that in the one men are sure and know they neither are nor can be deceiued in the other they knowe and are certaine that they are not not that they cannot bee deceiued But this difference cannot staud for if a man know and bee certaine that hee is not deceiued he must certainly know that no such thing doth now fall out as doth fall out when men are deceiued in apprehensions of this kind and consequently that now and things so standing he cannot be deceiued For example a man dreaming thinketh he is waking and vndoubtedly perswadeth himselfe hee seeth or doth something wherein he is deceiued because it is but representation in a dreame but he that is waking knoweth that he waketh that hee seeth that which he thinketh he seeth that in this perswasion hee is not nor cannot be deceiued things so standing Amongst the Articles agreed vpon in the conference at Ratisbon 1541 this is one Docendum est ut qui vere poenitent semper fide certissimâ statuant se propter Mediatorem Christum Deo placere quia Christus est propitiator Pontifex interpellator pro nobis quem pater donavit nobis omnia bona cum illo Quoniam autem perfecta rectitudo in hac imbecillitate non est suntque multae infirmae pavidae conscientiae quae cum gravi saepe dubitatione luctantur nemo est à gratiâ Christi propter ejusmodi infirmitatem excludendus sed convenit tales diligenter adhortari ut ijs dubitationibus promissiones Christi fortiter opponant augeri sibi fidem sedulis precibus orent juxta illud Adauge nobis Domine fidem So that touching this point it is evident that the Church of God euer taught that which we now teach Neither haue wee departed from the doctrine of the Church in that wee teach that faith onely justifieth For many of the ancient haue vsed this forme of words as Origen ad Rom. 3. Dicit Apostolus sufficere solius fidei justificationem ita ut credens quis tantummodo justificetur etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum Hilar. can 8. in Math. Fides sola justificat Basil. homil de humilitate Haec est perfecta integra gloriatio in Deo quando neque ob justitiam suam quis se iactat sed novit quidem seipsum verae justitiae indigum solâ autem fide in Christum justificatum Ambros. ad Rom. 3. Iustificati sunt gratis quia nihil operantes neque vicem reddentes solâ fide justificati sunt dono Dei Chrysost. Homil. de fide lege naturae Eum qui operatur opera iustitiae sine fide non potes probare vivum esse fidem absque operibus possum monstrare vixisse regnum coelorum assecutam nullus sine fide vitam habuit latro autem credidit tantum iustificatus est Aug. l. 1. contra 2 Epistolas Pelag. c. 21. Quantaelibet fuisse virtutis antiquòs praedices justos non eos salvos fecit nisi fides mediatoris 83. q. q. 76. Si quis cùm crediderit mox de hâc vita decesserit iustificatio fidei manet cum illo nec praecedentibus bonis operibus quia non merito ad illam sed gratiâ pervenit nec consequentibus quia in hac vita esse non sinitur Theophylact. ad Galat. 3. Nunc planè ostendit Apostolus fidem vel solam iustificandi habere in se virtutem Bern. ser. 22 in Cantic Quisquis pro peccatis compunctus esurit sitit iustitiam credat in te qui iustificas impium solam iustificatus per fidem pacem habebitad te Et ep 77. citans illud Qui crediderit baptizatus fuerit salvus erit Cautè inquit non repetiit qui vero baptizatus non fuerit condēnabitur sed tantū qui vero non crediderit innuens nimirum solam fidem interdum sufficere ad salutem sine illâ sufficere nihil Sometimes by these phrases of speech they exclude all that may bee be without supernaturall knowledge all that may be without a true profession Sometimes the necessity of good workes in act or externall good workes 3. The power of nature without illumination and grace 4. The power of the Law 5. The sufficiency of any thing found in vs to make vs stand in judgement to abide the tryall and not to feare condemnation And in this sense faith onely is said to justifie that is the onely mercy of God and merite of Christ apprehended by faith and then the meaning of their speech is that onely the perswasion and assured trust that they haue to bee accepted of God for Christs sake is that that maketh them stand in judgement without feare of condemnation And in this sense all the Diuines formerly alleadged for proofe of the insufficiency of all our inherent righteousnesse and the trust which wee should haue in the onely mercy of God and merite of Christ doe teach as wee doe that faith onely iustifieth For neither they nor we exclude from the worke of Iustification the action of God as the supreme and highest cause of our iustification for it is he that remitteth sinne and receiueth vs to grace nor the merit of Christ as that for which God inclineth to shew mercy to vs and to respect vs nor the remission of sinnes gratious