Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	believe_v	faith_n	word_n	11,191	5	4.5836	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15057	An ansvvere to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian the Iesuit in confidence wherof he offered disputation to the ministers of the Church of England, in the controuersie of faith. Whereunto is added in briefe marginall notes, the summe of the defence of those reasons by Iohn Duræus the Scot, being a priest and a Iesuit, with a reply vnto it. Written first in the Latine tongue by the reuerend and faithfull seruant of Christ and his Church, William Whitakers, Doctor in Diuinitie, and the Kings Professor and publike reader of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Cambridge. And now faithfully translated for the benefit of the vnlearned (at the appointment and desire of some in authoritie) into the English tongue; by Richard Stocke, preacher in London. ...; Ad Rationes decem Edmundi Campiani Jesuitæ responsio. English	Whitaker, William, 1548-1595.; Campion, Edmund, Saint, 1540-1581. Rationes decem. English.; Stock, Richard, 1569?-1626.; Whitaker, William, 1548-1595. Responsionis ad Decem illas rationes.; Durie, John, d. 1587. Confutatio responsionis Gulielmi Whitakeri ad Rationes decem. Selections.	1606 (1606)	STC 25360; ESTC S119870	383,859	364

the error of your interpretation which you haue sucked from your corrupt maisters Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things which are written in the booke of the law to do them The law promiseth life to them which obey the Law in all things they that offend in any thing to them it threatneth death and damnation p DVR Yet Christ Math. 11.30 saith My youke is easie and my burden light And S. Iohn 1. Epist 2.4 Ho that saith I know him and keepeth not his Commandements is alayr WHIT. pag. 705. S. Ioh. 1. Epist. 5.3.4 expoundeth the speech of Christ His Commandements are not grieuous For all that is borne of God ouercommeth the world and this is the victorie that ouercommeth the world euen our faith This yoke then to those who haue faith seameth not grieuous because they are inflamed with the loue of Gods Law neither feare they the curse of it because they are ingrafted by faith into Christans for the place of S. Iohn I answere they are said to keepe the Commandement● who do their best enendeuour to keepe them If any do thinke that he so keepeth them that hee is without all sinne that is that he perfectly keepeth them S. Iohn calleth him a lyar 1. Ioh. 1.8 An hard condition and which no man can euer satisfie Christ doth propose to vs another condition much easier Mar. 16.16 Beleeue and thou shalt bee saued By this new Couenant the old q DVR If it be abrogated how are we not freed from the obedience of it If God require only that you beleeue then by beleeuing you fulfill the Lavv and so haue not only an imputed but an inherent righteousnes WHIT. pag. 614. I say not that the Law is simplie abolished but in some respect Therefore it vvill not follovv that vve are freed from the obedience of it Againe vvee say not that faith fulfilleth the Law as if it did performe perfect obediēce to it but because it layeth hold on Christ vvho is the end and perfection of the Lavv and on his righteousnes Therefore is it not an inherent but an imputatiue iustice is abrogated so as whosoeuer beleeueth the Gospell is freed from the condition of the Law Gal. 5.18 Rom. 6.14 For they that r DVR Christ saith not as you write but Hee that beleeueth and is baptised shall be saued Now they who are baptised haue receiued from God a good will to keepe the whole Law which they determine afterwards by the grace of Christ to obserue WHIT. pag. 715. The words of Christ confirme as ●●ch as I brought them for For Baptisme is not a worke of the Law but a wale of faith And Christ sheweth that our saluation consisteth only in faith And though the baptised frame theirliues according to the rule of the Law and are endued with new wills and new strength yet they do it not with that mind to iustifie themselues by their obedience before the Lord. Then should they lose the righteousnes of faith which doth not consist in our merits and good vvorkes but is such as the Apostle describeth Rom. 4.5 beleeue are not vnder the Law but vnder grace What needs many words ſ DVR This is your new Diuinitie that vvee should be freed from the cursse of the Lavv vvhich vvee cannot fully obey vvhen as Christ at the last shall pronounce the cursse against those vvho haue not obered And Christ as S. Paul saith hath freed vs from the cursse because by his death be ●ath deserued grace for vs vvhereby we may keepe the Lavv. WHIT. pag. 713. This is your ignorance in Diuinity For who is ignorant of that which the Apostle affirmeth plainely Gal. 3.13 that Christ hath freed vs from the cursse of the Law Though then we cannot fully keepe the Law yet being ingrafted into Christ and he communicating his righteousnes vnto vs wee escape the cursse of the Lavv. At the last day it is no maruell if Christ pronounce the cursse of the Law against the reprobates vvho neuer vvere freed from the cursle And if Christ by his death brought vs grace to keepe the Law why might not the Galathians haue kept the Lavv and obtained righteousnes by it But the Apostle shevveth them that Christ tooke the cursle because he tooke both the sinne and the punishment vpon him not that therby he procured thē grace to fulfill the Law Christians are deliuered from the curse of the law but not from the obedience of it As for our works surely God regardeth them and if they be good he rewardeth them if contrarie he iudgeth them worthy of punishment t DVR Jn those vvho are iustified God much respecteth their vvorkes as in Abraham Iam 2.21 and 1. Ioh. 3.7 And in Phinehas Psal 106.31 his vvorke imputed for righteousnes WHIT. pag. 716. To the places of Saint Iames and Saint Iohn you haue been ansvvered before The fact of Phin●ha● proceeded from faith and so the praise of it to bee giuen to faith not to the worke If you accounted of Th●mas as you make shew of your iudgment vvould bee sounder in these things For thus he vvriteth on Galat. 3. VVorkes are not the cause that any one is iust before God but they are aff●ctes and manifestations of righteousnes Neither Luther not any of vs say any more but in iustifying of vs God hath no respect to our works u DVR The Prophet saith not that a man is iust because be beleeneth but that be vvho is iust doth liue by his faith that is doth vphold himselfe by his faith and sainteth not It is as absurd to be iust by another mans iustice as to liue by another mans life WHIT. pag. 716. I could admit of your exposition but that I am persvvaded the Apostle vnderstood the Prophers mind beuer then you For the Apostle hath vsed it to proue that we are iustified by faith and not by the workes of the Law no not by those which are wrought after faith for thus he reasoneth Gal. 3.11 That 〈◊〉 man is iustified by the Law in the sight of God it is euident for the iust shall liue by faith And the Law is not of faith What hath he concluded but that you demy that is that the Prophet hath said that a man is iustified because hee beleeueth So Chrysast in Gal. 3. sheweth that saith iustifieth by the testi●●●nie of the Prophet Abakuk Which if it were not what concerneth it the Galathians who vvere endued vvith faith and ioyned their vvorkes vvith their faith If it be absurd to be iust by another mans righteousnes I pray you tel me hovv the Scripture calleth Christ both the cursse and sinne As for vs we had rather be absurd vvith the holy Ghost then vvise vvith you for the iust shall liue not by his works but by his faith Now goe on * DVR Then where is your faith which assureth you of the remission of your sinnes and quiteth all your

