vnto men through Gods only mercy but by merit of Good workes done by the power of grace by workes I say so good and gracious as God may according to them giue eternall life as a crowne proceeding as a iust Iudge as the Scripture teacheth 2. Tim. 4.8 and in a thousand other places In the same manner the remission of the stayne of mortall sinne of the eternall guilt purchased by the death of Christ is applyed vnto particular persons by meere grace by vertue of the Sacraments and the sinners humble preparation to receaue the same But the releasement of Tēporall punishment reserued is not giuen of meere mercy but penitents being now Gods Children after the gracious pardon of the sinne eternall guilt must to obtaine full remission do fructus dignos poenitentiae Matth. 3.8 Luc. 3.8 condigne workes of pennance satisfactions compensations iust worthy condigne equall vnto the quantity of the reserued sinne or penalty as hath been proued by the Fathers Hence as eternall Glory though it be an effect of Christs merits only yet is it not giuē but vnto such works as God may as a iust Iudge reward therewith so likewise remissiō of Temporal payne though purchased immediatly by the merits of Christ only yet is not applyed vnto the penitent Saynts without satisfaction equall condigne eyther done by the penitent himselfe or applyed vnto him out of the superabundant satisfactions of others by the vertue of Communion of Saynts Minister pag. 567. Daniel a sanctifyed person a Prophet able to communicate his satisfactions praying for the remission of the eternall and temporall guilt of sin presents not his owne satisfactions to God nor yet the super abundant merits and satisfactions of any Patriarkes but resteth wholly vpon the free mercy of God and the future satisfafactions of the Messias to come Daniel 9.7 Answere First your argument Daniel in this prayer did not offer vnto God the superabundant satisfactions of Saynts Ergo they may not be offered is idle For though there be superabundant satisfactions of Saynts yet it is not necessary that in euery prayer we obsecrate God by them Secondly you cannot proue that Daniel did not offer superabundant Saintly satisfactions If you say the Scripture doth not mention any such oblation and therfore he made no such oblation your argumēt is reproued by your own assertion Your selfe say that Daniel did obsecrate God not only by his mercies but also by the future satisfaction of the Messias to come and yet these future satisfactions be not mentioned by the Scripture as any part of his prayer but only Gods mercyes not for our owne righteousnes but for thy great mercyes Why then may not we say Daniel alleadged the superabundant satisfactions of Saynts though the Scripture make not mention that he did Thirdly no doubt Daniell was of the same Religion that the three Children his companions were who praying for the remission of their sinnes and of their whole people offered vnto God the merits of the Patriarkes saying For Abraham thy beloued for Isaac thy seruant for Israel thine holy One. Daniel 3.35 The Minister pag 567. lin 23. being angry at the Iesuit that he doth so sleight the Protestant arguments in this poynt sayth If the Iesuit be so rigide as to admit no argument on our part which may receaue any colourable answer I intreate him to deliuer so much as one probable Argument I will not require a Demonstration that the Roman Bishops haue power ouer the soules of Purgatory Answer When you shal find in the Iesuits writings that the Pope hath power ouer the soules of Purgatory or can by way of authority dispose of thē I wil promise you that he shal bring ten thousand demōstrations in proofe thereof The meane while the world may see your vanity desire to delude them You know that the Iesuit can bring euident proofes for euery point of his Religion and therfore you charge him to prooue what is no part of his fayth to bring probable arguments for that doctrine which he doth not hold as probable to wit that the Pope can by way of power and authority deliuer soules out of Purgatory The Pope by the power of his Keyes may grant pardon vnto the liuing out of the treasury of Christ his satisfaction and the satisfactions of the liuing may be applyed to releeue the dead as the Fathers most cleerly and vniformely teach But the Keyes of Peter can only bind and loose vpon earth and absolue from sinne and penalty the liuing Ministers when they dispute with Catholikes be like vnto a man that sitteth on thornes