〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 â—all of the aâ—â—cient Fathers and the Councell of 〈◊〉 Canone 〈…〉 these bookes are omitted â—â—â—â— part of the 〈◊〉 Scripture Thirdly the reputed 47. Canon of the third Councell of Carthage which is their cheifest testimony by the indgemeÌ„t of their own was never determinâ—â—â—â— that Synode â—arclaij Paraenesis l. 1. c. â—1 Refertur â—ic canoâ— concil 3. Carthaginensi cui Augustinus interâ—â—it sed ex 〈◊〉 constat posterioris Concilij esse quod paulo post sub Boni â—â—cio convocaâ—â—m Fourthly in after ages they were by many rejected a never getting authority till the Trent decree Besides these bookes will by their owne light declare of what authority they are The 〈◊〉 I hope will grant that God is as true in his word as the Pope infallible in his decrees if upon this ground these bookes deserve credit let the Reader conclude first for Iudeth whether it were â—squam or ullâ—bi we cannot tell neither I thinke the Iesuite himselfe Again she honoureth that fact of Siâ—â—on * Caâ—â—s loco â—â—pra citat Constat auâ—em 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctisâ—imoâ— in contrariam sententiam 〈◊〉 qui tamen semper in Ecclesia Catholica sunt habiti Nich. Lyâ—an super 〈◊〉 â— 1. super Tobiâ—â— Abuleâ—â—â—s super Math. c. 1. D. Aâ—â—on 3. p. â— 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 loâ—â— tum maâ—ime in fine 〈◊〉 super 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etiam sex â—â—cros esse 〈◊〉 Gelaâ—â—â—â— Pâ—pa rejecit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Macha Diâ—â—â— autem Gregorius l. moral â—â— rejjoâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de Tâ—â—â—poribus Rich l. 2. Exceptioâ—â—â— c. 9. Ocham â—â— Diâ—◠〈◊〉 1. l. 3. 〈◊〉 Ac D. Aug docet aâ— Ecclesia esse quid em receptos seâ—â—â—â— certa side 〈◊〉 9. 2 and Levy which the Spirit of God abhorreth as appeares by Moses †Gen. 49. 5. And we may see that Iudeth fitting her selfe for lyes and deceit * 〈◊〉 9. 10 desireth God to give a blessing thereunto †Ver. 13. which action as it condemneth the person that doth the same so doth it disgrace this booke which speaketh â—â— directly opposite to the Apostolicall rule * Eph. 4. 25. And as Iudeth doth detect her selfe so doth Tâ—bit also by his vaine story of the Rivall Devill †Tob 6. 14. the driving away of a devill or an evill spirit which should trouble any with the smoke of the heart and the liver of a fish * Tâ—â— 6. 7 contrary to Christs doctrine that there are some devills which will not be cast out but by fasting and prayer †Mat. 17. 21. And wherefore should the Apostle Eph 6. 13. have left this out of his aâ—moury if it had bene of such forâ—â— eâ—â—icacy as is here expressed Further we have an Angell lyeing chap. 5. verse â—â— and a fish travailing on Land chap. 6. verse 2. The Maâ—chabees containe many things which declaâ—â— the author of them not to write with confidence of Godâ— Spirit asisting him as first that he was an Epitoâ—â—ist of â—â—son * 2. Maccà b 2. 23. Secondly he excuseth himselfe †2 Maccab. â—5 39. as if the holy Ghost might deserve a censure Thirdly it appeareth that his end is to delight his Reader * 2. Maccab. 2 25. 15. 40. and to get honour to himselfe †2. Maccab. 2 â—6 â—7 Lastly he justifieth Razis in killing himself * 2. Macâ—ab 14 41. 42. 43. a commendation fitter for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then the patient Marâ—â—rs of Christ as S. Augustine Aug. câ—n Gâ—ud l. c 31. Dictum est quod 〈◊〉 nobiliter merit meâ—us veller hâ—militer â—â—â— enim 〈◊〉 Illiâ—autem verbis historia gentium â—â—â—dare 〈◊〉 sed viros 〈◊〉 huius â—â—culi non martyrâ—â— Christi observeth To these many more may be added but this which hath bene spokeÌ„ will suffice to shew that they have dealt without all conscience in obtruding those bookes upon the church which were never as canonicall received from the Iewes unto whom were committed the oracles of God * Rom. 3. 