that God did predestinate any man to life ex massâ integrâ out of the lumpe being sound for the lumpe being sound men were in state of life iure creationis by the right of their first creation and if the lumpe had continued sound there had bene no vse of predestination for that is grounded vpon Christ his merits which were to take place massâ perditâ corruptâ the lumpe being corrupted And much lesse did Caluin hold that God did predestinate or ordeine to death ex massâ integrâ out of the lumpe being sound For besides that it was impossible that man should dye the whole lump 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uing in the first integrity it could not stand with Gods iustice But Caluins doctrine is that God did ab aeterno ante 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 creatam multò magis antè massam integram aut corruptam eternally before the lumpe was created and therfore before the integrity or corruption of it predestinate out of it by his decree some to life some to death foreseeing that it should be corrupted For in his predestination he had a generall respect to the whole lumpe which hee foresaw should be corrupted though not to the corruption of euery particular vessell which was to be framed out of that lumpe so his predestination which was decreed from eternity was executed in time after the lumpe had receiued corruption for so long as it cōtinued sound there could be no vse of predestination nor possibility of death And so euen as they which are saued are the children of God before they are borne by eternall predestination but not by actuall adoption vntill they be sanctified likewise they which are damned be eternally by reprobation before they are born but not actually before they be infected with sin the children of Belial and vessels of destruction Secondly how could there be praeuisio peccati in massâ integrâ aforesight of sinne in the lumpe being sound when integritas massae originale peccatum the soundnesse of the lumpe and originall sinne cannot stand together God did foresoe that the sound lumpe should be infected but not so long as it continued in integrity The lumpe so long as it was found consisted but of two persons Adam and Eue both which are saued by all mens confession how then did God predestinate any to damnation out of the lumpe being in integrity I confesse that in respect of the corruption of the whole lumpe which God did foresee there was first afore-sight of sinne then a decree that Christ should be incarnate and then the decree of predestination founded vpon the merits of Iesus Christ which were in order as we do apprehend them one before the other yet in eternity with God they were altogether but in respect of massa integra the lumpe being sound there were none of these so that this syllogisme confuteth not Caluin His second argument is this Infants sath he dying without baptisme according to Caluins doctrine are saued by the faith of their parents therefore God hauing a respect to their faith predestinated them non sine intuitu operum not without a foresight and relation to somewhat which was in the persons of those men To which I answer That in the state of innocency Baptisme was not instituted neither was Faith preached and therefore he disputeteth idlely Againe if he had brought this argument to proue predestination after the lumpe was corrupted to proceed from any thing that God respected in man It were but a Fallacie non causa pro causà For faith which God foresaw in any man is not the cause why hee did predestinate him to saluation but contrarily his predestination is the cause why man is comprehended vnder the couenant of Grace and why hee giueth him faith that hee may bee saued For whomsoeuer he vouchsafeth the end them also he vouchsafeth the meanes whereby they may attaine to that end Gods predestination consisteth with good workes as it doth with faith though he predestinateth freely without the merit of good workes the workes being an effect and end of Gods election and not the cause that moued him to elect vs for the Apostle saith He chose vs that we might be holy and not because we were holy or because he did foresee that we should be holy And his election is made sure to vs by good works which are the effects and fruits thereof Against reprobation or predestination to death ante praeuisionem originalis peccati ex massà integrâ before the foresight of originall sinne out of the lumpe being sound he argueth in this manner First God decreed to create man to perpetuall happinesse where it is said Faciamus hominem let vs make man according to our owne image Secondly he decreed not that man should dye vnlesse he were disobedient Quacunque die what day soeuer thou shalt eate of the middle tree thou shalt