and Page 210 14 There is a negatiue ignorance which is not sinne Page 208. 209 15 Ch●●●t ●●oke vpon him the punishment due to sinne both ●gnorance and d●ath Page ●●9 16 That which raised such feare and horror in Christ was not the feare of naturall death but the bitter wrath of God against mankind pag. 210. and 211 17 What the hell was which Christ suffered and as man feared pag. 211. nota 18 Christ suffered in soule as well as in bodie pag. 211. 212 19 Christ did not goe into Limbus after his death pag. 214 20 Many auncient Creedes both in the Romane and East Church haue not this article of Christs descension into heil pag. 215. nota 21 What the image of God was in man before his fall pag. 216 22 The whole image of God is not razed in man but some reliques are remaining Naturall gifts are corrupted supernaturall distinguished pag. 216. 217 23 That which is in the regenerate of themselues is corrupt that which they haue from God is contrarie to their corruption pag. 218 24 Sinne is not a substance nor a meere priuation but an accident and a corrupt habit like to a disease pag. 220 25 Concupiscence is sinne and so iudged by Augustine vpon great and weightie reason ibid. nota 26 Sometime he calleth it no sinne in opposition to actuall sin pag. 221 nota 27 Sinnes are not equall neither doe Protestants so teach they all deserue eternall death though some more some lesse pag. 221. 222 28 Grace is double either the free mercie and loue of God towards vs which is without vs in God or those gifts which flow from this grace and this is in vs. pag. 223 224 29 Christs righteousnes is onputed to vs as our sinnes to him Christ hauing paid our debt the paiment must needs be ours by imputation and if Papists allow the imputation of the righteousnes of Saints why should they so much scorne the imputation of Christ his righteousnes ibid. nota 30 Charitie cannot iustifie vs because it is imperfect for that which is faultie cannot iustifie vs. ibid. 31 Imputed and infused righteousnes goe together in one and the some man Iustification and sanctification are distinguished in the word pag. 225. nota 32 The regenerate by grace cannot so resist their temptations that they should neuer sinne as the example of S. Paul and others manifest pag. 226. 227. nota 33 Our righteousnes is a reall relation 228. nota 34 All our righteousnes being stained cannot iustifie vs and faith hope and charitie being imperfect cannot doe it pag. 229 35 Christ is he that couereth vs by whose righteousnes wee are adorned Our righteousnes is the couering of the fault pag. 231 36 Faith alone iustifieth but it is not alone when it doth iustifie pag. 232 37 The reasons why wee are exhorted to performe workes and obedience as also that wee are commanded to apprehend Christs righteousnes by faith pag. 230 38 A man ought and may be certaine of his saluation by the certaintie of faith pag. 232. 233. nota 39 Many are deceiued with a conceit of faith but he that hath it knoweth certainly that he hath it pag. 233. nota 40 From Gods predestination a man may be sure of his perseuerance so the Fathers teach yet a man must vse the meanes pag. 234. 235 nota 41 The number of Sacraments are but two in the Church the noueltie of the other fiue not any antiquitie for them and pregnant reasons against them pag. 237. nota 42 Hugo de S. Victore and Peter Lombard brought seuen Sacraments first into the Church No Councell before the Florentine did euer confirme them ibid. nota 43 Popish ceremonies in Baptisme are new ibid. nota 44 Protestants haue both bread and wine and the bodie and blood of Christ Papists haue no bread nor wine nota pag. 239 45 Baptisme is both a chanel of grace and that which confirmes grace but giueth not grace by the word wrought Duraeus contrarie to the schoolemen maketh it but an instrument pag. 239. nota 46 The Baptismes of Iohn and of Christ were both one in cerem●●ie in doctrine and in grace pag. 240 47 The place against it Matth. 3.11 Act. 19.4.5 expounded and answered ibid. nota 48 Baptisme is not so simplie necessarie to saluation that the want of it will condemne but the neglect or contempt of it is a sinne pag. 241 49 Papists thinke infants dying without Baptisme are d●●●●●ed A barbarous and a se●selesse opinion and against all reason ibid. nota 50 Infants may haue faith as they haue life and know not of it pag. 242 51 The Sacrament is a Sacrament to all without faith but not a sauing Sacrament to men of yeeres without faith yet to infants it may be because the spirit worketh secretly and powerfully ibid. nota 52 Luther earnestly held that Baptisme ought to bee giuen to children and thought they had faith pag. 243 53 Caluin against the Anabaptists proued the baptisme of infants not by tradition but Scripture pag. 244. nota 54 Campian hath no cause to vpbraid Protestants with corruption of manners so long as Rome is so corrupt as as is and publike Stewes maintained in it pag. 245 55 Luthers lasciuious speech obiected by Campian plainly excused and a worse obiected of Pope Clements 246.247 56 Luther makes three causes of diuorce and the Papists many moe pag. 246. nota 57 Mariage is most necessarie for men who cannot liue chast and commanded pag. 247 58 Mariage is oftentimes simply better than virginitie though this be to be embraced when a man hath the gift that he may more freely serue the Lord. pag. 248. nota 59 The speech of Lauther saying The more wicked that thou art the necrer art thou vnto grace defended in his true sense pag. 249 60 How all our good actions are tainted with sinne and so may be called sinnes in Gods seuere indgement and yet good and to be done pag. 250. nota 61 The good actions of those who are once in Christ though tainted are acceptable vnto God because he lookes vpon the person not the worke pag. 251 62 The law belongs to Christians for a rule of their life though it be abrogated by the new couenant For they are deliuered not from the obedience of it but the curse of it by Christ pag. 252 253. 254. nota 63 God respects the good workes of his but not to instification pag. 254. nota 64 The iust not onely liues but is iustified by his faith and so much the place of Habacuck prooueth ibid. nota 65 Workes not the cause but the manifestation of righteousnes out of Thomas ibid. 66 They who haue broken hearts and contrite spirits are fittest ghuests for the Lords table neither is this against faith pag. 255 67 Luther was not against publike confession but a priuate auricular confession of all sinnes to a Priest onely when by the word it may be made to others pag.

