Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	good_a	law_n	transgression_n	4,529	5	10.4346	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A13160	A challenge concerning the Romish Church, her doctrine & practises, published first against Rob. Parsons, and now againe reuiewed, enlarged, and fortified, and directed to him, to Frier Garnet, to the archpriest Blackevvell and all their adhærents, by Matth. Sutcliffe. Thereunto also is annexed an answere vnto certeine vaine, and friuolous exceptions, taken to his former challenge, and to a certeine worthlesse pamphlet lately set out by some poore disciple of Antichrist, and entituled, A detection of diuers notable vntrueths, contradictions, corruptions, and falsifications gathered out of M. Sutcliffes new challenge, &c.	Sutcliffe, Matthew, 1550?-1629.; Sutcliffe, Matthew, 1550?-1629. Briefe replie to a certaine odious and slanderous libel.	1602 (1602)	STC 23454; ESTC S117867	337,059	440

fathers how downe to grauen images or worship them the i Exod. 20. commandement of God is direct against such images thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image c. thou shalt not bow downe vnto it nor worship it k Lib. 2. institut c. 19. Lactantius saith that there is no religion where grauen images are religio nulla est vbîcunque simulachrum est The papists therefore that make the images of God and worship them are no catholicks nor haue any good religion neither can it auaile them that they say they worship not the matter of the image for so did the gentils answere in excuse of their idolatry as testifieth l Institut lib. 2. c. 2. Lactantius argument 22 True catholicks beléeue that by the law we know sinne and that m 1. Iohn 5. all vnrighteousnesse is sinne and thirdly that n Deut. 27. Galat. 3. he is accursed that abideth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to doe them if then the papists teach that all is not sinne that is repugnant to Gods law as the Iebusits doe in the censure of Coleine fol. 26. and as others doe that it is not sinne in this world not to loue God withall our heart and all our soule which is commanded by the law of God then are they no catholicks argument 23 Catholicks holde that we haue but one lawgiuer and iudge that is able to destroy and to saue vnus est legislator index saith Saint o Iacob 4. Iames qui potest perdere liberare that the transgression of the popes lawes is sufficient to condemn vs and the obseruance of them to iustifie vs as papists holde was neuer generally taught or holden argument 24 Catholicks holde that Gods law is perfect and that nothing is sinne but that which is repugnant to the law of God but papists beléeue that it is sinne not onely to neglect the precepts of the church as they are called but also the lawes and decretales of popes as appeareth by the enchiridion of Nauarrus and other books of cases of conscience argument 25 The law of God p Exod. 20. saith directly Thou shalt not couet and catholikes doe expound this law so that it bindeth the regenerat aswel as the vnregenerat as appeareth by the words of the apostle Rom. 7. I should not haue knowen sinne saith he but by the law for I knew not concupiscence but because the law said Thou shalt not couet and this sinne he confesseth to be mortall Who saith he shall deliuer me from the body of this death S. q Lib. 2. contr Faustum Manich c. 27. Augustine also teacheth that whatsoeuer is desired or coueted against the law is sinne and very absurd it is to surmise that baptisme should sanctifie concupiscence and of sinne in the vnregenerate to make no sinne The conuenticle of Trent therefore that r Sess 5. determineth that concupiscence in the regenerate is not sinne and all adherents vnto it are no catholikes argument 26 The scriptures teach vs that euen the iust man falleth seuen times a day and as the apostle saint Iames saith that we offend all in many things our Sauiour Christ taught his apostles to pray for remission of sinnes and to confesse when they had done all they could that they were notwithstanding vnprofitable seruants so likewise teach catholike fathers Saint ſ Lib. 1. aduers Pelag. Hierome saith that then we are iust when we confesse our sinnes and saint t De spirit lit Augustine signifieth that in the frailtie of this life we can not perfectly performe Gods law we shall then saith he performe the law of God with all our soule and all our heart and loue our neighbour as our selfe when we shal see God face to face the papists therefore that teach first that the regenerate are able to performe the law of God perfectly and secondly that they are also able to performe more then is commanded and to doe works of supererogation are no catholikes nor shall they euer be able to prooue that this doctrine of theirs was generally holden by the fathers and by all Christians or by any man of note argument 27 The apostle teacheth vs that the law is the minister of death and u Lib. 3. aduers haeres c. 20. Irenaeus affirmeth that the law being spirituall doth onely manifest sinne and not kill it the papists therefore that hold that all our life and saluation doeth consist in the law as appeareth by the censure of Coleyn are no catholikes argument 28 The councell of x Sess 6. c. 10. Trent condemneth those that say they are iustified formally by Christes iustice and their meaning is that we are formally iustified by charity and by the works of the law but the catholike church teacheth vs farre otherwise no flesh faith the y Galat. 