
<P>Wherefore, let none pre&s;ume of &s;anctifying grace, becau&s;e they have the gift of prophecying or extemporarie &s;upplication; for the trumpet may &s;ound &s;hrill, yet the breath of him that bloweth it, be impure: gla&s;&s;e ringeth as well as &s;ilver, but it will not indure the hammer: if any have the gift of utterance, let him &s;trive for a great mea&s;ure of &s;anctifying grace to fill his heart, that out of the<NOTE N="i" PLACE="marg"><HI>Matth.</HI> 11.34</NOTE> <HI>abundance therof his mouth may &s;peake.</HI></P>
<P>Secondly, let us judge of men, rather by their actions than by their &s;peeches: <HI>By their fruits,</HI> &s;aith Chri&s;t,<NOTE N="k" PLACE="marg"><HI>Matth.</HI> 7.16.</NOTE> <HI>ye &s;hall know them;</HI> not alwaies by their leaves or blo&s;&s;omes: for corrupt trees may have faire leaves of a good profe&s;&s;ion on them, and goodly blo&s;&s;omes al&s;o, godly motions, ho|ne&s;t intentions, and holy de&s;ires. The light of
<PB N="184" REF="353" MS="y"> nature is not quite extinct in any; hee is no man who hath not a con&s;cience, which, if it be woun|ded deeply, will extort from him at &s;ome time or other, a condemnation of his evill wayes; and &s;tirre up in him at lea&s;t &s;ome faint and langui&s;hing de&s;ire of amendment of life. Saint <HI>Gregorie</HI> truly noteth, that <HI>As</HI><NOTE N="l" PLACE="marg">Moral. in Iob. Ille compungi|tur nec iu&s;titiae propinquat i&s;te temptatur &amp; tamen culpa eum non inqui|nat quod nec malos bona im|perfecta adju|vant, nec bonos mala incon&s;um|mata condem|nat.</NOTE> <HI>good men have &s;ometimes evill thoughts, &s;o evill men have good: yet, as the one hurt not the one, &s;o the other helpe not the other; for as evill motions, if they be not pro&s;ecuted, hinder not &s;alvation; &s;o good motions, if they be not pur&s;ued, further not &s;alvation.</HI> Wherupon, <HI>Lyranus</HI> &s;aith, that<NOTE N="m" PLACE="marg">In Numb. c. <HI>23.</HI> Mali licet nolint vivere vitam ju&s;to|rum appetunt tamen mortem eorum.</NOTE> <HI>The wicked&s;t of men, who have no will at all to live the life of the righteous; yet in a pang &s;ome|time heartily wi&s;h, and de&s;ire to dye the death of the Righteous.</HI></P>
<P>God knocketh at the hearts of all, either by a <HI>&s;ofter knock,</HI> the inward motions of his &s;pirit; or by a <HI>lowder knock,</HI> with the rod of afflictions: and hee calleth al&s;o unto them, either by the voice of Nature, or his written Word, and if they will give eare, and albeit they cannot open the doore, yet give a plucke at the bolt, or a lift at the latch: God will either give them, by in|crea&s;e of grace &s;trength to open it, or at lea&s;t by their good indeavour, they &s;hall make their con|dition more tolerable in the day of judgement. <HI>Pharoah</HI> that anvile of &s;teele, which indured &s;o many &s;trokes at the hand of God, and brake not in &s;under, yet &s;ometimes was mollified: <HI>Felix</HI> is frighted; the <HI>Iews</HI> &s;end forth a pious ejaculation:
<PB N="185" REF="353" MS="y"> <HI>Herod</HI><NOTE N="n" PLACE="marg"><HI>Marke</HI> 6.20.</NOTE> <HI>heareth</HI> John <HI>gladly, and doth many things; Pharaoh</HI><NOTE N="o" PLACE="marg">Exod. <HI>9.27.</HI> I have &s;inned: the Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked.</NOTE> his acknowledgment was a true confe&s;&s;ion; <HI>Felix</HI><NOTE N="p" PLACE="marg"><HI>Acts</HI> 24.25.</NOTE> <HI>his trembling</HI> when S^t. <HI>Paul rea&s;oned of righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e, temperance, and judge|ment to come,</HI> was a good &s;ymptome: the <HI>Iewes</HI> prayer,<NOTE N="q" PLACE="marg"><HI>Ioh.</HI> 6.34.</NOTE> <HI>Lord evermore give us this bread</HI> was a zealous fla&s;h, and pious pang. <HI>Herods</HI> attention and joy at S. <HI>Iohns</HI> preaching were hopeful beginnings: yet all the&s;e confe&s;&s;ions, affections, prayers, and hopefull a&s;&s;ayes, were but as<NOTE N="r" PLACE="marg"><HI>P&s;al.</HI> 129.6.</NOTE> <HI>gra&s;&s;e on the hou&s;e top, whereof the Mower filled not his lap, or the un|timely fruit of a woman which never &s;eeth the Sun:</HI> Good motions mu&s;t be followed, hone&s;t intenti|ons pur&s;ued, holy thoughts dwelt upon, pious vowes performed, zealous re&s;olutions continued. If God kindle in us a &s;parke of Divine fire, we mu&s;t blow it that it flame, el&s;e it will yeeld little warmth to a benummed con&s;cience, much le&s;&s;e hope ever to &s;ee the light of Heaven; &s;o preci|ous are the things which God hath laid up in &s;tore for his children, that the wicked them&s;elves when they are repre&s;ented in vi&s;ions to their eyes, or by the word preached to their eares, cannot but affect them, and thir&s;t after them, and pray for them; but the&s;e their de&s;ires and pray|ers be they never &s;o fervent for the time, conti|nue not, but like a &s;parke of fire in greene wood; unle&s;&s;e they be continually blowne by the &s;pirit of God, &s;oone dye: they re&s;emble the<NOTE N="&s;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Matth.</HI> 13.5.</NOTE> <HI>&s;eed ca&s;t in &s;tonie ground, which bare no fruit, becau&s;e it tooke no roote.</HI> The <HI>Iewes</HI> for a while rejoyced in S^t.
<PB N="186" REF="354" MS="y"> <HI>Iohn</HI><NOTE N="t" PLACE="marg"><HI>Ioh.</HI> 5.35.</NOTE> his <HI>light, who was a burning and a &s;hining lampe:</HI> and I per&s;wade my &s;elfe there cannot be found a man &s;o de&s;peratly wicked, who never conceived a good thought, or felt &s;ome good motion within him. What a happy thing were it for a &s;onne of <HI>Belial</HI> if he might be in Heaven with a wi&s;h; if it were enough to &s;ay, <HI>Lord be mer|cifull to me a &s;inner, Lord remember me when thou comme&s;t into thy Kingdome, let me die the death of the righteous.</HI> But let none deceive them&s;elves with any &s;uch conceit, or groundle&s;&s;e hope: but let them beleeve the words of truth him&s;elfe prote&s;ting again&s;t &s;uch, and &s;aying,<NOTE N="u" PLACE="marg"><HI>Matth.</HI> 7.21&punc;</NOTE> <HI>Not every one that &s;aith unto me, Lord, Lord &s;hall enter into the Kingdome of heaven, but he that doth the will of my Father which is in heaven.</HI> Not every one who in the mid&s;t of his mirth and jollity, checks him|&s;elfe, and darts out a &s;hort prayer: <HI>Let me die the death of the righteous,</HI> &s;hall arrive at the <HI>faire ha|ven,</HI> but he that <HI>&s;teareth</HI> his cour&s;e by the <HI>com|pa&s;&s;e</HI> of Gods law and <HI>card</HI> of <HI>Scripture:</HI> he that walketh uprightly before God and man, neither halting in his Religion, nor doubling in his dea|ling: he that maketh Gods glory his end, his grace his meanes, his word his guide, his Saints his companions, his Commandements his way, and holdeth on &s;treight in it to the end, neither declining to the right hand nor to the left. Doe you de&s;ire beloved, as <HI>Balaam</HI> doth here, to <HI>die the death of the righteous,</HI> I will tell yo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> in a word how to compa&s;&s;e your de&s;ires. Be you your
<PB N="187" REF="354" MS="y"> &s;elves righteous, and &s;o you &s;hall be &s;ure to die the death of the righteous; for the death of the righteous &s;hall be your death, if you be righteous; and his la&s;t end, the end of your cour&s;e, if you take his. Demand you yet farther, how can they that are laden with &s;inne and iniquitie become righteous? I an&s;wer briefly, by remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins, imputation of Chri&s;ts righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e, and the power of &s;anctifying grace. Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins is obtained by repentance, righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e by a live|ly Faith, and &s;anctifying grace by hearing dili|gently the Word, duly receiving the Sacraments, and daily practi&s;ing &s;uch religious duties as are pre&s;cribed in the Word.</P>