2. never delivered to the primitive Church from the Apostles never aproved by any father of the church for almost 400 yeares never thought of when the Canon was repeated such which by their Physiognomy detect themselves Whence we may gather that the Church of Rome now hath varied in her judgment from the church of God then althogh we be not able to lay down the precise time when she thought her selfe wiser then her forefathers heerein Neither will his turning to the Epistles of Iames Iude the second of Peter c Reply pag. 2â— c any thing availe his cause in regard there is a great difference betwixt those Epistles these bookes of Iudeth Tâ—bit and the Macchabees for although some private men did doubt of the former yet the church in generall did receive and approve the fame * See before pag. â—5 whereas on the contrary the Iesuite after all his search cannot finde â—â—â— testimony either of Father or Councell that accounâ—â—â— the latter Canonicall for well-nigh 400 yeares after Christ And therefore most indiscreetly did the Iesuit vrge 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 to prove the like doubt to have bene held of these Epistles with those bookes which they absolutely call Apocrypha Secondly he abuseth his Reader when he would perswade that they were ouely particular Fathers that doubted of these bookes when the Iesuite cannot finde that they were received either of the Iewes or the Apostles or Primitive Fathers for certaine ages after Christ Thirdly to what thoughts of desperation is he and his fellowes driven to defend this adding to the Canon as first that doubtfull writings which have beene accompted Apocryphall for certaine hundred of yeares which our Iesuite calleth somtime may by the publick authority of the Church be declared Canonicall and secondly that particular Fathers which indeed are all the Fathers that lived in the first 300. almost 400. yeares the Iesuite citing none within that compasse but Cyprian and their bastard Calixtuâ— as hath beene formerly declared might doubt of the authority of those bookes without prejudice till the Church had declared them for Canonicall by publicke authority But if the Canon was not compleate in the first times I would know when it was made perfect and whether in those times tradition was enabled to declare the same or whether the Fathers were negligent to testifie this truth and also whether Canonicall and Apocryphall is a distinction lately invented All this the Iesuite must resolve or else acknowledge the Canon of the Church in the Primitive times to be certainely knowne and setled which will declare their vanity and change in these last times to adde unto the sacred Canon and rule of Faith upon pretence that the Church hath power to declare canonicall Scripture A Doctrine invented in after-ages by the Roman faction who as they looked for unlimited power so to defend their practises they desire an unrestrayned rule making Scriptures what
either 〈◊〉 a Neasâ—uig or mac a 〈◊〉 in regard their fathers villany adhâ—â—eth to that name and addeth afflictioâ— to their mindes but for the sonnes of Preists and Bishops amongst us what repining humour can possesse them seeing they were borne in honourabâ— Dist 56. cap. Osius Osius Papa suit silius Stephani subdiaconi Bonifacius Papa â—uit silius â—ucundi presbyteri Faelix Papa filius Felicis presbyteri de titulo Fasciolae Agapitus Papa â—ilius â—ordiâ—ni presbyteri Theodorus Papa 〈◊〉 Theodoâ—â— Episcopi de 〈◊〉 Hierosotyma Sylverium Papa filius Sylverij Episcopi Romae Deusdedit Papa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subdiaâ—â—◠〈…〉 natione 〈◊〉 〈…〉 matrimâ—ny their patents living in the rule appointed by the Apostle But the Iesuite as 〈◊〉 of his sports commeth in good sober sadnesse to wonder that in such an audience the Answerer blushed not to affirme that Rome had little to alleadge for this perfâ—rment but onely that S. Peter was crucified in it But what can the Iesuite say it hath more Why he tells us That 〈◊〉 can â—ll 〈◊〉 that the Apostle did relinquish Antiâ—â—h to 〈◊〉 his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 her u Reply pag. â—â— As if the Bishop and Monarch of the whole Church 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 a double mansion several places of 〈◊〉 Did their Popes relinquish Rome by fitting in the chaire â—â— Aâ—ignion Or was it possible that hee that kept the Bishoprick of the whole Church could relinquish the Seâ— of Antioch by his so journing at Rome The â—â—suite would perswade it and that it was done by commaund For saith he as 〈◊〉 Writers ◠〈◊〉 Papa 〈…〉 doe relate Peter was commanded so to doe by CHRIST himselfe Reply pag. â— Here is nothing to make the inheritance to descend upon the Church of Rome from divine testimony And Bellarmine indeede conceived the matter onely probable â—â—remptorily hee concludeth not that the Bishop of Rome by divine right is Peters Successour y Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. â— c. 1â— Et quo â—â—am â— Mar 〈◊〉 Papa i â—â— ad 〈◊〉 sâ—â—â—bit 〈…〉 S. 