refuse life or death at our owne pleasure I am not so bound by the authoritie of this booke and testimonie but that I may appeale from his Apochryphall sentence to the tried Oracles of God Now for your booke of the z DVR No Church euer reiected the booke of the Macchabees WHIT. pag. 83. The Church of the Iewes did wholy and the Church of the Christians as I haue shewed before Yea Gregory the great who was Bishop of Rome in Iob. lib. 17. Cap. 16. denies them to be in the Canon And the Fathers though they cite them as he did yet so accounted them for no better DVR Augustine placeth them in the Canon WHIT. pag. 83. Yet Gregory vvho liued 200. yeeres after him denies them to be Canonicall besides Augustine so calleth them because the Church of Christians read them and did not reiect them so as the Ievves did August de ciuitat De● lib. 18. cap. 36. August cont Gauden lib. 2. cap. 23. further Duraeus confesseth that they were neither written by a Prophet nor confirmed by a Prophet then certeine it is they are not in the Canon DVR Christians must be ruled by the iudgment of the Catholike Church WHIT. pag. 85. The Catholike Church cannot make those bookes which are not Canonicall to be Canonicall besides I haue shewed that the Catholike Church doth reiect them Macchabees I make far lesse account of it which Hierome Epiphanius Athanasius Cyprian haue hissed out and the Leodicene Councel hath reiected Moreouer that which is therein spoken of the sacrifice offered vp for the sinnes of the dead is meerely matter of supposall and forced into the text for neither in Iosephus is any such thing to be found in the Greeke neither in Iosephus the sonne of Gerion who yet writ the self-same history in Hebrew is there any mention of any such sacrifice neither had the a DVR The Iews Machzor sheweth that they do pray and offer sacrifice for the dead WHIT. pag. 85. I much ●egard not what the Ievves do now I affirmed that the old Ievves had neither precept nor practise for it Iewes either by precept or practise any such custome to offer sacrifice and prayers for the dead Lastly in the Greeke copy there is that inuersion and disordered placing of the words that you can hardly make any true sense or any whole sentence hang together View the place in the Greeke text and if you can fitly translate it so that all things may hang well together I will yeeld you are a better Grecian then I tooke you for Shall I be tied then by the authority and force of this booke place or sentence to offer with you prayers and oblations for the dead you are too too childish Campian to thinke such things can incline the Students of our Vniuersities to like your side other manner of matter must you bring and of more force if you will gaine our fauourable audience and good conceite for these things long agoe we haue distasted and spit out but who euer said your selfe excepted that this place of the Macchabees doth proue and confirme inuocation of Saints It is one thing to offer sacrifice for the dead and another thing to say that the Saints departed make intercession for vs. As for Iudas b DVR Many things were declared to the Prophets by dreames WHIT. pag. 87. Must I therefore beleeue euery dreame written in the Apochrypha bookes as diuine oracles neither did that dreame make the Macchabees pray to Onia or Jeremie but to the Lord only 2. Mac. 15.21 DVR The Ievves thought that Christ had praied to Eliah vvhen Matth. 27.47 he said Eli Eli Lamb. c. therefore praying to Saints vvas familiar and common vvith them WHIT. pag 87. It is plaine that the Iewes said this only to deri●e Christ whom they thought God had forsaken and therefore he fled to Eliah for helpe dreame touching Onia of which we read 2. Macchab. 15. I passe it ouer as a dreame but the matter is not great whether you vnderstand the intercession of the dead or oblations for the dead both is yours and both most false And heere againe you cry out with great vehemency Is it true indeed is there such frowardnes is there such presumption among men heere is neither the one nor the other Campian● we haue done nothing frowardly nothing presumptuously I wonder at your frowardnes and presumption that those bookes which God disclaimes as none of his which reuerend antiquitie hath put out of the Canon yet you in your horrible detestable frowardnes presūption will bring into the Canon whether God wil or no the holy Fathers denying them the bookes themselues disclaiming it The Caluinists say you haue cut off from the body of the old Testament These are Ba●uch Tob●as Iud●th Su●●ent a. Ec●●ejias●icus t●●o Macchabees H●●ron prae f●t in Ier. seauen whole bookes Why you shamelesse Frier did not Hierome a thousand yeeres before Caluin was borne race them out Why then slippe you ouer Hierome and quarrell with Caluin only when they are both in one predicament Heare yet againe what Hierome saith Whatsoeuer is besides these bookes is to be accounted Apocrypha but these seauen bookes which you reckon vp and calumniously auouch that we haue raced them out are besides those Hierome makes mention of they are then to be accounted Apochrypha For most of these we haue sufficiently answered For Baruch Hierome saith We neither reade it nor find it in the Hebrew all the other he casteth out of the Canon Hieron ad Domnion Rogatian and writeth freely Those bookes which are not to be found in the Hebrew neither are any of the 24. are tobe reiected of those who are of ripe yeeres and knowledge But you Iesuits are alway Children as the Egyptian Priest answered Solon touching the Grecians I wonder why you say neuer a word touching the third and fourth booke of Esdra it may be you are ashamed of them being bookes as Hierome writeth full of dotages yet your Church hath had them in great account and the Fathers often times haue alledged testimonies out of them why do you Campian suddeinly dash these bookes out of the Canon If you iudge they must be kept in the Canon why doe you not taxe the Caluinists who as all men know haue cut them out of the old Testament Why when you number vp all those sacred bookes cut out of the Canon by the Caluinists omit you these altogether Or if these be Apocrypha why should we deeme the rest to be Canonicall I am not a little desirous to know what is your iudgement of these bookes but you say further Epist. Iacob Ep ad Heb. Epist. Juda. Epist. 2. Pet. Epist. 2. 3. Ioan. The Lutherans haue cut off Saint Iames Epistle and for spite of it fiue others which somewhere else also were once called in question That these were once and elsewhere in question you cannot deny The

