For whosoever seperateth from the true Church which Scripture commandith us to hear leaveth it But ye were persecuted this I grant of your first Apostats Luther for sacriledge in marrying a Nunne vowed to GOD. Calvin for Sodomy burnt on the shoulder Knox for incest And so are all knaves persecuted by laws Should they then turne out-laws and rebels Duply In stead of refuting our Reformation Prote ∣ stants Duply and the reasons of our separation from Rome you fal on raising without any reason For Luther Calvin and Knox were excellent men of GOD as their lives and writtings testifie But if your Popes were such Platina hath done them wrong You may say as safely I am brunt on the shoulder and have committed incest there be no more warrand for the one then for the other And for lawful marriage I see not what divices of men could deny that to any called to it seeing the Lord granteth the liberty Stapleton a virulent adversary yet in this more for the truth then you are in his preface ad autidota Evangelica speaketh thus of Calvin Est interpres Scripturae diligens elegans suavis Comentarii ejus perutiles sunt He is far from calling him a knave Florimond Raymond de nat haeres lib. 7. cap. 10. speaketh thus Fatendum est Calvinuns fuisse ingenio admirando acuto promptissimo in imaginationibus suis in conceptionibus suis exornatissimo c. And for his vindication from these calumnies which you injuriously fixe upon him read your own Papyrius Mâ—ssonius Elog. par 2. pag. 431. where his life is set down and Bolsecus refuted who was the authour of these lies If faithful Historians can have any trust with you these three worthies whom you labour to blot were as faithful holy Ministers of the Gospel as lived in the Church for many hundred years formerly Your own writters blame your Popes and Clergie men but they were either Apostats or constant adversaries who blot Luther and Calvin It is told by your own that Pope Sixtus the fourth licenced the Cardinal of St. Lucie and his familie to use freely that sin not to be named in the three hot moneths of the year And Johannes a Câ—sa Arch Bishop of Beneventum legat to Pope Julius the third set forth a book in commendation of Sodomy there is more warrand for this report then for the Incest of Knox or Sodomy of Calvin Yet who will delight to â—ake in such pudles chaste eares should abhore such speaches Michael the Arch-Angel brought not in time of dispute a railing accusation against the Devil but you spare not to accuse the brethren who are now dead in the Lord falsely Is this the right way to promove the truth Absit But lies being your refuge I leave you to the GOD of truth for answer and shal only take notice that you leave all the four grounds of our seperation from Rome unrepealed and intire So by your silence it appeareth we had reason to leave you for ye Papists hate to be reformed †This your own Espencaeus regrateth on chap. 1. to Titus Question 10. What call had your Reformers Papists qu. 10 to go about such a worke Answer They were Ministers lawfully ordained the Bishops of England and Doctors Prote ∣ stants Answer of Germany c. For Calvin he was thrust forth by Farrel and Virer and ordained by laying on of the hands of the Presbytry according to the rule 1. Tim. 4. 14. So was our Knox Wishhart Willock c. They were like Scribes fitted for the kingdom of God and furnished with things new and old And being Officers in an army where they did clearly see the captain of salvation injured did lift up their voices like trumpets and shew the people their transgressions which was the duty of their office according to their oath Reply Ye take your first Ministerial ordination Papists Reply from the Bishops of England Doctors of Germany and hands of the Presbytry where by Bishops if you understand Catholick Bishops remaining such you must understand they neither could nor would give any power to preach against the Catholick Church No Bishop having power to destruction but to edification of the Church As also you must understand the Catholick Church was yet in her integrity having lawful Bishops whom ye should have constantly followed If Bishops turned Protestants I ask from whom had they their power but from the Catholick Church which no doubt had suspended them in the exercise of their Episcopal function for their disobedience and separation from her As for the Doctors of Germany they might well make Luther a Doctor but not a lawful Pastor or new Apostle nor could there be a Presbytrie of pure reformed Ministers to consecrat Calvin he being the first Reformer himself For by the word Presbyter ye understand an Elder in the New Testament and so by the word Presbytrie you must understand a convention of Elders in the Session which is the