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 contra 〈◊〉 Athanasius in Apâ—logia 〈…〉 Marry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor â—â—â— improbabile Dominum 〈…〉 ut â—edem 〈…〉 â—â—geret 〈◊〉 uâ— Romaâ—â—s Episcopus 〈◊〉 â—â— succedâ—ret sed 〈◊〉 â—â— hoc â—â—t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ratio 〈◊〉 non est 〈◊〉 institutione 〈◊〉 quâ— in â—â—â—gelio legitur neither will he 〈◊〉 it of faith that Peters seate was there onely hâ—◠〈◊〉 that it is most probable pâ—â— credendum and he will â—â—count you a Catholicke if you beleive it z Bellarm de Rom Pont. l 4. c 4. Accedit quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christâ—m imperasse 〈◊〉 ut Romae â—edem â—ollocaret non â—â—men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibi collâ—caret Quoâ—iam ergo â—on constat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peâ—â—o ut Romae 〈◊〉 colâ—ocaret ideo non est de 〈◊〉 divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Romae â—â—dem esse constitutam sed â—amen ut 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is this the Cardo upon which all the Catholicke Romane â—aith turâ—eth Is there no more certainery in this ground-worke Must Peters inheritance descend certainely upon him who by divine right cannot proove himselfe to bee his Heire Must one Witnesse and that a knowne Counterfeit and â—â— Marcâ—lluâ— a Haec est una illarum epistolarum quas 〈…〉 esse 〈◊〉 tell us a story and obtâ—ine an Empire This is too great a reward Now whereas hee tells us that Peter was Bishop of Rome the space of â—â—ve and twentie yeares Antioch having had him but for 〈◊〉 and consequently that he laboured more fruitfully and performed all more gloriously in her then in Antioch and finally that in her even by Christs appointment also he glorified God by the triumph of his blessed death and martyrdome b Reply pag. â—â— We tell him that when he attempts to prove it hee shall not want his answere That Peter was at Rome preached there was crucified it is not much to grant him but that hee was there such a Bishop as Linus c. hee cannot prove some making him such a Bishop as Paul was others making him nonâ— at all But the Iesuite chargeth the most learned Answerer with judging according to the flesh when hee made the Apostles death and martyrdome a slender cause why Peter should respect her so much And further telleth us that surely it is no slender cause for the Catholicke Church to sing therefore of her with solemne joy in this sort Thrice happy Rome that with the purple blood Of such great Princes stand'st adorn'd and blesâ— Not thine owne worth but their deserving good Crownes theâ— on earth the fairest and the best c Reply pag. 61 62. This most grave and reverend Lord I confesse hath nor as some of you could have wish'd put off the 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 man in the Iesuiticall forme d Hassen Mullerus de Votis Iesuitarum c. 6 Si Nobiles illoâ—â—m societatem ingrediantur habitu veniant splendido ac precioâ—o permittunt â—t triduum eâ—m reservent quo lapso cum â—â—ponere alteri dare Societatis habitum â—â—duere jubenâ—â—â— Et hoc est secundùm illos veterem exuere 〈◊〉 seipâ—â—m mottiâ—â—cais alteri suâ—◠〈◊〉 â—â—â— neither as your Popes have â—nterpreted 〈◊〉 I. Epist 3. ad 〈◊〉 the Apostle Rom 8. â— â— â— but as God himselfe hath commaunded wherein the World is his Witnesse and I thinke it but time spent to justifie him But let the Iesuite prove this Argument to bee convincing if hee bee able his singing and other passages will not worke the feate The Saints in Rome wee know as the Church otherwhere were much confirmed by the patient sufferings of the Martyrs but this doth not excuse much lesse lift up Rome Did Abels blood that â—â—yed for vengeance plead then for glory Did innocent blood theâ— advance your Monarchy that now you make your selves drunke with the blood of the Saints Hierusalem lost heâ— Crowne by the Prophets blood must the Apostles triple Rome Yet if Rome get such an height in martyring the servant what might Hierusalem pleade that crucified the Lord These you see are silly inventions but the strongest pillars of the Romane faith The Iesuite hath done his doe yet he telleth us Much more might be said and now intreates the Gentle Reader to trophey him for his victory But hee hath not yet cured the wound that hath beene given him though hee conceiteth all faire smoothe and without scarre He hath laboured to make Fathers and Saints the Popes serving-men the World his Citie Heaven the Church and Purgaâ—ory his Provinces but as you see all in vaine The downe-right blowes he perswades himselfe to be given we feele not our sheildâ— are not peirced neither are the least of our bul warkes overthrowne SECT IX THis Section shewes that the Iesuite having overshot himselfe in a tearme would now make it good by an interpretation and thereupon hee enquires Whether the Church of Rome may