dye Thirdly he decreed to shew mercy to all mankinde rather then cruelty vniuersae vie eius misericordia all his waies are mercie Yea God was mercifull euen to the reprobates because he gaue his Sonne to be the Redeemer of mankinde And there digressing from his argument he exclaimeth against Caluin as if Caluin should say that God did execute cruelty vpon mankinde elect but a few and damne a great multitude condemne man before his cause is heard stirre man vp to commit sinne that thereupon he might take occasion to punish him My answer is as before First that he did not foresee any originall sinne that could be in man so long as man was to continue in the state of innocency and therefore he doth but beate the aire as before to proue that against Caluin which Caluin neuer meant that God should predestinate any man to death the lumpe being pure for reprobation and the state of innocency could not stand together As he created man to euerlasting happinesse so he decreed not that man should continue in that happinesse As his decree of death was but conditionall if man were disobedient so he gaue not man constancy to perseuer in obedience As all the wayes of the Lord are mercy so his mercy belongeth onely to the faithfull but he gaue not to all the gift of faith As he was mercifull euen to the reprobates in that he gaue his Sonne to be a redeemer of the whole world so this benefite did not extend any way to the reprobates but onely to the elect Hee gaue him to bee a sufficient Redeemer of the whole world if the whole world would haue receiued him but he was an effectuall redeemer onely to the beleeuers He offered his grace through Christ to all men euen to the reprobates but he sealed and confirmed it onely to the elect So these arguments refute not Caluin And that I may answer his exclamations This cannot be cruelty in God but as the Apostle saith It is iustice Nunquid deo non licebit quod figulo licet May not God do as much as the
AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE ENGLISH SEMINARIES AMD IESVITES Shewing their loose kind of writing and negligent handling the cause of Religion in the whole course of their workes By IOHN DOVE Doctor in Diuinity IEREMY 47. 10. Cursed be he that doth the worke of the Lord negligently TAM ROBVR TAM ROBOR NI = COLIS ARBOR IOVIS 1610. LONDON Printed for SIMON WATERSON dwelling in Pauls Church-yard at the signe of the Crowne 1610. TO THE MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD MY VERY GOOD Lord TOBY by the prouidence of God Lord Arch-bishop of Yorke Primate and Metropolitan of England MOST Reuerend Father in God my especiall good Lord. Albeit there is no end in writing many books and much reading is a wearinesse to the flesh as the wise man speaketh yet doth the condition of this present age require a multitude of bookes neither ought we to be weary so long as the labour onely is ours the cause Gods and not our owne Our Aduersaries are neuer weary of withstanding the truth they neuer cease to prouoke vs by bookes our names are daily traduced in their papers that vnlesse the Spirit of God waxe cold and the zeale of his house be quenched in vs we cannot be silent And as your Grace hath laboured these fourty yeares without intermission like a silfull Maister-builder of Gods house a painefull husbandman in the Vineyard a vigilant Pastour ouer the flocke and were neuer yet weary of wel-doing so my trust is this small volume shall not seeme tedious which heere I offer vnto your reading and humbly present vnto your Grace Since your Grace hath bene called to the office of a Bishop as with S Paule it is a worthy worke so it hath bene with you all your time hitherto a worke rather then a promotion neither haue you fainted vnder so great a burthen My prayer is for you that God wich hath begun this good worke in you will also performe it vntill the day of Jesus Christ That as you haue deserued that good report which the godly Emperour Theodosius in the Church of Constantinople gaue of S. Ambrose then Bishop of Milanie so you may contiuue still another Saint Ambrose in our Church to the glory and honour of God to whose goodnesse and mercy I commend your Grace and your godly labours Your Graces most humble in the Lord. IOHN DOVE THE INTRODVCTION DECLARING WHAT IS THE drift and intent of the Author I Acknowledge my selfe with Saint Paul to be a debter vnto all men to the Greeke and the Barbarian to the wise and the vnwise so farre as lyeth in me to win some of all sorts to Iesus Christ Hauing already by the will of God published a short treatise of perswasion to the ignorant Recusants to reconcile themselues to our Church I hold it my duty to speake somewhat to them also which fit in the chaire of Moses which would be accounted the