<P>The&s;e are good preparations in generall to a comfortable end, and a happy di&s;&s;olution; but in &s;peciall, I commend unto you at this time, the&s;e three following:
<LIST>
<ITEM N="1">1. To con&s;ider your later end, and comment often upon your owne death.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="2">2. To meditate upon Chri&s;ts death.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="3">3. To expre&s;&s;e them both to the life, by mortifying your fle&s;hly members upon earth.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>The meditation of death is of &s;ingular u&s;e, for it killeth &s;in in us, and either quite taketh away, or much dimini&s;heth the feare of death. As the &s;tro|king of a dead hand on the belly, cureth a tympa|nie; and as the a&s;hes of a viper, applied to the part that is &s;tung, draws the venome out of it: &s;o of the
<PB N="188" REF="355" MS="y"> a&s;hes of a &s;inner, wee may make a &s;overaigne Salve again&s;t Sin, after this manner: Do&s;t thou let loo&s;e the raines to thy impetuous lu&s;ts, and art given to licentious plea&s;ures? lay the a&s;hes of a voluptuous per&s;on to thy heart, and &s;ay, all our &s;infull delights and plea&s;ures, all our mirth and laughter, is but like <HI>the crackling of thornes under a pot,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Eccle&s;.</HI> 7.6.</NOTE> which will turne in the end into a&s;hes and mourning. Art thou a <HI>Narci&s;&s;us,</HI> or <HI>Nireus,</HI> in|amoured with thine owne beauty? take of the a&s;hes of a beautifull per&s;on, now rotten in the grave, and lay them to thy heart, and &s;ay, &s;uch as the&s;e &s;tinking a&s;hes and foule earth are, I &s;hall be. Art thou inclined to luxurie, or gluttonie? take of the a&s;hes of a glutton, and lay them to thy heart, and &s;ay, this is all that remaines of my de|licate Fare, to make a &s;mall quantitie of foule earth, or a&s;hes good for nothing, I have &s;pent &s;o much in pampering of my fle&s;h. La&s;tly, art thou high minded, and puffed up with pride? lay the du&s;t and a&s;hes of a proud man to thy heart, and &s;ay, this man that walked &s;o &s;tately, and looked &s;o high, here lyeth low enough, and is trod upon by every begger that walketh over his grave. Such thoughts as the&s;e, are excellent &s;awces to &s;ea&s;on the plea&s;ures of this life, that wee &s;urfeit not of them. In which regard, I &s;up|po&s;e it was, that the Aegyptians u&s;ually &s;erved in a Deaths-head, with a &s;hovell full of mold at their greate&s;t Fea&s;ts, with their fir&s;t cour&s;e: and <HI>Io&s;eph</HI> of <HI>Arimathea</HI> built his Sepulcher in his
<PB N="189" REF="355" MS="y"> garden: and le&s;t the Emperours of <HI>Rome,</HI> in the height of their honour, and pride of their glory, &s;hould forget the frailty of their condition, and vilene&s;&s;e of their nature, the ancient manner was at their Inauguration, to &s;hew to them divers &s;orts of Marble, and bid them chu&s;e of which they would have their tomb-&s;tone made. A like ceremonie is u&s;ed at this day, in the Inthroniza|tion of the Pope; before hee is &s;et in his chaire, and puts on his triple Crowne, a piece of toe, or wadd of &s;traw is &s;et on fire before him, and one appointed to &s;ay, <HI>Sic tran&s;it gloria mundi;</HI> the glo|rie of this world is but <HI>a blaze.</HI></P>
<P>Moreover, the thinking often upon death, ma|keth it more familiar, and le&s;&s;e terrible unto us, <HI>Previ&s;a</HI><NOTE N="x" PLACE="marg">Era&s;. A<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ag.</NOTE> <HI>jacula minus feriunt;</HI> the <HI>darts</HI> of death <HI>fore&s;eene wound le&s;&s;e,</HI> they pierce not the heart &s;o deepe; becau&s;e it is forearmed with premedia|ted comforts again&s;t them. A man that is &s;truc|ken on the &s;udden, though but lightly, &s;tarteth, and is much affrighted at the blow: whereas, a trained Souldier in the field, that looketh for death every houre, &s;car&s;e &s;tirreth for a Bullet, but marcheth on couragiou&s;ly, fearing no colors. Even children, though they are much &s;cared at the fir&s;t, with the &s;ight of a vizard; yet after they have looked &s;tedfa&s;tly on it, and handled it, fin|ding no hurt at all in it, they make them&s;elves &s;port with it: even &s;o the child of God, the fir&s;t time the devill repre&s;enteth to him the ga&s;tly vi|&s;age of death, is terrified with it, it is as a <HI>Bug|beare,</HI>
<PB N="190" REF="356" MS="y"> or an <HI>Hobgoblin,</HI> it &s;careth and affrighteth him; but when hee looketh &s;tedfa&s;tly on it, and feeleth for the &s;ting therof, &amp; findeth it is pluckt out, hee contemneth it, and in&s;ulteth over it, &s;aying,<NOTE N="y" PLACE="marg">1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 15.55.</NOTE> <HI>O death, where is thy &s;ting? O grave, where is thy victorie?</HI> <Q>Doe thy wor&s;t, thou can&s;t not hurt mee; &s;eparate thou mai&s;t my body from my &s;oule, but thou can&s;t not my &s;oule from Chri&s;t; &s;o the Jewell be &s;afe, what care I much what becommeth of the casket: yet that al&s;o &s;hall be re&s;tored, and more beautifully trimmed and adorned than ever it was, at the la&s;t day.</Q></P>
<P>Another meanes to gaine an ea&s;ie and &s;afe pa&s;&s;e over the trouble&s;ome &s;ea of this life, is to medi|tate frequently upon the death and pa&s;&s;ion of our Saviour, and thus to reflect upon our &s;elves: <Q>The Lord of life &s;uffered death upon the cro&s;&s;e, &amp; &s;hall I that am &s;old under &s;in, hope to e&s;cape? The Sonne of God paid this tribute to nature, &s;hall I that am a &s;ervant &s;tand upon it? The King of glorie entred into his Kingdome by this gate, &s;hall I de&s;ire to avoid it, or feare to follow him? My Redeemer, when hee was nailed hand and foot to the Cro&s;&s;e, incoun|tred Death, then armed with a deadly &s;ting, and hee di&s;armed it, left it as good as dead; and &s;hall I feare to deale with an enemie &s;o conquered and &s;poiled? My ma&s;ter ma&s;tered Death when it was alive, &s;hall I feare to grap|ple with it, being halfe, or rather altogether dead, for any hurt it can doe me? according to
<PB N="191" REF="356" MS="y"> the m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nacing Prophecies of <HI>Ho&s;ea, Ero mors tua &ocirc; mors; O</HI><NOTE N="z" PLACE="marg"><HI>Ho&s;.</HI> 13.14.</NOTE> <HI>death, I will be thy plagues.</HI></Q> The&s;e, and the like applications of the death of Chri&s;t, and the power thereof to our &s;elves, furni&s;h us with a &s;econd &s;trong weapon again&s;t the feare of death.</P>
<P>A third, Saint <HI>Paul</HI> frameth for us, and reacheth unto us, to wit, to<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg"><HI>1</HI> Cor. <HI>15.31.</HI> By our re|joycing, which I have in Chri&s;t Ie&s;us our Lord, I die daily.</NOTE> <HI>die daily;</HI> not in<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Seneca Epi&s;t lib. <HI>1.</HI> Quotidie morimur, quo|tidie enim de|mitur aliqua pars vitae.</NOTE> <HI>Seneca</HI> his meaning, <HI>Wee are daily dying, becau&s;e every day a part of our life is taken away:</HI> but according to Saint<NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">Hier. Epitaph. Nepot. c. <HI>60.</HI> Platonis e&s;t &s;ententia &s;api|entis vitam meditationem e&s;&s;e mortis; laudunt hoc Philo&s;ophi et in caelum, ferunt, &s;ed multo for|tius Apo&s;tolus, quotidie mo|rior, aliud enim e&s;t conari, aliud agere, aliud vivere morit<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">|rum aliud mori, victurum ille &s;emel moritu|rus e&s;t ex glo|ri&acirc;, i&s;te &s;emper moriturus e&s;t ad gloriam.</NOTE> <HI>Ieromes</HI> interpretation, <HI>It was one of divine</HI> Plato <HI>his E&s;&s;ayes, That the life of a wi&s;e man is a continuall meditation upon death: the Philo&s;ophers commend this in him for a &s;trong line, but the Apo|&s;tles is farre &s;tronger; I die daily: it is one thing to thinke upon, or indeavour; another to act: one thing to live, as being once to die; another thing to die, as being ever after to live.</HI> <Q>By our rejoycing, which I have in Chri&s;t Ie&s;us, I die daily; that is, I inure my &s;elfe to die; I feele the pangs of death; I am out of all hope and love of life, my &s;oule is al|way in my hand, I withdraw it what I can from my body, I mortifie my fle&s;hly members <HI>in &s;uch &s;ort, that in my faintne&s;&s;e, and great weake|ne&s;&s;e, nothing &s;upporteth mee from falling, but the cro&s;&s;e of Chri&s;t, whereby I am crucified to the world, and the world to mee.</HI></Q></P>