at Paris anno 1546. which the Iesuite alledgeth not there is this marginall annotation Haec in quibusdam exemplaribus desunt but what were those quadam exemplaria Manuscripts surely not but the former printed one of Mahusius his editions set out at Antwerpe anno 1537. and at Paris anno 1543. And is not this a prettio tricke of legerdemaine first to corrupt the Author in print and then in after editions to cite those so corrupt impressions under the equivocall title of quaedam exemplaria Is not this a brave restoring of an Author to the auncient puritie of it's true and first reading So that indeed any may see that hee which followeth such guides must have the throate of his understanding cut with the knife of will full blindnes but the most reverend Primate is too well experienced in these their practises to be intrapped by such cheates or blinded with such wiles But if it be read with those words saith the Iesuite our Answerer himselfe cannot free it from manifest error mention being made of the Vessels onely of Salomons Temple which King Balthazar transferred to prophane uses and therefore was punished with losse of life and Kingdome and seeing that in those vessells neither the Body of Christ nor yet the mysterie of his Body is contained those words are not onely superfluous but also erroneous and false h Reply pag. 41 Indeede this Argument of the Iesuites is most erroneous and false for this learned Author shewiug us how to keepe our Vessels in Holynesse presseth it first from the Vessels used in the Temple Si enim vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre peccatum est periculum sicut doceâ— nos Balthasar qui bibens in calicibus sacratis de regno depositus est de vita i Opus imperfâ—â— Matth hom 41 For if it is a sinne and dangerous to transferre unto private uses the sanctified vessels to wit those of the Iewes as Balthasar doth teach us who drinking in the holy vessels lost both his Kingdome and his life Then from the vessels used in the Church Si ergo haee vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre sic periculosum est in quibus non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis Christi continetur quantò magis vasâ— corporis nostri c. If therefore it be so dangerous a matter to transferre unto private uses these holy vessels signanter demonstrativè that were used in the Church Christian and in all probability were before his face wherein the true Body of Christ is not but the mystery of his Body is conteined How much more for the vessels of our body which God hath prepared for himselfe to dwell in ought wee not to give way unto the Divell to doe in them what hee pleaseth But let the Vessels be what they will in the judgment of his owne Sixtus Senensis this Author doth here allude unto the Sacrament k Sixtus Senens Bibl. Sancta l. 6. Annot 21. Author operis imperf hom 11. alludere videtur ad haereâ—im corum qui â—egant verum corpus Christi esse in Sacramento altaris dum ait Vasa sanctificata c. which is all that wee neede to require And therefore the Iesuite hath little cause to sport unlesse it be in his shame it being evident that hee that thrust out those words did canker fret and corrupt this place and not restore it to the auncient puritie as the Iesuite vainely laboureth to perswade After all these paines the Iesuite conceiving hee hath not satisfied the Reader closeth up all with an other answer no doubt without exception The truth is saith the Iesuite as Bellarmine rightly observeth that imperfect worke upon Matthew though it goe commonly amongst the workes of Chrysostome yet is it none of his l Reply pag. 41 Who saith it is Was it urged by the most reverend the Lord Primate for Chrysostomes Here he contendeth to little purpose his fight is but folly For saith the Iesuite it aboundeth with errors c. the which errors have beene foisted in by divers Hereticks m Reply ibid c. But who were those Heretickes what were their errors were they not Arians Montanists Manichees Donatists Pelagians n Sixtus Seneni Bibl. sanctae â— 4. In Matthae um extat incerti autoris imperfectum opus varijs Montani Maâ—ichaei