Campian you are too sparing and scant in the point repeate and say that which goeth before As they did eate Christ tooke bread he blessed it he brake it and gaue it to his disciples and said Take eate this is my body and he tooke the cup and gaue thankes and gau● it to them saying Drinke yee all of this for this is my blood c. So now Campian I will deale with you from the words which are now adioyning What was it Christ tooke you will say bread what brake he bread what gaue he to his disciples bread wh●● did he bid them take and eate bread what said he was his bodie was it any other thing ●hen the very same bread which he tooke into his hands brake and l DVR He tooke bread but he gaue not bread to his disciples but his bodie WHIT. pag. 183. Then one body of Christ is made two one sitting among them another deliuered vnto them yea as many bodies as there were Communicants And the disciples did receiue chaw and eate him whom they saw s●ting with them but whē was the chāge made for before he had spoken these operatiue words This is my bodie he brake it gaue it ●o his disciples either these words make not the change or he ga●e to his disciples bread vnchanged DVR ●f there was no change then the blessing wa● without profit WHIT. pag. 185. As if all blessings were without profit if they change not the nature of things God blessed our first parents Gen. 1.28 Noah and his Sonnes Gen. 9.1 Christ his disciples at his departure Luk. 24.51 was their blessing without profit because they changed not their natures and substance Besides to blesse is nothing else but to giue thankes as Luke hath it which was done by words before not by those This is my body gaue to his disciples Therfore that when Christ saith This is my body this is my blood is as much as if he said This bread is my body and this cup is my blood But the bread and the body of Christ the cup and the blood of Christ are they not differing and wel-nigh contrary Then tell vs how they can affirme or be spoken one of another vnlesse you will admit a Tropicall speech Yet Campian to vse your owne words the matter gocth hard on your side and maketh very plainly and manifestly for vs. For Christ saith plainly that the bread is his body which cannot be true without a figure that bread made to eate should be properly Christs body And this is that figure which we find so often in the Scriptures specially when any Sacram●nt is spoken of So in Genesis cap. 17. the Lord saith of Circumcision m DV● This is neither heere nor any where else to be found in the Scriptures WHIT. pag. 173. Ma●ke well This is my couenant which you shall keepe that euery manchild be circumcised what I pray you is This but that euery man-child be circumcised and ●o you haue it in this place directly but see Gen. 17.13 My couenant shall be in your flesh what is this but circumcision reade Act. 7.8 DVR This signifieth not circumcision but agreement or couenant betwixt God a●d Abraham touching circumcision WHIT. That agreemen● was it the couenant or not ●f it was then see what a goodly sentence you haue made This my couenant is my couenant But if it was not thē you must needs acknowledge a Me●●nymy that is that the name of th● thing is giuen to the signe howsoeuer then it must be vnderstood by a figure This is the couenant betwixt me and Gen. 17.10 you Yet Circumcision was not the couenant but the signe of the couenant Now tell vs I pray you what difference betwixt these two This is my couenant this is my body The former you cannot deny but must be vnderstood by a Metonymy and can any man make doubt but that the latter likewise is to be so expounded The like we reade of the Lambe Exod. 12.11 n DVR These words are not to be found there WHIT. pag. 174. Obserue the words Thus shall you eate it for it is the Lords Passouer That which was to be eaten is called the Lords Passeouer Now they we●e cōmanded to eate the Lambe reade Exod 12. ve●se 27. 〈◊〉 is the Lords Passeouer And yet the Lamb was not the Passeouer but a memoriall of it like to this is that of S. Paul o DVR There is no figure in the word Christ but in rocke for the rocke was the signe of Christ WHIT. pag. 175. Then you acknowledge a Metonymy in the word● because the rock was the Sac●amen● of Christ And if heere there be a Trope then why not in these words of this Sacramēt The rocke was Christ. 1. Cor. 10.1 Now as the rocke was Christ so is this mysticall bread the body of Christ Thus as yet you see the matter is neuer the better on your side haue you any thing else The Gospell say you makes for vs S. Paul accordeth also Nay S. Paul vtterly ouerthroweth your opinion 1. Cor. 11. for when he speaketh of this Sacrament in one continued speech he vseth the word p DVR S. Paul call●th it so because it vvas novv Christ vvho vva● the liuing bread WHIT. pag. 188. many of your fellowes interpret it far otherwise yea your sh●●t S. Paul ouerthroweth 1. Cor. 10.16 The bread vvhich vve breake is it not the Comunion of the body of Christ Now not Christ was brokē but the bread bread foure seuerall times and that after Consecration so that it appeareth ●earely to haue the proper nature of bread though it be said to be the body of Christ But yet you adde The words the sentences the whole conuection of Scripture doe often most reuerently repeate the bread the wine a notable miracle heauenly food his flesh his bodie his blood In good earnest you discourse of these things with great reuerence and shamefastnes For you would proue that in this Sacrament there remaineth neither bread nor wine but certeine qualities of these things hanging in the ayre and void● of the things themselues And for any notable miracle I acknowledge none but answere you with Austen They may be honoured as religious things De Trinit lib. 3. c. 10. but they cannot be wondred at as q DVR Augustine speaketh of thes● miracles which are made of a bodily substanc● and so are sensible novv no such thing is seene in the Eucharist WHIT. pag. 191. But if there were a true miracle it would be sensible and haue the witnesse of the senses as all oth●r miracles of the Scriptures haue For thing● that are hid saith Augustine are not miracles He writ three bookes of the miracles of the Scriptures in which he hath not spoken one word of this miracle Therefore he knew not the Popish Transubstantiation minacles No man euer denied but that in the Sacrament heauenly food is both

prepared and offered to all the godly But those heauenly and holy banquets whereby our soules are nourished vp to eternall life you make prophane and common when you imagine that Christ may be receiued and eaten like other meates aswell of the r DVR Not vve but the Scripture the Fathers and reason it selfe doth affirme it but speciallie S. Paul 1. Cor. 11.27 Whosoeuer eateth this bread WHIT. pag 195. None of these affirme it and least of all S. Paul for he saith not vvhosoeuer eateth the body of Christ but vvhosoeuer eateth this bread wicked as of the most deuout men in the world which is an horrible opinion senselesse and vnsound For that you adde of flesh body and blood I confesse for being the Sacraments of these things they haue their names giuen vnto them for signes of things saith Augustine are said to be the things of which they are signes But say you heere is nothing figuratiue nothing obscure by doubtfull speeches True it is there is neuer a riddle in the words no obscuritie For the obscurity that is is not in the words but in your interpretation of them which ten Apolloes cannot so vnfold and open that things might agree and answere fitly one to another What resteth yet is it not that at length wee find out some certeine and true sense of these words I hope say you Antiquitie may be heard I verily in this controuersie will reiect no Antiquitie no Councell no auncient Father neither will I refuse any monument of true Antiquitie For that same reuerend hoarie head of Fathers which you speake of could neuer come to the knowledge of this new doctrine of Transubstantiation lately hatched If those holy Fathers and reuerend Elders did now liue they would neuer acknowledge this mōster nor indure the sight of it but iudge it worthy to be abandoned into the vtmost parts of the world Whereas then you say They cannot away with that They say then they are betrayed You trifle and say nothing to the purpose for we can away well with this triall and feare no treachery in it But will call you very willingly to this reuerend Antiquitie as to a barre of triall Therefore if you please we will demaund of those reuerend Fathers what they iudge to be the meaning of those words which you haue produced for example sake And seeing there is no necessity to collect all their sayings some few of them shall speake to giue vs a tast of the rest ſ DVR Tertullian speaketh