first place indeed for a Sodomist called for setting him on a pillar rather tâ—en in the Pulpit But true it is ye had no ordination in the beginning but every one did preach at his own hand pretending the goodness of their doctrine did give them sufficient power and call as all other Sectaries do commonly in the beginning Prote ∣ stants Duply Duply There was a necessity of Reformation pleaded for by many under the Papall tyrrannie This was denyed and school questions made articles of faith which caused some officers of the house first write against them and preach down such prophane errours as Indulgencies c. Now I ask if the case and exigence be such whether might not a Popish pastor by vertue of his ordination judge himself bound in duty to decrie the sins of the time and endeavour reformation aâ— Savanorola did especially seeing every ordained man is a pastor of the Catholick Church this is power for edification not for destruction Admit the Bishops of England did continue Papall it was their duty to purifie the worship throw down Idols c if they were Reformed then the more fit were they for reforming others When Athanasius separated from the Arrians ceased he to be a Bishop or was he holden to be silent in his apology to the Emperour he pleadeth for the contrare Had not the Doctors of Germany power to preach against Indulgencies and were they not Presbyters also You bewray your ignorance concerning Calvin he was not the first reformer Farrel Viret and others were before him who thrust him out into the worke of the Lord. You have as little skill of Presbytry by taking a Session for it But it seemeth your mistake hath been studied to vent your malice against Calvin If ye were as free of superstition and Idolatrie as he was of Sodomy the offerings of the Lord would not be so injured nor his Name polluted Question eleventh Ye want uninterrupted succession which the primitive Church Papists qu. 11 claimed still
Praxeas the defence oâ— Christians against Idolatry c. The Martyr Cyprian who lived anno 258. writteth some eplstles treatises and sermons about the cases of his time Lactantius and Arnobius flourished in the beginning of the fourth Centurie and did writ against the Gentiles but the Popish trash was unknown to them So it is not strange albeit the Negarives of our Religion were not handled directly by the Fathers seeing then the Popish controversies were not started however the Jesuits do wâ—est some sayings of these Fathers for their own ends yet an attentive Reader will find that they make not for them as Scultetus and Dr. Forbes Dr. Usher and Dr. Morton have sufficiently proved In the following ages they had to do with Arrius Macedonius Nestorius Eutiches but Popery then was under the hatches and the decrees of the Trent Council wholly unknown Further controversies betwixt us and Papists can hardly be decided by the Fathers for some of them made retractations others held forth the opinion of others frequently then what they propose sometime is esteemed by them probable not certain and all of them Printed since the Trent council have been castrated by the Popish Index expurgatorius Therefore they cannot be thought the sittest Umpyres in our present debates neither are they made judges either by the Popish partie or ours for they appeal to the Pope we to the Scriptures and do make use of them as Commentators and historians only Further the Fathers desire us to look on them only as such I shal ciâ—e three testimonies proving this to the full One is that of Augustin in his opist to Hierom concerning the interpretation of the 2. chap. to the Galatians When he is pressed with the testimonie of old authours Ego didici hunc honoreÌ„ deferre tantuÌ„ Scripturarum libris qui Cano ni ci appellantur ut nullum eorum authorum in scribendo aliquid errasse firmâ—tâ—r credaâ— nec arbitror mi frater te velle tuos libros sic lâ—gi tanquam Prophetarum Apostolorum i. e. I have learned to give that honour onlâ— to the books of Scripture which are canonick thâ—t their authours have not errod And a little thereafter I do not think my brother that you would have your books so read as the books of the Prophets and Apostles The second testimony is in his third Epistle to Fortunatus Nec quorumlibet disputationes tanquam Scripturas Canonicâ—s habere debemus ut non liceat salva honorisicentia quae iis debetur aliquid in eorum scriptis improâ—are si forte aliter senserint quam veritas habet talis ego sum in scriptis aliorum tales volo esse lectores meorum i. e. We ought not to look on the writtings of men as the Scriptures of GOD but may disprove that which is not truth in their books if they have not set down the truth such I am in the writings of others such I desire to be the readers