to be said or song to the praise of God then vnlesse he exclude the people from the praises of God the people also is to concurre with the Priests in praysing of God which they cannot do vnlesse they vnderstand the language of the seruice But I trow he will not denie but that the people ought to ioyne in singing Psalmes and giuing thankes to God in the open congregation And therefore the Psalme 95. Come let vs sing vnto the Lord is commonly vsed in the beginning of Gods seruice and the people in auncient Liturgies were wont oftentimes to answer the Priest Againe it is false that publike seruice was appointed to be said and sung onely by ecclesiasticall officers and that the people did not as well pray for things necessarie as praise God for benefites receiued But how could they do this not knowing what they sayd or prayed If a man should present himselfe before the Pope and speake ghibrish or a language not vnderstood by the partie would he not thinke himselfe mocked He addeth further that it is not needfull for the people to be alwaies present at publike seruice but onely in spirit and consent of heart But the fellow doth plainely contradict himselfe For how can a man be present in spirit and consent of heart when he is absent with his vnderstanding and knoweth not what is done or said Beside that he ouerthroweth that which he would proue For if consent of spirit and heart be requisite in publike seruice then is it requisite the people should vnderstand what is said without which vnderstanding he cannot consent Lastly if it be profitable that the people be present in the congregation where God is serued that is sufficient for vs to proue our assertion For why should not the people meete to celebrate the praises of God being commaunded to keepe his Sabboths And why should they rather be enioyned to heare Masse which is a profanation of Gods seruice then to come to the Church to praise God and to pray vnto him and to heare his holy word And if the people ought to do this then is it not sufficient that in time of seruice they should gape on the Priest or patter their Pater nosters or Aue Mariaes or rattle their beades as the ignorant Papistes vse to do Thirdly he supposeth he can proue seruice in an vnknowne tongue out of the ceremoniall law of Moyses For because it is said Luk. 1. That all the multitude of the people was praying without at the houre of incense while Zacharie offered incense within he would inferre very willingly that it is not necessarie the people should pray with the Priest in a tongue vnderstood But if this might be applyed to the Masse then would it also follow that the Priest might offer the sacrifice of the Masse without a Clerke and the people attend without in the church yard It would also follow that the people might not heare nor see Masse For that the people might not enter within nor see what was done in the sanctuarie Against vs this example fitteth not For neither can any strong argument be drawne from the ceremonies of the law that are now abrogated nor can Frier Robert shew that the Priests of the law prayed in a tongue not vnderstood or that they vsed any publike prayer which the people heard not Fourthly he alleageth that the three learned languages of Hebrew Greeke and Latine were sanctified by Christ in the title of his crosse But neither is he able to shew why these three languages should be called learned rather then others nor doth it follow that in publike seruice we should vse only these three languages because they were vsed in the title of the crosse vnlesse our aduersarie will graunt that it also followeth because Chrift rode vpon an asse that he and his consorts are onely to ride vpon asses Fiftly he telleth vs that auncient Fathers testifie that it is not conuenient that all things that are handled in Church seruice praesertim in sacris mysterijs should be vnderstood by all vnlearned people in their owne vulgar languages And to prooue this he citeth Dionysius Origen S. Basil Chrysostome and Gregorie But herein he sheweth himselfe a shamelesse fellow albeit all men knew it before For none of these speaketh one word against vulgar languages Nay all of them shew that the people vnderstood the language of publike Liturgies Againe they deny not that it is conuenient that the people should vnderstand the mysteries of Christian religion but rather shew the difficultie of it But what is that to vulgar languages when the Priests themselues vnderstand not the mysteries of Christian religion A sixth argument he draweth from the practise of the Iewes supposing that in Iurie and Ierusalem the publike seruice was in Hebrew and that Hebrew was not vnderstood of the common people But neither was publike seruice in all Syria in Hebrew as appeareth by the songs and prayers of Ephrem in the Syrian tongue nor is it likely that the Iewes did not vnderstand Hebrew in Christs time seeing now all the Iewes as it is said teach their children Hebrew In Esdras lib. 2. cap. 8. it appeareth they vnderstood Hebrew Intellexerunt verba quae