not of that bread vvhich Christ in his last supper made his body but of another bread vvhich vvas the figure of his body vnd●r the lavv WHIT. pag. 2●0 The pla●e sheweth very plainly that he speaketh of no other bread then of tha● which Christ had said this is my body and which in the night he vvas betrayed he tooke brake and gaue to his disciples Tell vs where vnder the law Christ euer said thus or did thus with any bread DVR Bread wine in the old Testament vvere Figures of Christs body blood therfore in the nevv Testament of the bread must the true body of Christ be made of the v●ine his blood WHIT. pag. 202. It will well follow frō this that Christ must haue in the new Testament a true body true blood but it cannot be inforced hereupō that it must be made of bread wine As if because their Sacramen●s were figures the●fore ours must be trāsubstantiated into the things themselues Then will it follow that because the flood the ●edsea the cloud were types of our Bap●isme therefore it should not be a figure or a signe but be turned into th● very blood of Christ Tertullian saith Tertul. lib. 4 contra Marc. Christ professed his desire to eate the Pass●ouer as his owne and hauing taken bread and distributed it to his disciples hee made it his bodie by saying this is my body that is the figure or signe of my body You acknowledge both Tertullians words and his meaning t DVR Augustine signifieth the Sacramēt by the name of figure WHIT pag 204. It is true Christ gaue the Sacramēt to his di●ci●les but Augustine vseth not the word Sacrament but figure to shew that as no figu●e or signe is the thing wherof it is a fi u●e so the bread is not properly the body nor the w●ne the blood of Christ Augustine saith August in Psal 3. Christ admitted Iudas to that banquet in which he commended to his disciples the figure of his body and blood In another place also u DVR Augustine disputeth in this p●ace against the Ma●●chees carp●ng at Moses vvords The blood is the soule of the beast And saith it is so spoke as the Sacramēt of the body of Christ is called his body the blood is called the soule because it is as the signe of the soule which lieth hid in the blood as the Sacramet is the signe of the body of Christ vvhich is conteined in it WH T pag. 206. Nay I infer the cōtrary as the soule is not the blood whē it is o●● of the vaines may be eaten so Christ is not in the Sacrament And as the blood is the signe of the soule which is not in it so is the Sacrament of the bodie which is not conteined in it The Lord verily doubted not to speake thus Contra. Adimant cap. 12. This is my body when he gaue the signe of his body And that you may vnderstand that this was Augustines perpetuall tenor in interpreting of these words and that he determined farre diuerse to you touching the eating of Christs flesh heare what he saith in his bookes of Christian Instruction where he giueth diuers precepts for the vnderstanding of the phrase of the Scriptures If saith he any sentence there seeme to cōmaund any impious act De doctr Christ. lib. 3. cap. 16. or to forbid any duty tending to the profit or good of others it is a figuratiue speech vnlesse saith Christ you eate the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his blood you haue no life in you It seemeth to inioyne an * DVR Augustine did not thinke that it vvas an heynous thing to eate the flesh of Christ but to cate 〈◊〉 as the Capernites thought that is torne and rent in peeces WHIT. pag. 209. You answere somewhat as touching the fact but nothing for the figure But Augustine saith there is a figure which cannot be if the flesh of Christ be either eaten as you say whole or chopt in peeces as the Capernites affirme And if it be an horrible fact to eate the smale parts of Christs bo●ie is it not a more beastly bloody thing to deuoure the whole body of Christ at one mor●el● DVR It is no more heynous for a Christian to eate the flesh of Christ whole then it was for the blessed Virgin to conceiue to nourish it in her wombe WHIT. pag. 211. What is this

In the Councell of Ephesus diuers things are conteined vvhich approue the supremacy of the Sea of Rome c. WHIT. pag. 313. Campian cited the Epistle of the Councell to Nestorius wherein there is nothing which any way fauoureth the Popes supremacy the which you perceiuing do rake together other fragments concerning things which are not in controuersie and leaue out those points which make against you Ephesus is alleadged by you with as litle reason seeing it ascribeth nothing to the Bishop of Rome which did not also agree to other Bishops for if you take hold on this that Celestinus the Bishop of Rome was called the holy president most reuerend Father because he threatned to excommunicate Nestorius vnlesse he abiuted his heresie these things are cōmon vnto the Bishop of Rome with others neither was he only intitled reuerend neither could hee alone pronounce iudgment against heretikes But if these would rather please you This is the faith of the Catholike and Orthodoxall Church vnto which all the Orthodoxall Bishops giue their assent you interpret these words amisse For in these words all the Orthodoxall Bishops are said not to assent to the Church but to the faith and that faith which the Fathers in those their letters embraced all Orthodoxall Bishops in euery place haue approued and we also do defend But what now followeth in your contestation Thou wilt say you acknowledge the vnbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ on the Altar And for this you cite the 14. Canon of the Nicence Coūcell in which there is not so much as any mention made neither of vnbloody nor of i DVR The word Sacrifice is in the 14. Canon of the Nicene Councell And in the institutions of this Councell it is said that the Lambe of God is on the holy table which is offered of the Priests without blood c. WHIT pag. 316. It is not to be found in the words of the Councell in the Greeke but they are your words of the Trāslator And cōcerning the institutiōs their authority was alwaies doubtfull in the Church neither do they make for you seeing we grant that in the right vse of the Sacrament we receiue the Lambe of God Sacramentally sacrifice nor of Altar But Deacons are there prohibited to arrogate so much vnto themselues that Bishops or Priests being present they should take vpon them to administer the Sacrament of the Lords supper because it was not lawfull for Deacons to deliuer the Lords body vnto Priests Now it is an vsuall thing to call bread the Lords body because it is a Sacrament of the Lords body neither in the meane time do I deny that the supper of the Lord is called by many of the k DVR The testimonies of the Fathers which you alleadge vvherein the Sacrament is called an vnbloody sacrifice make nothing for you seeing that vvith them is called vnbloody not that is vvithout blood but vvithout effusion of blood WHIT pag. 318. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnbloody vsed by them signifieth such a thing as hath no blood in it If therefore this be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an vnbloody sacrifice as the Fathers call it then it is a Sacrifice without blood and not only without shedding of blood Againe if it be a sacrifice wherin no blood is spilt then is it not the sacrifice of Christ for in this blood was shed nor any true sacrifice for there is no sacrifice that hath blood without the shedding therof Heb. 9.22 auncient Fathers an vnbloody sacrifice both because wee retaine the mysteries of Christs death without any blood also offer vp praises thanksgiuing as it were for sacrifices vnto God and therefore Cyrill ioyneth in the supper these together vnbloody sacrifices and praises Cyril ad Regin Eusebius de Demon. lib. 1. And Eusebius writeth that we build an Altar to the Lord of vnbloody and reasonable sacrifices according to the new mysteries Now if you aske what manner of vnbloody sacrifice this is let Eusebius himself answer you in his own words He hath deliuered vnto vs a l DVR Eusebius doth not call it a sacrifice because it is a sole bare memoriall of the new Testament as you suppose but because vvee offer an vnbloody socrifice for a memoriall of a bloody sacrifice WHIT. pag. 323. Neither doe I affirme it for this is not a bare memoriall seeing the thing it selfe thereby signified is therin cōteined in the right vse of it But withall I deny that this memoriall is the same sacrifice which Christ offered as you would haue it for how can a sacrifice be the self same with it of which it is a memorial If therfore this be an vnbloody sacrifice thē it is not the Sacrifice which Christ offered which was bloody the memorial of no other sacrifice See Eus de Demon. l. 1. memoriall of his death which we offer vnto him in place of a Sacrifice Again you propound the eleuenth act of the Councell of Chalcedon which conteineth nothing at all which appertaineth to this matter in hand neither that place of Socrates which you quote Lib. 1. cap. 8 You might haue dealt better and more simply if you would haue cited the words themselues and not only quoted vncertaine and confused notes in the margent but you feared lest you might haue bin too easily discouered vnles you had masked your selfe vnder the vizard of deceite But let vs examine the remainder of your contestation Thou wilt pray say you vnto the Martyrs and all the Saints that they would mediate for thee vnto Christ Thou wilt restraine effeminate Apostataes from wicked copulation Whether the Martyrs and heauenly Saints pray vnto Christ for vs or no m DVR You cānot be ignorant of this that the Saints pray for vs if in the doctrine of faith you insist in the steps of the Fathers WHIT. p. 328. We are ignorāt therof because there is no such thing cōteined in the Canonical Scriptures which should not haue bin omitted if the spirit of God had thought this knowledge necessary Neither is it con●●ouersed what the Fathers thought of it not doth it follow because they haue care of vs they pray for vs neither if they do pray therefore we should pray vnto them we know not but certaine it is that they are n DVR We knovv the blessednes of the Saints in heauen and therefore they are not ignorant of our misery in earth Againe Christ hath reueiled vnto the Saints liuing on the earth diuine and heauenly things and therefore he reueileth to the Saints in heauen vvhat is done in earth WHIT. pag 330. Although we generally know that the Saints in heauen are blessed yet we know not their particular state their actions the manner degree of their happines and therefore if your argument be good it confuteth your self seeing therfore it followeth that they likwise are ignorant of our particular state actions Moreouer Christ

any Schoole-learning that they will heedfully obserue how current these your conclusions be and examine them by the rules of right and true disputation And indeed to chuse I will there begin where you your selfe haue made an entrance We mainteine that it is lawfull for Ministers of the Gospell and for Deacons to be maried You skorne the arguments whereby we make it good Wherefore let vs consider what goodly stuffe is brought on your side for the contrarie Pope Innocent the second of that name Distinct 82 Proposuisti Rom. 8.8 thus concludeth you must suppose by diuine inspiration against these mariages They which are in b DVR Pope Innocent spake of Priests who had vowed single life of their ovvne accord but aftervvard yeelded to lust WHIT. pag. 735. Nay he spake that of all Deacons and Priests for hee saith further Distinct. 82. cap. proposuisti It is not lawfull to admit them to holy offices which vse carnall companie ●ith their wiues because it is written ●●e yee holy for 〈◊〉 the Lord your God am holy for then hee esteemed marriage duty to bee an vnholie thing in it selfe not in respect of their vow of which he speaketh not a word the flesh cannot please God Tit. 1.15 Vnto the pure al things are pure but vnto them that are defiled and vnbeleeuing is nothing pure Be yee holy because I the Lord your God am holy And because S. Paul permitteth married people by consent to sleepe apart for a season to the end they may more conueniently giue themselues to fasting praier Distinct 31. Tenere here hēce the Pope gathereth that this is much more c DVR This argument is good and can haue no shew of error For aboue all men a Priest must be chaste saith Origen Homil. 6 4. in Leuit. Also Ierome and Ambrose and Epiphanius taught the same WHIT. pag. 736. Yea you er●e and mistake S. Paul in theree things 1. What he wrote to all Christians you expound of Lay-men only 2. He speaketh only of extraordinarie fasts prayer but you applie it vnto all sorts thereof That the Apostle speaketh of extraordinarie appeares 1. Because he hath ioyned fasting with them 1. Cor. 7.5.2 Because Christ and his Apostle haue commanded all to pray continually and so all ought to l●ue a single life 3. From a short abstinence of Lay-men you childishly would proue a perpetuall single life to be necessary for Ministers You abuse also Origens words play the heretike as if chastitie were contrary to matrimony whereas the Fathers of the Nicene Councell consented to Paphnutius who said openly that society with a lavvfull wi●e is chastitie Socrates lib. 1. cap. 11. Jerome indeed disputed too sophistically against matrimony seeking victory more then verity as himself confessed Ambr●se and Epiphanius disswaded Ministers only from second m●●riages allowing their fi●st to be done of Priests whose office is to pray alwaies to offer that daily sacrifice Distinct 28 Decernimus Last of al seeing they must be a tēple of the Lord and an oratory of the spirit d DVR Tertullian vsed this same argument against second marriage WHIT. pag. 739. Tertullian therein erred with Montanus as all the learned know condemning second marriages of vncleannes not only in Ministers but in all Christians yet he himselfe being a Priest was married and liued with his wife continuing his Ministery so that he neither iudged marriage to be vncleanenes nor vnlavvfull in Ministers simplie but only second marriages they ought not to abase themselues with bed-pleasures vncleannesses Now out of all these he cōcludeth that which he propounded that Deacons and Priests are flatlie forbidden to marry Harding and Dorman and others If these things be absurdly disputed let vs heare others Seuerall Pastors haue rule ouer seuerall flockes c DVR The Pope challengeth no Lordship ouer the Churches but professeth himselfe the seueruant of Gods seruants WHIT. pag. 740. But his dee●s bewray his tyranny for he prescribeth commandeth threatneth punisheth and doth whatsoeuer any Lord can do DVR You can dispro●e this consequent by no argument WHIT. pag. 741. It is an absurd argument like these Euery seuerall man hath one head therefore all men must haue one head Euery seuerall flocke hath his shepheard therefore all flockes must haue one to rule them Againe no one man can possiblie teach and feed the whole Church with the Word and Sacrament as a faithfull Pastor should and may doe in a particular Church Christ only can thus feed al particular Churches which can neuer be made one visible body and therefore can haue none but Christ the generall head and Pastor ouer them DVR Ierome Cyprian and Ireneus haue written the same we doe WHIT. pag 742. Not one of them First