<P>He that de&s;ireth to live after hee is dead, mu&s;t die while hee is alive, and that three manner of wayes:
<LIST>
<PB N="192" REF="357" MS="y">
<ITEM N="1">1. To the World.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="2">2. To the Fle&s;h.</ITEM>
<ITEM>3. To Sinne.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P N="1">1. To the world by retiring out of it, or at lea&s;t, renouncing the pompes and vanities thereof.</P>
<P N="2">2. To the Fle&s;h, by &s;ubduing it, and killing the lu&s;ts thereof with the &s;word of the &s;pirit, by watching, fa&s;ting, and praying, and other exer|ci&s;es of mortification.</P>
<P N="3">3. To Sin, by &s;hutting up all the pa&s;&s;age of the &s;oule again&s;t it, by re&s;i&s;ting the fir&s;t motions to it, and nipping it in the Bud. This is the death which<NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg">Tertul. de poenit. Caro ante ho|minem &s;uam prae mortua.</NOTE> <HI>Tertullian</HI> extolleth; and<NOTE N="e" PLACE="marg">Climach. Sealpar. <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>Climachus</HI> maketh it a round in his &s;cale of Paradice, <HI>when the fle&s;h is killed, and the man alive?</HI> when morti|fied in mind as well as in body, wee have no &s;en&s;e or feeling, either of the vanities of the world, or delights of the fle&s;h: when <HI>wee live not, but Chri&s;t in us.</HI> Of this death, Saint<NOTE N="f" PLACE="marg">Leo, Serm. de <HI>7.</HI> frat. Praeti|o&s;a mors qua occiditur homo, non termi|natione &s;en|&s;uum &s;ed fine vitiorum. Et &s;erm. <HI>1.</HI> de re|&s;urrect. Inte|re&s;t cui quis aut moriatur, aut vivat, quia e&s;t mors quae cau&s;a e&s;t vi|vendi, &amp; e&s;t vita quae cau|&s;a e&s;t moriendi.</NOTE> <HI>Leo</HI> under&s;tan|deth the words of the <HI>P&s;almi&s;t; Precious in the eyes of the Lord, is the death of his Sants,</HI> P&s;al. 116.15. <HI>A precious death indeed, which bereaveth not a man of &s;en&s;e, but of lu&s;t; de&s;troyeth not Nature, but Sinne: driveth not a man out of the world, but cha&s;eth the world out of his mind and affections.</HI> And of this, Saint<NOTE N="g" PLACE="marg">Bern. Ser. <HI>52.</HI> in Cant. Mori|atur anima mea morteju&s;torum, ut nulla me il|laqueat fraus nulla oblectat, iniquitas bona mors quae vi|tam, non au|fert &s;ed tran&s;|fert in melius.</NOTE> <HI>Bernard,</HI> and <HI>Hugo de Sancto Victore,</HI> interpret the words of my text; <HI>Let mee die the death of the Righteous in &s;uch &s;ort, that I feele no incentive of lu&s;t, no pricke of anger, no heat of de&s;ire: let no fraud in&s;nare mee, no
<PB N="193" REF="357" MS="y"> iniquity delight me, it is a good and happy death which taketh not away life, but improveth it.</HI> There is a threefold death &s;aith<NOTE N="h" PLACE="marg">Hug. Card. in num.</NOTE> <HI>Hugo Cardi|nalis.</HI></P>
<LIST>
<ITEM N="1">1. Of Nature.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="2">2. Of Sinne.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="3">3. Of grace.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<ITEM N="1">1. In the fir&s;t, the fle&s;h dieth.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="2">2. In the &s;econd, the &s;oule.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="3">3. In the third, the whole man.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<ITEM N="1">1. The fir&s;t &s;eperateth the &s;oule from the fle&s;h.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="2">2. The &s;econd divideth the &s;pirit from grace.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="3">3. The third &s;eque&s;treth the whole man from the world.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<ITEM N="1">1. The fir&s;t death is of all,</ITEM>
<ITEM N="2">2. The &s;econd of evill men onely,</ITEM>
<ITEM N="3">3. The third of the Godly.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>Tho&s;e that are dead,
<LIST>
<ITEM>In the fir&s;t &s;en&s;e, are buried in the world.</ITEM>
<ITEM>In the &s;econd &s;en&s;e, are buried in Hell:</ITEM>
<ITEM>In the third &s;en&s;e, are buried in Heaven.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>Of the fir&s;t it is &s;aid, <HI>O death how bitter is thy re|membrance.</HI> In the &s;econd <HI>the widdow that lived in plea&s;ure is &s;aid to be dead being alive.</HI> According
<PB N="194" REF="358" MS="y"> to the third &s;en&s;e: Balaam <HI>wi&s;heth, let me die the death of the righteous,</HI> that is, <HI>a death proper to the Saints of God,</HI> who though they live in the fle&s;h, yet they walke after the &s;pirit; though their com|moration be on earth,<NOTE N="i" PLACE="marg"><HI>Phil.</HI> 3.20.</NOTE> yet their <HI>conver&s;ation is in Heaven,</HI> they have no more to doe with the world then if they had quite left it, nor with the fle&s;h, then if they had &s;haken it off, they looke not after the Pageants of the world, nor heare the noy&s;e of it, nor ta&s;t the delights of it, nor de|file them&s;elves with the corruptions of it: like men dead, they have no thought of ambition, no &s;en&s;e of plea&s;ure, no motion or inclination to the lu&s;ts of the fle&s;h, or the lu&s;ts of the eye or pride of life: their dying after this manner is their whole life, and by thus dying dayly they bring their minde to that temper, that the feare of death cannot worke upon them. If you pricke or cut a piece of dead fle&s;h, it &s;hrinketh not at it, it feeleth no paine: no more is a mortified man affected with the panges of death; What feareth he to depart out of the body, which he account|eth no better then the pri&s;on of his &s;oule? what careth he to leave the world at his death, who abandoneth it all his life? what pa&s;&s;eth he for the lo&s;&s;e of temporary delights and plea&s;ures, who never accounted them delights or true plea|&s;ures? but rather in regard of &s;inne adhering to them,<NOTE N="k" PLACE="marg">Bernard me|ditat. c. <HI>13.</HI> Accu&s;at me co~&s;cientia te&s;tis e&s;t memoria ra|tio judex, vo|luptas carcer, timor, tortor, oblectamentum tormentum, nam inde patimur unde delecta|mur.</NOTE> <HI>paines and tortures of the &s;oule, quot oblecta|menta tot tormenta,</HI> e&s;pecially con&s;idering, that he is to exchange them for &s;olid comforts, un&s;peak|able
<PB N="195" REF="358" MS="y"> joyes, unconceiveable delights and everla|&s;ting contentments.</P>
<P>This may &s;uffice to have beene &s;poken of the de&s;ire of the per&s;on, now followeth the object of his de&s;ire, with the limitation thereof, <HI>The death of the righteous,</HI> from whence the&s;e conclu&s;ions may be enforced.</P>
<P N="1">1. That the righteous die as well as the wicked.</P>
<P N="2">2. That this their death is ble&s;&s;ed.</P>
<P N="3">3. That the ble&s;&s;edne&s;&s;e thereof is de&s;ired e|ven by the wicked them&s;elves.</P>
<P>But before I may expatiat into the&s;e fields of meditation, I mu&s;t remove the <HI>let</HI> or ob&s;tacle in my text, <HI>let me die; Balaam</HI> &s;peaketh not in the Indicative mood, but in the Optative, and con&s;e|quently, his words imply, fir&s;t a de&s;ire of death, &s;econdly, a craving leave to re&s;igne up his life: hence two emergent que&s;tions are briefely to be di&s;cu&s;&s;ed.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, whether death may be de&s;ired.</P>