acceptation and grant of the gift of righteousnes as that by which we are formally justified nor those works of prenenting grace whereby out of the generall apprehension of faith God worketh in vs dislike of our former condition desire to be reconciled to God to haue remission of that is past grace hereafter to decline the like euils to do contrary good things For by these wee are prepared disposed and fitted for iustification without these none are iustified And in this sense to imply a necessity of these to be found in us sometimes the fathers others say that we are not justified by faith only And we all agree that it is not our conuersion to God nor the change we find in our selues that can any way make us stād in judgment without feare and looke for any good from God otherwise then in that we find our selues so disposed and fitted as is necessary for justification whence we assure our selues God will in mercy accept us for Christs sake CHAP. 12. Of Merit MErit as Cardinall Contarenus rightly noteth if we speake properly importeth an action or actions quibus actionibus aut earum autori ab altero iusticia postulante debeatur praemiū No man can merit any thing of God First because we are his seruants owe much more seruice vnto him thē bond-slaues that are bought for money owe vnto their masters though no reward were promised we were bound to obey his commands Yet if we looke on the bounty of God he deales with us being bond-men as with hired seruants recōpencing that with a reward which we stood bound in duty to
I may be as good as my word iustifie it against the proudest Papist liuing that none of the differences between Melancthon Illyricus except about certaine ceremonies were reall Wherefore the Treatiser leaueth Illyricus commeth to Hosiander whom hee will proue to haue holden a priuate opinion touching iustification because Calvine in his Institutions spendeth almost one whole Chapter in the confutation of his conceipt touching the same Article which in the very entrance hee calleth hee wores not what monster of essentiall righteousnesse Conradus Schlusselburge placeth him and his followers in the Catalogue of heretickes But this obiection will easily be answered For it is not to be doubted but Caluine the rest iustly disliked that which they apprehended to bee his opinion and condemned it as a monster For they conceiued that heâ—… made Iustification to bee nothing else but a transfusion of the essentiall righteousnesse of Christ into vs and a mixture and confusion of it with vs. But Smidelinus sheweth at large that he neuer had any such conceipt but that distinguishing three kinds of righteousnesse in Christ whereof we are made partakers to wit actiue passiue and essentiall in that hee was the Sonne of God he taught that justification is not onely an acceptation and receiuing of vs to fauour vpon the imputation of the actiue and passiue righteousnesse of Christ but an admission of vs also to the right of the participation of the diuine nature as Peter speaketh and of that essentiall righteousnesse that was in him in that he was the sonne of God that so receiuing of his fulnesse we may be filled with all diuine qualities and graces The reason why hee thus vrged the implying of the communication of the essentiall righteousnesse of Christ in our iustification was not as the same Smidelinus telleth vs for that he thought iustification to consist wholy therein or for that hee meant to exclude the imputation of the merit and satisfaction of Christ from being causes of our iustification or receiuing fauour with God but because he saw many mistooke and abused the doctrine of free justification by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to the carelesse neglecting of al righteousnesse in themselues therefore he taught there is no remission of sin no receiuing of any man to fauour by vertue of the imputation of the actiue and passiue righteousnes of Christ vnlesse out of dislike of sin desire of grace to auoid it he be admitted to the right of the participation of that essentiall righteousnes that dwelt in him in all fulnesse that so it may dwell in him that is to be iustified also in some degree sort Neither is this construction of Hosianders words made by Smidelinus onely but by sundry other For Stapleton sayth the followers of Brentius defended the opinion of Hosiander whereas yet neither Brentius nor any of his followers euer dreamed of any transfusion of the essentiall righteousnesse of Christ into vs any mixture or confusion of it with vs or any other communication of it to vs or in any other sort then is before expressed So that the Treatiser had no reason to write as he doth that my proceedings are rare and singular and that I feare not to affirme things apparantly false and confessed vntrue by all my