of my own The third testimony is that of Hierom lib. 2. contra Ruffinum where speaking of Origen and other Fathers he saith fierâ— potest ut simpliciter â—rrarint vel alio sensâ— scripsâ—rint vel à librariis imperitis eorum scripta paulatim corrupta sunt vel antequam Arrius natus sit minus caute loquâ—ti sint i. e. It may be they have erred and spoken in another sense or their books have been corrupted or before Arrius they have not spoken so warily on the point If then we hold Fathers in their own room according to their desire no wrong is done to them Fourthly That none think we disside the Fathers or Councils it will be found that pure antiquity savoureth us more then Popery This you deny and cites for you Beza his epist ad Dudithium whereby your studied endeavour to deceive people may appear for Beza there is only answering an objection brought in amongst others by Dudithius for resolution that he might be confirmed in the faith by him Wherein Beza doth judiclously give resolution Will it then follow that Dudithius was of this opinion So deal you with Martyr and Chemnitius who assert no such thing It is known both of them were good Antiquaries and confirm our tenets by several testimonies of Ancients It is like you have taken these citations from your Index and not from the Authours Neither Luther Calvin Whitgift Fulke or any reformed Divine hold from Fathers or Councils their due Yea we reverence them more then ye do You bring the four Councils for the Popes universal supremacie and infallibility If this be not it which you intend to prove your answer meereth noâ— mine This is a negative of our Religion was it heard of the first 300 years You say not so But in the next 300. years was the Popes universal supremacie or infallibility heard of This you alleage and by providence contradict your self it is known that in the Council of Nice no mention is made of an universal far less infallible Pope You cite the 29. Canon of the Nicaen Council whereas there were but 22. of them in whole saith Ruffinus lib. 1. cap. 6. Their sixth Canon is far from that If that had been in their Creed they needed no Council the Pope in Cathedra would have done all And in the council of Constantinople they establish the power of their own Patriarch Why then say you that he was established there universal infallible Monaâ—ch of the whole Church Will ye remember better your connexions Was he Peters successour according to the council of Ephesus Then no universal Monarch He was a Presbyter an Elder not a Lord over GODS heritage see 1. Peter 5. 3. Thirdly Expone this and reconcile it with the Popedom if you can Was he Patriarch of old Rome Then no universal head these two seem to clash and the council wordeth it better But why do you not mention his infallibility in your Reply It is the koy of Popery and let you it thus slip out amongst your hands Not one Father or primitive Council is cited for this The Council of Chalcedon saith expresly that the Pope of Rome hath no priviledge from Christ above others but only because it was the seat of the Roman Empire Act 15. you will not then have the four Councils for you except you coine some new acts as the 29. of Nice By which also it may appear how groundless and vain your boasting is of having 90. Fathers of an 100. for this point The opposition of the Ancients thereto is clearly demonstrated by learned Morton in his Grand Impostor Here that you seem not to be silent you bring forth impertinently these texts of Scripture formerly explained Tell the Church c. To which I referre the Reader for satisfaction there be no more priviledge there concerning the Church of Rome then the Church of SCOTLAND and not so much as it is how constituted and adulterated We do believe an universal Church but it is far from our thoughts that
speaketh 1. Pet. 4. 17. your own Pererius interpreteth not this place 1. Cor. 3. of purgatorie You say Ancients interpret these Scriptures so namely Augustin Tertullian Hierom Cyprian I would first enquire at you how you can cite the Commentars of any privat men on Scripture Seeing you averre before confidently that the sensing of Scripture and interpretation thereof belongeth to the Church of Rome and to no privat persons Augustin Cyprian c. were not the Church of Rome but privat Doctours Yea they were never members of this Church as it is now constituted being great strangers to supream infallibility and universal Monarchy engrossed in the person of the Pope They lived in Africk the one at Hippo the other at Carthage and were Bishops there Tertullian was a Presbyter and forced to leave Rome for the aspersions cast upon him by some envyous Doctors there which was the first thing tempted him to Montanism as it is told in