so pricked and vrged with the euidencyes of the present argumēts as they would fayne be remoouing to some other Controuersy they care not to what Thus you in this place are so galled to see your vanity displayed by the Iesuit as you wish your selfe euen in Purgatory to be rid of the Iesuits vrging pag. 563. lin 23. I dare say had his Maiesty proposed the question Whether some soules be purged by Temporall payne after this life their state being releeuable by the suffrages of the liuing the Iesuit would haue so scorched your Infidelity with the cleere testimonyes of Scriptures and Fathers as you would haue runne as fast from Purgatory as you now would fayne be in it Whether the Pope haue authority in Purgatory or no you need not greatly care being sure belieuing as you do neuer to come thither nor after death within the precincts of Peters Dominion who beares the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen No doubt you are to fall into a lower place except you repent of that heauy sinne so cleerly discouered in this your Reply to impugne known truths to falsify our Authors of purpose to make the doctrine of the Church seeme odious Of which damnable and hardly remissible crime I beseech sweet Iesus of his infinit mercy to giue you grace to be purged in this present life that so there may be some hope you may be saued at the least by Purgatory in the next not for eternall but only temporall Punishment (*) The Ministers rayling Arguments against the former doctrine censured I shall not need particularly to refell the vulgar obiections agaynst this doctrine all which proceed vpon mistaking impugne what we neuer dreamed off They proue that Christ only dyed for the world and redeemed mankind not any Saint who doubts thereof That we are sanctifyed and washed from the stayne of sinne by the bloud of the Lambe not of any Saint We confesse it They bring the testimonyes of Saint Leo of Saint Augustine that the Saints receaued Crownes of God gaue not Crownes vnto others but only Christ we neuer did nor will deny it That only in Christ we dye to sinne are raysed agayne soule and body vnto eternall life we neuer taught the Contrary For the satisfaction of Saints haue not vertue to redeeme the world nor to satisfy for the guilt of
these horrible doctrines your Ministry doth resolutely define The fifth Argument In this kingdome the seditious and murtherous attempts of Campian Persons Garnet c. remayne to this houre in bleeding memory Answere The memory of your cruelty towardes Fa. Campian makes Christian harts bleed that such barbarous Inhumanity should be vsed by men that beare the name of Christians You condemned him who was a man to say nothing more ciuill mild courteous and completely learned Vir suauis politissimus Cambd. Elizab. p. 209. for meeting togeather with others to plot the Q death vpon a day when they were a thousand miles asunder the one from the other as it was there proued at the Barre The Queen ashamed thereof after his condemnation would by no meanes permit his execution but you by your importunity at last forced her to yield to the murthering of this Innocent Iesuit as the Scribes Pharises wonne Pilate to deliuer vnto their bloudy pleasure our Sauiour Iesus as your owne Historiographer doth testifye Importunis precibus euicta permisit Camden Elizab. pag. 326. Out of this your Caluinian immense desire of innocent bloud you neuer ceased to vent bloudy fables and to father them vpon Father Persons but neuer was nor could any be proued agaynst him nor agaynst Father Garnet but barely the hearing in Confession of the barbarous attempt of others But suppose your Antecedēt were true about these three Iesuits how foolish is your Inference Some Iesuits haue gone about murtherous attempts Ergo The Order of the Iesuits mantayne singular opinions against Regall authority If your argument be of good Consequence then this is of necessary importance Many Ministers haue been hanged in England for most bloudy and barbarous murthers yea commonly at the Assisses euery yeare some goe to preach from the Gallowes Ergo the English Ministry holds singular opinions about the lawfulnes of murther Can you proue that one of the Society of Iesus spread ouer the world was euer executed for any such crime by some Catholicke Prince If you could how would you insult So the vanity of your fifth Argument being apparent let vs cōtemplate the solidity of your last Lastly say you Iesuits heere among vs at this day be prime