<P>Secondly, whether in any ca&s;e a man may &s;horten his owne end and make away him&s;elfe.</P>
<P>Concerning the fir&s;t, Nature, Rea&s;on and Grace &s;eeme to pleade &s;trongly again&s;t it, Nature hath imprinted this law, not onely in man but in all creatures els, <HI>&s;e concervare, to doe their utmo&s;t to pre&s;erve their being.</HI> Rea&s;on teacheth us that it is extreame folly to de&s;ire our greate&s;t lo&s;&s;e, which to the naturall man is the lo&s;&s;e of his temporall life; for when it goes away, all his po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ions,
<PB N="200" REF="359" MS="y"> wealth, and comforts in this world goe with it. Religion objecteth, that this time of our life, is <HI>tempus gratiae,</HI> the time of grace, in which we may make our peace with God: &s;o long as we breath we may call upon God and hope for mercy; but as S^t. <HI>Cyprian</HI><NOTE N="l" PLACE="marg">Ad Demet. po&s;tquam hinc exce&s;&s;um e&s;t nullus relinqui|tur penitentiae locus, nullus da|tur &s;atisfactio|nis effectus hic vita aut amit|titur aut tene|tur. Leo Serm. <HI>5.</HI> de Epiph. Non ita delin|quentes peccata delectent, ut illos in his actib&abus; finis vitae inveniat quia in inferno nulla e&s;t corre|ctio nec datur remedium &s;ati&s;|factionis, ubi non &s;upere&s;t actio voluntatis.</NOTE> &s;peaketh, <HI>after wee are gone from hence there remaines no place for repentance.</HI> An ocean of teares if we could &s;hed them will not procure unto us a drop of water to coole our tongue: and therefore it cannot &s;tand with &s;pi|rituall wi&s;dome to abridge the&s;e golden moments of time, upon the u&s;age whereof dependeth our eternall happine&s;&s;e, or mi&s;ery: on the contrary, it may truly be alleaged, that not onely <HI>Balaam</HI> here, but <HI>Eliiah</HI> al&s;o, and <HI>Ionah,</HI> and <HI>David,</HI> and Saint <HI>Paul</HI> have longed for death, <HI>Eliiah</HI> complai|ned,<NOTE N="m" PLACE="marg">1 <HI>King.</HI> 19.4.</NOTE> <HI>it is enough now O Lord, take away my &s;oule for I am no better then my Fathers.</HI><NOTE N="n" PLACE="marg"><HI>Ionah</HI> 4.8.</NOTE> <HI>Ionah</HI> in the bitterne&s;&s;e of his &s;oule wi&s;heth to die, &s;aying, <HI>It is better for me to die then to live. David</HI> &s;igheth,<NOTE N="o" PLACE="marg"><HI>P&s;al.</HI> 55.6.8.</NOTE> <HI>O that I had wings like a Dove, then would I flee away and be at re&s;t, I would ha&s;ten to e&s;cape from the win|dy storme and tempo&s;t,</HI><NOTE N="p" PLACE="marg"><HI>P&s;al.</HI> 42.1.2.</NOTE> <HI>And as the Hart panteth af|ter the water brooke, &s;o panteth my &s;oule after thee O God, my &s;oule thir&s;teth for God, for the living God, when &s;hall I come and appeare before God?</HI> S^t. <HI>Paul</HI><NOTE N="q" PLACE="marg"><HI>Phil.</HI> 1.23.</NOTE> <HI>is in a &s;traight betweene two, having a de&s;ire to be di&s;&s;olved and to be with Chri&s;t which is farre better.</HI> To a&s;&s;oyle this doubt, we mu&s;t di&s;tin|gui&s;h fir&s;t <HI>quomodo</HI> in what re&s;pect, or how; &s;e|condly, <HI>quare,</HI> for what cau&s;e or end; thirdly,
<PB N="201" REF="359" MS="y"> <HI>quatenus,</HI> how farre forth death may be de&s;ired.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, <HI>quomodo?</HI> death is no way to be de&s;ired as a puni&s;hment of &s;inne, but as a period of &s;inne: not as it is in his owne nature, but as it is changed by Chri&s;t: not as it is a po&s;terne gate to let out our temporall, but a &s;treete dore to let in eternall life.</P>
<P>Secondly, <HI>quare?</HI> for what end or cau&s;e death is to be de&s;ired, not to ea&s;e us of the burthen of any heavy cro&s;&s;e laid upon us: not to free us from our painefull or dangerous imployments; but either that we may be di&s;charged from &s;inne, and &s;evered from the company of the wicked: or that we may be more nearely united unto Chri&s;t, and more fully enjoy him then we can in this life.</P>
<P>Thirdly, <HI>quatenus?</HI> how farre forth. No man may ab&s;olutely de&s;ire death, but with &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to Gods will who is Lord of our life, to whom we ought to commit our &s;oules as our faithfull Creator.</P>
<P>Concerning the &s;econd que&s;tion, it hath beene much argued by Phylo&s;ophers, and not a little by Divines. The Stoicks generally taught that life was a thing indifferent, and that it made little matter <HI>whether death come to us, or we come to it.</HI><NOTE N="r" PLACE="marg">Sen. Ep. <HI>69.</HI> Neque intere&s;t multum, mors ad nos veniat vel ad illam no<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&punc;</NOTE> <HI>Do&s;t thou &s;ee,</HI> &s;aith Seneca, <HI>yonder &s;teepe place, from thence thou maye&s;t de&s;cend to liberty? do&s;t thou &s;ee yonder deepe well, in the bot|tome of it, thou &s;halt find libertie? Do&s;t thou &s;ee yonder tree with &s;nags and crooked boughes, upon it
<PB N="202" REF="360" MS="y"> hangs libertie</HI><NOTE N="&s;" PLACE="marg">Sen. de ira Vides illum praecipitem lo|cum ill&agrave;c ad li|bertatem de|&s;cenditur, vides illud flumen illum putem libertus illic in imo &s;edet vides arborem bre|vem, &amp; pen|det inde liber|tus.</NOTE>. <HI>It is</HI><NOTE N="t" PLACE="marg">Sen. Ep. <HI>12.</HI> Malu~ e&s;t in ne|ce&s;sitate vivere, &s;ed in nece&s;sita|te vivere nulla nece&s;sitas e&s;t.</NOTE> <HI>an evill thing to live in nece&s;sitie, but there is no nece&s;sitie to live in this nece&s;sitie: for the point of a &s;mall pen-knife openeth a way to immortalitie;</HI> according to this their do|ctrine, <HI>Zeno, Cleanthes</HI> &amp; <HI>Seneca</HI> killd them&s;elves. And not onely the Heathen <HI>Lucretia,</HI> but the Chri&s;tian <HI>Sophronia</HI> rather &s;pilt her owne blood, than &s;he would &s;uffer it to be defiled by a Tyrant: and <HI>Pelagia,</HI> rather then &s;hee would &s;uffer a Soul|dier to de&s;lowre her, leapt into the river and drowned her &s;elfe: <HI>Ra&s;is</HI> al&s;o in the booke of <HI>Maccabees, razed</HI> him&s;elfe out of the booke of Life, and is commended by the Author of tho&s;e bookes. Nay, in the Canonicall Scriptures wee reade, that <HI>Samp&s;on,</HI> who&s;e Faith is enobled in Saint <HI>Paul</HI> to the <HI>Hebrewes,</HI> pulled downe the hou&s;e where the <HI>Phili&s;tines</HI> were a&s;&s;embled to|gether, and died him&s;elfe among&s;t them. Not|with&s;tanding the&s;e and all other arguments and in&s;tances, which de&s;perate men have devi&s;ed to maintaine their de&s;perate po&s;ition,<NOTE N="u" PLACE="marg">L. <HI>1.</HI> de civit. Dei, cap. <HI>21.</HI> Exceptis iis quos lex justa generaliter, vel ip&s;e fons ju&s;ti|tiae deus &s;peci|aliter, occidi ju|bet qui&s;quis hominem vel quemlibet, vel &s;eip&s;um occide|rit homicidi crimine inne|ctitur.</NOTE> Saint <HI>Au|&s;tines</HI> conclu&s;ion &s;tandeth firme, <HI>Excepting tho&s;e whom a ju&s;t Law in generall, or God the fountaine of Iu&s;tice in &s;peciall commandeth to be &s;laine; who&s;oe|ver kils either him&s;elfe or any other, is guilty of Man-&s;laughter.</HI> For the Law, <HI>Thou &s;halt not kill,</HI> fir&s;t reflecteth upon a mans &s;elfe, and certainly <HI>felo de &s;e</HI> is the wor&s;t felon of all; and albeit, ma|ny in former ages, and &s;ome at this pre&s;ent day, partly for want of knowledge, or feare of God, partly out of pa&s;illanimitie, not able to beare the