his life he was formerly free of it When you interpret Scripture you are bound to bring one of the Popes decretals or a Canon authorised by him for the meaning of a text otherwise you are inconsistent with your own opinion But that which now you bring from these ancients is as I conceive fully satisfied and explained in the eight Duply to whâ—ch I referre the Reader You bring back hither and thither with your impertinencies All you have to do here if you would keep rule is to answer Scripture arguments seeing these taken from antiquitie have been debated formerly in their own room Yet to tell Augustines mind about the sense of the 1. Cor. 3. it is not so as you cite it he thinketh the text hard and difficult but doth not build Purgatory on it he is in that at a stand what to say and will not define the interpretation but modestly thus Non ideo confirmo quoniam non refello Aug. de Civit. DEI. lib. 21. cap. 24. Tertullian is so far from it that he saith lib. de patientia Christum laedimus c. We wrong Jesus Christ if we shal say that these who have their sins forgiven are in a state to be pitied But in Purgatory if the suffering be so great they are to be pitied Cyprian de mortalitate is of the same mind all who are in Christ when they go hence reign with Christ Ejus est mortem timere qui ad Christum nolit ire Let him fear death who will not go to Christ You say these in Purgatoty are in Christ then saith Cyprian they go to Christ not to Purgatory Justin Martyr saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immediatly after death the souls of the righteous go to Paradise and of the unrighteous to hell resp ad Orthod quast VVhen you would have them then holding Purgatory you bring them under contradiction and are bound to reconcile them with themselves for any such clashings you may thank your Index Expurgatorius The Fathers indeed speak of probatory mending fire here of loca refrigerii before the Resurrection of Fluvius igneus after it this is the opinion of some Hence ariseth your citations but for Purgatory they knew it not It is the Blood of Jesus Christ which taketh away the guilt and filth of sin Now that this erroneous opinion maketh men loose reason proveth it For men who believe that they may live loosely here and yet go to heaven are tempted to prophainness ipso facto whatever be pretended to the contrar especially when it is told them withall that some Soul-Masses for a little money may be had to free them quickly thence And our experience in this land maketh it out also because many loose livers hanker after Poperie and hate to be reformed You answere just nothing to the 9. Heb. for if judgement cometh immediatly after death where is Purgatorie then That judgement is not temporane but eternall it is one with Eccl. 11. 9. And I would gladly know if this Tenet can hold with that scripture Rev. 14. 13. They who die in the Lord rest from their labours And if so they are not punished henceforth This purgatory fire of your own kindling maketh a hot kitchin to the Pope but purgeth no soul at all For Purgatory was noâ— decreed to be de side till the Councill of Lateran under Innocent the 3. the Florentine under Eugentus the 4. and the Tridentine under Pius the 4. so it is not old Many of the Fathers supposed that the saints received not full reward till the resurrection Aug. though dubious about it else where yet in one place De verbis Apostoli serm 18. sayeth There be two places there is not a third we are ignorant of a third meaning Purgatorie yea we find in scripture that there is none such In the Greek Fathers there is no mention of it saith Roffensis And whereas it is objected that Augustin said Masse for his mother Monica He sayeth only that seeing she prayed so frequently for him he was bound to send his best wishes after her if they could avail But speaketh very doubtfully of the matter in his book de civit DEI. Beside the Ancients prayed for these whom they thought to be in Abrahams bosom for a joyful Resurrection and full fruition to them The prayers of the Romanists are for men in miserie prisons in a place next to hell So the one and other differ much But the matter is that your gold groweth here it is your livelyhood your Mexico this maketh you so contend for it Seventeenthly Ye commit murther and § 17 Inst. allow it contrar to the sixt Command witnes the Massacre at Paris commended by the popish Oratour Muretus whose book is Printed by authority Reply The testimonie of a privat Oratour doth not make the articles of our faith And Papists Reply if this fact was done by privat Animosities neither Religion nor reason can allow it Nor do any Catholicks approve it except they who think it was done by the Kings authority to punish rebellious subjects whom he could not otherwise crub Duply This Oration of Muretus wherein he commendeth the Massacre is licensed Prote ∣ stants Duply and Printed by authority so it is not the meer testimonie of a privat Oratour but publickly allowed And whereas you say that no Catholicks approve it except these who think it was done by the Kings authority I answer the fact was clearly murther a breach of the sixth Command and admit the French King who then was young had consented to it will that justifie the breach of a divine precept How can that consist with Acts 4. 