docuerat eos They vnderstood the words which he taught them That theresore which is spoken of interpretation is meant of the meaning and not of the words as very simply our aduersaries suppose His seuenth argument is taken from the example of the Apostles that as he saith appointed the order of seruice But this ouerthroweth our aduersaries cause For if the Apostles neuer appointed the Masse or the canon or that seruice should be said in a tongue not vnderstood but rather ordained another forme of celebration of Sacraments as I haue shewed in my bookes de Missa against Bellarmine and if it be a matter cleare that all should be done decently in the Church and to edification then is it not likely that they would allow or did appoint the seruice of God to be said in a tongue not vnderstood of the people and very hardly vnderstood of most Priests Here also he denyeth That it can be shewed out of any author of antiquitie whatsoeuer that any christian Catholike countrie since the Apostles time had publike seruice in any language but in one of these three viz. Hebrew Greeke or Latine except by some speciall dispensation from the Pope and vpon some speciall consideration for some limited time But first it maketh nothing for him or against vs if any nation had their seruice in Greek Latine or Hebrew if the same vnderstood the language of the publike Liturgie For we onely say that seruice ought not to be said in a language not vnderstood Secondly where he denyeth the vse of all other tongues beside these thrée he sheweth himselfe either very ignorant or very impudent If he haue not read auncient fathers and histories concerning the languages of publike Liturgies he is but an ignorant nouice in
a tongue vnderstood restored vnto vs and read publikely and priuately without limitation or danger we are to accompt the same as a singular benefit bestowed vpon the people of England For what can be deenied more beneficiall then for the hungrie to obtaine food for naked souldiers to obtaine armes and prouisions for poore people in want to be enriched with such a treasure But saith N. D. Wardw. pag. 14. If the translator do not put downe the words of Scriptures sincerely in his vulgar translation then the simple reader that cannot discerne will take mans word for Gods word Secondly he saith that if a false sence should be gathered out of Scripture then the reader should sucke poison in stead of wholesome meate But these reasons make no more against reading Scriptures in vulgar tongues and translating them into those tongues then against reading Scriptures in the Latin and translating them into Latine For as well may the Latine Interpreter erre as he that translateth scriptures into vulgar tongues and aswell may a man draw a peruerse sence out of the Latine as out of the English If then these reasons conclude not against that Latin translation they are too weak to conclude against vulgar translations Againe if it be hurtfull to follow a corrupt translation and to gather a contrarie sence out of scriptures we are not therefore to cast away scriptures but rather to séeke for the most sincere translations and the most true sence and meaning of the holy Ghost reuealed in holy Scriptures Thirdly he alleageth these words out of the Apostle 2. Cor. 3. The letter killeth but the spirit quickneth against reading of scriptures in vulgar tongues But these words do no lesse touch them that follow the letter in the Hebrew Gréek theÌ„ in the vulgar tongs And yet Robert Parsons wil not deny but that it is lawfull to reade scriptures in Hebrew and Gréeke albeit he if it were vnlawfull would neuer be guiltie of this fault being most ignorant of these tongs Fourthly he asketh how vnlearned readers will discerne things without a guide As if lay-men because they haue teachers might not also reade the books from whence the principles of Christian doctrine are deriued This therefore séemeth to be all one as if Geometricians and other teachers of arts should debarre their schollers from reading Euclide and other authors that haue written of arts Furthermore albeit somethings without teachers cannot of rude learners be vnderstood yet all things that pertaine to faith and manners are plainely set downe in scriptures In ijs quae apertè in scripturis posita sunt inueniuntur illa omnia saith S. Augustine lib. 2. de doctr Chr. c. 9. Quae continent fidem moresque vivendi Fiftly he alleageth that the vnderstanding of Scriptures is a particular gift of God But that notwithstanding no man is forbidden to reade scriptures in Hebrew Greeke or Latine And yet if Robert Parsons vnderstand them at all he vnderstandeth them better in the vulgar English then in these tongues Furthermore albeit to vnderstand Scriptures be a peculiar gift of God yet no man is therefore to refraine from reading of scriptures but rather to reade theÌ„ diligently and to conferre with the learned and to beséech God to giue him grace to vnderstand them The which is proued by the example of the Eunuch Act. 8. who read the scriptures and