Oppugners Disswaders of the Oath of Allegiance it woūdeth them to the gall that secular Priests propugne the lawfullnes therof Answer That Oath contaynes not only Temporall Allegiance which Iesuits are most willing to sweare but also the Abnegation of the Catholicke Fayth to wit of the Authority giuen vnto Peter in the Gospell deuolued by course to his successour What you say that Iesuits herein be singular that secular Priests propugne the lawfullnes of this Oath their writings their deeds their deaths testify the contrary Which slaūder they would not let passe with silence did they not know your word to be of no credit yea by their experience of your Brother they be well assured that the venting of impudent falshoods comes to you by kind The Ministers fondnes in Cauilling at the Iesuits wordes about the Temporall Soueraignity of Popes IN your third Assault you vndertake to sift winnow as the Diuell doth Gods Elect these wordes of the Iesuit I disclayme from enlarging the Popes power ouer the Temporalityes of Princes by any singular opinion of mine or more then the definitions of Councells and consent of Deuines doth force mee to hold Thus you pleade agaynst him pag. 174. Marke heere You that shall reade this A sly Foxe that would seeme a sheepe and yet his tayle bewrayes him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though a Iesuit can couch well when neede is yet he sometymes breaketh out at vnawares Doth his Maiesty suspect or enquire whether the Iesuit hold an opinion different from his followes and personall to himselfe These wordes by any opinion of Mine implyeth the Indiuiduall only and so if he haue but a few yea any two Mariana and Bosius this may hold in Grammaticall sense Thus you thinking you haue shewed your selfe a witty Cauiller and hoping for applause you call mens eyes vpon you with Marke heere Indeed you haue played the Foxe but that foolish Foxe which as I haue heard one relate that saw it byting at an oyster that gaped the oyster closing caught him by the tongue by which tyed fast he stood a spectacle of laughter For let vs discusse the matter You say the wordes of the Iesuit By no singular opinions of mine imply the Indiuidual only Be it so what harme in that Marry the Foxes-tayle bewrayes him the Iesuit hath broken out at vnawares Into what hath he broken out Forsooth he sayth he will not enlarge the Popes power by opinions personall to himselfe Is this the Foxes-tayles whereof you cry to your Readers Marke heere Verily you deserue a flapp with a Foxe-tayle for your discouery thereof Oh but the King did not suspect the Iesuit of personall opinions in the behalfe of the Pope Are you acquaynted with the Kings secret thoughts suspitions Suppose he did not suspect what treason was it to say I will not by singular opinions enlarge Papall power Yea but this notwithstanding he may enlarge the Popes power if some few ioyne with him You that cry Marke heere do you not Marke that the Iesuit foresaw this Cauill and to preuent the same sayd by no singular opinions of Mine nor more then the definition of Councells or consent of Deuines shall force me to hold Is the opinion of Mariana and Bosius or of some few Deuines agaynst the rest the definition of Councells and the consent of Deuines Now are you not caught by the tongue What more can you say to hyde your witlesse inuiting men to note the wittines of your Cauill with Marke heere What may men Marke heere If you were in the Iesuits case you would not sticke to say Not a Foxes-tayle in my speach but an Asses-head in the Aduersaryes carping thereat But euen Popish Synods say you are not farre to seeke which haue exalted the Popes Temporall Soueraignty as farre ouer Princes as Heauen is aboue Earth How proue you this You say in the margent Bellarminus contra Barclaium enumerat sex Synodos Bellarmine numbreth six Synodes in his booke agaynst Barclay Well let him number twenty what then Doth Bellarmine say they make for the Popes Temporall Soueraignty No but that they proue the spirituall Soueraignty of Peter deuolued by course to his present Successour which not any Roman or Christian Synode but Christ Iesus himselfe exalted as high as Heauen putting all thinges whatsoeuer vpon earth vnder the same To thee I will giue the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen whatsoeuer thou shalt bind vpon earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth shall be loosed in heauen Matth. 16. Yet agayne your feeble wit would fayne second the strength of your malice agaynst the Iesuit You say Notwithstanding this Protestation he may defend the Popes Temporall Dominion and so close in
