vnto which themselues say specious Answeres are made yea vpon the Arguments that haue neyther substance nor seemelines neyther forme nor speciosity in them And this will be more cleerly confirmed by the ensuing Confutation of the Ministers Reply which agaynst the Answere vnto the Nine Points came forth at last after two yeares expectation He pretends that his Booke being long before finished ready for the print In his Preface he stayed that he might cite word by word the sentences of the Authours quoted in his margent that so his worke might be more vsefull vnto such as want the benefit of Libraryes Which excuse to be false his margents proclayme in innumerable places I should rather thinke considering the circumstances of the tyme if his booke was so longe before ready that another reason stayed the printing thereof You may remember that the Catholickes of England by the Clemency of our late Soueraigne during those two yeares had more calme dayes and a season of some more freedome then many yeares before they inioyed Whereby the mindes of Protestants became more free vnpartiall more erected to vnderstand the issue of the Controuersyes betweene them and vs and lesse vnwilling to see the Catholicke Truth which now they might with lesse trouble danger imbrace Wherfore the Ministers booke not daring to appeare in these sunneshine dayes of more sincere and vnpassionate iudgment was by him reserued to be published when the Skye should be darkened with the Cloudes of Persecution and displeasure without which protectioÌ„ of darkenes it would perâ—hance neuer haue come to sight Euen as deformed Birds the day-time lye Hidden in barnes in night abroad they flye For when former amity and peace with Catholicke Princes began to be shaken when the Parlament was hoat in petitioning for a persecution of Catholicks with vttermost rigour then presently went the Ministers booke to the presse and not longe after when the Decree for Persecution was enacted came forth secure and ioyfull Answere to the Iesuits Preface In fine chaunting as Syrens singe in tempests certayne verses of Ouid extending by his Vote and Suffrage the Persecution decreed for England to the Roman Church farre neere Qua ROMA PATET fera regnat Erynnis In facinus iurasse putes dent OCIVS OMNES Quas meruere pati sic stat SENTENTIA poenas And who shall with indifferency reuiew the booke may find the same had good reason to fly the light being euery where full of afflictiue Tearmes and spitefull Inuectiues which can giue no conteÌ„t but only to mindes dimmed with the extremest passion of dislike who take pleasure to read not what may conuince and conuert but what may grieue and gall the Aduersaryes Wherein the Iesuit hath some cause to complayne that his Answere being so moderate and temperate without any sharpe tearmes agaynst Protestants still excusing their Errours Mistakings by the forwardnes of their Zeale he hath reason I say to grieue that his Treatise written with such Charity and Modesty and this not vpon his owne pleasure but enforced by his Maiesties Command could not find in England a proportionable Reply tending towardes a calme cleering of the truth but was set vpon by fierce Reproaches as if he had been vrged to write for no other end but that a Minister might haue occasion to disgorge towardes him and his Religion the bitternes of his gall It is true that with these reproachful discourses the Minister hath mingled matters of substance that is all the principall Shifts deuised by others and which he could deuise himselfe to giue a shew to his Religion or to obscure the light and euidence of the Catholicke which had he set downe learnedly and calmely without the admixtion of so much ragefull Impertinency his Booke had been of lesser bulke Whereby also one good peece of this Reioynder might haue beene spared to wit the Censure prefixed before the same My purpose indeed was to haue passed ouer his bitter Inuectiues large impertinencies with contempt and only haue touched what is really of substance but the request of friends wonne me to the contrary For they coÌ„sidering that many be carryed away to their perdition not by the Ministers learning but by their opinion thereof thought it necessary I should prefixe a Discouery of his In-side in the beginning of this Reioynder as he hath placed a faire Picture of his Out-side with diuers glorious Emblems to his Honour vpon the front of his Reply In which prefixed Censure in euery passage thereof matters of substance are handled yet my principall drift is to make the same a Picture wherein the Ministers Ignorance in all sorts of Sciences his falsifying of all kinds of Authours is set forth not with the black Coale of bare verball AccusatioÌ„ â—ut with the lightsome and liuely Colours of euideÌ„t Proofe which that they may be more indeleble are oyled with commiseration of his blindnes and of his deceaued Credents that on him for their Saluation rely In the Reioynder which is collaterally ioyned with the Text of the Answere vnto the Nine Poynts the matters of substance in the Ministers Reply that indeed may breed doubt to men not perfectly learned are refuted The difficulty is not dissembled nor shuÌ„ned the same is set downe commonly in the Ministers words with the whole force pith thereof summed togeather the Refutation presently following not by the sole contradiction of words but by the oppositioÌ„ of reasons These as they be ordinarily still of number so I hope the Reader will find them to be likewise of waight that pondering them and comparing them with the Ministers in the ballance of vnpartiall iudgment he will easily see towards whom the doctrine not only of Christian TraditioÌ„ but also of the holy Scripture inclineth If any wonder that this Treatise came forth no sooner the tyme being more then an yeare and a halfe since the Ministers Reply was printed let him consider that it was a good while after the printing thereof before the same came to my hands in regard of my absence great distance from London The booke is huge and vast that to read the same attentiuely tyme and disoccupation is required The Vastnes thereof was likewise the cause the same could not be confuted Verbatim which had been easy without making a Booke as bigge as Calepine with great and vnnecessary charges which also being so bigge would neuer haue found passage and vtterance in tymes of difficulty Hence the Reioyner was forced not only to reade his huge Volume attentiuely but also to choose and summe togeather what the Reply contayneth of substance seuering the same from the drosse of impertinent Reproach which cost him both tyme and labour Besides about the tyme this Worke should haue gone to the print aboue a yeare agoe they that should haue concurred vnto the printing thereof were called to another place by their necessary occasions and stayd away more then halfe a yeare in which case we haue not