threw them not away albeit he could not vnderstand all without the help of a teacher Sirthly he vseth the examples of Ioane Burcher a pudding wife as some suppose and qualified like his mother the Blacke-smiths wife and of Hacket William Geffrey and other heretickes In his Warne-word Encontr 1. cap. 8. he addeth George Paris Iohn More certaine Anabaptists and other heretikes and insinuateth that all these fell into heresies by reading of scriptures in vulgar languages But his collectioÌ„ is false and shamelesse and derogatorie to scriptures and contrary both to them and to fathers Our Sauior speaking of the Sadduceis Mat. 22. saith they erred for that they knew not the scriptures Erratis nescientes scriptur as The Apostle talking of reading of scriptures saith they are profitable to instruct men vnto saluation and not hurtfull or the cause of any mans destruction The ignorance of scriptures saith Chrysostome ho. de Lazaro hath brought forth heresies Scripturarum ignoratio haereses peperit And againe Barathrum est scripturarum ignoratio that is the ignorance of scriptures is a bottomlesse gulfe Finally to obscure the glorie of this benefite of reading scriptures in vulgar tongues in his out-worne Warne-word Encont 1. c. 8. he saith that such as vnderstand Latin or haue licence of the Ordinary to reade scriptures in vulgar tongues haue no benefit by this generall permission of reading scriptures as if euery one that vnderstandeth Latin durst reade vulgar translations without licence or as if the Church receiued no benefite vnlesse euery particular member were partaker of that benefite This therefore is a most ridiculeus conceit and likely to procéed from such an idle head Further the same might be alleaged against Latine translations And yet Robert Parsons will not deny but the Church receiueth benefite by Latine translations albeit the Greekes and such as vnderstand Hebrew and not Latin receiue no benefite by the Latine translation If then Robert Parsons meane hereafter to barke against the reading of scriptures that are commended vnto vs as light medicine food armes and things most necessary he must alleage vs better reasons then these lest he be taken for an hereticall or rather lunaticall fellow that spendeth his wit in the defence of fond senselesse and impious positions CHAP. VI. Of publike Prayers and administration of Sacraments and other parts of the Church liturgie and seruice in vulgar tongues LIke wise the Papists to take from Christians the effect and fruite of their prayers set out most of their prayer bookes in Latine and closely forbid the common seruice and liturgie of the Church to be said in vulgar languages In the â—2 session of the Conuenticle of Trent where they anathematise them that hold that the Masse should be celebrated in vulgar tongues their meaning is to establish the rites of the Romish Church and the Latine seruice and to prohibit the vse of vulgar tongues in publike liturgies And this is also proued by the practise of the synagogue of Rome that alloweth the prayers of such as pray in Latine albeit like Parrots they vnderstand not what they prattle and by the testimonie of Hosius Bellarmine and others writing vpon that argument But this practise is most barbarous fruitlesse and contrary to the custome of Christ his Church in auncient time Sinesciero virtutemvocis saith the Apostle 1. Cor. 14. ero ci cui loquor barbarus qui loquitur mihi barbarus that is If I vnderstand not the meaning of the words I vtter I shall be to him to whom I speake barbarous and he that speaketh shal be barbarous vnto me And againe If I
this cause If he know the practise of the Church and denie it he wanteth shame That other tongues haue bene vsed in publike Liturgies beside the thrée mentioned it may be proued by diuers testimonies Hierome in the funerall Sermon of Paula saith that Psalmes were sung not onely in Hebrew Gréeke and Latine but also in the Syrian language In his Epistle to Heliodorus he saith that the languages and writings of all nations do sound foorth Christ his passion and resurrection Nunc passionem Christi resurrectionem eius cunctarum gentium voces literae sonant And againe in his Epistle to Marcella Vox quidem dissona sed vna religio tot penè psallentium chori quot gentium diuersitates The tongue is diuers but one religion there be so many quires of singers as there be diuersities of nations S. Ambrose writing vpon the first Epistle to the Corinthians chap. 14. speaking of Iewes conuerted to Christ Hi ex Hebraeis erant saith he qui aliquaendo Syria lingua plerunque Hebraa in tractatibus oblationibus vtebantur These were Iewes which in their Sermons and oblations vsed sometime the Syrian tongue and oftentimes the Hebrew Theodoret lib. 4. cap. 29. saith Ephrem made Hymnes and Psalmes in the Syrian tongue And Sozomen saith they were sung in Churches Chrysostome in 2. ad Corinth homil 18. saith that in celebration of the eucharist all ought to be common because the whole people and not the priest alone giueth thankes Et cum spiritu tuo