19. I am bound actively to obey my Superiours in the Lord ad aras religion reason craves no more Your own Thuanus hath not this poor evasion for justiâ—ying this murther but calleth it a bloody barbarous fact to murther men living peaceably And that universal flux of blood which flowed so aboundantly from all the passages of that young King at his death proclaimeth more lowdly to the world
as appeareth from Aug. contra Cresconium lâ—b 2. cap. 3. and ep 48. This was one of the weapons whereby they did bâ—at the Donatists Answer The ground of separation of the Donatists was the personall vices of men Prote ∣ stants Answer not the doctrine professed in the Church For in that they agreed with the universall Church as is clear from the above mentioned ep Now we did not separat from Rome because their Popes whom they take for a patron have been Atheists Hereticks denyers of the soules immortalitie Whore mongers c. as their own writters confess in the lives of Silvester 2. Alexander 6. Iohn 22. and many moe but because ye apostatized from the Apostles doctrine and corrupted the worship miserably so these testimonies concern not us Secondly If interrupted succession make void the Ministry ye Papists have none at Ans 2. all For ye often had Anti-Popes and the Councill at Pisa deposed two Popes at once as Hereticks departing from the faith The Councill of Constance deposed Iohn 23. for denying the immortality of the soul and the resurrection Behold then your succession and the infallibility of your Popes Eugenius the fourth was deposed by the Council of Basil and all the following Popes were his successours albeit the Council judged Faelix the fifth to be Pope Yea further this place hath vaiked for many years together so that a line of immediat successours cannot be drawn by your selves Thirdly We have a lawful Ministry as Ans 3. powerful as the world affordeth honoured by the blessing of the Lord by begetting souls to himself and many can from their experience say that it hath been the power of GOD to their salvation how then can you challenge our Ministry Is not this near of kine to that old Anti-Christian question proponed to our Master by what authority dost thou these things And if personal succession had such weight as you say the Priesthood under the law had been at a great loss For the line of it was interrupted oftner then once before the coming of Christ yet he commendeth submission and obedience to them so long as they did sit in Moses chair and no further Matth. 23. 1. So that in Ministers it is the Doctrine and not the Genealogy of persons that is so much regarded Reply In your eleventh Answer you grant personal vices are not a sufficient ground Papists Reply of sepaâ—ation from the Church and say that Protestants did only separat themselves from the worship miserablie polluted and because the Roman Church had Apostatized from the Apostolick Doctrine But Sir let me ask you when the Catholick Roman Church which before your Reformation at least was a true Church Apostatized And who was a competent judge to declare her Apostacie and give you leave to separat Was â—t Scripture as according to your first rule you must say Then I ask if two or three under pretence of a Reformation may adhere to what they think to be in Scripture against the judgement of the whole Church at that time Which â—ssuredly all must grant who teach that the true Church may erre and so give the same libertie to all Sectaries which they take so boldly to themselves But albeit you say your separation was not from our personal vyces yet you impute in the by going heresie denying of the souls immortalitie whoredom to two or three of our Popes Silvester the second Alexander the sixth John the twenty two How justly we shal presently see But however this were true it could no more wrong the Popes authority in his Canonical decrees then Davids adultery or Solomons Idolatrie in penning Scripture Neither is it a great wonder that amongst 240. Popes there have been two or three evil Since even amongst twelve Apostles there was one Judas Nor do Catholicks canonize all their Popes although for these three whom ye name wicked they have 33. most famous