taken with agues and with death yea some with Ministers wiues Verily should Deane-ryes be giuen in England according to learning this your discourse about taking would deserue this verdict in the Iudgement of all learned â—en His Deane-ry let another man take The third Example §. 3. WHAT shall I say of your grosse misprision in translating which shewes your ignorance in Latine or else your fraudulency willfull impugnation of knowne truth To proue that Generall Councells may erre in â—ayth yow (k) Reply pag. 155. cite this saying of (l) Cusan lib. 2. concord c. 6. Cusanus Notandum est experimento rerum vniuersale Concilium plenarium posse deficere The true English wherof is It is to be noted that a plenary Vniuersall Councell may fâ—ile in the experiment of things or (m) deficere potest in experiendo ibid. matters of fact You translate Experience of things doth manifest that a plenary Vniuersall Councell may be deficient What grossenes is this Doth notandum signify manifest what more manifest though not noted by yow then that Cusanus (n) Docet Augustinus quomodo plenaria coÌ„cilia per subsequentia CoÌ„cilia corrigantur ob FACTI ERROREM ibid. by experiment of things meanes matters of fact For his drift is to shew that former Councels may be corrected by the later ob facti errorem in respect of errours in matter of fact otherwise in matters of fayth that plenary vniuersall Councells are INFALLIBLE Cusanus doth (o) Si concordanti senteÌ„tia aliquid definitum fuerit censetur à Spiritu sancto inspiratum per Christum in medio congregatorum in eius nomine praesidentem INFALLIBILITER iudicatum ibid. c. 4. hold and proue in that very Booke To proue that all Heretiks pretend not scripture (p) Orthodox pag. 41. 42. yow cite S. Augustine as saying All heretikes reade not scriptures (q) August lib. 7. in Gen. c. â— whose wordes in Latin be Neque enim non omnes haeretici scripturas Catholicas legunt nec ob aliud haeretici sunt nisi quod eas non rectè intelligentes suas falsas opiniones contra earum veritatem pertinacitâ—â— asserunt Which place translated proueth the contrary For it is this All heretikes read scripture nor are they heretikes for any other cause but that vnderstanding thâ— scriptures amisse they pertinaciously maintaine their erroneous opinions against their truth These words neque enim non omnes haeretici scripturas Catholicas legunt yow translate all Heretikes do not read scriptures against Grammer against sense Against Grammer by the Rules wherof two negations affirme so that non omnes haeretici non legunt is the same as omnes Haeretici legunt all Heretikes read the scriptures Against sense for in this your translation All heretike do not read scriptures nor are they heretikes for any other reason but because they vnderstand them noâ— aright one part of the sentence destroyeth the 〈◊〉 For if all heretikes read not scriptures as yow 〈◊〉 S. Augustine say in the first part then the cause of their heresy is not onely pertinacious misprision 〈◊〉 the sense of scripture as he affirmeth in the 〈◊〉 No doubt if heretikes read not the sacred text 〈◊〉 not only misinterpretation of the sense but also ignorance of the text may be the cause of their 〈◊〉 This same Ignorance in Grammer makes you in this (r) Repl. pag. 35. in margin lit b. your Reply in proofe that Protestantes acknowledge some places obscure in scripture to cite these wordes of your fellow-Minister Paraeus NON nâ—gâ—mus scripturam NIHIL habere obscuritatis Is not 〈◊〉 the playne contrary of what you intend For what is non negamus but we affirme scripturam nihiâ— habere obscuritatis the scripture to be no where obscure To proue that we make scriptures subiect to 〈◊〉 Pope yow cite the Dictates of Gregory the 7. set downe by Baronius containing certaine priuiledges of the Popes authority wherof one is Quòd nullum Capitulum nullusque liber Canonicus habeatur sine authoritate ipsius yow (s) Reply pag. 92. in fine translate thus that no chapter no booke of scripture be esteemed Canonicall without 〈◊〉 authority In which translation you shew both falshood and ignorance Falshood in that yow ad to the text (t) This you haue done not only in this place but also in your Orthodoxe three or foure tymes as in the Epistle dedicatory pag. 10. elswhere in the same letter as part thereof no â—â—â—pter of scripture no booke of scripture those words 〈◊〉 being in the latine text nor in the sense for if it â—â—re granted that the Pope doth here speake of the chapter of bookes it doth not follow that he meanes 〈◊〉 bookes of scripture but rather the bookes of Canon law which lawes in that age (u) Burchardus Isidorus Gratianus diuers did beginne to compile gather togeather into volumes and so he defineth that no Chapters that no bookes of Canon or Church-law be held authenticall without his approbation Ignorance because common sense might haue taught yow that this Decree could not be vnderderstood of Chapters or Bookes The reason is because to put chapter before booke and to say no chapter of booke nor any booke shall be held Canonicall without the Pope is idle and senselesse For if no chapter can be Canonicall without the Pope much lesse a whole booke so that hauing sayd that not so much as a chapter be held Canonicall without the Pope it was senselesse to adde the same of whole bookes This speach is as foolish as this should one say Not any person nor any whole family came to Church or as this He read not one line nor one chapter nor one booke wheras sense would say not one booke not one chapter not one line Thirdly a little skill in latine ioyned with iudgment would haue easely found out the true and coherent sense of this Dictate For Capitulum signifyes not onely a chapter of a booke but also a Chapter-house or colledge of Chanons Liber signifyes noâ— onely a booke but also free and exempt Canonicâ—â— also as euery man knowes signifyes not onely Canonicall but also a Chanon or Prebend So that the Popes priuilege quòd nullum Capitulum nullusqâ—â— liber Canonicus habeatur absque illius authoritate is thus in English that no Chapter-house or Colledge of ChanoÌ„s nor any single Canon or Prebend be free exempt froâ— the authority of the Ordinary but by the Popes authority 〈◊〉 sole authority of Metropolitans or Primates not 〈◊〉 sufficient to make such exemptions As for â—â—okes of scriptures we teach that they all be diuine and canonicall in themselues and for the most part â—â— owne to be such by the perpetuall tradition of the Church some very few excepted that haue been â—anonized vnto vs by generall Councells and not 〈◊〉 by the sole and single authority of the pope Behold how wide off the marke yow shoote through your ignorance of
great confidence auouch that it is a diuine ordinance that all ignorant Laymen read Scripture in the vulgar A strong argument The Scripture doth not say the Beroeans read the Scripture in their vulgar tongue nor doth it tearme them Noble for their reading of Scripture but for their receauing the word of Paul with alacrity and ioy Yea the tearme of The more noble is not giuen them in prayse of their Religion but to declare the quality of their Gentry and so Fulke his Bible hath the Noblest for byrth But suppose the Beroeans read in their vulgar and be therfore called Noble is not this inference ridiculous Ergo it is a diuine Precept that euery man read Scripture Doth not this arguing deserue rather to be laughed at then answered The third (a) Apoc. 1.3 Blessed is he that readeth and heareth Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that all meÌ„ read the Scripture that the Church giue theÌ„ the Scripture translated into all vulgar tongues Here you not only argue impertinently but also detruncate curtall the text of Gods Word leauing out words without which the text hath a false and foolish sense For if all be blessed that read and heare without mention or care of what then they be blessed who read or heare Tully Virgill or the bookes of Knighthood Why doe you not let the Scripture expresse the thing which being read or heard maketh men blessed The Scripture fully and truly cited sayth Blessed is he that heareth and readeth the wordes of this Prophesy to wit of the Apocalyps Which place eyther proueth nothing for your purpose or else proueth a necessity that euery man read the Apocalyps vnder penalty of otherwise not to be blessed This perchance for very shame you dare