brethren much lesse to say that euery man may easily perceiue by these my proceedinges that I had a good opinion of mine owne wit and learning For what haue I done that sauoureth of pride or wherein haue I bewrayed such vanitie as he speaketh of Is it a matter of pride not to condemne hastily other opinions to make the fairest and best construction of other mens words especially such as are of the same profession with vs Wherefore if the Treatiser be able to say any thing against this my defence of Illyricus and Hosiander I will heare him otherwise let him not tell me of my schoole distinctions for I am not ashamed of them Neither doe I vse them as the Romane sophisters do to auoid the euidence of that truth that is too mighty for them to encounter but to cleare that which the Romanistes desire to haue wrapped vp in perplexed and intricate disputes But it seemeth the Treatiser will not accept of this condition and therefore hee passeth from the supposed diuisions of our Churches and differences of our Diuines proceedeth to shew their inconstancie instancing particularly in Luther And wheras in my former books I haue answered the obiections of Papistes touching this supposed inconstancie he goeth about to refute that my answer which consisteth of two parts Whereof the first is that in sundry points of greatest moment as of the power of nature of free-will iustification the difference of the Law and the Gospell faith and workes Christian liberty and the like Luther was euer constant The second that it is not so strange as our Aduersaries would make it that Luther proceeded by degrees in discerning sundry Popish errours seeing Augustine and their Angelicall Doctour altered their iudgment in diuerse things and vpon better consideration disliked what they had formerly approued The former part of this my answere he pronounceth to containe a manifest vntruth for that amongst other things mentioned by me Luther was not euer constant of one iudgment touching freewil hee endeauoureth to proue because in the defence of his Articles condemned by the Pope he saith Freewil is a forged or fained thing a title without a substance it being in no mans power to think any thing good or euill but all things falling out of absolute necessity and else-where hee saith men of their owne proper strength haue free-will to doe or not to doe externall workes so that they may attaine to secular and ciuill honesty But M. Treatiser should know that between these sayings of Luther there is no contradiction in truth and in deed but in his fancy onely for in the former place two things are deliuered by Luther The first that no man by nature hath power to turne himselfe to God without grace or so much as to prepare himself to the receipt of grace which in the latter place speaking onely of externall workes and ciuill or secular honesty hee doth not contradict The second that though men in outward things and things that are below haue a kinde of freedome of will and choyce and power to doe or not to doe them yet not so free but that they are subject to the providence disposition of Almighty God bowing bending turning them whither he pleaseth and hauing them in such sort in his hand as that they can will nothing vnlesse he permit them which no way preiudiceth that liberty which else-where he attributeth to the will For the will of man is sayd to be free because it doth nothing but on liking and choice and because God permitting it hath power to doe what pleaseth it best and not because it is free and not subiect to diuine disposition and
his merite and not for the dignity and perfection of the righteousnesse which is communicated vnto vs in Christ And farther they say that the faithfull soule doth not rely vpon that righteousnesse that is inherent in it but vpon the onely righteousnesse of Christ giuen vnto vs without which there neither is nor can be any righteousnesse And they adde hereunto that they that truly repent of their sinnes should most firmely and with great assurance of faith resolue that they please God for Christs sake who is a Mediatour betweene God and them because he is a worker of propitiation a High Priest and an Intercessour for vs whom the Father hath giuen vnto vs and all good things together with him And therefore though they say not as the Canons of Colen that Christs righteousnesse is the formall cause of our justification yet Vega thinketh they followed the same opinion because besides inherent righteousnesse they affirme that another righteousnes namely that of Christ is communicated to vs by which especially wee are made righteous and vppon which only we must rely The Interim published by Charles the 5 with the assent of the imperiall states deliuereth the same touching iustification that the former authors haue done And the