<PB N="203" REF="360" MS="y"> heavie cro&s;&s;es laid on them, partly upon deepe di&s;contents, <HI>breake the lanterne of their body, and quench the light of their life:</HI> yet the &s;inne they commit therein, is of the <HI>deepe&s;t die,</HI> and mo&s;t dangerous of all other, next the &s;inne again&s;t the holy Gho&s;t, becau&s;e it killeth body and &s;oule at once, and depriveth the delinquent of all time of repentance for &s;o horrid a crime. One Male|factour was pardoned on the Cro&s;&s;e at his execu|tion, but wee never reade in holy Scripture, of any pardoned after death. <HI>Samp&s;on</HI> was a type of Chri&s;t, and what hee did, as Saint <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> ex|pre&s;&s;ely teacheth, hee did by Gods command, and was a&s;&s;i&s;ted in it by divine power, his &s;trength miraculou&s;ly returning unto him. And if <HI>Sophronia</HI> and <HI>Pelagia</HI> had not a &s;peciall warrant from God, to do what they did for the pre&s;ervation of their cha&s;titie, they ought to be &s;trucke out of the cata|logue of Saints, as they &s;truck the~&s;elves out of the catalogue of living. For <HI>Lucretia,</HI> S. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> catch|eth her within his<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Lib. <HI>1.</HI> de ci|vit. Dei, c. <HI>19.</HI> Innocentem ca|&s;tam vim per|pe&s;&s;am Lucre|tiam Lucretia interemit &s;i adulteram, cur laudatam, &s;i pu|dicam, cur occi|&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">m.</NOTE> <HI>Dilemma,</HI> faire <HI>Lucrece</HI> kils <HI>Lu|crece:</HI> if as an adultre&s;&s;e, why is &s;hee &s;o extol|led for cha&s;titie? if undefiled, why &s;hould &s;hee be &s;laine? the more innocent &s;hee was, the more horrid and dete&s;table was her putting to death, e&s;pecially by her owne hand. For <HI>Ra&s;is,</HI> though the<NOTE N="x" PLACE="marg">2 <HI>Mac.</HI> 14.42.46.</NOTE> Author of the <HI>Maccabees</HI> &s;aith not that hee did well in falling upon his owne &s;word, and af|ter ca&s;ting him&s;elfe downe from a wall, and plucking out his owne bowels, and ca&s;ting them upon the throng; yet becau&s;e hee enobleth him
<PB N="204" REF="361" MS="y"> for valour, &s;aying, <HI>Hee did manfully:</HI> the Booke is de&s;ervedly branded with the note of <HI>Apochry|phall.</HI> For as Saint <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> demon&s;trateth it,<NOTE N="y" PLACE="marg">Lib. <HI>1.</HI> de ci|vit. Dei, c. <HI>22.</HI> Pu&s;illanimis e&s;t &s;eip&s;um oc|cidere, non magnanimi, majorque ani|mus merito di|cendus e&s;t qui vitam erum no&s;um magis ferre potest quam fugere.</NOTE> <HI>It is no point of valour, but an argument of cowardi&s;e, for a man to kill him&s;elfe: hee is of greater courage, and more valorous, who can indure the extreame&s;t mi&s;eries of this life, than hee who cowardly flies from them, by making away him&s;elfe.</HI> To <HI>Seneca,</HI> I oppo&s;e <HI>Epictetus,</HI> a Philo&s;opher of his owne &s;ect, who in the fir&s;t of his Di&s;putes, the ninth Chapter, divinely concludeth the point, <HI>Admo|ni&s;hing all men to wait upon God, and not to quit our charge here upon earth,</HI><NOTE N="z" PLACE="marg">Epict. di&s;&s;ent. lib. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>9.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. Tu&s;culan que&s;t. l. <HI>1.</HI> Vetat do|minus ille nobis deus inju&s;&s;u nos hinc &s;uo demi|grare, cum vero cau&s;am ju&s;tam deus ip&s;e dede|rit, nae ille vir &s;apiens laetus ex his tenebris in illam lucem exce&s;&s;erit, nec tamen curteris vincula ruperit leges enim vetant, &s;ed tanquam &agrave; magi&s;tratu aut aliqua legitima pote&s;tate, &s;ic &agrave; Deo evocatus at emi&s;&s;us exierit.</NOTE> <HI>till hee give us &s;ome token of his plea&s;ure, or di&s;mi&s;&s;e us:</HI> with whom <HI>Tully</HI> concurreth, ob&s;erving, that <HI>God &s;etteth us all in this world as Souldiers in battell array, and wee are to keepe our &s;tanding under paine of death, till wee have order from our Captaine to remove our &s;tation, or are called off by him: a wi&s;e man will de&s;ire no|thing more, than to be freed out of the darke pri&s;on of his body, yet dare hee not breake the walls of the pri&s;on, for thats again&s;t the Law.</HI> As a &s;ubject may not goe out of the kingdome without his Sove|raignes leave, or pa&s;&s;port: &s;o neither may any man depart from this life without the pa&s;&s;e of Almightie God, the Lord of the whole earth. Wherefore <HI>Balaam</HI> here craves leave, as it were, to travell from earth to heaven, &s;aying, <HI>Let mee die:</HI> and <HI>Ionah</HI> and <HI>Elijah</HI> exhibit a like petition,
<PB N="205" REF="361" MS="y"> <HI>Take away my life:</HI> and <HI>Simeon,</HI> before hee de|parts, &s;ings his <HI>Nunc dimitis, Lord now lette&s;t thou thy &s;ervant depart in peace.</HI> All men have a <HI>Race</HI> &s;et before them which <HI>they mu&s;t fini&s;h,</HI> not balke any part of it, if they expect a <HI>Crowne of righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e.</HI> Mo&s;t di&s;con&s;olate therefore, and dreadfull is their ca&s;e,<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Virgil, En <HI>6.</HI> Lucem&abque; pero&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> projecere ani|mas.</NOTE> who <HI>throw away their &s;oules</HI> (which they &s;hould <HI>returne to him that gave them</HI>) &s;ome by da&s;hing their owne braines out, as <HI>He|rennius:</HI> &s;ome by cutting their vaines, as <HI>Seneca:</HI> &s;ome by choking them&s;elves with a napkin, as <HI>Lentulus:</HI> &s;ome by hanging them&s;elves, as <HI>Iudas:</HI> &s;ome by falling upon their owne &s;word, as <HI>Saul:</HI> &s;ome by &s;ucking poy&s;on out of a ring, as <HI>Hanni|ball:</HI> &s;ome out of their Pen, as <HI>Demo&s;thenes:</HI> &s;ome by &s;upping up burning coales, as <HI>Portia:</HI> &s;ome by leaping into the fire, as <HI>Sardanapalus:</HI> &s;ome from an high rocke into the &s;ea, as the <HI>In|dians:</HI> &s;ome &s;tabbing them&s;elves, as <HI>Dido:</HI> &s;ome &s;etting A&s;pes at their bre&s;ts, as <HI>Cleopatra:</HI> &s;ome dying in a bravery, as <HI>Calanus:</HI> &s;ome in a fury, as <HI>Iulian:</HI> &s;ome in envie, as <HI>Cato:</HI> &s;ome to avoid in|famie, as <HI>Lucretia:</HI> &s;ome to te&s;tifie their love, as <HI>Panthea:</HI> &s;ome to be rid of a tedious di&s;ea&s;e, as <HI>Atticus:</HI> &s;ome to attaine &s;peedily immortalitie, as <HI>Cleombrotus;</HI> who, pre&s;ently after he had read <HI>Plato</HI> his Treati&s;e of the Immortalitie of the &s;oule,<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Cic. Tu&s;c. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> leapt from a high wall to make triall of the truth of it. It is to be feared that the&s;e, and mo&s;t, if not all that follow their de&s;perate cour&s;es, goe down quicke into hell, and immediately pa&s;&s;e from the
<PB N="206" REF="362" MS="y"> fir&s;t death to the &s;econd: for how &s;hould they looke to be &s;aved by God, which thus ca&s;t away them&s;elves? what hope can they have of the be|nefit of a pardon, who by their very &s;in, bereave them&s;elves of all meanes of getting it? and if God of his infinite mercie &s;hould &s;end them one, they execute them&s;elves before they can make u&s;e of it, ea&s;ing the devill of the paines to fetch them away; for they <HI>fetch their fees</HI> them&s;elves, and <HI>leape</HI> into the pit of de&s;truction. I tremble at Chri&s;ts words uttred to <HI>Paula,</HI> by way of Pro&s;o|popaeia, in Saint <HI>Ierome;</HI><NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">Ad Paul &s;uper obit Ble&s;illae, ego nullam ani|mam recipio quae me nollente &s;eperatur &agrave; cor|pore tales &s;tulta Philo&s;ophia ha|beat Martyres habeat Zenone~, Cleombrotum vel Catonem, &amp;c.</NOTE> <HI>I give no harbour or enter|tainment to any runagate &s;oule, that maketh an e&s;cape out of the pri&s;on of the body, by breaking the walls thereof, or getteth out any other way without my warrant.</HI> I hope rather with Saint <HI>Au&s;tine,</HI> that there may be &s;ometimes, <HI>inter pontem &amp; fontem mi&s;ericordia;</HI> Mercie between the bridge and the river: and that, though the wind-pipe be &s;topped that no breath can pa&s;&s;e, yet that Gods &s;pirit may by grace, worke that &s;orrow in a moment, which through the infinite merits of Chri&s;t apprehen|ded by Faith, may free them from everla&s;ting &s;orrowes. Yet, to pre&s;ume upon &s;ome rare ex|amples in this kind, to run any &s;uch de&s;perate cour&s;e, were as great folly and madne&s;&s;e, as for a man to venture to leape off a high Tower; becau&s;e peradventure, &s;ome one hath at &s;ome time, caught hold of the battlements of the Church in his fall, and thereby e&s;caped death.</P>