not auerre If you do what shall we or may we thinke of Luther who did neyther read nor heare nor belieue the Apocalyps as a Prophesy or as the word of (b) Nec Apostolicum nec PropheticuÌ„ esse puto hunc libelluÌ„ similem reputo Quarto Esdrâ—â— nec vllo modo deprendere possum quod a Spiritus Sancto confectus sit Lutherus praefat in Apocalip God And what an idle inference is this He is blessed who readeth the Apocalyps Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that euery man read Scriptures S. Paul sayth (c) 1. Cor. 7. Bonum est homini mulierem non tangere vers 1. Bonum est illis si sic permaneant vers 7. Beatior erit si sic permanserit vers 40. he is blessed that doth not marry Is it consequent Ergo euery man is bound not to marry or Ergo men cannot be blessed but only such as do not marry Surely your wife wil see this inference to be foolish yet it is as good as yours Blessed is he that readeth or heareth the Apocalyps Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that none be blessed but such as read Scripture The fourth argument The Galathians read the Scripture Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that ignorant laymen read them and that they be translated into euery vulgar Dialect That the Galathians read the Scriptures you prooue by the cypher of Galat. 4.24 where the Apostle sayth you that will be vnder the Law haue you not read the Law For it is written Abraham had two Sonnes This proofe is very poore For the Apostle doth not affirme they read but doubtingly demaunds whether they had not read one particle of Scripture Also the question was mooued without doubt only to the learned Galathians But suppose they read the Scripture is it lawfull thence to conclude Ergo they read it in their vulgar If they read it in their vulgar is it thence consequent Ergo euery man is bound by diuine ordinance to read and this so strictly as the Church may not forbid translations vnto such as abuse them The fifth place The Ephesians read the Scripture Ergo it is a diuine precept that ignorant Laymen read the Scripture in their vulgar tongue The antecedent you shew by the cypher Ephes. 3.4 where the Apostle sayth Reading you may vnderctand my wisdome in the Mistery of Christ A seely proofe Saint Paul doth not say that the Ephesians read but only that by reading his Epistle they might vnderstand his wisâ—ome about the mysteries of grace and Christian Religion But suppose they read S Pauls Epistle sent vnto theÌ„ doth it follow Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that Laymen promiscuously read Scripture and that the Church must translate Scripture to that end This inference as euen as good as this By reading the Epistles of Saint Peter one may vnderstand the great knowledge he had of Christ Ergo Euery man is bound to read S. Peters Epistles The sixt The Colossians read the Scripture Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that all ignorant Laymen read the Scripture The antecedent is by you proued by the cypher Coloss. 4.16 which sayth When this Epistle hath been read amongst you cause it also to be read in the Church of Loadicea This place doth not proue your intent that they read so much as that Epistle priuatly by theÌ„selues but only that the same was publikely read in the Church by the Bishop or the Priest or some Church officer in the same laÌ„guage wherin it was written originally But suppose the Colossians read this Epistle priuately by theÌ„selues what a wooden inference is this Ergo euery Christian is bouÌ„d by diuine ordinance to read Scripture Or Ergo the Church is obliged by diuine precept to prouide that the Scripture be translated into vulgar tongues The seauenth Argument The Thessalonians read the Scripture Ergo the reading thereof by ignorant Laymen is a diuine ordinance The antecedent you prooue by the cypher 1. Thess. 5.25 which sayth I adiure you that this Epistle be read vnto all holy brethren Neyther doth this text prooue priuate reading of Scripture by Laymen but only publik reading therof in the Church But suppose they priuately read this Epistle sent them by the Apostle is it consequeÌ„t Ergo all Laymen are bound to read Scripture and the Church to translate the same into euery tongue Truly this argument is euen as good as this God created heauen and earth of nothing Ergo Ministers may make arguments of nothing or make argumeÌ„ts good that haue nothing in them Or as this In the beginning was the word the word was with God Ergo euery godly person is bound to read the Scripture word by word from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Apocalyps Or Ergo Godly persons do nothing els but read Scripture Grosse Ignorance of Theology SECTION III. BESIDES the manifold Errours which you maintaine in coÌ„mon with other Ministers you haue diuers proper peculiar to your selfe and exceeding grosse wherby you declare how ignorant how are of Theology I will only discouer some few of them but those fundamentall by which you so shake the fabrike of your Reply as no piece thereof remayneth â—ound The first
indiuiduall things When soule and body come to be vnited by this vnion is produced a third substance to wit a maÌ„ composed of soule and body When two waters that were seuered come to ioyne togeather there ariseth one third water wherin the two lesser waters are included as parts But Father and Sonne the one in London the other at Constantinople do not compose a third indiuiduall nature constant of theÌ„ both wherin they both are contayned as is most euident Ergo It is ridiculous to affirme that the Father in London is truly and really vnited with his Sonne in Constantinople Finally put case there were true and reall vnity betwixt Father and Sonne so that the sonne might be said to be one with his father truly and properly in respect of kind or specificall Identity what can this serue to shew that consecrated bread remaining bread in nature kind may be said to be the body of Christ or the same with it Had Christ said of another mans body This is my Body you might haue coÌ„strued it thus This is my body that is a body of the same kind and nature with mine but Christ saying of that which was bread this is my Body how can you vnderstand this to be true in respect of specificall Vnity Is bread of the same kind and nature as Christs body I am sure being afore warned of this absurdity you will not dare so to teach What then doth specificall Identity or vnity in nature and kind serue to shew that coÌ„secrated bread remaining bread in kind nature essence may be truly really Christs body Certainly Christ did affirme that the thing contained within the shape of bread was his indiuiduall body not another indiuiduall body of the same kind This cannot be true verily and according to propriety of speach as you grant if the substaÌ„ce of bread remaine much lesse if also the substance of Christs body be locally absent The Iesuits argument then doth conuince that the Sacrament cannot be truly really substantially Christs body if the body of Christ be not locally indistant from the same A fifth Example About Satisfaction §. 