diuines of both sides in the conference at Ratisbon agreed in the same explication of the article of iustification that wee haue hetherto deliuered A great contention there is and hath beene whether the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to vs bee the formall cause of our justification and whether we be formally justified by his imputed righteousnesse or not But Andraeas Vega supposeth that it is a meere logomachie and verball contention which his conjecture I thinke will be found more then probable For as I haue already shewed in the justification of a sinner three things are implyed 1 To be free from dislike disfauour and punishment as if he had neuer offended Secondly to be respected fauoured and indeared vnto God in such sort as righteous men are wont to be as if he had done all righteousnes And thirdly To haue the grant of the gift of righteousnesse to keepe from euill and incline him to good in the time to come All these denominations are respectiue and a man may be so denominated from something without For one man is reconciled to another in that hee no longer intendeth euill vnto him and one man is deare vnto another and we are deare vnto God formally by that loue whereby we are beloued of him And because that which giueth satisfaction to God and that which maketh him well pleased towards vs is that for which formally or in respect whereof God willeth our good not euill by both these we may be sayd though in a different sort to be formally iustified Wherefore hauing sufficiently cleared the point of controuersie touching the first justifying and reconciling of a sinner to God and made it appeare that the Church euer beleeued as we now do it remaineth that we speake of the second justification The second justification consisteth in the remission of such sinnes as the justified man dayly through infirmity falleth into and the progresse and going on in well doing and the dayly preuailing against sinne whereby the kingdome of sinne is weakened and the kingdome of grace and righteousnesse is confirmed and more strongly established in us Touching the second justification there is no difference between vs them that so deliuered the doctrine of the first justification as I haue before expressed but between the Romanists vs there are sūdry things cōtrouerted For 1 t many of thē deny the veniall sins into which the regenerate do fal to be properly sins therefore think not aright of the remissiō of thē 2◠They imagine that sūdry externall obseruatiōs ex opere oper◅to giue grace remit those sins whereas in truth in the opiniō of others they auaile no otherwise then they stirre vp deuotion and raise in vs good motions and desires to purge out the remaines of sinne and to seeke the remission of it Thirdly they make the good workes of men justified to deserue increase of grace the reward of eternall life of condignity But I will shew in that which followeth that the doctrine of merit was neuer admitted in the Church neither before nor after Luthers time In this justification men are justified meerely by faith as in the first so farre forth as it importeth remission of sins but in that it importeth an increase confirmation and growth in that good that is begun in us our working of vertue and good indeauours causing the same may be sayd to justify that is to make vs more iust inherētly then before more strōgly inclined to good in which sense S. Iohn saith Qui iustus est iustificetur adhuc The third kind of justification which is sayd to bee the restoring of men once justified and afterwards fallen from grace to the state of grace againe is meerely imaginary For they that are called according to purpose and soe justified do neuer totally nor finally fall from God The sins which men run into I haue elsewhere shewed to be of 2 sorts Inhabiting only or Raigning the former in the judgment of our aduersaries themselues do stand with grace the state of iustification Sins regnant are as Theodoret writing vpon the sixt to the Romans after him others do rightly note of 2 sorts for either they raigne as a tyrant or as a king a king reigneth with the loue liking of his subjects who wish nothing more then to liue vnder him think there is no happines but in his slauery a tyrant with dislike They that are justified called acording to purpose neuer haue sin raigning in them as a king but somtimes as a tyrant they haue For though Dauid Peter were strangely transported with the violēt passions of feare lust yet who will euer think that these lost all their former good affections towards God thought it their happines to be subject to his enemies Nay it is cleerly deliuered concerning Peter by Theophylact and sundry others that though the leaues were shaken off yet the roote remained vnmarred Iustification likewise as I haue shewed in the same place importeth 2 things An interest right title to the kingdome of heauen a claime to it by vertue force of the same right title the one of these may cease be suspended when the other remaineth If a man that hath much due vnto him vpon good assurances do some act for which he is excommunicated or outlawed he looseth not the title right he had to the things due vnto him vpō those assurāces but if the same things be detained all prosecution of his right is suspēded all actuall claime ceaseth during the time he continueth in that estate So in like manner if a man called according to purpose justified who can neuer finally fall from God fall