nihil aliud est saith he quà m ea quae sunt eucharistiae communia sunt omnia neque enim ille solus gratias agit sed populus omnis Saint Augustine expos 2. in psal 18. saith we ought to vnderstand what we say or sing that like men and not like parrots or ousels we may sing It appeareth by Iustinians 123. nouel constitution and by Isidore Ecclesiast offic lib. 1. ca. 10. and by the ninth chapter of S. Augustine de catechisand rudib that the people in time past did vnderstand Church seruice In Britaine the Romaine musicke was not in vse before the time of Iames the Deacon of Yorke about the yeare of the Lord 640. Bede lib. 1. hist. Anglic. cap. 1. stgnifteth that the knowledge of diuine mysteries was made common to diuers nations inhabiting Britanie by meditation of scriptures Auentinus annal Boior li. 4. saith The priests of Liburnia are ignorant of the Latine tongue and in their mother tongue offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist Adhuc saith he ignari sunt Romanae linguae sacrificia patrio more nempe Slauorum procurant The AEthiopian canon of the Masse which they call vniuersall is in the AEthiopian language as the translation witnesseth that is published in Biblioth patr tom 6. a Bignio edit Sigismundus Baro in his commentaries of the Muscouiticall affaires telleth vs how that nation doth celebrate Masse in their mother tongue Totum sacrum seu missa sayth he gentili ac vernacula lingua apud illos peragi solet The aduersaries themselues also testifie for vs. Thomas Aquinas in 1. Cor. 14. speaking of the vse of strange languages in the Church sayth it was accounted madnesse in the primitiue Church because Christians were not then instructed in Ecclesiasticall rites Ideò erat insania in Primitiua Ecclesia quia erant rudes in ritu Ecclesiastico In Primitiua Ecclesia saith Lyra in 1. Cor. 14. benedictiones cetera communia fiebant in vulgari that is in the primitiue church blessings and other common oraysons were made in vulgar tongues Iohn Billet in his summe de diuin offic in prolog confesseth that in the Primitiue Church Christians were forbidden to speake with tongues vnlesse there were some by to interprete He saith also that it profiteth vs nothing to heare vnlesse we vnderstand lamenting that in his time there were so few that vnderstood either what they heard or what they read And thus much to refel Robert Parsons his notorious impudencie that would néeds affirme that it cannot be shewed out of any author of antiquitie that any Catholike country had publike seruice in vulgar tongues His eight argument is deduced from the vse of the Hebrew Greeke and Latine tongues in Asia Africke and the Westerne countries But vnlesse he can shew that these tongues were not vnderstood of those people that had their publike seruice in them all this maketh for vs and not for him For we do not deny the vse of these tongues to those that vnderstand them but onely thinke it madnesse to vse them where they are not vnderstood In Asia the Greeke tongue was common to most nations Therfore the seruice was in Greeke and not in Latine albeit Parsons suppose Latine to be a sanctified tongue In Africke and diuerse Westerne countries Latine was a common language in time past and therefore they had their liturgies in Latine and not in Greeke It appeareth by S. Augustine retract lib. 1. c. 20 that diuers vnderstood Latine better then the Punike tong and Cicero pro Archia sayth that the Greeke tongue was a common language in his time Although therefore the publicke seruice of the Church was in Greeke and Latine when those tongues were best vnderstood yet it followeth not that the same should be still vsed when no man of the vulgar sort vnderstandeth them or that the Catholicke Church did generally or euer practise this or that S. Augustine lib 4. cont Donatist cap. 24. doth intend to speake for the vse of vnknowne languages as Fryer Robert vnlearnedly and blockishly pretendeth Finally he alleageth that euery man lightly vnderstandeth somewhat of the Latine But lightly he telleth vs a loud lie as experience may teach euery man that is not obstinate Beside that if it be profitable for some men to vnderstand some few words then reason will inferre that it were far more profitable if the publike seruice were in a tongue that might of all the hearers be vnderstood It is therefore a great blessing that we may heare God speaking vnto vs in scriptures in our owne mother tongue and praise and honor him with heart and voyce in the publike congregation If then Robert Parsons meane to confirme his owne opinion and to ouerthrow our cause he must bring better arguments answer these testimonies and not fight with his owne shadow or cauill with some words or allegations that are not materiall CHAP. VII Of the great deliuerance of Christians out of the bloudie hands of wooluish Papistes wrought by Queene Elizabeth No man can wel esteeme what fauor God hath done the Church of England by deliuering the same from the cruell persecution of the bloudie and mercilesse Papists but such as either themselues suffered or else knew the sufferings and verations of their brethren in Queene Maries time Neither do any so well apprehend Gods mercie in deliuering them from the dangers of the sea as those that haue either passed great stormes or escaped after shipwracke seeing their