5. I will produce yet another Example of your Ignorance by which you contradict Protestants yea your selfe in the very same page and establish our Catholike doctrine of Satisfaction and Purgatory against which in that place you earnestly dispute Thus you wite pag. 540. The difference betweene the PontificiaÌ„s vs in this dostrin is THAT WE BELEEVE A REMAINDER of TEMPORALL Affliction AFTER the REMISSION of the GVILTE of Sinne in this life onely for Chastisement ERVDITION and PROBATION They maintaine a Remainder of Temporall Punishement not onely in this life but after the same in Purgatory Further we beleeue that the Paine of Chastisement inflicted vpon penitent sinners may by prayers of fayth exercise of vertue humiliation and mortification be REMOVED MITIGATED or conuerted to the increase of grace and glory in them that with patience holines endure the same in this life But we deny that eyther any paine followeth iust persons after their decease or that they can in this life by any good workes merit release of any temporall punishment or satisfy the Diuine Iustice for the fault or guilt of any sinnes on their behalfe much lesse for others Thus you On the one side denying against Catholikes Temporall Paine in the next life and on the other granting against ProtestaÌ„ts a Remaynder of Temporall Chastisement for sinne remitted after the remission of the guilt Wherby you contradict your selfe yea establish the possibillity of superabouÌ„dant Satisfaction Yow lay Principles which vnanswerably inforce temporall paine for remisse Penitents in the next world Which three thinges I will in order demonstrate that so it may appeare that through Ignorance you haue your selfe dissolued broken in peeces the whole frame of your Voluminous Reply in euery poynt of Controuersy proposed by his Maiesty and handled therein First you contradict your selfe for in this very pag. 540. against the Remainder of temporall paine thus you write That which is so forgiuen that after pardon it is not mentioned or remembred and which is cast behind Gods backe throwne into the bottome of the sea and which can no where be found and which is blotted out of the debt-Debt-booke of the Almighty is not taken away by commutation of a greater punishment into a lesser but by a free and full condonation of all vindictiue punishment But the holy Scripture and the Fathers teach such a remission of sinne on Gods part to the penitent Thus you what cleerer contradiction can be deuised then is betweene these two sentences Remission of sinne is made not by commutation of a greater punishment into a lesse but by free and full condonation of all vindictiue punishment There is a remainder of temporall paine after the remission of guilt of sinne not onely for the triall and erudition of the penitent but also for Chastisement which may be remoued or mitigated by mortification and penitentiall workes What clearer contradiction I say can be deuised For teÌ„porall paine inflicted vpon penitent sinners by way of chastisement after the remission of the guilt of their sinne is vindictiue Punishment You professe in the end of this page to belieue Temporall paine to remaine not onely by way of Probation and Erudition but euen by way of chastisement after the remission of the guilt of their sinne Therfore you contradict what you say in the beginning of this page That remission of sinne is free and full condonation of all vindictiue punishment Agayne Condonation of sinne wherby eternall punishment is changed into temporall is remission of sinne by commutation of a greater chastisemeÌ„t into a lesse to wit of eternall into temporall as is most euident But in the end of this page you teach that sinne is so remitted as the guilt of sinne and eternall Damnation is changed into a remainder of temporall affliction for chastisement of the penitent sinner Wherefore if the changing of Eternall punishment into Temporall be commutation of greater punishment into lesse then by granting in the end of the cited page a Remaynder of Temporall Affliction after the remission of the Eternall you ouerthrow what you taught in the beginning of the same that remission of sinne is not made by commutation of greater punishment into lesse Secondly this your doctrine of the remainder of temporall paine after the remission of the guilt of sinne proueth that penitent saints may make compeÌ„sant yea superaboundant satisfaction in manner as Catholikes teach for in the remainder of temporall affliction we may consider and distinguish two things the greatnes of the paine reserued and the greatnes of Gods remaining anger against sinne remitted which he doth yet temporally punish If we regard the greatnes of Gods iust anger and offence we hold (t) Si ad ipsam offensam Diuinae Maiestatis respiciamus quatenus Deus videlicet sic homini manet infeÌ„sus vt meritâ—
thou shalt not adore them were â—he text and very letter of Gods word you might â—ith lesse shame haue confessed your ignorance that â—ou can say nothing in defence of the text In which â—ase the Iesuit I presume would willingly haue â—ad recourse vnto God by prayer entreating him â—o enlighten his vnderstanding with some sufficient â—eason would haue hoped to haue obtained his â—uite If not yet would he haue belieued Gods word â—o haue had some congruous sense though he saw â—ot the same this being reuerence due to the word â—f Supreme Verity But now this saying Thou shalt not make any Imaâ—es with purpose to adore them is not the text of Gods word but a Ministers addition vnto his word preâ—ended by way of exposition Hence the Iesuits arâ—uments for which you send him vnto God to haue â—hem answered tend not agaynst the text of Gods word but agaynst a Ministers explication thereof This being so why should the Iesuit finding your inâ—erpretation to be sottish and senselesse to his seeâ—ing goe vnto God and not vnto you for a solutiâ—n of his questions agaynst it What Law bindeth â—im to adore your additions to Gods word as diuine Oracles such as he must belieue though he cannot â—omprehend Why should he goe vnto God pray â—im to vnfold the high misteryes of your Ministeriâ—ll wisdome which you confesse you do not vnderâ—tand your selfe Why may he not without more aâ—oe thinke your doctrine to be incomprehensible â—hrough want of reason as are the fooleryes of fanâ—y not through height of wisdome as the misteryes of fayth Shew I say some reason that obligeth Iesuits to accept of your interpretations of Scripture which they can proue to be sottish and senselesse so cleerly as you cannot answere or else confesse that the Iesuit by conference of texts by consideration of Antecedents Consequents by the drift of the place hath so conuinced your expositioÌ„ of falshood as you haue not a word to reply in good sense but to be rid of his vrging you send him vnto God for an Answere Your innumerable grosse Impertinencyes in cyphering and scoring of Scriptures §. 7. YOV haue a manner of arguing proper to your selfe at least which I find by none of your ranke more frequently vsed then by your selfe This is to set downe a conceit of your owne wordes suting with your owne humour and then to score Bookes chapters and verses of Scripture on heapes without relating the words as if your conceit were in those places recorded in so many syllables And because in this kind of cyphering consists the strength of your whole booke I will by some store of examples decypher the grosse vanity thereof and consequently of your whole Booke First you often cite texts and chapters of Scripture that are not so making your selfe like vnto God qui vocat ea quae non sunt Pag. 10. lin 24. to prooue that Protestants acknowledge the lawfull authority of the Church you cite 2. Thessal cap. 5. Wheras the second to the Thessalonians hath only three chapters Pag. 106. lin 17. to prooue that Christians may depart from the Christian Church wherof they are â—embers without ioyning vnto any other Christiâ—n Church you cite Hos. 10.17 wheras that chapter â—â—th only 15. verses not one to the purpose you â—â—eage it Pag. 45. lin 17. for this your saying the Scripâ—â—re is the seed of faith you cite Iohn 20.41 wheras that â—wentith chapter hath