detestable Beast of pride hath crept vp euen to the seate of Peter Prouide alwayes well for the peace of the Church and fare you alwayes well Thus wee see how the popes not contenting themselues with the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction though they had no just title vnto it proceeded yet further partly by the fauour of Christian princes and partly by fraud and violence got to be great princes in the world stayed not till they made challēge to be ouer the mightiest Emperors to dispose of their crowns dignities So shewing thēselues to haue the perfect marke and character of him of whom the Apostle speaketh Who sitteth in the temple of God as God and is lifted vp aboue all that is called God Yet could they not so prevaile in these their hellish practises nor so carry away the truth of GOD and the liberty of his Church into captiuity but that there were euer found both Christian Emperours and learned Diuines to resist them in their vniust claimes CHAP. 48. Of generall Councels and of the end vse and necessity of them HAuing examined what may be said for proofe of the Vniuersality of the Bishop of Romes power and iurisdiction first we finde that the Sonne of GOD gaue him no power in the common-wealth but a Father-hood onely in the Church Secondly that in the Church hee neither gaue him an illimited power of commaunding nor infallible iudgement in discerning but that the greatest thing that either hee canne challenge or wee yeeld vnto him is to be the prime Bishop in order and honour the first and not of himselfe alone or out of the fulnesse of his owne power but with the joynt concurrence of others equall in commission with him to manage the great affaires of Almighty God and to gouerne the Christian Church so that the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and iurisdiction is in the companies assemblies and Synodes of Bishoppes and Pastors and not in any one man alone I shewed before that in the churches founded and established by the Apostles contayning whole Citties and places adjoyning though there were many ministers of the word and sacraments yet one was so the Pastour of each of these Churches that the rest were but his assistants and might doe nothing without him and that therefore there was an inequality established euen from the beginning not of order onely but of degree also betweene such as are Pastours of Churches are named Bishops and such as are but their assistants named by the common name of Presbyters yet is the power of him that excelleth the rest in degree in each Church fatherly not Princely for things were so ordered in the beginning that as the Presbyters could do nothing without the Bishoppe so the Bishop in matters of moment might doe nothing without his Presbyters and thereupon the Councell of Carthage decreeth that the Bishoppe shall not presume to heare and sententiate any mans cause without the presence of his Clergie And though it bee said that the Bishop alone may heare and determine the causes of such Cleargy men as are below the degree of Presbyters Deacons yet that alone excludeth not his Cleargy but the concurrence of other Bishops which in the causes of Presbyters Deacons is necessarily required For without the presence and concurrence of his Cleargy the Bishop may proceede to no sentence at all If any difference grew betweene the Bishop and his Cleargy or if consenting any one found himselfe grieued with their proceedings there was a prouinciall Synode holdentwise euery yeare in which the acts of Episcopall Synodes might be re-ëxamined These prouinciall Synodes were subordinate to Nationall Patriarchicall Synodes wherein the Primate of a Nation or Kingdome or one of the Patriarches sat as President And in these Nationall or Patriarchicall Synodes the acts of prouinciall Synodes might bee re-ëxamined and reuersed Of all which I haue spoken before in due place and vpon fit occasion haue shewed at large of whom these Synodes doe consist So that it is euident that the power of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction resteth not in Bishoppes alone but in Presbyters also beeing admitted to