princes stand vpon loosing their crownes at the Popes pleasure then are they in poore estate and without any assurance of their kingdomes considering especially the malice of the Pope against such as professe the truth and his ambition in encroching vpon his neighbors dominions Ghineard a Iebusite was hanged in Paris anno 1594. for writing and holding diuers seditions positions wherof one was that the crowne of France might and ought to be translated into another family then that of Bourbon Neither néed any man make question by whom he meant that this feat should be wrought séeing the Pope is the man whose authoritie the Iebusites and Cananites seeke to aduance aboue Kings Finally Robert Parsons in his Warnword part 2. f. 117. 6 alleageth a booke entitled De iusta Henrici tertij abdicatione that is of the iust deposing of the French King Henry the third whereby it is apparent that he also holdeth that the Pope may iustly depose Kings Neither is it likely that he would so busily haue sought to stirre vp rebels in England and to suborne cut-throtes to kill the Quéene or that he would haue desired that Pius the fift his bull against her might be suspended for a time concerning Papists if he had not taken her to be deposed by the Pope But because this doctrine of the Popes authority that of it selfe is litle worth would auaile nothing vnlesse the people also can be drawne to fauour the Popes faction therefore the Pope and his schollers giue also a power to the people to depose Kings and princes especially if once they proue tyrants that is as Iebusites teach if they be excommunicate by the Pope or else séeke to maintaine their state or the truth against the biolence and practises of the popish saction Gregory the seuenth tooke away all regall power from Henry the fourth and gaue the same vnto Rodulph of Saxonie commaunding all Christians to receiue Rodulph for their King and not to obey the Emperour Henry in any thing as being absolued from their othes which they were wont to giue vnto Kings Regiam ei potestatem adimo saith Gregory the seuenth interdicoque Christianis omnibus illo iuramento absolutis quo fides regibus dari consueuit ne Henrico vtla in re obtemperent Rodulphum in regem suscipiant But this could not be executed vulesse the people had some power giuen them to put by the one and to receiue the other Nor can princes stand firme if seditious Popes can giue the people this power Innocent the fourth likewise deposed Friderick the second forbidding his subiects to obey him and commanding them to whom it appertained to chuse another King As if it lay in the power of the people to do the one or the other or as it the princes authoritie stood in this case vpon the peoples pleasure Pius the fift declared Quéene Elizabeths subiects to be fréed from their obedience and not onely commaunded them not to obey her but by all perswasions moued them to depose her Is not this then a plaine and euident argument that the Pope doth giue power to the people contrary to the doctrine of the Apostle Rom. 13. and Tit. 3. to rebell against princes and to depose them William Raynolds a renegate Englishman in a treatise set out vnder the counterfeit name of William Rosse and entitled De iustaereip Christianae suprareges impios haereticos authoritate iustissimaque Caetholicorum he should say cacolicorū ad Henricum Nauarraeū quemcunque haereticum à regno Galliae repellendum confederatione doth in expresse termes giue the people power to depose Kings and maintaineth impudently the wicked league of the French rebels against their King In the 2. chap. of that booke he affirmeth that the right of al the Kings kingdoms of Europe is laid vpō this foundation that common wealths or people may depose thir kings His words are Quodius omnium Europae regum regnorum hoc fundamento nititur quodresp possint suos reges deponere But therein he sheweth himselfe and his consorts to be the most notorious traitors of all Europe Likewise Robert Parsons our aduersary if such a base companion may deserue that name and a notorious firebrand of sedition in his booke of succession to the crowne of England made against the iust title of King Iames and in fauour of the infanta of Spaine in his first booke chap. 1. endeuoureth to proue that succession to gouernement by nearenesse of blood is by positiue lawes of the commonwealth and may vpon iust causes be altered by the same His intention is to shew that they which made that law may also alter it In the third chapter he striueth with himselfe to shew that not onely vnworthy pretenders may be put backe but that Kings in possession may be chastised and deposed The first part of which proposition is directed against our most worthy and rightfull King before his comming to