verses only thirty one not â—ne of them hath this sentence The Scripture is the â—sed of Fayth Had you cited the wordes though you â—ad erred in the booke chapter or verse we might â—aue holpen your mistaking now God only knowâ—th the texts you intended Secondly the places you cypher not only do â—ot contayne the sayings for which you cypher â—hem expressely and in so many words but also â—hey are commonly so infinitly impertinent and so â—arre from the matter you intend to proue as being â—ited and applyed to your purpose they are most riâ—iculous Pag. 224. lin 26. to proue that you Ministers â—aue such Vnion with God as Religious Adoration â—s due vnto you you cypher Act. 10.34 which â—ayth Then Peter opened his mouth and sayd of a truth I perceiue that God hath no respect of persons Pag. 30. lin â—5 to proue Scripture is the voyce of God you cypher Luc. 1.7 which sayth Saluation from our enemyes and from the hands of all them that hate vs. Pag. 105. lin 13. to proue that right Fayth may be preserued in persons liuing in a corrupt visible Church as Wheate among Tares you cypher 1. King 19.11 And he sayd go forth and stand vpon the mountayne before the Lord and behold the Lord passed by Pag. 106. lin 16. to proue that Christians may separate from all Christian Churches and beginne a new Christian Church of themselues you cypher 2. Cor. 6.14 which saith Be not yoked togeather in marriage with Infidells Pag. 223. lin 4. to proue that in adoration Christ his Image haue no agreement you cypher 2. Cor. 6.16 which sayth What agreement betweene the Temple of God and Idolls Pag. 30. lin 23. to proue that the Scripture is a diuine light shewing it selfe to be heauenly you cypher 2. Cor 4.6 God hath shined in our harts to giue the light of knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ Iesus Pag. 558. lin 3. to proue that liuing Saints haue not Communion with the Saints defunct by partaking their superabundant satisfactions you cypher Ephes. 4.15 But speaking the truth in loue you may grow vp to him in all thinges who is the head euen Christ. To the same intent in the same place you cypher 1. Iohn 1.3 That which we haue seene and heard we declare vnto you that you may haue fellowship with vs and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Sonne Christ Iesus Pag. 546. lin 1. to proue that the reward of works may be giuen of free bounty and not of debt you cite Psalm 127. v. 2. It is vayne for you to rise vp early or to sit vp late to eate the bread of sorrow for so he giueth his beloued sleep Also to the same purpose you cypher Ezech. 29. v. 18. Euery head was bald and euery shoulder was pealed yet had he no wages nor his army for Tyrus Pag. 551. lin vlt. to proue that the B. Virgin said the Lords Prayer or Pater Noster whereof one petition is Forgiue vs our trespasses you cite Act. 1.14 They continued in prayer and supplication togeather with the women and Mary the Mother of Iesus Which text proueth the Virgin prayed but that her prayer was vocall and not pure mentall and if vocall that she sayd Pater Noster rather then Magnificat or Benedictus or some of the psalmes of Dauid who that is sober would vndertake by this text to conclude Pag. 43. lin 2. to proue that the Scripture is sufficient in genere regulae for
Scriptures do euidently preach this one point of Fayth That there is one only God So that we may say how dull sighted were you that would cite this testimony for your fancy against the playne euidence thereof Foule Calumniation Falsification of Hosius Bellarmine Petrus à Soto and Bosius §. 3. IN this kind I may with good reason register in the first place your slanderous dealing with Cardinall Hosius the falshood being not only notorious in it selfe but also discouered agaynst your Ancestours in formes times Pag. 151. in fine and 152. initio you charge Catholikes That they debase the sacred Scripture aduancing humane TraditioÌ„s In proofe wherof you alleadge these wordes as of Cardinall Hosius (a) Pag. 152. lit a. Hosius de express verb. Dei pag. 50. Non oportet legis aut Scripturae esse peritum sed à Deo doctum vanus est labor qui Scripturae impenditur Scriptura enim creatura est egenum quoddam elementum non conuenit ChristianuÌ„ Scripturae addictum c. A man ought not to be learned in the Scripture but taught of God lost is the labour which vpon Scripture is spent For the Scripture is but a Creature yea an empty element it doth not become a Christian to be conuersant in the same These words contayne horrible Blasphemy in so much as Cardinall Hosius himselfe hearing that some Protestants in their printed bookes had layd this sentence to his charge did not doubt to say (b) Bellarmin de concilijs in praefat That I should thus affirme Verily had I so written I were worthy to be burnt in the market place What then Hath not Hosius the wordes Indeed the wordes are found in the Cardinals book but how brought as blasphemy spoken in the person of the Swenckfeldian Sect or of the Heauenly Prophets This is Hosius his discourse (c) Hosius de expresso Dei verbo pa. 545. Tom. 2. operum Hosij Lugduni apud Guil. Rouillium Anno M.D.LXIV When men sayth he seeke to draw the Scripture 〈◊〉 their owne fancyes not regarding the sense exposition of the Church what do they but as S. Augustin sayth open a way that the authority of the Scripture be wholly abolished Do we not see this Prophesy performed in this our Age Yes verily Luther first rose vp and endeauoured to 〈◊〉 Scriptures vnto the liking of his fancy Agaynst him rose Carolstadius and out of him Zwinglius Oecolampadius Caluin and other innumerable Sects most mainly â—â—posite the one to the other yet ech of them clayming maâ—â—fest Scripture on their side Hereupon the Heauenly â—â—ophets whose Prince is Swenckfeldius (d) Viderunt hoc Caelestes Propheâ—ae quoruÌ„ Princeps Suenckfeldius quòd isti suo sensui Scripturas 〈◊〉 empeâ—aâ—eÌ„t sic secum cogitare coeperunt Quo vsque tandâ— hanc Excucullatorum tyrannidem feremus c. perceauing â—â—ese men to make no other vse of Scripturs then to persuade â—nto seely people what they please vnder pretence of Gods 〈◊〉 and expresse word began thus to discourse with themâ—â—lues HOW long shall WE endure these Fryers that â—â—â—ue cast of their Hoods Habits Shall we be still forced 〈◊〉 adore as Gods holy word whatsoeuer they please to propose 〈◊〉 vs cloaked with Texts of Scripture No we will hereafter â—â—pect the resolution of our Questions from Heauen bid â—â—ese Contentioners to be packing togeather with the Scripâ—â—res which they pul this that way as they list to establish â—â—posite doctrines What the heauenly Father shall in priâ—â—ate please to reueale vnto vs that shall be our expresse word â—f God A CHRISTIAN ought not to be skillfull in â—he Law and Scripture but taught of God lost is the labour â—hat on Scripture is spent for the Scripture is but a creaâ—â—re and an empty ELEMENT Hosius hauing thus 〈◊〉 downe these wordes and blasphemyes of the â—wenckfeldian Sect addeth his Censure vpon them as â—olloweth You see most Pious King how truly the sayâ—â—g of S. (e) Aug. l. 32. cont Faust. c. 19. Videtis id vos agere vt omnis de mâ—dio Scripturarum auferatur authoritas suus cuique animus auctor sit Augustine is that whiles men labour by their â—riuate interpretations to make the Scripture the subiect 〈◊〉 one of his own fancy they open a wide gappe vnto men 〈◊〉 deny the authority of the Scripture And agayne (f) Quo res ad extremum redijt stupor mirabilia Natum est nouum Prophetarum genus qui Scripturarum authoritate Scripturis omneÌ„ authoritatem detraâ—ere non sunt veriti O â—â—onder able to astonish any man To what