<P>The <HI>Let</HI> being removed, now I may freely
<PB N="207" REF="362" MS="y"> expatiate in the fields of Meditations &s;et before mee:
<LIST>
<ITEM N="1">1. Concerning the nece&s;&s;itie of death in ge|nerall.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="3">3. The condition of the death of the righ|teous in &s;peciall.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>In all States, Common-wealths, and King|domes, be&s;ides the Law of Nature, and of Na|tions, to which all profe&s;&s;e them&s;elves &s;ubject, there are &s;ome peculiar Statutes, Ordinances, and Cu&s;tomes: by the ob&s;ervation whereof, wee di|&s;tingui&s;h their &s;everall governments. This may be exemplified in the three great and main e&s;tates of the world: the Kingdome of <LIST>
<ITEM N="1">1. Heaven.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="2">2. Earth.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="3">3. Hell.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>Who&s;e Lawes are as different as their places are di&s;tant.</P>
<P N="1">1. The Law of Heaven is: <HI>None that are admit|ted into it &s;hall ever die.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. The Law of Hell is: <HI>All that come there, die for ever.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. The Law of the Land, or Earth, is: <HI>All that live in it mu&s;t die once.</HI></P>
<P>In that they die, they are di&s;tingui&s;hed from the citizens of heaven, who never die; in that they die but once, they are di&s;tingui&s;hed from the in habitants of hell, that die alwaies. Of this &s;tatute
<PB N="208" REF="363" MS="y"> Law Saint<NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg"><HI>Heb.</HI> 9.27.</NOTE> <HI>Paul</HI> maketh mention in the Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Hebrewes, Statutum e&s;t omnibus hominibus &s;emel mori: It is appointed for all men once to die.</HI> This &s;tatute is like the laws of <HI>Medes</HI> and <HI>Per&s;ians, that never alter:</HI> this &s;tatute taketh hold of all that injoy the benefit of life, and &s;et foot on the earth; <HI>Qui vult excipere, conatur decipere.</HI> If all men are <HI>in danger of this Statute,</HI> then the righteous as well as the wicked.</P>
<Q><L>Non te tua plurima Pentheu</L>
<L>Labentem texit pietas.</L></Q>
<P>Righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e is termed by Saint <HI>Paul, A great</HI><NOTE N="e" PLACE="marg"><HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 6.14.</NOTE> <HI>Shield, or Target;</HI> yet it is not deaths <HI>proofe.</HI> If <HI>righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e</HI> could have &s;aved from death, <HI>Iob</HI> had not died: if Faithfulne&s;&s;e, <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> had yet lived: if Valour, <HI>Io&s;huah</HI> had overcome death: if Wi&s;dome, <HI>Salomon</HI> had prevented death: if Ri|ches, <HI>Cra&s;&s;us</HI> and <HI>Crae&s;es</HI> had bought out death: if all naturall and &s;upernaturall graces had with|&s;tood the a&s;&s;ault of death, our ble&s;&s;ed Lord and Saviour had never beene deaths pri&s;oner three dayes and three nights. Me thinkes I heare you object,<NOTE N="f" PLACE="marg"><HI>Rom.</HI> 6.23.</NOTE> <HI>Death is the wages of Sinne;</HI> therefore it is no wayes due to the righteous. The an&s;wer is ready: The mo&s;t<NOTE N="g" PLACE="marg">Leo, &s;erm. <HI>2.</HI> de Epiph. Haec e&s;t perfectorum vera justitia ut nunquam prae|&s;umant &s;e e&s;&s;e perfectos.</NOTE> righteous man upon earth, be|&s;ides his originall corruption, hath many actuall &s;innes, for which death is owing to him. Yea, but Chri&s;t hath wiped out all the &s;cores of the&s;e &s;innes of his elect: why then doth this debt of nature remaine to be paid? I an&s;wer, that as Chri&s;t tooke away the guilt of &s;inne, not &s;inne it
<PB N="209" REF="363" MS="y"> &s;elfe: &s;o hee tooke away the <HI>&s;ting of death,</HI> not death it &s;elfe: the death of the body &s;till re|maines, but the &s;ting therof, which alone maketh it penall, is taken away, <HI>Tollitur mors non ne &s;it, &s;ed ne ob&s;it:</HI> Chri&s;t upon the Cro&s;&s;e, triumphed over death and hell, and put <HI>death it &s;elfe to death;</HI> that is, quite de&s;troyed the nature thereof: of a cur&s;e, making it a ble&s;&s;ing: of a lo&s;&s;e, an advantage: of a puni&s;hment, a benefit: of a departure, an en|trance: of the gate of hell, the portall of heaven. O ble&s;&s;ed change of the nature of death! the &s;ting of &s;in is made a &s;overaigne remedie again&s;t all &s;inne: the po&s;terne to let out, is made the &s;treet doore to let in life: the wages of iniquitie purcha&s;eth to the Martyrs, through Faith in Chri&s;t, a Crowne of righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e.<NOTE N="h" PLACE="marg">Aug de civit. Dei, l. <HI>13.</HI> c. <HI>4.</HI> Ni&s;i pecca&s;&s;ent primi parentes non morerentur peccabunt justi ni&s;i moriantur. Tunc dictum fuit, &s;i manda|tum tran&s;gre&s;si fueritis, morte moriemini; nunc dicitur, &s;i mortem recu&s;e|varitis munda|tum tran&s;gredi|mini: mortui &s;unt illi quia peccarunt; non peccanti&s;ti quia moriuntur. Ib. Nunc ma|jore et mirabili gratia &s;alva|toris in u&s;us ju&s;titiae peccati paena conver&s;a e&s;t.</NOTE> <HI>Our first Parents died becau&s;e they &s;inned, wee die that wee may not &s;inne: it was then &s;aid, If thou tran&s;gre&s;&s;e the Commandement, thou &s;halt die: but now contra|riwi&s;e, if thou refu&s;e to die, thou tran&s;gre&s;&s;est the Commandement: Sinne delivered them over unto death, death delivereth us from all &s;inne.</HI> Our Pa|rents were ca&s;t out of Paradi&s;e that they might die, wee die, that wee may be received into Pa|radi&s;e through Chri&s;t, who hath<NOTE N="i" PLACE="marg">Hieron. Ep. <HI>3.</HI> Flammea illa romphea cu&s;tos paradi&s;i et pre|&s;identes foribus Cherubini Chri&s;ti re&s;tin|cta &amp; re&s;orata &s;unt &s;anguine.</NOTE> <HI>removed the Cherubin that kept the way of the tree of life, quen|ching the fiery blade with his blood.</HI> Thus death, which before was a cur&s;e, by Chri&s;t who was <HI>accur&s;ed for us,</HI> is become a ble&s;&s;ing; and the dead are pronounced by the &s;pirit,<NOTE N="k" PLACE="marg"><HI>Apoc.</HI> 14.13.</NOTE> <HI>Ble&s;&s;ed.</HI></P>
<P>When wee &s;ay that the death of the righteous
<PB N="210" REF="364" MS="y"> is ble&s;&s;ed; our meaning is not, that death in it &s;elfe is a ble&s;&s;ing, for thence it would follow, that life in it &s;elfe &s;hould be a cur&s;e: but we pronounce the death of the righteous ble&s;&s;ed in re&s;pect of the circum&s;tances, adjuncts, and con&s;equents thereof; ble&s;&s;ed it is,
<LIST>
<ITEM N="1">1. In regard of the comforts that are mini|&s;tred to them in it.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="2">2. In regard of the benefits they reape by it.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="3">3. In regard of the e&s;tate they enjoy after it.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>The comforts which the &s;pirit of Chri&s;t ap|plieth to the godly to &s;upport them in their grea|te&s;t weakene&s;&s;e of body, are principally and chiefly the&s;e.