Arij Donati ac Pelagij haeresibus implicitum Had their Heresies any thing to doe with the question of the Reall Presence or the controversies betwixt us Wherefore the Iesuite concludeth I doe not see that any accompt ought to be made thereof at all o Reply pag. 41 A poore fetch because in some particulars it hath beene p Sixtus Senen ibid. Ego quod ad dam nihil habeo nisi hoc ipsum opus disertum doctum esse ac dignum quod assiduè legatur si tamen prius diligentissime expurgatum fuerit ab ijs erroribus quos in sexto libro in censuris super Matthaei expositoribus annotavimus abused by Heretickes therefore it must be rejected in the whole Sixtus Senensis approveth not this for he acknowledgeth the worke wittie and learned and wortâ—y of a daylie Reader if it were first diligently purged froÌ„ those errors which he hath noted in his sixt booke And Bellarmine although he thought it was either composed or corrupted by some Hereticke doth neverthelesse confesse it is a learned booke and contrary to the Iesuite minime sperâ—enous no way to â—e despised q Bellarm. de Scriptor Eccles Cujuscunque sit opus aut ab Haeretico aliquo Compositum suit aut ab Haeretico aliquo corruptum quamvis alioqui liber sit doctus minime spernendus Whereby wee may see how great esteeme the Iesuite hath of ancient Writers and with what clippings his well-willers would put forth these learned monuments if they might have their desire For although Bellarmine thinketh it credible that this Author was a Catholicke and his booke not to be despised though it were corrupted by auncient Hereticks r Ibid. Proâ—â—de eredibile est auctorem suisse Catholicum sed opus illius ab Arianis depravatum yet Sixtus Senensis before he will give him this liberty will have him purged not onely of the auncient heresies that were as the Iesuite speaketh foysted into him but of all those errours also which he hath noted in his Censures upon the Expositors of Matthew as in his fift homilie where he favours the Lutherans in the point of originall sinne Å¿ Sixtus Seuen lib. annot 16. in the IX where hee overthrowes the freedome of humane will t Ibid. annot 10. in the XIth XVIIth and XIXth where he denyes the reall presence in the Sacrament of the Altar u Ibid. annot 11. But the Iesuite will have it altogether rejected and no accompt to be made thereof at all and yet it hath beene used as a Champion to fight the Christian cause
by their greatest Divines in their glosses chaines decrees of Popes summes of Divinity from the weight and worth of the worke as cannot be denyed by their owne x Sixtus Seuen Bibl. sanct l. 4. â—unt ex opposito qui hoc ipsum opus conâ—endunt esse Chrysostomi adducti non solùm auctoriâ—â—te Apostoliâ—ae Eclesiae quae publicè inter divinas â—â—udes legit homilias ex his commentarijs sub nomine Ioannâ—â— Chrysostomi sed etiam permoti pondere gravitate sententiarum propositionum â—ujus operis quae ad confirmationem Christianorum dogmatum sub titulo testimonio auctoritate Chrysostomi inducuntur in glossis authenticis quas vocant ordinaâ—iaâ— in Caâ—enis Evangelicarum explanationum in Decretis summorum Pontificum 〈◊〉 Theologiciâ— magni nominis Theologorum So that you may see the most learned Answerer hath brought this instance not as you vainely affirme in derision of the blessed Sacrament but to manifest your corrupting of the workes of antiquity for your own advantage without the authority of any auncient manuscript Copy whatsoever Neither is the authority of this worke so contemptible although the Iesuite may take libertie to â—â—eight antiquity but that seeing it hath served the Popes turne it may well serve ours also to cut the very 〈◊〉 of the Papists reall presence And therefore yâ—◠〈◊〉 Commilitones Mr Malone that carry the mariâ—â—â—â—r the beast in your fore-heads may continue your blaâ—â—â—â—â—es and abuse the Scriptures as you have done his â—aâ—â—ed ordinance of the blessed Sacrament deriding the fâ—llowers of his sacred institution but howsoever you flatter your selves The right hand of the Lord will finde out those that hate him and shall make them as a fierie even in the time of his anger * Psalme â—â— And howsoever your scarlet Mistresse saith in her heart I fit a Queene and am no Widdow and shall see no sorrow Yet her plagues shall come in one day death and mourning and famine and she shal be utterly burnt with fire for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her * Reâ— 18. â— 7. 