great Masters in Israël guides of the blinde lights to them which sit in darknesse instructers of them which lacke discretion and teachers of them which are vnlearned My purpose is not to speake of all points concerning which there is controuersie and difference betweene them and vs for so should I make a tedious volume but onely by instance in some few places for example sake in liew of all the rest to aduertise them of such errours as dayly they commit in the whole course of their writings when they handle the cause of religion to the preiudice of the cause it selfe which they take in hand and to the slander of learning That I may vse the words of the Apostle This is not to cast away the cloakes of shame but still to walke in craftinesse to handle the word of God deceiptfully and not in the declaration of the truth neither so doing can they approue themselues to their owne consciences in the sight of God They would beare the world in hand that they are more exact in their iudgement more painfull in their studies more acute in their arguments more aduised in their answers more diligent in all things they vndertake then any other of the contrary religion whereas due examination being had it doth appeare they slubber vp many things negligently and performe them loosely They despise all our Schooles of learning in respect of their owne Vniuersities as if solid learning and true Schoole-diuinity were no where taught but among themselues they hold all others to be superficiall and yet contrary to all Schoole-learning they suppresse the truth by fallacies throughout their bookes they transgresse the rules and lawes of disputation and in no place will they stand to the orders receiued in Schooles Their yong frye of Seminaries and seed-men which are trained vp vnder them see not with their owne eyes but receiue their sophismes for true syllogismes vpon the credit trust which they repose in their teachers as if it were impiety to call any thing into question which their Readers haue taught them or heresie to examine their grounds by the rules of Art which are the true touch-stone and onely try all of arguments In their discourses which they publish they vse such prolixity that the matter which is plaine and obuious to any man of reasonable capacity seemeth perplexe and very difficult they deliuer the state of the question so vncertainly that the reader looseth himselfe as in a labyrinth not conceauing what is the scope and drift of the Author whether he hold the affirmatiue part or the negatiue In the end hauing seemed to stand long in opposition against vs they concurre with vs. They alledge no other arguments in defence of the religion which they do maintaine but such as haue bene oftentimes answered by Caluin Beza Kemnitius and other Protestant Writers which arguments being already answered are of no validity and therefore we expect they should reply against the answers and not produce the same things againe Neither will their disciples take notice of any answer but alledge these triuiall things for nouelties and rare inuentions as neuer heard of before These things are but Satan transformed into an Angel of light deceptio visus to deceiue the world as the Babylonian Priests did the King Astyages making him beleeue that Bell did eate and drinke and was a liuing God when he was but a dead Idoll The King at the first because hee found the doore of the temple sealed vp with his owne signet the meate deuoured and the wine drunke vp which hee set before the idoll but saw not the priuy entrance which was vnder the table cryed out with a lowd voyce Great art thou ô Bell and in thee is no deceipt But when Daniel shewed him the footing of the Priests and their wiues and children in the ashes which he strewed on the pauements and the priuy doore which they came in at he confessed there was deceipt in the Priests of Bell and he saw plainly that Bell was no God but an idoll So
before one another in order but not in time because they are eternall the other three though in Gods booke they be also eternall in respect of his determination yet in respect of the men that are called iustified and glorified as they are acts proceeding from his decrees to execute and accomplish that in them which God hath decreed not only in order but also in time they follow after as they are not in eternity but in time These things being duly considered let vs come to the state of the question Our doctrine is that God by eternall decree hath ordeined some to saluation others to damnation the cause which moued him so to do being not in them but only in himselfe and that is onely his will and pleasure The subiects therefore of this disputation are two sorts of men Paucitas saluendorum the paucity or small remnant of