<LIST>
<ITEM N="1">1. A good con&s;cience which<NOTE N="l" PLACE="marg"><HI>Prov.</HI> 15.15.</NOTE> <HI>fea&s;teth</HI> the &s;oule when the body is not able to take any &s;u&s;tenance.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="2">2. The remembrance of all the good that by the power of Gods grace they have done in all their life, which encourageth the~ cheer|fully to take their leave of the world, as being to goe to receive a<NOTE N="m" PLACE="marg"><HI>Matth.</HI> 5.12</NOTE> <HI>great reward in Heaven.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM N="3">3. Many &s;peciall tokens of Gods favour which he vouch&s;afeth to &s;hew them a little before death; on &s;ome he be&s;toweth the &s;pirit of prophecy, on others a &s;ingular gift of prayer, on others an extraordinary mea|&s;ure of patience: on all an encrea&s;e of the former graces of the &s;pirit, who&s;e motions <HI>are quicke&s;t</HI> when their naturall <HI>motions are
<PB N="211" REF="364" MS="y"> &s;lowe&s;t,</HI> or quite &s;topped, mo&s;t &s;en&s;ible when the body begins to be &s;en&s;le&s;&s;e: mo&s;t lively, when they are in dying.</ITEM>
<ITEM N="4">4. A glimp&s;e of the glory of God and a neerer &s;ight of<NOTE N="n" PLACE="marg"><HI>Apoc.</HI> 21.10, 11.</NOTE> <HI>the heavenly Ieru&s;alem de|&s;cending from God, who&s;e &s;treets are beaten gold, and foundations of the buildings, precious &s;tones.</HI> As <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> a little before his death, di&s;|covered the land of Promi&s;e upon the top of Mount <HI>Nebo:</HI> &s;o before the &s;oules departure out of the body, &s;he di&s;covereth the land of Promi&s;e as it were hard by. The more the earth goeth out of &s;ight, the more Heaven commeth in her eye, and as it were, unawares in a moment &s;he loo&s;eth the darke &s;hadowes of this world, and is compa&s;&s;ed about with the light of Heaven; &s;hee &s;eeth the face of God, and Chri&s;t at his right hand, &s;hining in his humane nature, brighter then the Sunne in his &s;trength.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>The con&s;ideration of the fir&s;t of the&s;e bred that re&s;olution in S^t. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> with which he gave up the gho&s;t,<NOTE N="o" PLACE="marg">Ambro&s;. vita per Co&s;terium. amicis per|&s;uadore vos lenibus ut diu|turniorem &s;ibi vitam &agrave; Domi|no impetraret praeclari&s;simam illam &s;enten|tiam &amp; Apo|&s;tolico viro dig|nam dixit, non ita inter vos vixi ut vixi&s;&s;e me pudeat, nec mori timeo, quia bonum Dominum ha|bemus.</NOTE> <HI>I have not &s;o lived that I am a&s;hamed to live longer, nor feare I to die becau&s;e we have a good and gratious Lord:</HI> and the like it wrought in <HI>Oecolampadius,</HI> who&s;e la&s;t words were the&s;e: <HI>I am now going to the tribunall of Chri&s;t, and that with great confidence, by Gods grace I will make it there appeare, that I have not mi&s;led the people, but taught them the truth of God.</HI></P>
<P>The &s;econd, to wit, the remembrance of the
<PB N="212" REF="365" MS="y"> life pa&s;t, in the &s;ervice of the true God, moved<NOTE N="p" PLACE="marg">Hieron. pag. <HI>215.</HI> Egredere, quid times e|gredere anima mea quid dubi|tas? Septuagin|ta prope annis &s;ervi&s;ti Chri&s;t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &amp; jam mori times? In hac verba exhala|vit &s;piritum.</NOTE> <HI>Hilarion</HI> the Hermite, to chide his &s;oule as it were out of the dores of his lips; <HI>goe forth my &s;oule, why hankere&s;t thou about my body, what diffi|culty make&s;t thou about thy pa&s;&s;e? ha&s;t thou &s;erved Chri&s;t this three&s;core and ten yeares, and art thou now afraid to goe to him.</HI></P>
<P>The effects of the third and fourth con&s;idera|tion were tho&s;e dying words of tho&s;e Saints and Martyrs which de&s;erve to live in perpetuall me|mory, of <HI>Babylas, Returne to thy re&s;t O my &s;oule, for now God will wipe away all teares, and now I &s;hall walke before him in the land of the living:</HI> of <HI>Bay|nam, I feele no more paine in the fire, then if I were in a bed of down, it is as &s;weete to mee as a bed of Ro&s;es:</HI> of <HI>Glover,</HI><NOTE N="q" PLACE="marg">Fox, Acts and Monum. &amp; Cri&s;p. hi&s;t. of French Martyrs.</NOTE> <HI>He is come, he is come,</HI> meaning the com|forter, the Holy Spirit: and of <HI>Iohn Bradford, Be of good comfort brother, for we &s;hall have a joyfull &s;upper with the Lord this night, if there be any way to Heaven in a fiery Charriot, this is it, and the like.</HI></P>
<P>Now the benefits we purcha&s;e by death are chiefly the&s;e.</P>
<P N="1">1. Freedome from &s;inne, and our naturall cor|ruptions, under the heavy burthen whereof, S^t. <HI>Paul</HI> pittifully groaneth, <HI>Rom.</HI> 7. <HI>O wretched man that I am, who &s;hall deliver mee from this body of death. Ver&s;e</HI> 24.</P>
<P N="2">2. From the company of the wicked, which was &s;uch an affliction to the <HI>P&s;almi&s;t,</HI> that he la|mentably complained of it: <HI>Woe is mee, that I
<PB N="213" REF="365" MS="y"> am con&s;trained to dwell with</HI> Me&s;ech,<NOTE N="r" PLACE="marg"><HI>P&s;al.</HI> 120 5.</NOTE> <HI>and to have my habitation in the Tents of</HI> Kedar.</P>
<P N="3">3. From the mi&s;eries and calamities of this life which are &s;o many and &s;o grievous, that the wi|&s;e&s;t of the Heathen <HI>judged it the be&s;t thing, in the fir&s;t place not to be born, the next to die as &s;oone as we are borne.</HI> And agreeably to this judgment of the life and death of man, they appointed contrary ceremonies to tho&s;e we now u&s;e, for they brought their friends into the world with mournfull Ob|&s;equies, but they carried them out of the world with joyfull Exequies, all &s;orts of &s;ports and pa|&s;times, and for this their cu&s;tome,<NOTE N="&s;" PLACE="marg">Tully, Tu&s;c. q. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> they alleage not onely rea&s;on but religion al&s;o: for <HI>Diana</HI> be|&s;towed &s;uddaine death upon <HI>Cleobis,</HI> and <HI>Bito,</HI> and <HI>Apollo</HI> upon <HI>Agamemnon,</HI> and <HI>Tryphonius,</HI> as the greate&s;t reward for their piety. If they &s;o e&s;tee|med of death that knew of no life after death, no abiding out of the body, what is it fit that wee Chri&s;tians &s;hould judge thereof? who ought to make reckoning of no life but after death: no a|biding, but out of the body: no dwelling, but in Heaven; for as the Apo&s;tle teacheth us,<NOTE N="t" PLACE="marg"><HI>Heb.</HI> 13.14.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">; we have <HI>here no abiding city, but we looke for one that is to come;</HI> if we looke for an abiding city or &s;tanding hou&s;es, our Saviour directeth us to Heaven,<NOTE N="u" PLACE="marg"><HI>Iohn</HI> 14.2.</NOTE> <HI>In domo Patris mei multae man&s;iones &s;unt, in my Fa|thers hou&s;e there are many man&s;ions,</HI> or places of aboad, there are <HI>man&s;ions</HI> indeed:<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Luke</HI> 16.9.</NOTE> here but Inns or rather boothes, there are <HI>everla&s;ting habitati|ons,</HI>
<PB N="214" REF="366" MS="y"> where can be no earthquake to &s;hake the foundation, nor tempe&s;t to beate upon the roofe, nor cannon to batter the walls, nor theeves to rifle the roomes, nor a cruell Land-lord to thru&s;t us out of dores, nor fal&s;e neighbours to take our hou&s;e over our head: there are &s;everall <HI>man&s;ions,</HI> for men, for women, for virgins, for wives, for widdowes, for children, for young men, for old, for confe&s;&s;ors, for Martyrs, for innocents, for all &s;orts of beleevers, of all countries, nations, and languages: in the&s;e <HI>man&s;ions</HI> I would willingly <HI>lodge</HI> my di&s;cour&s;e at this time, but I mu&s;t remem|ber that we are now in the hou&s;e of <HI>mourning,</HI> and you expect that I &s;hould &s;peake &s;omething <HI>of him to whom we can now &s;peake no more.</HI></P>
<P>I enlarged my &s;elf on &s;et purpo&s;e in handling the parts, and di&s;cu&s;&s;ing the Doctrinall points in my Text, that I might keepe off as long as might be the turning of the <HI>The&s;is</HI> into an <HI>Hypothe&s;is,</HI> which is like to turn now my action into pa&s;&s;ion, tropes into &s;ighes, and words into<NOTE N="x" PLACE="marg">Hier. ad He|lio. Stylus ip&s;e qua&s;i &s;entiens, &amp; cera &s;ub tri&s;tior vel ru|bigine, vel &s;itu obducit, quoties nitor in verba prorumper<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, &amp; &s;uper tumulo ejus Epitaphii hujus flores &s;par|gere toties la|chrymi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> implen|tur oculi &amp; re|novato dolore totus in funere|&s;um.</NOTE> teares. The explica|tion of this Scripture was but the making and &s;preading the Pla&s;ter, in which there was no paine: but the application of it to our greene wounds, cannot be without &s;ome &s;mart. How is it po&s;&s;ibly &s;o worthy, &s;o able, &s;o noble a mem|ber &s;hould be pluckt from Chri&s;ts my&s;ticall bo|dy, and the fellow-members feele no paine? Be|loved, if Learning be precious, which is the chiefe vertue of the under&s;tanding: if Vertue, the chiefe grace of the will and affections: if Grace, the per|fection