the crowne the second aymeth at him now that by Gods grace he is attained to the Crowne In the fourth chapter he sayth that othes in diuers cases bind not subiects and that sometimes they may lawfully proceed against Princes Matters so seditious and odious that it séemeth to me admirable that such a leud companion should be suffered so impudently to barke against the authority of Kings or that the Archpriest or the Iebusits or Masse priests that depend vpon him and allow this doctrine and percase yet stand for the infantaes title together with their cōsorts shold be suffered to liue by the lawes of that King whom by their wicked doctrine they haue sought to dispossesse of his right and to depose from his royall throne Neither is this the doctrine of these base companions only but also of other more famous Doctors and of the most illustrious ring-leaders of the Iebusites Bellarmine lib. 5. de pontif Rom. c. 6. saith It is not lawful for Christians to tolerate a King that is an infidel or an hereticke if he go about to draw his subiects to his heresie or infidelitie His words are these Non licet Christianis tolerare regem infidelem aut haereticum si ille pertrahere conetur subditos ad suam haeresim aut infidelitatem Now it is well knowne that such as receiue not the superstition and heretical doctrine of the Romish synagogue are by the sect of Papists accompted heretikes and litle better then infidels Emanuel Sa a Iebusite also in a booke called Aphorismi confessariorum holdeth these aphorismes ensuing In verbo Princeps That the Prince may be depriued by the common-wealth for tyrannie and also if he do not his dutie or when there is any iust cause and another may be chosen of the greater part of the people But some saith he suppose that onely tyrannie is a iust cause of deposition His words stand thus Potest princeps per remp priuari ob tyrannidem si non faciat officium suum cum est causa aliqua iusta
do euery where vse this word Minister of Christ or minister of the Gospell in good part as for example in these words Rom. 15. That I should be the Minister of Iesus Christ towards the Gentiles And 1. Cor. 3. VVho is Paul then and who is Apollo but the Ministers by whom ye beleeued And 2. Cor. 11. They are the Ministers of Christ. And Col. 1. He is a faithfull Minister of Christ. Is he not then an impious fellow doth he not declare himself the slaue of Satan that euery where vseth this word in scorne and contempt saying sir minister the minister insolent minister and giuing out that a true minister and false minister is all one to him In his answer to my Epistle speaking of my request to haue Creswell to answer he alludeth to Christs words Mat. 20. Mar. 10. where answering the sonnes of Zebedey he sayth Nescitis quid petatis For making himselfe Christ and me one of the sons of Zebedey he sayth Nescis quid petis So shamelesse he is in taking vpon him the person of Christ abusing Christs words to his scornefull purpose He should therfore rather haue made himself a beare ward his seditious schollers beare-whelpes Creswel the crier of the game In the end of his wild obseruations vpon my Preface he obiecteth preaching vnto me where in great reproch he calleth me preaching Deane Yet the Apestle Rom. 16. and 1. Cor. 1. teacheth vs that preaching is the meanes to reueale the Gospell and to bring men to Christ. It is no maruell therefore if this limbe of Antichrist do hate preaching by which men are brought from Antichrist to Christ desiring nothing more then to kéepe his countrimen in darknes and to reduce them backe into Egypt Fol. 22. he iesteth at Sir Francis Hastings saith He doth imitate the spirit of some hidden prophet But what is more impious then to vse the name of a prophet of Gods holy spirit to make vp a iest He professeth that he handleth controuersies of religion and yet fol. 33. b. he calleth his dispute an Enterlude Do you then thinke that this man deserueth credit that of a Masse-priest and Iebusite is now become a Comedian séemeth to make a iest of religion Eusebius liked not the Gentiles that in their Theaters made sport with matters of Christian religion What then may we think of this counterfet Christian but that he is worse then the Gentiles Fol. 29. he defendeth Panormitan and Hostiensis that affirme that Christ and the Pope haue but one consistory and that the Pope can as it were do all things that Christ can do except sinne But therein he professeth his owne impietie rather thē excuseth theirs For who doth not acknowledge it to be a matter impious to compare a man to Christ in all things except one and to make Christ the author of the Popes sentences and iudgements Likewise it is impious to defend the Glosse that sayth Dominus Deus noster Papa c. cum inter extr Io. 2◠de verb. signif as doth Parsons Nay he goeth about to face down Sir Francis that doth reprehend it Neither is it materiall that the name of God is giuen sometime to creatures For that is by a similitude and not absolutely nor properly Fol. 38. he defendeth Steuchus and Pope