them which are saued And concerning them Bellarmine his defence is all one with ours that they are saued no cause being in themselues but onely in God without any foresight of any thing in them He saith it is a doctrine consonant to Scriptures to the tradition of the Church to reason grounded vpon Scriptures and Fathers The difference betweene him and vs is only concerning them which are comprehended in the second ranke which is numerositas damnatorū the great multitude of them which are damned Of them he saith Caluiniani contendunt homines ante praeuisionem paccati ad mortem destinatos quod cum Dei iustitiâ pugnat It cānot stand with the iustice of God to ordeine men to destruction without foresight of some cause to be in themselues Our answer is God ordeined them to destruction of his owne will not for their sinnes and yet not being without sinne but bringing with them into the world from their natiuity and conception sufficient matter of condemnation before his decree should be put in execution as the Hebrues when they were in Aegypt did both build for Pharaoh and also finde straw their selues to make morter for the building We distinguish inter vasa ipsa vniuersam massam betweene the vessels in particular which are made to condemnation and the whole lumpe out of which they are fashioned and framed Though they were ordeined to damnation for no iniquity which was particularly in themselues yet that there might be no iniustice with God he had a generall respect to the mould of iniquity whereof they were made He hated Esau in his owne person not for any thing that was in Esau but there was matter enough in the whole lumpe out of which he was created wherefore he should hate him Saint Augustine saith Merito iniustum videretur quod fiunt vasa ad perditionem nisi esset in Adam vniuersa massa damnata It might seeme iniustice that any should be vessels ordeined to destruction had it not bene so that the whole lumpe out of which those vessels were formed had bene damned before in Adam So he maketh the foundation of this decree to be the fall of Adam and yet so that the fault and guilt of condemnation should rest in themselues and yet this fall of Adam not to be an antecedent or cause of this decree but a consequent or sequele of that decree But concerning the vessels in particular which are comprehended in this lumpe the Apostle saith God hated Esau that his purpose might remaine according to election not by workes but by him that calleth where he plainly deliuereth this doctrine That God in this reprobation of Esau respected nothing in his person but the cause which moued him to this hatred was onely in himselfe If the aduersay alledge as vsually he doth that albeit God did no hate him ex operibus for his euill workes which were in in him because then he was vnborne yet he did hate him ex praeuisis operibus because he foresaw those euill workes which afterward when he should be borne he would commit I answer That obiection is preuented and fully satisfied by the words themselues in that which followeth after Concerning the words themselues Saint Augustine saith Si futura opera quae Deus vtique praesciebat vellet intelligi nequaqum diceret non ex operibus sed ex futuris operibus eoque modo istam solueret quaestionem immò nullam omnino quam solui opus esset faceret quaestionem If the Apostle had vnderstood foresight of workes to be any cause he had not said as he did NOT OF WORKES but he would rather haue said God hated him because of the workes which he foresaw in him and so he would not onely haue resolued this question but also haue made it so plaine that it should haue bene without question But in the words which follow Saint Paul expresseth his owne meaning to be as I haue deliuered first by making answer to this obiection Is there iniquity with God God forbid For flesh would obiect that it were iniustice condemnare hominem non natum to condemne the child vnborne To which obiection he answereth It is no iniquity which answer in defence of Gods iustice had bene needlesse and the obiection as fruitlesse if it were so that God did in his decree condemne him out of a foresight of sinne which he knew he would commit forasmuch as God in his foresight could not be deceiued and his decree was not to be executed vntill the sinne were committed and that were in mans iudgement no iniquity or iniustice Secondly he cleareth the matter by inlarging that point to make it more apparant to mans capacity where he saith He will haue mercy vpon whom he will haue mercy and where he will he hardeneth And againe it is not in him that willeth meaning mans indeuours nor in him that runneth meaning the workes of man but in God that sheweth mercy There he reacheth that the onely law of iustice and rule