Prouinciall and Nationall Synodes and hauing decisiue voyces in them as well as Bishops nor in any one Metropolitane Primate or Patriarch within their seuerall precincts and diuisions but in these and their fellow Bishops joyntly and that much lesse there is any one in whom the fulnesse of all Ecclesiasticall power and the right to command the whole Church doth rest So that this fulnesse of power is found only in the generall assembly of Pastors called a generall Councell Wherefore now it remaineth that wee speake of Generall Councels Wherein first wee are to consider the vtility and necessity of such Synodall assemblies and meetings Secondly of whom they must consist Thirdly what assurance they haue of diuine assistance direction and Fourthly who must call them Toucing the first the causes why generall Councels are called are three The first is the suppressing of new heresies formerly not condemned The second a generall vniforme reformation of abuses crept into the Church The third the taking away of Schismes growing in Patriarchicall Churches about the election of their Pastors the reiecting of intruders violently and disorderly possessing themselues of those Patriarchicall Thrones And so wee finde that the Councell of Nice was called by Constantine for the suppressing of the damnable heresie of the Arrians the eight generall Councell by Basilius for the ending of the difference that was growne in the Church of Constantinople about Ignatius and Photius contending for the Episcopall chaire and that all Generall Councels intended and sought the reformation of abuses there being scarce any one wherein Canons were not made for the reformation of disorders in so much that the Fathers of the sixth Generall Councell hauing only condemned the Heresie of the Monothelites and made no Canons met afterwards againe many of them and made those Canons that are now extant and are the chiefe directiō of the Greeke Church vnto this day These being the causes for which Councels are called it is euident that the holding of them is not absolutely and simply necessary but in a sort onely For Heresies may bee suppressed by the concurrence of Prouinciall Synodes holden in the seuerall parts of the world as they were in the first 300. yeares when there were no Generall Councells But one part of the Christian Church seeking the helpe of another in common dangers and one part readily concurring with another as for the extinguishing of a dangerous fire threatning all or the repressing repelling of a common enemy by mutuall intelligence passing from one to another they abandoned Heresies newly springing vp and preserued the vnity of the common faith Neither was this course holden onely in the time of persecution during the first 300. yeares but afterwards also in the time of the Churches peace wee finde the same course to
then matchable with the greatest Rabbins of the Romish Synagogue wheras Bernard some other were matchable with them For answere whereunto let the reader obserue that I neuer call the whole Latin Church by the name of the Romish Synagogue out the faction that prevailed in it therefore I meane not all the Doctours of the Latin Church by the name of the Rabbins of the Romish Synagogue but such onely as serued as vile instruments to advance Papall tyranny superstition error So that though Bernard Alexander of Hales Bonaventura Scotus Lyranus Gerson some other should be granted to haue bin matchable with Damascen Theophylact Oecumenius yet will it not follow that I haue vttered any vntruth for I deny that any of these were of the Papall faction The next supposed crimination is a most iust reproofe of the grosse ouer-sight of Bellarmine where he saith none of the Churches separated from Rome or none of the Churches of Asia and Africa as Higgons restraineth his words could euer hold any councell after their separation which cannot be avoyded by Higgons though it seemeth he would willingly doe the Cardinall some good seruice that he might become fellow Chaplaine with Mathew Tortus For if the Cardinall meane Generall Councels it is not to be marvailed at seeing they are but a part if Nationall or Provinciall it is too childish and may be refuted by sundry instances Whereunto Higgons hath nothing to say but that if Bellarmines wordes be extended to the Greeke Church his fault is vnexcusable seeing that Church hath holden Provinciall Councels since her separation whereof as Master Higgons thinketh he speaketh and not of Generall but that his words are restrained to the Churches of Asia and Africa which could neuer hold any such after their separation In this Apology of Master Higgons there are more absurdities then words For first he can giue no reason why the supposed Schismaticall Churches of Asia and Africa should be lesse able to