Martyrs and Saints What ever they teach as privat doctors as it mâ—keth no law in the Church so it cannot derogat in the least to their decision and doctrine as Popes But to answer for these three what Martinus Polemius and the Magdeburgh say against Silvester the second as a Magician is known by all the learned to be meer fables imputed to him for his eminent knowledge and learning in the Mathematicks which made the ninth Age wherein he lived to call him a Magician because of its gross ignorance Alexander the sixth is also blamed for lewdness by no impartial writter And what Calvin saith lib. 4. instir against John 22. is known to be errour and lies speaking of him as Pope whatever was his opinion as a privat Doctor of the soul before the day of judgement which he disclaimed to be his at his death professing and protesting that he had never any belief but that of the Catholick Church saith John Williams lib. 11. hist cap. 19. But Hereticks speak of Popes as Rebels of Kings discontented subjects of Ministers of state and criminals of their lawful judges which no wise man will much regard Then to shew that we have not an uninterrupted succession you speak first of Anti-Popes as if they did interrupt the succession of Popes more then Usurpers the succession of Kings Secondly Of Popes deposed by Councils but you cannot instance that any lawful Pope was deposed by any general Council what ever Thirdly You say the See of Rome hath vaiked for many years To which I answer as Kings die not so neither Popes as it doth not interrupt the succession of Elective Kings that after the death of one there be long debate before the Election of another the royal power then residing in the Electours so neither interrupteth it the succession of Popes and their Election You speak nothing of your own succession because ye have none You bragge much of a powerful Ministrie but shews no call you had to the Ministrie from GOD nor his Church so we had good reason to challenge it albeit you call this an Anti-Christian question to ask at new upstarts who pretend to reforme the Church who gave you a call because the Jews had such a question to Christ But Christ John 15. 24. saith if he had not shewed himself to be the Son of GOD by his words and works which none else could do no man had been obliedged to belive him Yet ye will have us to believe you are lawful Ministers without succession or a call and that Luther and Calvin were extraordinarily sealed for Reformation without the least sign mark or miracle shewing that they were sent for that end So that in Ministers you conclude it is the Doctrine more then the Genealogie of persons which is so much regarded As if preaching of true doctrine were sufficiant to make a man a Minister without any ordination or call the Scripture expresseth another thing saying how shal they preach except they be sent And as to seek true successsion of Bishops and Pastours in
the Church from the Apostles and their successours were to seek their Genealogy and Birth Such answers are made to deceive the ignorants and to let any rational man know ye have no lawful successsion at all however ye intrude your selves into the Ministrie upon pretence of doctrine as all phanâ—ticks and sectaries do Duply Here is multum scribere and a rabble of ragged discourse to smal purpose Prote ∣ stants Duply passing from Succession which was the question to a call which was formerly answered In the first part how poorly plaister you over the crimes of your three Popes by giving Calvin and the Magdeburgenses and the ages wherein they lived the lie And is this all your vindication of them That it may appear this covering to be too narrow for so foule faults not only have Calvin and the Magdeburgenses said so but Platina Bâ—râ—nius Sigonius c. Are these also lyars These are not authors like Bolsecus the Apostate but such as ye will not deny to be credible witnesses Silvester the 2. lived in the eleventh Centurie and not in the ninth as ye mistake Once he was called Gerbert and studied the Mathematicks saith Onuphrius then turned a consulter with the Devil saith Platina for instance this is brought that he enquired curiously how long he would enjoy the Papacy And the response he received was till he laid Masse in Jerusalem Within four years thereafter he was saying Masse in the corner of the Roâ—d-Church which is called Jerusalem and asking how the Chappel was called it was answered by some Jerusalem Then he knew that his death was near and becoming to be sad he confessed his sins before many witnesses whom he exhorted to bewarre of ambition and commerce with the Devil Some say that he desired his body to be cutted and layd on a cart c. This his tragedie is recorded also by Polid. Virg. de