whereby God in his predestination and reprobation is directed and the highest cause which moueth him thereunto is onely his will Non potest iniuste agere cuius volunt as est iusticiae regula He cannot do iniustice which is tyed to no other rule of iustice but his will Whatsoeuer is the will of God the same with him is iustice Hauing thus layed open the state of the question and shewed briefly what is our defence let vs examine what may be said against vs. Our aduersaries which we are to conclude withall are Bellarmine and Becanus two famous Iesuites Bellarmine seemeth in words somewhat to discent from vs by wilfull mistaking both of vs and of Saint Augustine from whom he would deriue the grounds of his disputation as a man that will not see that which plainly he seeth He goeth about the bush by sleights and subtilties that he might at the least beare the world in hand he standeth in opposition against vs but when he commeth to the point he discenteth not from vs. As for Becanus which hath written after
was only in God that he would condemne Esau But if he meane that the affirmatiue part is to be referred to the condemnation which is the execution of reprobation which is temporall and not to the decree it selfe which is eternall as needs he must and it appeareth plainely by his words following that so he meaneth we hold with him and his defence is all one with ours For how doth he proue the affirmatiue part That God will condemne them it is in themselues but by this sentence of Scripture Math. 25. Go ye cursed into eternall fire the cause being shewed to be in themselues I was hungry and ye fed me not These words are a finall sentence to be pronounced at the end of the world and not the decree it selfe which was before the beginning of the world these words put the decree in execution and are a sentence published to the world by the mouth of our Sauiour Christ whereas reprobation is a secret which God reserueth to himselfe in his owne bosome And whereas he calleth this finall sentence of the Iudge reprobation it cannot properly be so called but onely by the figure called metonimia effectus pro causa where the effect is vsed for the cause for this is condemnation and not reprobation an effect of reprobation but not reprobation it selfe And where for proofe of the affirmatiue part he sayth out of Saint Augustine Condemnare sine culpâ ost punire sine causâ quod iniustum est To condemne without fault is to punish without cause and that is against iustice I hold with him God cannot in his iustice punish or condemne any man which hath not deserued condemnation or punishment but what is this to reprobation Peter Martyr acknowledged so much long before Bellarmine his workes came forth where he sayd Peccata sunt causa cur condemnantur non tamen cur à Deo reprobantur Sinnes are the cause why men are damned and yet no cause why men are reprobates So where he saith that God doth make vessels of dishonour the cause is in himselfe but that he doth deputare ad contumeliam appoint them to wrath and dishonour It is in the men themselues we consent with him in as much as this deputation is an action which is temporall but that making of vessels of wrath is a decree which is eternall Peter Martyr saith Peccata sunt causa damnationis quae fit in tempore sed non reprobationis quae fuit ab aeterno Sinne is the cause of damnation which is in time but not of reprobation which was before time sinne is an effect of reprobation and therefore it cannot be a cause of reprobation As the Apostle Saint Paul and Bellarmine his selfe do shew that good workes are no cause but an effect of election so the argument followeth sinne is not a cause but an effect of reprobation The sinne of Pharaoh was hardnesse of heart he would not let the people go this could not be the cause why God eternally did reiect him but God reiected him eternally and therefore in time he hardned his heart that he should not let the people go Last of all there are two sorts of causes one the highest an other subordinate which go betweene the decree the execution thereof So that albeit Gods will was the first and highest cause that he ordained some to damnation which cause was onely in himselfe yet there are found other causes inferiour and subordinate sufficient to stand with the rule of iustice that his decree should be put in execution as hardnesse of heart infidelity and other sins which causes are inherent in the men themselues Becanus writeth in this manner The doctrine of predestination saith he is vnderstood two manner of wayes either according to the Catholike defence that God did post praeuisionem originalis peccati quum vniuersae esset massa perdita aliquos aligere ex suâ misericordia ad gloriam alios in massâ perditionis relinquere