great confidence auouch that it is a diuine ordinance that all ignorant Laymen read Scripture in the vulgar A strong argument The Scripture doth not say the Beroeans read the Scripture in their vulgar tongue nor doth it tearme them Noble for their reading of Scripture but for their receauing the word of Paul with alacrity and ioy Yea the tearme of The more noble is not giuen them in prayse of their Religion but to declare the quality of their Gentry and so Fulke his Bible hath the Noblest for byrth But suppose the Beroeans read in their vulgar and be therfore called Noble is not this inference ridiculous Ergo it is a diuine Precept that euery man read Scripture Doth not this arguing deserue rather to be laughed at then answered The third (a) Apoc. 1.3 Blessed is he that readeth and heareth Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that all meÌ„ read the Scripture that the Church giue theÌ„ the Scripture translated into all vulgar tongues Here you not only argue impertinently but also detruncate curtall the text of Gods Word leauing out words without which the text hath a false and foolish sense For if all be blessed that read and heare without mention or care of what then they be blessed who read or heare Tully Virgill or the bookes of Knighthood Why doe you not let the Scripture expresse the thing which being read or heard maketh men blessed The Scripture fully and truly cited sayth Blessed is he that heareth and readeth the wordes of this Prophesy to wit of the Apocalyps Which place eyther proueth nothing for your purpose or else proueth a necessity that euery man read the Apocalyps vnder penalty of otherwise not to be blessed This perchance for very shame you dare not auerre If you do what shall we or may we thinke of Luther who did neyther read nor heare nor belieue the Apocalyps as a Prophesy or as the word of (b) Nec Apostolicum nec PropheticuÌ„ esse puto hunc libelluÌ„ similem reputo Quarto Esdrâ—â— nec vllo modo deprendere possum quod a Spiritus Sancto confectus sit Lutherus praefat in Apocalip God And what an idle inference is this He is blessed who readeth the Apocalyps Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that euery man read Scriptures S. Paul sayth (c) 1. Cor. 7. Bonum est homini mulierem non tangere vers 1. Bonum est illis si sic permaneant vers 7. Beatior erit si sic permanserit vers 40. he is blessed that doth not marry Is it consequent Ergo euery man is bound not to marry or Ergo men cannot be blessed but only such as do not marry Surely your wife wil see this inference to be foolish yet it is as good as yours Blessed is he that readeth or heareth the Apocalyps Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that none be blessed but such as read Scripture The fourth argument The Galathians read the Scripture Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that ignorant laymen read them and that they be translated into euery vulgar Dialect That the Galathians read the Scriptures you prooue by the cypher of Galat. 4.24 where the Apostle sayth you that will be vnder the Law haue you not read the Law For it is written Abraham had two Sonnes This proofe is very poore For the Apostle doth not affirme they read but doubtingly demaunds whether they had not read one particle of Scripture Also the question was mooued without doubt only to the learned Galathians But suppose they read the Scripture is it lawfull thence to conclude Ergo they read it in their vulgar If they read it in their vulgar is it thence consequent Ergo euery man is bound by diuine ordinance to read and this so strictly as the Church may not forbid translations vnto such as abuse them The fifth place The Ephesians read the Scripture Ergo it is a diuine precept that ignorant Laymen read the Scripture in their vulgar tongue The antecedent you shew by the cypher Ephes. 3.4 where the Apostle sayth Reading you may vnderctand my wisdome in the Mistery of Christ A seely proofe Saint Paul doth not say that the Ephesians read but only that by reading his Epistle they might vnderstand his wisâ—ome about the mysteries of grace and Christian Religion But suppose they read S Pauls Epistle sent vnto theÌ„ doth it follow Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that Laymen promiscuously read Scripture and that the Church must translate Scripture to that end This inference as euen as good as this By reading the Epistles of Saint Peter one may vnderstand the great knowledge he had of Christ Ergo Euery man is bound to read S. Peters Epistles The sixt The Colossians read the Scripture Ergo it is a diuine ordinance that all ignorant Laymen read the Scripture The antecedent is by you proued by the cypher Coloss. 