Ierome defendeth the superiority of one Pastor in the Church not as a matter of accessitie but of conueniency to preuent schismes and saith that the Church is founded vpon all the Apostles alike and that euery one equally hath receiued the keies of the kingdome of heauen euen in that place where you quote him against Iouinian lib. 1. Secondly Cyprian cōcludeth only that there should be but one Pastor in one Church and neuer thought vpon the Popes primacie but saith plainly that euery particular Bishop hath all whatsoeuer any one hath by right in the same booke which you alleadge of the Churches vnity Lastly Ireneus called the Romane the chiefe Church not for any superiority but because she excelled all others in constancie largenes fame and soundnes of faith therefore the Pope ought to haue dominion ouer all Churches Christ said to Peter feed my sheepe f DVR Jt is manifest by this place that Christ gaue greater authoritie of feeding to Peter than to the other Apostles and so made him head of all his Church WHIT. p. 744. It will not follow vpon this place that Peter had greater authority to feed or that he only must feede all for he said to them all alike Matth. 28.19 Goe yee teach all nations and Iob. 20 21. As the Father sent me so I send you Therefore he spake so often then to Peter to confirme him after his grieuous fall that he might not doubt of his Apostolicall calling as saith Augustines treatise on Iohn 123. so that it no whit concerneth the Pope therefore Peter is the chiefe principall Pastor of the Church The Lord made two great lights the Sunne g DVR The Pope vseth this as a similitude to amplifie not as an argument to prooue by authoritie WHIT. pag. 746. This is an idle shift a similitude is an argument and Johannes Andraeas would prooue hereby that the Pope excelleth the Emperor in dignitie seuentie times seuen degrees the Moone therfore the Pope excelleth the Emperour in honour and greatnes Heere are two swords therfore the h DVR VVe gather nothing hence but vvhat Bernard did saying This sword of temporall povver is thine

orphanorum Tu leuamen oppressorum Medicamen infirmorum Omnibus es omnia That is to say Thou blessed Virgin Marie art the infallible l DVR Saint Paul calleth the Thessalonians his hope 1. Thess 2.19 WHIT. pag. 796. But hee neuer put his trust in nor called vpon them as you doe the Virgin Marie hee called them his hope because he receiued great hope and ioy by his labours in their conuersion You make the Virgin an instrument of our saluation and therefore you trust in her but the Scriptures teach euery where to trust in God and Christ only As Psal 71.3 Ier. 17.5.7 1. Tim. 1.1 and 1. Pet. 1.21 hope of such as are in miserie the true mother of Orphanes Thou art the consolation of such as be oppressed the medicine of such as bee diseased Thou art all m DVR The sentence of the Catholike Church hath no vvhere alloued this but if it had it might be conueniently defended WHIT pag. 797. Duraeus can conueniently expound that which most absurdly taketh the office of re●ēption frō Christ and giueth it to the Virgin Mary in all to all men or in all necessities and other such like abominable speeches and full of strange blasphemie If happily you thinke our reproouing of these things be but some fighting with a shadow then doe you no more respect the glorie of God than the shadow of an Asse The second error in disputation wherewith you charge vs Logomachia is that wee often vse Logomachia which is when the sense is neglected and men contend about the word I vnderstand it well but which bee those our faults committed in this kinde Can you finde vs say they the Masse or Purgatorie in the Scriptures And is not this our demaund reasonable For where should these be found rather than in the Scriptures There was nothing wont to be accounted more holy than the Masse and there could nothing be inuented more gainfull than Purgatorie that neither of these now at last should be found in the Scriptures certainly it may well seeme a very strange and vnreasonable thing Belike then say you Trinitas the Trinitie Homousios coessentiall Persona a person are no where in the Bible because these very termes are not to be found there Neither say we so Campian nor will it follow at all hereupon and these things be altogether vnequally compared For albeit these very termes are not in Scriptures Epiphan contra Semiarian l. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the matter it selfe and the sense as Epiphanius writeth commeth to hand in all places and is easily euery where to bee found But your n DVR Did you neuer reade these vvords of Christ in his last Supper this is my body WHIT. pag. 799. Yea but Christ ordeined then a Sacramēt not a sacrifice he offered himselfe a sacrifice only once vpon the Crosse Heb 9 10. not in his last Supper except you will say he died then also vvhich he must haue done to make it a sacrifice but he was then aliue it were most absurd to say he was aliue and dead at one time which he needs must be both then and in al your Masses if there be any sacrifice in the Masse at all Againe externall sacrifices as you say your Masse is are subiect to the sight outward senses but no man euer saw Christ to be sacrificed either in the Supper or in the Masse Therefore there is none neither in the one nor in the other DVR Jt vvas a sacrifice for Christ vvas really conteined vnder those former of bread and vvine and so the Masse is novv an vnbloodie sacrifice WHIT. pag. 801. You cannot prooue him to be so present there as you teach by no Scripture and if he were yet that was not therefore a sacrifice except you will haue his reall being in the Virgins wombe also to be a sacrifice in which he was conteined As for your vnbloody propitiatorie sacrifice first it is absurd for to sacrifice killeth a bodie but your Transubstantiation maketh a bodie secondly it hath no word of God for it thirdly it is needlesse Christs sacrifice being perfect fourthly Christ ordained that supper in memorie of his sacrifice not to be it selfe a sacrifice WHIT. pag. ●03 DVR Many of the Fathers call the Eucharist by the name of sacrifice WHIT. pag 805. Not because it is that same which Christ offered as you teach but because it is a memoriall and Sacrament of it DVR Purgatorie is most plainely prooued by the fact of Iudas Machabaeus in the second booke and 12. chapter WHIT. pag. 806. Those bookes are not Canonicall Scripture neither doth that act prooue a Purgatorie by your owne doctrine who say those that die in deadly sinne as those did there mentioned goe to hell and not to Purgatorie Masse and Purgatorie are not in this manner in the Scriptures seeing neither the names nor the things themselues any where do appeare yea they are plainly against the Scriptures For what else is either the Masse than as * Bustum coenae Dominica an empty sepulchre where is onely the title of the Lords Supper or what is Purgatorie more than a shamelesse merchandise of soules and an intolerable contempt against the blood of Christ Wherefore this is not a trisling contention about words but a most waightie one about matters of moment except peraduenture you make account of the Masse and Purgatorie not to bee matters of moment but words of Arte only As for the name o DVR The office of a Presbyter or Elder in the Gospell is the same that the Priests office vvas in the Lavve WHIT. pag. 807. It is not so for if the office did remaine why should the name be changed for Elders are neuer called Priests in the new Testament And there be ruling Elders in the Church which labour not in the Ministerie of the word and Sacraments as the Priests did Presbyter and Sacrament it is appropriated from the common signification to some certaine and particular things as likewise many other names are to wit Ecclesia the Church Episcopus a Bishop Apostolus an Apostle Dia●onus a Deacon and these names wee willingly vse but so that wee carefully shunne their impertinent significations Neither was that indeede sufficient cause why you should register Matrimonie in the catalogue of Sacraments because S. Paul wrote thus Sacramentum hoc magnum Eph. 5. This is a great mysterie For in that place Sacramentum is vsed in a large signification for any mysterie not for that ceremony which may properly be called a Sacrament As for that counsell of Thomas Aquinas we doe very well approue it The third head Homonymia or kinde of deceitfull disputation which you say we vsually erre in is Homonymia equiuocation or a mistaking the sense of words whereof you propound two examples For say you we both confound the order of Priests because S. Iohn hath tearmed vs all Priests and also abolish choice of