Nicholas that say that Constantine called the Pope God and held him for God which was neuer vttered by Constantine nor can be spoken without blasphemie Fol. 40. he maintaineth the words of Cusanus that sayd that the iudgement of God changed But S. Iames saith Apud Deum non est transmutatio there is no change with God This was also an opinion of the Arrians Dei verbum posse mutari that the sonne of God which is the eternall word may be changed as Athanasius testifieth decret Nicen. synod contr Arrian Furthermore it is blasphemous as hée holdeth with Cusanus to say that Gods institution in the sacrament may be changed Fol. 42. he saith Sir Francis cometh out with a decalogue of blessings answering perhaps to the ten Commaundements for whose obseruation the Iewes haue many blessings promised founding a scurrilous iest vpon the ten Commaundements and emplying that among Christians there is no such reward for performance of the law as among the Iewes Fol. 45. he placeth Trinitarians among heretikes as if it were heresie to beléeue in the holy Trinity Fol. 60. and 61. he beareth his reader in hand that reading of scriptures in tongues vnderstood is cause that men fall into heresies direct contrary to the doctrine of our Sauior Search the scripture saith he for in them ye thinke to haue eternall life Thus he blasphemeth the sacred word of God with his impure mouth Fol. 79. he maketh a iest of the words of our Sauiour Matth. 5. where he saith Our clergy may sing beati pauperes spiritu This I say is mere impiety For so should he sing too if he were of an Atheist and had forgotten that these are Christs words Fol. 81. he maketh sport with words of Scripture comparing Cadburie to the ruines of Hierusalem and yet this fellow is estéemed a worthy patron of poperie such a patron such a cause Fol. 101. he denyeth scriptures to be the rule of faith which is as much as if he meant either impiously to ouerthrow the canon of scriptures or else to preferre vncertaine traditions before them 2. enconter c. 5. fol. 32. 6. he compareth reading of scriptures to excesse of apparrell spending much and playing at dice like a cheating companion drawing similitudes from his owne practise to disgrace the word of God Chap. 6. encontr 2. he will not confesse his errour that sayd before Wardw. p. 14. that the words of the Apostle 1. Cor. 3. make against reading of scriptures Who can denie saith he but Saint Paul talking of scriptures as they were in the learned tongues saith of them litera occidit But to accuse men for reading of scriptures is impious and sauoreth of the error of the Origenists and Swenchfeldians errour that condemne the letter of the Scriptures Neither can he excuse himselfe saying that he meant rash reading For the Apostle where he saith that the letter killeth talketh not of reading but of the effect that the scriptures worke in mens harts shewing that the letter condemneth those which by grace are not moued effectually to embrace the word Chap. 11. encontr 2. most blasphemously he compareth Christs miracles to the miracles of Thomas Becket and his lying legend to the scriptures For which he deserueth to be marked as a miraculous blasphemer In the same place he saith that materiall honour in worshipping saints hurteth not the deuout nor diminisheth their merit Which is as much as if he should say that those that worship theeues and malefactors as saints offend not but rather merit with God And that men may worship they know not whom nor what Fol. 99. he maintaineth a blasphemous prayer wherein papists desire
might seeme to speak against images Neither doth he onely bely the fathers but his aduersaries also Fol. 114. he sayth that Aurifaber Snepfius Heshufius Vergerius Beza Musculus Socinus and other minifters in this agree that the auncient fathers are against them and for the Papists A matter neither agreed vppon by all nor in these termes confessed by any As for Socinus he was an Italian heretike cast out and condemned by our church Why then is he ranked with honest men Doth this ranke fellow in this multiforme lie think it reason to range together men of such disformitie In another place he affirmeth boldly that Luther Caluine Peter Martyr and Melancthon make God the author of sinne not considering as it séemeth what a sinfull act it is to calumniate and bely honest men That they are desperatly belied their words and writings where they profefse and declare the contrary of this which Walpoole affirmeth do manifestly demonstrate But this monster hath filed his tongue to speake vntruth Fol. 157. speaking of popish purgatorie and limbus patrum he sayth they were taught by all antiquitie A lie most notorious and which shal make him famous to all posteritie For neither is this word Limbus patrum nor the popish distinction of the parts of hell nor the popish doctrine concerning Limbus patrum and purgatory held by any one much lesse by all the ancient fathers And thereon I ioyne issue with this disioynted companion requiring him to answer that which I haue written De Purgatorio