4.16 which sayth When this Epistle hath been read amongst you cause it also to be read in the Church of Loadicea This place doth not proue your intent that they read so much as that Epistle priuatly by theÌ„selues but only that the same was publikely read in the Church by the Bishop or the Priest or some Church officer in the same laÌ„guage wherin it was written originally But suppose the Colossians read this Epistle priuately by theÌ„selues what a wooden inference is this Ergo euery Christian is bouÌ„d by diuine ordinance to read Scripture Or Ergo the Church is obliged by diuine precept to prouide that the Scripture be translated into vulgar tongues The seauenth Argument The Thessalonians read the Scripture Ergo the reading thereof by ignorant Laymen is a diuine ordinance The antecedent you prooue by the cypher 1. Thess. 5.25 which sayth I adiure you that this Epistle be read vnto all holy brethren Neyther doth this text prooue priuate reading of Scripture by Laymen but only publik reading therof in the Church But suppose they priuately read this Epistle sent them by the Apostle is it consequeÌ„t Ergo all Laymen are bound to read Scripture and the Church to translate the same into euery tongue Truly this argument is euen as good as this God created heauen and earth of nothing Ergo Ministers may make arguments of nothing or make argumeÌ„ts good that haue nothing in them Or as this In the beginning was the word the word was with God Ergo euery godly person is bound to read the Scripture word by word from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Apocalyps Or Ergo Godly persons do nothing els but read Scripture Grosse Ignorance of Theology SECTION III. BESIDES the manifold Errours which you maintaine in coÌ„mon with other Ministers you haue diuers proper peculiar to your selfe and exceeding grosse wherby you declare how ignorant how are of Theology I will only discouer some few of them but those fundamentall by which you so shake the fabrike of your Reply as no piece thereof remayneth â—ound The first
likenes and similitude confoundeth â—he sight not to discerne the one from the other In scriptuâ—es it is not so the doctrine proposed therein being not gold mingled with earth but pure Gold the word of God is pure syluer refined wilth fire so that the Scriptures be not mettals that require workemeÌ„ to seuer in their doctrine Drosse from Gold they offer a ready and refined treasure to them that seeke the riches hidden in them Thus S. Chrysostome and he doth there largely discourse how euery thinge in Scriptures euen the Chronologies and proper Names of men do affoard wholesome and profitable doctrine to the Reader but to find this treasure we must not as he there sayth nudam tantùm scripturam aspicere sed insistere cum studio repositas scrutari opes not only looke vpon the Scripture but insist with study search out the riches hoarded vp therein Haue you not theÌ„ notoriously falsifyed the sense of his discourse by the insertion of words of your owne In the behalfe of your Protestant sole-sufficiency of Scripture you cite (d) Pag. 50. in Marg. lit E. pag. 3. lin 6. in marg lit E. alibi saepe this sentence of Durand tearming him A famous Scholeman Ecclesia licèt Dei Dominationem habeat in terris illa tamen non excedit limitationem Scripturae Although the Church haue the power authority of God vpon earth yet that authority doth not exceed the limitation of the Scripture This place is by you alleadged many tymes in this your Reply but most impertinently For his meaning is that the Church though it haue the authority of God vpon earth (e) Matth. 