professed themselues Christians if they were Christians they were ours But Helen say you was ours who is euery way famous for finding the crosse of Christ That which Ambrose reports of Helen is very suspitious and Golasius Bishop of Rome calleth these things that were bruted of the inuention of the crosse Dill. 15. Sanct. Romana new reuelations But graunt that Helen found the Crosse for it is not greatly materiall Did she adore it for that is to the purpose Heare what Ambrose saith She found the stile Ambros in Orat. suneb Theodos she worshipped the King not the wood certainly for this is a heathenish error and a vanity of the wicked Wherefore though she found the Crosse that is no reason to prooue her yours seeing she worshipped not the crosse as you do for not finding but adoring of the l DVR VVee giue not Latria diuine worship to the Crosse WHIT pag. 868. The distinction vvill not excuse you for you reach that the Crosse and the Image of Christ is to bee worshipped with Latria or diuine worship Thom. 3. part 25. q. act 3. 4. which is so horrible and pernicious that it exceedeth all the superstition of old Idolaters Crosse makes a Papist Monica is ours who at her death desired they should pray and offer sacrifice for her at Christes altar Monica desired not that the m DVR Shee desired to be sacrificed for and what other sacifice is there but the sacrifice of the Altar to take away the hand a ritiue against vs. WHIT. pag. 870. That I haue answered in Augustines 〈◊〉 words Confess lib. 9. cap. 13. hee only desired to bee remembred at the Altar It was a custome in the Church to make honorable mention of the Patriarkes Prophets Apostles the Virgin Mary the Martyrs and Confessors whom they neuer thought to be tormented in Purgatorie but your Masse is offered for those whom you thinke as yet not to be freed from that fire and to be in heauenly ioyes And what a kind of sacrifice it was Augustine sheweth in the same place saying Thy hand mayden kuit her soule by the bond of faith to the Sacrament of that price of our redemption He calleth then the Eucharist a sacrifice which taketh away the hand-writing against vs because it is the Sacrament of that sacrifice sacrifice of the Masse should be offred for her for the forgiuenes and expiation of her sinnes neither did Augustine either pray or offer for his mother in this manner The desire of Monica was only this that at the celebration of the Eucharist there might alwaies be a remembrance of her insomuch as she assured herselfe she was one of the heauenly societie and communitie of saints Augustine indeed prayed for his mother I denie not but this his fact proceeded more of affection to his mother then for any necessitie And the custome of prayer for the dead which preuailed in many places was not deriued from the authoritie of the scriptures but only from an excessiue kind of loue and reuerence of them that liued towards their friends that were dead But that Augustine neuer beleeued his mother to be in Purgatory that his prayers might releeue her there it is manifest for thus he saith Forgeue her Lord forgiue her I beseech thee August confess lib. 9. cap. 13. enter not into iudgement with her ô Lord yea ô Lord I beleeue thou hast already graunted that which I desire but accept ô Lord the freewill offrings of my mouth But if we should graunt that both Augustine and his mother went a little awry you cannot heere inferre that either of them are yours for so much as we are not to giue censure of the Fathers in greatest causes by one particular iudgement but by their continuall and constant opinion You annex hereunto Paula and Paulus Hilarian and Authony I could recken sixe hundred Monks like vnto these whereof not one was a Papist none of them yours All these were Christians louing solitarines that they might more quietly intend the meditation of heauenly things Compare not your Monks with these which are of an other sort and sect of Monks These were holy painefull faithfull full of good works yours are impure idle idolatrous deuourers hogges oxen asles how are those like But how shall it appeare vnto vs that Satyrus the brother of Ambrose was yours Being in danger he leaped into the sea and swimming escaped by the strength of his faith A goodly reason he was a good smimmer ergo n DVR But which of you did any such thing armed thing armed with the Caluinist Supper WHIT. pag. 872. And which of you armed with the Host durst cast himselfe into the sea vnlesse he had learned first to swimme And at that time Satyrus was not only saued but also others who had not the Host yours other pretence you make none Why Nicholas and Martinus should be yours you shew no cause for wearing haire-cloth fasting and watching are no marks of your Bishops Benedict say you was the founder and father of the Monkish profession therefore without doubt he must be yours I could be content to leaue him as too superstitious yet can you not prooue that he was yours or fauoured your religion in all or the most things Heere you say you passe ouer thousands Francis I thinke you meane and Dominicke and those huge swarmes of white Friers and blacke Friers I freely bequeath them vnto you and willingly suffer you to enioy them and all such as were like them They were not of that worth that we should need greatly to striue about them You passe ouer the Doctors in silence which you formerly remembred wherein I commend your wisedome seeing to them you can make no claime without doing them too apparant wrong You demaund of all those before recited whether they were Catholicks or Lutheranes to which I will answere when you haue shewed how Lutheranisme dissenteth frō true Catholick religion Luther taught no new doctrine he restored and mainteined the auncient Catholicke faith What though he was vnknowne vnto those auncient Fathers as being himselfe of later yeares yet the doctrine he brought was Euangelicall and Apostolick which you had welnigh extinguished which he restored to his former beautie and perfection Answere me Campian this one thing of all those you haue named what one was a o DVR But all these did euer consent in faith and differed only in such things which might be disputed vvithout any hazard of faith WHIT. pag. 873. Be it granted they did agree in matter of faith vvhy then do they not follow all one rule But S. Paul reproued the Corinthians agreeing in faith because they attributed to their Ministers more then was meete vvhilest one had deuoted himselfe to S. Paul another to S. Peter another to Apollo What then shall be done to the Scotistes Thom●stes others are the names of Scotus Thomas Francis more holy and lawfull names in their disciples then the