a passe by Satans â—ubtilty are men come Vnto what extreme misery is the â—orld brought whiles euery Sect will wrest the Scripture to 〈◊〉 selfe and challenge the sole true exposition thereof beâ—old a new Sect of HeaueÌ„ly Prophets is sprunge vp which 〈◊〉 not doubt by the authority of Scriptures to take away froÌ„â—cripture all authority Behold the true wordes of Hosius and togeather behold what impudency it is to vrge the blasphemous wordes by you cited as his 〈◊〉 blasphemous assertions may be layd to the charge of them that with detestation relate them you may lay the blasphemyes of wicked men related in Scriptures on the sacred writers You may impeach Salâ—mom for this speach of the Vngodly (g) Sap. c. 1. Come let 〈◊〉 inioy the pleasures that are let there be no meddow wherin our luxury doe not wallow it selfe You may endight oâ— blasphemy S. Iohn for the wordes of the Iewes abouâ— our Sauiour (h) Ioan. 9.16 This man is not of God who keepeth 〈◊〉 the Sabboath Day You might charge Saint Matthew with the words of the Pharisies (i) Math. 11.19 Behold a glutton drinker of wine I haue not read in any Protestant Minister a more foule Calumniation of any Catholike Authour except only one in your selfe agaynst Bellarmine Bellarmine say (k) Orthodoxe pag. 136. you sayth A man is not bound to belieue the Scripture to be Diuine because the Scripture 〈◊〉 selfe sayth so more then one is to belieue the Alcoran 〈◊〉 be of God because in sundry places thereof we read that 〈◊〉 was sent from Heauen by God What horrible blasphemy is this What Christian will not tremble at the hearing thereof The Scriptures affirmation is no more to be belieued then the Alcoran Hath Bellarmine this sentence which you cite in a distinct letter as his formall assertion Behold the true words of Bellarmine for the Reader that seeing your falshood he may ioyne togeather with detestation of Turkish impiety detestation of your Protestant slauÌ„dering (l) Nam etiamsi Scriptura dicat Libros Prophetarum Apostolorum esse diuinos tamen non certò id credam nisi priùs credidero Scripturam quae hoc dicit esse Diuinam Nam etiam in Alcorano Mahumeti legimus ipsum è caelo à Deo missum esse tamen non ei credimus Although the
Scripture say that the Bookes of the Prophets and Apostles be diuine yet shall I not certainly belieue it except I haue aforehand belieued the Scripture which doth 〈◊〉 affirme to be diuine For also in sundry places of Mahoâ—â—ts AlcoraÌ„ we read that the same was sent of God froÌ„ heaâ—â—â—â— yet do we not belieue it Is there no difference betâ—â—xt these two sayings A maÌ„ is not bound to belieue the Sâ—â—ipture affirming the bookes of the Prophets to be Diuine 〈◊〉 then the Alcoran and this I should not belieue the Sâ—ripture saying the bookes of Prophets are diuine except I 〈◊〉 belieue the Scripture that so sayth Verily they differ 〈◊〉 much as Hell and Heauen as Blasphemy and Truth With Hosius you ioyne Petrus Soto to be a debaser 〈◊〉 Scriptures (m) Pag. 152. in lit a. citing these words as his (n) Petrus Soto â—nstructio Sacerdotum Part. 1. lect 6. pag. 17. if he be truly cited for in my Edition it is pag. 25. Quae 〈◊〉 cultum pertinent magis ex traditione Spiritus Sancti â—â—â—ustratione quà m ex scriptura petenda sunt The things 〈◊〉 belong vnto worship are to be taken by Tradiâ—â—on and the light of the Holy Ghost rather then froÌ„ 〈◊〉 Scripture Thus you Omitting and putting in â—â—ordes chopping and changing the Text. Let vs â—â—are the Authours very words (o) Aduerâ—aÌ„t hunc Doctrinae Euangelicae modum Quod ad vitae rationem attinet post illa quae communia sunt omnibus qualia sunt praecepta Decalogi atque dilectionis Dei Proximi de quibus Christus frequenter loquitur Post haec inquam omnia aduerâ—ant plura esse quaerenda extraditione illustratione Spiritùs Sancti potiùs quà m ex Scriptura praecipuè quae ad cultum pertinent Post haec omnia â—â—uertant plura quaerenda esse ex Traditione illustraâ—â—one Spiritus sancti quà m ex Scripturis praecipuè quae ad â—â—ltum pertinent After all these thinges that is after a â—riest knowes not only the articles and mysteries of â—ayth but also in respect of manners and good life 〈◊〉 communia omnibus de quibus Christus frequenter loâ—â—itur those thinges that are commonly to be kept 〈◊〉 all Christians as the Ten Commandements and 〈◊〉 like about which Christ doth frequently speake â—fter they know these things let them remember that more â—â—ings yet are to be sought for rather by Tradition and the 〈◊〉 Ghosts illumination then by the Scripture spâ—cially 〈◊〉 thinges that belonge vnto Reuerence In these words â—etrus Soto deliuers two thinges First that the things â—oncerning matters not only of Fayth but also of good life that are common and must be knowne of all Christians are largely deliuered in holy Scripture Secondly that post haec omnia after the knowledge of all these common substantiall matters 〈◊〉 for other particuler thinges they are to be learned by Tradition more then by Scripture Hence I inferre that Petrus Soto by the words quae ad cultum pertinent doth not meane the mayne dutyes of Latriae and Religion but Reuerentiall carriage and ceremonyes to be vsed in the administration of the Sacraments This is cleere For by things pertinent vnto Reuerence he meanes thinges that are not common vnto all nor to be knowne and obserued of all But the mayne dutyes of Latria Religion are common vnto all Christians Therefore Soto doth not meane them in his wordes Quae ad cultum pertinenâ— but only things of ceremoniall Reuerence in the vse of the Christian sacrifice and Sacraments as the Authour (p) Quae autem in celebratione Baptismatis qua ratione agenda sunt vbi est scriptum Credendúmne est tantum Ministerium sine vlla praeparatione SOLEMNITATE RITV quae ad eius excitant venerationem traditum esse Ibid. pag. 26. doth also in that place declare So that it is in you wonderful boldnes by so many leauings out by so many alterings and transposings of words to change Sotus his meaning as though he had been besotted with Swenckfeldian fancy of immediat Reuelation without Scripture In your Reply to the Preface (m) These leaues want numbers but it is in the sixt leafe the first side froÌ„ the beginning of the Reply to the Preface you say Thâ—â— the Roman Church doth require that Protestants send the holy scriptures packing and not reckon the same among Dâ—â—uine Principles To make this slaunder good you 〈◊〉 in the margent (n) Had Bosius spoken inconsideratly what folly or impotent malice is it to vrge the vnaduised speach of a priuate writer as the fayth of the Church Bosius de sig Eccles. lib. 16. cap. 10. scriptura non refertur inter eiusmodi principia the Scripture is not reckoned amongst these principles 〈◊〉 wit Diuine This saying of Bosius you repeate ouer ouer in your Booke yea the same is twice repeated in your answere to the Iesuits Preface In your Orthodoxe you haue it also and your (o) Defence pag. 1â—1 Brother more ofteÌ„ as though Bosius did say the Scripturs were not Diuine But your slaunder is intollerable for he doth not say that Scriptures are not reckoned amongst Diuine Principles but only not amongst the articles of the Creed His wordes are We know that amongst other articles of the Creed one is I belieue the holy Catholike Church Now these articles are as it were certayne principles which must be knowne and belieued in the first place But the Scripture is not numbred amongst THESE Principles although it be named HOLY and SACRED Hence appeareth how notoriously you slauÌ„der and falsify Bosius by making him say that Scriptures are not numbred amongst Diuine Principles First because he sayth