16. v 20. Quicquid solueris quicquid ligaueris super terram erit solutum ligatum in caelis yet the same power is in some cases restrayned and limited by the Scripture In which respect the Church cannot dispense in many thinges wherein God might dispense In (f) Ecclesia licèt habeat authoritateÌ„ Dei in tertio illa tamen non excedit limitationeÌ„ Scripturae Scriptura autem docet expresse seruos conuersos ad fidem adhuc manere Dominis suis prioribus licet illi maneant infideles particuler she cannot saith he exempt slaues that be made Christians from their subiection vnto their old Maâ—sters because that the Scripture doth expressely teach that Slaues conuerted vnto the Fayth are to be still subiect to their former Maisters though their Maisters be Infidels Thus Durand Now what is this to the purpose of prouing that men are bound to belieue nothing but what is cleerly contayned in Scripture Except according to your skill in Logicke you will argue in this sort The Church cannot do the thinges forbidden her in Scripture because her power is not beyond the restraynt thereof giuen in the Scripture Ergo she cannot belieue teach doctrines proposed vnto her by the rule of Tradition without Scripture which is a thinge commended vnto her in Scripture Hold the Traditions you haue whether by speach or by Epistle 2. Thessal 2.15 How many tymes in this your Reply haue you cited this testimony of the Maister of the Sentences (g) Lombard l. 4. sent d. 18. lit f. God doth not still follow the iudgment of the Church which sometimes through ignorance and surreption iudgeth not according to truth This I say you cite (h) See pag. 89. in lit â— p. 93. lit d alibi to proue that the Church may erre in fayth at the least about secondary articles And yet it is most certayne and euident that he speakerh of iudgment in criminall causes For hence he inferretth (i) Soluere noxios vel damnare se putant innoxios cùm apud Deum non sententia Sacerdotum sed reorum vita queratur Et ita apertè ostenditur quòd non semper sequitur Deus iudicium Ecclesiae quae per ignorantiam surreptionem interdum iudicat the Church-meÌ„ must not thinke because Christ said vnto them whatsoeuer you bind or loose vpon earth shall be bound loosed in Heauen that therefore they may condemne the Innocent and absolue the Nocent For God in such case doth not follow their sentence but iudgeth according to the life of the accused To prooue that the Roman Bishop was not anciently acknowledged the supreme Pastour of the Catholike Church you say pag. 161. lin 15. Pope Stephen was sleighted by S. Cyprian and other Bishops of Africa In proofe whereof you cite in your margent (g) Ibid. lit D. these wordes of Firmilian (h) Firmil apud Cyprian epist. 75. Atque ego in â—ac parte iuste indignor in tam manifestam apertam Steâ—hani stultitiam quòd qui sic de Episcopatus sui loco gloriaâ—ur se successionem Petri tenere contendit And indeed I am iustly grieued against the open manifest folâ—y of Stephen that he so much glorieth of the dignity of his Bishopricke and standeth vpon his hauing the succession of Peter Thus you Now behold your falshood for I omit your ignoraÌ„ce in naming Firmiâ—ian as a Bishop of Africa whereas he was a Bishop â—f the East to wit of (i) Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 20. Caesareae Capadocensis Episcopus Caesarea in Cappadocia Your Legier-de-maine I say and falshood is twofold First you omit to let your Reader know that this Firmilian when he wrote this Epistle was a Quartaâ—eciman and also addicted to the Errour of Rebaptiâ—ing theÌ„ that had been baptized by Heretiks And because S. Stephen a most (k) Vincent Lyrinensis aduersus Haeres cap. 9. Holy Pope Martyr had made a decree against their Nouelty (l) Cyprian epist. 74. Nihil innouaÌ„dum praeâ—erquam quod traditum Let no nouelty be admitted â—ut let the ancient Tradition be kept this Firmilian wrote against him an Epistle full of sharpe contumelious speach Had you mentioned this quality of Firmilian which I do not doubt but you knew your impertinency would haue been apparent For this supposed your Argument goeth thus Some Bishops specially Firmilian erring against Fayth and blasted for the tyme with the spirit of Heresy wrote a coÌ„temptuous Epistle against the Sea of Peter Ergo the Sea of Peter is not by diuine Institution the Rocke of the Church agaynst which the gates of hell all Heresyes should rage but neuer preuayle Secondly you notoriously falsify the sentence of Firmilian in making him to rayle against the Roman Bishops being the successour of Peter For this euen in that his Hereticall passion wherof he afterward was (m) This is testifyed by Dionysius Alexandrinus who then liued in his Epistle to Xistus the Successour of S. Stephen apud Euseb. l. 7. Histor. c. 3. Niceph l. 6. c 7. penitent he neuer did yea he doth rather acknowledge the Roman Bishops succession froÌ„ Peter and thence argueth that seeing to Peter only Christ said To thee I will giue the Keyes of the Kingdome of heauen c.