invent rerum lib. 5. Nauclerus vol. 2. gener 34. If these be your Matheticks I will learne none of them So it is sure by testimony of your own that Silvester was a Magician Next ye say that John 23. your Pope is wronged by Calvin for saying that he denyed the immortality of the soul and ye alleadgâ— what ever was his opinion as a privat Doctor of the soul before the day of judgement yet that he recanted his errour and died in the faith of the Church If Calvin wronge him Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. wrongeth him also for he saith the Cardinals resisted him in this gross tenet and doth disput whither it was heresie seeing it was not defyned in a Council Nauclerus saith that many Divines hold this Pope to be an heretick And his successor Benedict did publickly condemne him and it Erasmus in his preface to the 5. book of Irenaeus saith that he laboured to propagat this heresie in France and being challenged was compelled to recant which he did coldly saith Nauclerus Had â—oâ— Calvin then reason to say that this Pope was heretical Otherwise why was he put to recantation Thirldy Ye say that Alexander the 6. was blamed by no impartial writter Was not Guicâ—ardine †Guice lib. 1. impartial What think ye of Phil. de Comin †Phil. de Bello Neap. was he partial also They give us this relation that he came by bribes to the chair And when Charles the 8. intended warre against the Turke the Pope advertised Bajazet and promised for a suÌ„me of money to make a stop to the expedition which the Turke undertook to pay Was not this a holy Father Further Onuphrius telleth that he was much given to whoredom and did beget four sons and two daughters whom he avouched His familie was stained with incest So that a Poet in these times did write this Epitaphe on his daughter Hoc jacet in tumulo Lucretia nomine sed re Thais Alexandri filia nupta â—urus His death was tragical for having prepared a bottel of poysoned wine for some whom he invited to dinner was poysoned therewith by the ignorance of his Cup-bearer and fell into the ditch which he prepared for others his candle was thus put out and he left an unsavoury snuffe behinde him as his Epitaphe witnesseth written by Ia. Sannazarius who when he hath mentioned his many faults into which pudle I love not to raike shutteth up all with this I nunc Nerones vel Caligulas nomina Turpes vel Heliogabulos Hoc sat viator reliqua non sinit pudor Tu suspicare ambula Then you reflect upon the society of the Apostles where there was one Judas But when he fell did he not cease to be an Apostle and fall from his Ministrie But your Popes continued such till their death infallible and they erred as men but not as Popes This could not be said of Iudas though once an Apostle They are liker to Iudas then any of the rest of the Apostles But to make such a head of Christs Church upon Earth is a strange paradox O but ye say David and Solomon fell yet were pen-men of holy Scripture Ans They penned no Scripture while in that state I hold the Negative you are bound to prove the Affirmative but will never do it Their repentance was more then ordinar witness Psal 51. and the book of Ecclesiastes O if your Popes had a grain weight of their repentance soon would we hear other language from them and you Then you say that Hereticks speak evil of your Popes as criminal persons do of a judge Was Platina a criminal person or heretick and yet he marketh eminent viceâ— in more then 33. Popes Read him and resent your expressions or refute him as ye do Calvin with a broad lie and no more You put us to it to tell the time when Rome became Idolatrous and vitious in the worship c. Which was the ground of our separation This belongeth to the former question Yet to this I say with reverend and learned Bishop Usher Rome was not built in a day nor the great dung-hill of errors which now we see raised in it in an age therefore it is a vain demand Secondly There be a difference betwixt open Heresies which oppose the foundation Prote ∣ stants Duply 2 and Apostacie which the Spirit hath evidently foretold should be brought in by these who speak lies in hypocrisie 1. Tim. 4. 1. 2. The impiety of the one is notorious the other mysterious as the Apostle reâ—â—â—eth it 2. Thess 2. 7. they who watched against the one might sleep while the seeds of the other were in sowing or peradventure might have a finger in bringing in this Trojan-horse under the name of devotion Thirdly Albeit we cannot â—ell day place when and where errours did at first beginne yet that will not make errour truth The Dup 3. Sâ—ddueces taught their was no Resurrection nor Angels can any man tell under what High Priest this errour was broached Shal it be a truth for that So ye have damnable