<PB N="215" REF="366" MS="y"> of our immortall &s;pirits: if our Country, the be&s;t governed: if our Church, the be&s;t refor|med in the Chri&s;tian world, be deere unto us: we cannot but be &s;en&s;ible of the lo&s;&s;e of &s;o generall a Scholler, &s;o accompli&s;hed a Gentleman, &s;o gra|cious a Chri&s;tian, &s;o zealous a Patriot, &s;o able a Champion of the Truth. When we &s;ee another golden branch ri&s;e up in his place, then wee will parallel him; till then, wee &s;hall mi&s;&s;e him.</P>
<Q><NOTE N="y" PLACE="marg">Hom. Il. &agr;.</NOTE><GAP DESC="foreign">.</Q>
<P>To &s;peake nothing of his vertuous <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="4 letters">nts, his ingenuous education, his religious ordering of his family, his much improving by his indu&s;trie, the e&s;tate left him by his friends, his happy match made in heaven, before it was con&s;ummate on earth; for hee affianced his Spou&s;e to Chri&s;t be|fore he contracted her to him&s;elfe: he gained up|on her faith, before he wan her love: and by thus uniting her to him&s;elfe by &s;pirituall, as well as carnall bonds, he had her heart knit unto him to his la&s;t breath: and in the Kalender which hee made of all Gods ble&s;&s;ings, which he vouch&s;afed to afford him in this world, hee put her as the chiefe&s;t. He no where &s;et his foot, where he left not behind him &s;ome print of his worth, and re|ceived al&s;o &s;ome garland of honour; being <HI>Victor</HI> in the &s;choole at <HI>We&s;tmin&s;ter, Collector</HI> in the Vni|ver&s;itie, <HI>Commi&s;sioner</HI> in the Country where hee lived, and <HI>Burge&s;&s;e</HI> in the Parliament.</P>
<Q><L>Nec de&euml;rant venti &s;i te dare vela juvi&s;&s;et</L>
<L>Sed tu littus amas.</L></Q>
<PB N="216" REF="367" MS="y">
<P>And to higher places hee might have a&s;pired, if hee had not above all preferments, preferred a private contemplative life, which was his <HI>heaven upon earth.</HI> If you divide his life into three parts, two of them were &s;pent in the contemplation of cele&s;tiall My&s;teries, and the &s;tudy of the Contro|ver&s;ies of Religion, betweene the Romane and the reformed Churches: wherin, what progre&s;&s;e hee made, and how far hee out-&s;tripped others, e&s;pecially of his owne ranke, may appeare by his <HI>Via tuta;</HI> the bounds whereof, were not the pre|cincts of this Kingdome, but rather the limits of the Chri&s;tian world; for it hath not onely beene often reprinted in <HI>England,</HI> but al&s;o tran&s;ported into other Countries, and tran&s;lated into Latine, Dutch, and French. Yet this was but his <HI>Primi|tiae,</HI> the whole harve&s;t of his labours is behind, which may in time be brought into the Churches <HI>Magazin</HI> of Engli&s;h Writers; if the indu&s;try of &s;uch as &s;hall gather them, be incouraged by au|thority, whereof I conceive the better hope, be|cau&s;e it is well knowne that hee &s;toode alwayes as well for the di&s;cipline as the doctrine of the Church of England, like another <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> hee kept alwayes the Kings high way. <GAP DESC="foreign">.<NOTE N="z" PLACE="marg">Epiph. contra. haer.</NOTE> neither declining to the <HI>right hand nor to the left:</HI> and as his writings, &s;o his actions were conformable both to the lawes of God, and Canons, and Con&s;titutions of the Church of England; and as he lived, &s;o he died <HI>by rule.</HI> Before his la&s;t &s;ickne&s;&s;e, he &s;et his
<PB N="217" REF="367" MS="y"> <HI>hou&s;e in Order,</HI> that hee might wholly intend that which requireth a whole man, his preparation to death. After Gods hand was upon him by a painfull &s;ickne&s;&s;e, hee never cea&s;ed to lift up pure hands to God, even to the la&s;t ga&s;pe: when I came to vi&s;it him, I found him not complaining of his violent fits, or terrifying paines; but con|trariwi&s;e, lauding and prai&s;ing God for vi&s;iting him in love, and cha&s;tening him in compa&s;&s;ion. Whereas many, &s;aith hee, in this di&s;ea&s;e of mine, are di&s;tracted, God hath given me the u&s;e of my rea&s;on and under&s;tanding: many at this time, for feare of the Infection, are deprived of the acce&s;&s;e of friends, who&s;e companie I injoy to my great comfort: &s;ome in my ca&s;e are no le&s;&s;e trou|bled in mind, than pained in their body, I thanke God, I have peace within; the <HI>Spirit te&s;tifying to my &s;pirit, that I am one of his children.</HI> His di&s;ea&s;e growing upon him, when hee conceived that hee was <HI>going the way of all fle&s;h,</HI> hee provided him|&s;elfe of that which the ancient Fathers fitly term, <HI>Viaticum morientium:</HI> the food, <HI>in the &s;trength whereof we are to walke to Gods holy Mount.</HI> When the Sacrament was admini&s;tred unto him, he lif|ted up him&s;elfe in his bed, and faine would, if he could po&s;&s;ibly, have received it kneeling upon his knees; but finding his &s;trength &s;o to faile him, that by no meanes he could accompli&s;h his de&s;ire, he brake out into the&s;e words: <Q>O Lord accept the will for the deed; I bow the knees of my heart unto thee, though I cannot of my body.</Q>
<PB N="218" REF="368" MS="y"> And by lifting up his eyes and hands unto Hea|ven, and inclination of his body with an awfull feare, and trembling, he expre&s;&s;ed no le&s;&s;e reve|rence then if Chri&s;t had beene bodily pre&s;ent to his eyes, who was then both &s;piritually and cor|porally pre&s;ent to his faith. On the day of Pen|tico&s;t, dedicated to the Holy Spirit the Comfor|ter, the Comforter came in a &s;peciall manner un|to him; for after he had made an humble con|fe&s;&s;ion of his &s;innes, and an orthodoxall profe&s;&s;i|on of his faith, and received ab&s;olution of the Church, ki&s;&s;ing the hand of the Mini&s;ter that gave it him, praying mo&s;t fervently that he might not appeare in the pre&s;ence of God, full of &s;oares as he was and naked, but covered with Chri&s;ts righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e: he fell into a kinde of trance, and in a vi&s;ion <HI>&s;aw him&s;elfe pre&s;ented before God in a &s;hining damaske robe edged with gold, covering him from the head to the foote.</HI> This he imparted to me and his deare&s;t con&s;ort, onely adding with all, <Q>that he knew well many were apt either to &s;leighten, or cen&s;ure the relations of &s;uch vi&s;i|ons, but &s;aith he, I thought fit to declare unto you what <HI>the Lord hath done for my &s;oule:</HI></Q> I was at the pre&s;ent, and ever &s;ince I have beene &s;ingu|larly comforted by it, and more then ever before encouraged to goe to my Saviour. The night be|fore he died, being admoni&s;hed by his ancient &s;choolefellow, and <HI>fidus achates,</HI> to give &s;ome te|&s;timony of his con&s;tancy in the reformed Reli|gion, now at his departure, becau&s;e &s;aith he, it is
<PB N="219" REF="368" MS="y"> not unlikely that the Adver&s;aries of our profe&s;&s;i|on, may ca&s;t &s;ome &s;uch a&s;per&s;ion upon you, as they did upon <HI>Beza, Reynolds,</HI> Bb. <HI>King</HI> and Bb. <HI>Andrewes,</HI> that they recanted the Prote&s;tant Reli|gion, and were reconciled to the Roman Church before their death: he profe&s;&s;ed before him and all that were pre&s;ent, that <Q>if he had a 1000. &s;oules he would pawne them all upon the truth of that Religion, which is e&s;tabli&s;hed by law in the Church of <HI>England,</HI> and which he declared and maintained in his <HI>Via Tuta.</HI></Q> The la&s;t words he was heard to &s;peake to his deere&s;t Lady, were the repeating of the words of the Apo|&s;tle. <Q>I have fini&s;hed my cour&s;e, I have kept the true faith, therefore is laid up for me a crowne of righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e, which the Lord the righteous Judge &s;hall give me at that day,<NOTE PLACE="marg">2 <HI>Tim&punc;</HI> 4.7.8.</NOTE> and not to me onely, but to them al&s;o that love his appearing.</Q> In expectation of which <HI>crowne,</HI> he continued to his la&s;t breath, fixing his eyes and lifting up his hands to Heaven (as it were) pre|&s;ently to receive it from God. <HI>This Crowne of righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e</HI> the Lord give us all, af|ter we have <HI>fini&s;hed</HI> likewi&s;e <HI>our cour|&s;es,</HI> and breathed our &s;oules into the armes of our Redee|mer. <HI>Cui. &amp;c.</HI></P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</GROUP>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