hold Nationall or Provinciall Synodes then those of Europe Secondly the Greeke Church is principally in Asia so that if the Greeke Church had the power of convocating Provinciall Synodes some of the Churches of Asia were not excluded from partaking in it Thirdly if this were not the common misery of all diuided Churches this infelicity grew not from their separation but from some other cause and then it maketh nothing for proofe of the necessity of adhering to the Church of Rome as to an head to which purpose Bellarmine bringeth it Fourthly that other Churches may hold Provinciall Synodes namely those of Asia Africa it is most evident For first touching the Aethiopian Christians h Damianus à Goes out of the report of a learned Bishop of those parts sheweth that they haue Councels and that they make Lawes in them Of a Synode holden by the Nestorians wee reade in Onuphrius in the life of Iulius the Third In the Councell of Florence we reade of certaine Orators sent thither from the Armenians in the name of the Patriarch of Armenia his Cleargy which could not be done without some Synodall meeting Lastly seeing many Councels were holden in auncient times in shew Generall by such as were Heretiks what reason can Higgons giue why these Churches hauing a subordination of inferiour Cleargy-men Bishops Metropolitans cannot so much as call a poore Provinciall Synod If this be not childish trisling to say no more let the reader iudge how partial soeuer he be And therfore I say now againe as at first that if Bell. mean general coūcels when he saith the diuided churches could hold none after their separatiō it is not to be marvailed at seeing they are but a part if National or Provincial it is childish seeing it is most evidēt they might hold such Councels neither can his yeares dignity or other ornaments Master Higgons speaketh of priuiledge him so farre but that wee may and will taxe his wilfull ouersights as they deserue notwithstanding the boyish pratling of Theophilus Higgons The conclusion of this chapter touching our want of good manners towardes Bellarmines grace and other such lights of the world as shine in the darknesse of Popish blindnesse and superstition sorteth so well with the next part of this chapter which is concerning my inciuility towardes the Cardinall that one answere may suffice for both That I haue not wronged him by imputation of false crimes I hope the Reader will beare Mee witnesse vpon view of that I haue answered in my owne defence The 2. part of the third Chapter §. 1. WHerefore let vs see wherein my inciuility consisteth It is forsooth in aggeration of base odious and vnworthy names as Cardinall Heretike Hereticall Romanist Impious Idolater Shamelesse Iesuite Shamelesse Companion with his idle braine and sencelesse fooleries This is Master Higgons proofe of my inciuility If I make it not appeare to all men that haue their sences that I haue reason to phrase the Iesuite as Higgons speakes so as I haue done let Mee bee condemned of inciuility But if I had just cause to vse him as I did let this foolish flatterer hold his peace Wherefore to begin with the first Shall he charge vs with twenty execrable damnable Heresies all which he knowes we accurse to the bottomlesse pit of Hell may not I call him a Cardinall Hereticke or Hereticall Romanist without note of inciuility Shall he at his pleasure because he weareth a red Hat charge vs with Heresie Impiety for impugning the adoration of Images forbidden by Almighty God and may not I call him an impious Idolater Shall it bee lawfull for him to say that Elizabeth our late Queene of blessed memory tooke vpon her and was reputed to bee chiefe Priest in these her dominions and shall it not bee lawfull for me in reproofe of so impudent a slander and defence of my late dread Soueraigne the Lords annoynted and the wonder of the world to tell the Iesuiticall Friar that he is a shamelesse Iesuite that durst so say Shall he without conscience or feare of God against his own knowledge charge vs with the hellish Heresies of the Maniches touching two originall causes of things the one good of thinges good the other euill of thinges euill and shall it not be lawfull for me to aske the question whether hee be not a shamelesse companion in so charging vs Shall a Iesuiticall Frier be freely permitted in so vile sort to wrong so many mighty Monarches States people of the world as professe the reformed religion may a man say nothing to him without incurring the note of inciuility and want of good manners Shall he charge vs with palpable grosse senselesse absurdities may not we tell him the grosse absurdities which hee vntruly imputeth vnto vs are but the fancies of his owne idle braine Shall hee bee suffered to vtter senselesse fooleries in wronging Caluine other men as good as