not they are not numbred amongst Diuine Principles but only not amongst the twelue Articles of the Creed which is a truth so manifest as Ministers cannot be ignorant thereof if they be acquainted with the Creed SecoÌ„dly because in that very place and sentence he doth affirme the contrary to wit that the Scriptures are holy and sacred What is this but Diuine Verily this accusation that Protestants if they will be Catholikes must send the Scriptures packing is as true as what you (s) Answere to the Preface fol. 6. pag. 1. lin 19. there also affirme That they must let the Roman Nahash pluck out their right eye and vow blind obedience vnto him Which you proue because Bonauenture (t) In vitâ— Francisci c. 5. sayth that S. Francis exhorted his Fryars vnto blind Obedience As though Protestants might not be admitted into the Roman Church except they will be Fryars or that by Religious obedience men put out their right eye which regardeth God and Heauen and not tather the left which looketh vpon earth and worldly pleasure Had you eyther the right or left eye of Wisdome you would not write as you doe Had you any sparke of diuine Wisdome you would not vent such false odious slanders Had you any dramme of humane Wisdome you
be proued that she departed from her selfe that is froÌ„ the mother originall doctrines deliuered by the Apostles But she cannot (l) Heere the Minister pag. 128. agayne repeateth his saying that negatiue arguments from humane history are vnconsequent which his saying as hath beene shewed is agaynst the consent of mankind His arguments against this ground of perpetuall Ecclesiasticall Tradition knowne by notorious fame of history are by him named foure but the fourth coÌ„taines foure branches and so they are eight which I will set downe answere First it is not absolutely necessary that the humane history of all matters should be composed Answere There being a cleere lineal succession of Princes and Prelates from the Apostles famously particulrely knowne it is impossible but that historicall TraditioÌ„ eyther written or vnwritten should deliuer most notoriously the substantiall matters of fact done since that time These matters are such as cause great changes in the world as in Ciuill affayres the setting vp the pulling down and changing of renowned Kingdomes States â—n the affayres of the Church the beginnings of ReligioÌ„ the most famous Pastors thereof the conuersions of great Nations the springing vp of heresies poteÌ„t sects their preuailing their being resisted their ouerthrow and commonly also the names of their principall renowned Patrons â—hese illustrious thinges when there is particular Tradition euen to the very names of persons can not be hidden Secondly when history is written it causeth only humane fayth Answer Humane history made by meere human writers and preachers concerning humane and naturall thinges breedes only humayne fayth but Ecclesiasticall Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles made by the Pastours of the Church consecrated to that end by the holy Ghost deliuering diuine reuealed thinges being infallible breedes not only human Fayth but is eleuated by the concurrence of diuine Authority towardes the production of Diuine Fayth as hath beene sayd Thirdly historyes may totally perish and be suppressed or corrupted by the enemies of truth Answere Concerning substantiall renowned matters which are knowne not only by report but also by their permanent effects it is impossible that fame and Tradition should be suppressed or corrupted so long as there is a visible Church in the world For example Arius his doctrine Luthers occasion of changing from the Roman Church King Henryes breach with the Pope and the cause thereof can neuer be suppressed by the ennemyes of truth so long as there shall be a famous Christian Church in the world though about this or that circumstance that are not so notorious questions are mooued and new may arise Fourthly history may be repugnnant to history Answere This cannot be about the substance of the narration when the matters thereof are in manner aforesayd illustrious to wit when they are not only declared by full report but also declare themselues by effects though in circumstaÌ„ce there may be variety of reports Fiftly euen the Papists teach that the principal monuments of antiquity to wit the â—ncient Councells haue not beene faythfully preserued Answere Auncient Geneâ—all Councells concerning the substance of their definitions which they â—id principally intend are and euer were famously knowne yea Tradiâ—â—on hath made the fame of them immortall and incorruptible so long as a visible professing Church shall be in the world Heretikes may endeaâ—our to misreport and corrupt Councells as also they do Scriptures but â—hey neuer could preuayle as concerning any substantiall matter Sixtly many things suppositious haue beene added to the workes of the ancient 〈◊〉 bastardly bookes passe vnder the tytles of Fathers Answere As though also there haue not beene many suppositious bookes vrged as Scripture by Heretikes to wit the Ghospells of Peter of Thomas of Bartholomew Doe not the most ancient Fathers namely the Councell of Carthage S. Augustine receyue some bookes of Scripture to the number of 12. which Protestants partly Caluinists partly LutheraÌ„s reiect Must we therfore refuse triall by Scripture No It is sufficieÌ„t that we haue by most certayne TraditioÌ„ innumerable works that are vndeniably ancient though question be mooued about some which therefore cannot be vrged till they be knowne to be ancient Seauenthly the Papists being a part purge alter such records Answere This is vntruth we purge not any of the bookes of the ancient as any may see with his eyes that will take the paynes to read our Index Expurgatorius set forth by the Protestant Iunius and compare the Expurgations with the bookes Eightly the Papists despise and contemne Historians as Eusebius Sozomen Socrates when they are agaynst their Tenet Answere When good Historians do not agree the matter caÌ„not be certayne but must be decided by coÌ„iÌ„ecture which doth neuer happeÌ„ about the substance of famous facts that by effects made themselues notorious to the world When historians are singular they may be reiected specially when the authours are otherwise heretikes and the narrations wherein they be singular fauour their heresyes Thus Eusebius being an Arrian is not trusted in some narrations agaynst others historians concerning Constantine that seeme to fauour Arrianisme Socrates and Sozomen being Nouatians are not easily credited in singular narrations in the behalfe of their Sect Though as I sayd concerning matters illustrious facts which make themselues euident to mankind by effects as are the changing of ChristiaÌ„ Religion ouer the world resistance made agaynst all open and notorious sects and who were the resisters who the resisted such difference is neuer found about substance but only in circumstance And only this Tradition of the Church concerning these kinds of notorious matter which is as cleerly Apostolicall as the sunne is bright at Noone day we make the ground of our beliefe that our Roman Religion hath not beene changed since the Apostles be proued to haue changed her doctrine since the Apostles by any monuments of History or Antiquity yea the contrary in my Iudgement may be most euidently proued in this sort The doctrines that were for diuers ages vniuersally receyued in the Christian Church and no time of their beginning is assignable must be doctrines vnchanged comming from the Apostles But it is most cleere (m) Because this matter is stifly not to say outfacingly denyed by the Minister pa. 129. 134. behold the very words of Protestants D. Hutterus Luthers successour in the chayre of Wittenberge de sacrificio Missatico pag. 377. I willingly acknowledge that the Roman Idolary whose pyth is the sacrifice of the Masse did occupy in manner the whole world specially for the last thousand yeares Hospinian the successour of Zwinglius in his chayre superintendency Hist. Sacram pa. 1. pag. 157. In the age of Gregory the Great that is more then a thousand yeares agoe all maÌ„ner of popish Idolatry superstition as a mayne sea ouerwhelmed and drowned in manner the whole world no man making resistance agaynst it Simon de Voyoâ— a Geneuian Minister and of Caluins schoole in his