vt essent vasa in contumeliam After he foresaw originall sinne in the whole lumpe being corrupted of his mercy choose some to be vessels of honour and leaue others in the lumpe of perdition to be vessels of dishonour Or according to Caluin that God before he fore saw originall sinne Ex massâ integrâ Out of the lumpe being sound ordained some to life others to death without any offence of theirs or their parents And as it is taken in that second sense he argueth against Caluin and out of this diuision so made by himselfe he frameth his disputation By the way before we come to his arguments First it is superfluous and idle to suppose that God did predestinate antè aut post praeuisionem peccati before or after the foresight of originall sinne because he did both praeuidere praedestinare ab aeterno foresee and predestinate from euerlasting with him there is nihil prius aut posterius nothing before or after because he is before all time Againe this were to impute ignorance vnto God as if some thing had bene to come to passe which once he did not foresee Thirdly our question is not of the time when but of the cause why God did predestinate I confesse with Bellarmine these termes Post praeuisionem operum expraeuisis operibus After the foresight of workes and out of a foresight of workes making this foresight to be the cause are all one so that he disputeth not of the time when but of the cause why God did predestinate But with this Iesuite it is otherwise as it appeareth by the sequele of his disputation and therefore he commeth not neere the question which he proposeth As also massaintegra corrupta the state of innocency and of sinne though in time they succeeded one another yet in Gods foresight they were both at once But let vs come to his argument That God did not predestinate any man to life ex massâ integrâ out of the lumpe being sound before he foresaw originall sinne in him he taketh vpon him to confirme by two reasons the first is this If God did so then the decree of predestination was before the decree of Christ his incarnation but that decree of predestination was not before the decree of Christs incarnation Therefore God did not predestinate man to life out of the lumpe being sound before he foresaw originall sinne in him He proueth the sequele of the Maior because the foresight of sinne is more ancient then the decree of incarnation for had not Adam sinned Christ had neuer bene incarnate He proueth the Minor because else our election had not bene grounded vpon the merits of our Sauiour Christ For Saint Paul saith Elegit nos in Christo he hath chosen vs in Christ c. To which I answere This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a skirmish with his owne shadow but no combat with Caluin because he obtrudeth that to Caluin which is not his doctrine Caluin doth not hold
I haue abused both the Councell of Trent and Bellarmine That I haue not abused the Councell witnesse the Councell it selfe that I haue not abused Bellarmine witnesse Bellarmine De verbo Dei lib. 2. cap. 11. Thirdly they agree with vs concerning the sufficiency of the Scriptures that in them are deliuered all things necessary to saluation contrary to the ancient doctrine of the Church of Rome So Bellarmine De verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 10. He is not ashamed to say In reading the place hee hath discouered a notable fraude Whether I haue dealt fraudulently or sincerely let the reader iudge But wherein lyeth the fraude He saith that Bellarmine speaketh these words onely by way of answer to an obiection I conclude therefore it is no fraude If I had taken that for positiue doctrine which was spoken by way of obiection it had bene fraude in me but seeing it is an answer to an obiection it is no fraude but sincere dealing Fourthly they hold with vs that Purgatory is a tradition and not to be found in the holy Scriptures witnesse Bellarmine de verbo Dei l. 4. c. 4. He thinketh to auoid vs by saying that Bellarmine speaketh onely antagonistically by way of obiection out of Luther and not dogmatically out of his owne iudgement which is but Petitio principij a begging of the question For it was questioned by me whether Bellarmine spake out of his owne iudgement or not and the affirmatiue was by me proued concluded He bringeth no proofe for the negatiue part but onely maketh that for his allegation which is the question it selfe Fifthly they discent not from vs about the authority of the Scriptures that it is aboue the authority of the Church witnesse Bellarmine de verbo Dei lib. 3. cap. 10. He repeateth the words but maketh no answer to them He chargeth me with Papistry because I confessed that our Church was condemned as hereticall by the Councell of Trent which is but