and contra limbum patrum papisticum to this purpose Of his great skil in Latin his words fol. 57. b. wil giue testimony For there he hath Vnae ecclesiae sole for Vno ecclesiae sole as Hierome hath or at least Vnius ecclesiae sole if hee would haue spoken in any congruity Of his skil in the Gréeke we find good proofe fol. 54. b. where in two words he maketh thrée faults First he denideth this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and maketh it two words Next he writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and thirdly he putteth an accent of aspiration in the midst of a word If he had bene put to vse much Greeke we should haue had good stuffe that find him so faulty in this only one Gréeke word To conclude with our partie for this time neither in obiecting against his aduersary nor in defending himselfe his consorts his cause doth he acquite himself in any tolerable sort Unto me he obiecteth that I vnderstād not the state of the question A matter ridiculous For he himself cannot deny but I report the aduersaries meaning and words truly He chargeth me also with vntruths Yet is it no vntruth that I say that Stapleton denieth the scriptures to be the foundatiō of religion For I cite his words truly And euery man that readeth his booke entitled Principia doctrinalia shal find that scriptures are excluded out of the number of Principia doctrinalia With the like facility I shal cleare all the rest of his foolish obiections Wherest bring many arguments all concluding that papists are no true Catholikes as maintaining rather particular then catholike doctrine this wise confuter or rather confounder of himself slieth out like a wild goose into a long discourse of the name of Catholike and the causes of the amplitude of the Church matters scarcely questioned betwixt vs. He doth also lode vs with sacks of authorities of the Fathers concerning the vniuersality of the Church which are not to the purpose But in all this discourse he doth not once attempt to answer any thing said by vs. Likewise in the Challenge wherein Papists are declared not to be the true Church he flieth al encounter like a foolish combatant fighting with his owne shadow And this we do not dcubt but to declare shortly in a larger answer most fully In the meane while thou maist easily perceiue the vanity falshood forgery and insufficient dealing of our aduersaries Parsons in his booke set out vnder the name of T. F. doth most grosly and impudently praise himselfe In his booke of thrée conuersions he citeth Ado Treuirensis for Ado Viennensis and often mistaketh one for another Both his and their other faults I haue before briefly noted The rest if thou wilt haue patience with vs God willing thou shalt receiue shortly Now I could bestow no more time in polling these Arcadian fellowes The Lord if it be his holy will discouer all the impestures of hereticall Papists and grant that the rayes of his most glorious Gospell may shine in all mens hearts to the vtter confusion of the seate of Antichrist and the full establishment of the kingdome of Christ Iesus Laus Deo FINIS 2. King 18. Psal. 94. 1. Sam. 15. Prouerb 20. Ibidem Contra Constant * Eccles. 44. * Ibidem Ibid. cap. 49. Luke 24. Enchirid. c. de Ecclesia Sess 4. Lib. 7 princ doct c. 1. Ward-word pag. 6. 1. Cor. 3. Rom. 10. Lib. 3. aduers. Haeres cap. 4. Warn-word Encontr c. 16. Luk. 24. Mar. vlc Dist. 1. lib. 1. In dist 2. lib. 1 sent In 2. sēnt dist 1. In 2. sent dist 3. Cap. plurùnt dist 82. Irenaeus lib. 1. aduers. haeres cap. 23. Euseb. hist. li. 10. cap. 5. Euseb de vita Constant. lib. 3. c. 23. Matth. 18. Lib. sent 4. dist 2. Ibidem Psal. 137. In Missali Rom. 2. Entont c. 6. num 8. 2. Encont ca. 12. num 9. Ibid. num 10 Ioh. 3. Doctores Paris de peric nouis temp Regulae Ind. lib prohib Deut. 6. Lib. 2. aduers. haeres cap. 46 Wardw. p. 6. 1. Cor. 14. Warn-word Encontr 1. cap. 8. Eccles. hist. 10. cap. 1. In pragmat sanct In Conclu grauam In Praefat. in lib. de Eccles. minist Grauam 20. Ibid. 8. Mat 15. Iam. 4. In Bulla contra Elizabetham De reform Eccles. Grauam 34. De reform Eccles. Lib. 1. Epist. 11. ad Pomp. Gal. 1. Gal. 5. Epist. ad Smyrnens Lib 1. Instit. diuin c. 21. Ibid. c. 22. Lib. de idolol 1. Ioh. 5. Depraescrip aduers. haeret 2. Tim. 3. 1. Cor. 3. Contra Constantium In Missal Rom. In Mariali In Psalterio Bonauent Missal Rom. in fine De praescript aduers. Haeret. T it 2. Ibid. Ephes. 2. In vita Pij 5. In Epist. ad Nicolaum Sonnetto 106 4. Brig 49. 2. Brig 10. In vita Greg. 6 Deut. 28. Deut. 28. Philippie 10. Ibid. Psal. 34. Philippic 2. De leg Agrar contra Rull Philippic 2. Philippic 3. 1. Encountr cap. 11. nu 7. 1. Encont c 11. nu 5. 1. Encountr cap. 11. Psal. 14. Warnw. 1. encont cap. 17. Wardw. p. 3. Warnw. 1. encoutr cap. 18. Gal. 5. Philip. In Capt. Lib. 1. contra Celsum C. ignorantia de sum Trin. Note that this is a common text among the Papists Grauam 47. Onus Eccles. cap. 23. Ibidem Aureū speculā in Antilog 6. Brig 96. Lib. I. de consid 2 Brig 10. Syluius de gestis concil Basil. lib. 1. Ca. 29. parad