8. His third instance saith the Iesuite out of the same booke concerning the sacrifice of the Body and Bleod of IESVS CHRIST put in for the sacrifice of Bread and Wine is too too childish for we indifferently allow of both those manner of speeches as signifying one and the same thing therefore the changing of those words could advantage us no more then it doth helpe our Answerer to prove what he intended y Reply pag. 40 c. Mr Malone hath an ill name for every thing that displeaseth him This instance is too too childish but as wise as himselfe thinke not so For Sixtus Senensis by those words which they have changed judgeth this Author to deny the Body and Bloud of Christ to be in the Sacrament of the Altar z Siâ—tus Seuen Bibl. sancta l. 6. Annot. 21. Author operis imperf homilia 1â— alludere videtur ad haeresim eorum qui negant verum Christi corpus esse in Sacramento Altaris dum ait Vasa c. Neque ab hac sententia abludit cum hom 17. non multo ante finem Eucharistiam appellat panem benedictum hom â—9 ferè in principio vocat sacrificium paniâ— viâ—â— and would therefore have this place to bee purged a Idem libro 4o. And will any deny the corrupter that used this sleight of hand to bee of the same opinion The Text then is corrupted this is not denyed and therefore notwithstanding the Iesuite falsely pretendeth the changing of those wordes doe not advantage them the most reverend Primate hath prooved what hee intended to wit that the Papistes have heereby so altered the complexions of the auncient writers that they appeare not the same men they were The Iesuite runs on in his examination Two instances more saith he in this matter doth our Answerer produce still striving to surpasse himselfe more and more in vanitie For besides that our question is concerning the writers of the first five ages he commeth out with Fulbertus and Rabanus whereof the later lived in the ninth age the former in the eleventh so farre is he ever from speaking to the purpose b Reply pag. 42 I see the Iesuite is wearie of his worke he is not willing to have his owne arraigned of Forgery and therefore excepts against these instances as not being to the purpose in regard the question is concerning the writers of the first 500. yeares c Reply pag. 42 In answere whereunto we say It is equall perfidiousnes to corrupt the authors of the middle age as those of the first 500. Secondly if they confesse guiltie in these they deserve to be suspected in their impressions of the most auncient Thirdly Augustine is here corrupted though it be in the writings of Fulbertus and so both the auncient and middle aged Doctors suffer violence Fourthly let this be to the purpose or not the Iesuite cannot excuse their corrupt handling of authors and for corrupt ends when as Fulbertus was published corruptly ad refutandas haereses hujus temporis But taking them in order the Iesuite telleth us that In the former for want of sounder matter when as the Answerers subject here is Popish corruptions he fiddles about a mistake of two words which though he confesseth himselfe to have beene amended in the end yet must it needs such is his distresse serve him for an instance to proove that wee have corrupted the writings of the auncient d Reply pag. 42 I am sure the Iesuite doth not like the Musicke hee tearmeth it so wisely but I may excuse him heerein for the Papists were unwise that would otherwise commend it But whose mistake was this Dicet Haereticus in all probabilitie could not be the Printers here then was the error he that set forth this booke did not foresee the words were S. Augustines and so easie to be detected And whereas the publisher did afterwards put this among his Errata he was much behoulding to his Adviser that assured him if those words remained his fraud would be discovered Now any may see who is in distresse he that forgeth for necessitie and correcteth for shame or the most learned Answerer that hath found out and scorned the Cosener The Iesuite comes to the second and exclaimes that the Answerer makes much a doe about nothing e Reply ibid. as if it were a matter of nothing to corrupt the auncient writers If the Reader will but observe the Iesuite he shall finde him where he is most plunged and stifled to be most abundant in his rayling language scorning and contemptible behaviour towards the Answerer For what reason hath he to tearme this learned observation a dribling objection worthy to be answered with laughter builded only upon surmises when he groanes under it and all his strugling is not able to deliver him thence See what he saith I say about a blanke