any Doctrines preiudiciall vnto Princes be singular vnto Iesuits that is held by the consent of Iesuits and by Iesuits only why do you not name these opinions what they are Why do you dwell vpon generalyties according to the custome of cosening Companions Dolosus versatur in Generalibus Why but because you know that descending vnto particulars your falshood would presently be displaied Hence you talke in the ayre and in effect thus you discourse I know there be certayne opinions mayntayned singularly by Iesuits agaynst Royall Soueraignety what they are I doe not know For they be written in bookes as inuisible as was our Church before Luther no where to be found but in the Globe of the Moone and are no wayes to be read but by the light therof The opinion for which some Catholicks at whome you glance as appeares by your margent haue taxed Iesuits of singularity is that God hath assured Prescience of thinges contingent not only of which shall in time actually happen but also of what vpon suppositions which neuer were might haue beene For example God knoweth certaynly whether these conditionall propositions be true or false If King Henry the eight had neuer seene Anne Bullen England had been Catholicke at this day If Queene Mary of Scotland had fled into France whē she came into England shee had recouered her Kingdome agaynst the Rebells If the miracles Christ did in Iewry had been done in Tyrus and Sidon those Cityes would haue done pennance This doctrine some Deuines mislike and say the same was first inuented by Iesuits Which if it be true then haue Protestants done Iesuits wronge that relate this very doctrine of Gods conditionall Prescience as the doctrine of their Reformed Gospell Field of the Church l. 3. c. 23. pag. 122. But I pray you what is this to your Scope The doctrine that God knowes the state of things conditionally contingent what makes it agaynst the Soueraignty of Princes Do you not see you are ridiculous Secondly If Iesuits be not singular in their doctrines to the depression of Kings wherefore was Iesuit Suarez his Booke contra sectam Anglicanam condemned at Paris in France and burnt by the hand of the Hang-man Answere I likewise demand of you if Iesuit Suarez his booke be preiudiciall to Princely authority why is the same allowed in all other Catholicke kingdoms so as the King by his sollicitations could not get the same to be condemned Do not other kingdomes know the Catholike Extent of Royall Authority zealously mantaining the Soueraignty therof How can that doctrin be singular of Iesuits vnto which Bishops secular Doctours and Religious of other Orders haue set their names by way of Approbation as is to be seene in the beginning of that Treatise And if your Argument be good Iesuit Suarez his booke was in France burnt by the hand of the Hangman Ergo the Order of the Iesuits holds doctrine to the preiudice of Princes surely this Argument is strong and vnanswerable Minister Paraeus his booke was in London publickly burnt by the hand of the Hangman by Order of the Kinge wherein no Papist had his hand Ergo the Protestant Ministry holds doctrines pernicious vnto the State of Princes The third Argument Wherefore were Iesuits banished out of the Dominions of the Venetians professing the Roman Fayth if they are guilty of no singularity about the matter of Regall and Ciuill Authority Answere Why are Iesuits permitted desired and sought for by all other Catholick Kingdomes and States of the world if they be guilty of singularity agaynst Regall and Ciuil Authority Should one dispute in this sort Wherefore was Chrysostome Socrat. l. 6. c. 26. alij banished out of the Catholicke Citty of Constantinople by the Catholicke Emperour Arcadius at the instance of the Catholicke Empresse in a Councell of Catholicke Bishops but that he was guilty of treason agaynst Royall Authority What would a learned Answerer say He would laugh at the Disputants folly and tell him that Kings and States may be put into displeasure and Passion against the Ministers of Gods holy Word so banish them their Dominions not only for singularity agaynst Ciuill Authority but for other reasons as for their ouer zealous inueighing agaynst vitious life constant crossing of their disordinate humours I could bring many examples of iust holy men banished by Catholicks yea by pious and godly Kings and States vpon mistakings suspitions false informations S. Athanasius that mirrour of sanctity learning vnto whome the Church of God is more beholding then to the whole world which then liued besides was he not for suspitions about temporall Affayres banished by Constantine the Great the first Christian Emperour the patterne of Religious Princes Ruffin l. 1. c. 17. God permits such trialls to fall on his Seruants for the exercise of their Patience vntill time discouer the truth which being sufficiently cleered if men still remayne obdurate his Iustice will not sleepe The fourth Argument Mariana the Iesuits worke de Institutione Principis wherin he maintayneth Regicide is extant in many hands Answere The example of Mariana proueth not that Iesuits hold singular opinions agaynst others but only that Mariana was singular agaynst the rest of his Order which through the ouersight of Reuisors passed to the print A thinge that may sometymes happen which to preuent the Generall of the Iesuits gaue that seuere Order about reuiewing of Bookes in that kind which the Iesuit hath set downe in his Answere That Iesuit Mariana was singular agaynst the rest appeares in that he was confuted by name of some of his own Order for this doctrine euen before the censure of Paris See the letter of Cotton And if you will allow agaynst the common Prouerbe One swallow makes not a Summer that the errour of one be sufficient be condemne a whole Society then the Minister Paraeus his Worke wherein he mantaynes Deposition and Regicide must make all Ministers guilty specially seing not one of them wrote agaynst Paraeus his booke before the same was publickely burnt in London Nor was Mariana his doctrine in the behalfe of the Popes as you oftē ignorantly suppose but of the Commōwealths Power agaynst Tyrants A Doctrine which Iesuits condemne but Protestants commonly follow I could name twenty of their Authours that peremptorily affirme what Mariana did only doubtingly propose yea much more For do not Protestants teach See the booke of Dangerous positions lib. 1. c. 4. l. 2. c. 1. That Iudges ought by the law of God so summon Princes before them for their crimes and to proceed agaynst them as agaynst all other offenders That it is lawfull to kill wicked Kings and Tyrants That God to the people hath giuen the sword from which no person King Queen Emperour is exempt Being an Idolater he must dy the death An hundred the like Theorems of your Gospell and Gospellers could I alleadge to stop your mouth the opinion which Mariana did doubtfully insinuate being farre short of