Petitio principij for I denyed our Church to be euer the more hereticall for the censure of that Councell whose authoriry I disinabled by sufficient reasons to which he maketh no answer and therefore in that place I haue not played the Papist Whereas I exhorted the Recusants diligently to reade as well our writers as their owne our answers as well as their obiections and then to examine their owne iudgements before they passe their sentence against vs to condemne vs of heresie He maketh two answers first that they haue already done so to which I reply they haue done it partially Secondly that vnlearned men and women are not able to do so and therefore they must relye vpon the iudgement of the Catholicke Church To which I reply that if they be not able the fault is in the the Catholicke Church of Rome which holdeth the people still in ignorance whereas S. Iohn teacheth that they ought to be of such knowledge as to try and examine the Spirits and the Citizens of Berea are commended by the holy Ghost because they were able to examine Saint Pauls doctrine And I say with the Apostle That if the Gospell bee hidden it is hidden to them which are lost I alledged that few things are in our booke of Common praiers which are not taken out of the Bible or out of that which was good in the Masse booke so that if they allow of the Bible their Masse booke they caÌ„not disallow of our Seruice book He answereth in these words If all the Seruice booke were taken out of the Bible it selfe as most of all heretical Seruice hath bene in euery age pretended to be yet might the collection and combination be such as might make it vnlawfull and pestiferous as when the Arrians did sing Gloria patri cum filio per filium and the Catholickes filio The difference in sound of words was small but in substance and malice execrable To which I reply that forasmuch as he maketh such a supposition but sheweth no such collection or combination in our Seruice booke neither any thing in it like to that of the Arrians he speaketh idlely and to no purpose neither is any thing thereby derogated from the credit of our Seruice booke To the Recusants which obiect that there are dissentions among vs I answered that so there were among them I named Eckius Pighius Thomas Scotus nay there were dissentions among the Apostles themselues so that dissention is no argument to disinable vs from being the true Church for in religion we agree M. Walsingham chargeth me with three absurdities the first of ignorance or folly for that Eckius Pighius Thomas Scotus dissented onely in matters disputable and not determined by the Church for points of faith In which words he maketh the Church of Rome to be so negligent in their determination of matters of religion as if they held the doctrine of iustification wherein Eckius and Pighius disagreed and of merit wherein the Thomists and Scotist disagreed not to appertaine vnto faith and to be matters so indifferent as if they afforded onely cause of disputation but needed not to be discided The second absurditie he saith is impiety for that the Apostles contentions were not about matters of different doctrine I say no more are ours The third he saith is ridiculous audacity to deny so absolutely disagreement in matters of religion among vs whereof the whole world can be witnesse out of our owne books and inuectiues one against another To which I answer that albeit some particular factious spirits among vs write seditious pamphlets one against another this imputation cannot iustly be layd vpon our Church which by all manner of good meanes suppresseth dissention but maintaineth peace and vnitie Thus much I thought fit to deliuer not for answer to his disgracefull speeches vttered against me which I passe ouer with silence as not touching the cause of religion but in defence onely of the truth which I tooke in hand that our aduersarieÌ„s may vnderstand how we haue not suffered those things so loosely to passe our hands which they so loosely haue published against vs to the view of the world And so leauing them to the mercy of the Lord my prayer is Vincat Christus cadat haeresis that falshood may still be detected and truth may get the vpper hand Amen FINIS Ecclesi 12. 12. 1. Tim. 3. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sixtus Senensis Biblioth sanctae lib. 4. Rom. 1. 14. 2. Cor. 4. 2. The History of Bell and the Dragon Mat. 3. 10. Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 10. Mat. 16. 18. Caesar Bar. in apparat 13. Exod. 8. 19. De Rom. Pontifice l. 1. c. 10. De verbo Dei l. 2. c. 4. De verbo Dei lib. 2. cap. 7. Concil Trid. Sess 3. De Rom. Pont. lib. 1. cap. 10. Luk. 16. 29. Eph. 2. 20. Chryss hons 55. in Mat. Lib. 6. de Trinit Lib. 4. de Triniâ—… 1 Pet. 2. 5. 1. Cor. 3. 11.