2. apostle is iustified by the works of the law he denieth also that z Rom. 4. Abraham was iustified by the works of the law and saint a Lib. 1. aduers Pelag. Hierome saith that our iustice doeth not consist in our merits but in the mercy of God this also is prooued by an inuincible reason for that none are iustified by the law but such as performe the law and are not to be accused of sinne by the law but if our aduersaries will say that all that shall be saued are such they will bring the number of them into a small compasse for as b De inter pellat Dauid Ambrose saith Dauid doeth acknowledge his sinne and Paule doeth acknowledge himselfe guiltie who is then innocent argument 29 The apostle c Rom. 5. teacheth vs that through the offence of one all men were subiect to condemnation and that is the doctrine of all catholikes but the d Bellar. lib. 4. de amissi grat c. 15. papists exempt the holy virgine Mary from originall sinne as appeareth by the determination of Sixtus 4. and conuenticles of Trent doctrine sess 5. some of them also hold that the prophet Heremy and saint Iohn Baptist were sanctified from this sinne and so borne without originall sinne at the least argument 30 Catholikes hold that original sinne is a great sinne as infecting all by ordinary course descending from Adam excluding them out of the kingdome of heauen and which could not be purged but by Christes passion but the papists hold that it is the least of all sinnes as hauing the least force of our fréewill and that it deserueth not sensible paines in hell which in effect is as much as if they should deny that all men sinned originally in Adam or néeded to be saued from sensible paines by Christ argument 31 The e Th. Aquin. dd in 2. sent dist 33. Bellar de amis grat lib. 6. c. 4. papists also teach that children departing without baptisme and with originall sinne onely shall not be punished with hell fire nor with sensible

as may be gathered by the testimony of Irenaeus as Eusebius writeth Ecc. hist lib. 5. c. 26. the same may be proued also out of Socrates l. 2. hist 43. Sozomenus lib. 3. c. 13. Spiridion did not thinke it vnlawfull to eate flesh in Lent as Sozomenus testifieth lib. 1. c. 11. of eating drie meates and abstinence from wine and dinners I haue spoken before Finally if Owlyglasse had Lynceus his eyes yet in all ancient stories he shall not find where any was condemned by the Church to death for eating flesh vpon friday And why forsooth because this is the practise of the synagogue of Antichrist and the whore of Babylon Let it then be iudged whether I or the ecstatical Owlyglasse haue vsed better conscience in discussing this controuersie concerning Romish fasts and who hath lyed he or I. Sect. VIII That the auncient Church of Christ hath not forbidden Christians to solemnize marriage vpon daies forbidden by the Church of Rome THe 8. article of Owlyglasses exceptions is drawn out of ●he 32. page of my challenge for where I say that if we seeke all antiquitie we shall not find where the Church of Christ hath commanded christians to keepe this popes day or that Popes dayes c. Or where the same hath enioyned christians to heare Masse or to fast lente and imbre dayes and Vigiles of Saints and other tides according to the fashion of the Church of Rome or to confesse our sins to Romish Friers and Priests or not to solemnize mariage on dayes forbidden hée is somewhat offended at my words but to make his obiection the stronger he placeth them thus If wee seeke all antiquitie we shall not finde where the Church of Christ hath enioyned christians not to solemnize mariage on dayes forbidden cutting out a multitude of my wordes out of the middest of my sentence making me to speake of one point where I speake of diuers and disioyning that which I coupled together so that I may say that if a man rake al the colledge of Iebusites he shal not lightly find a more impudent or witlesse falsary then this But to let that passe albeit I maruel hée was not ashamed speaking against falsifications to falsifie euery place almost wich he toucheth I say it is no vntruth to affirme that the auncient Church of Christ did not prohibit Christians to solemnize mariage on dayes forbidden by the Church of Rome And my reasons are First for that I finde not any such prohibition to haue béene vsed in the histories or monuments of the Church Secondly for that I doe not sée that the aunciente fathers do mention in their writings any such matter Thirdly for that the first decretale concerning these prohibitons that hath force of law ●s in the chapter capellanum ●xtr de ferijs Gratian doth insert a certa ne counterfect canon 33. q. 4. Non oportet But euery canonist can tell O●lyg●ass● that Gratians sentences are no law Fourthly I doe finde that Bellarmine de matrimonio lib. 1. 2. 31. cannot proue this practise of prohibition of mariage to bée ancient Bellar. de matr●m lib. 1. c 31 Fiftly the aduersaries confesse it is lawfull to contract mariage at any time Wherefore then should it not be lawfull to publish and solemnize the contract seeing solemnization is nothing but a declaration of an act doone Finally the poore proofes of Owlyglass● doe much confirme mée in my opinion For he alledgeth nothing for his opinion but a conterfect Canon of the councell of Laodicea that forbiddeth solemnization of mariages in Lent That this Canon is counterfeit it is apparent for that there is no apparēce of such actes in any authenticall record Secondly this Canon by Owlyglasse is numbred the 52. so doth also C●rranz● number it from whence he had it But Bellarmine lib. 1. de M●trim c. 31. maketh it 25 the Canon Thirdly these Canons were written in Greeke if any such were made in L●odicea but these are meerely latine and verie barbarous In the 53. canon it is decreed non oportere Ch●istianos ad nuptias eun●es balare aut saltare But were this Canon truely made by the councell of L●odicea yet maketh it nothing for Owly●lasse his purpose For those canons are not obserued and the Romanists cease not to da●nce at mariages Againe were this Canon obserued yet it ●aketh nothing for prohibitions out of Lent So that Owlyglasse will come farre short of his reckening when he commeth to conclude that all proh●bitions of times of mariage practised in the Romish church were also practised in the auncient church of Christ Iesus Page 26. Our aduersarie doth further tell vs that other testimonies might be brought for this purpose but he will content himselfe with the practise of the Church of England And that he proueth out of our Almanacks and faculties for mariages in time prohibited But this argument effecteth nothing but onely the disgrace of him that made it for it sheweth that our aduersarie is better studied in the Almanacke then in Saint Augustine Further the Almanackes set downe the feasts and Saints of the Romish Church and that for the benefite of Merchants that trade with other nations although we obserue not these Popish Saints feasts Thirdly if he were acquainted with our faculties as perfectly as he pretendeth he might know that these prohibitions are not much regarded Finally if for a ciuil decencie the same were by some obserued yet al the ceremonies orders of euery particular church are not auncient nor is that any thing to the Romish church whose superstitious and wicked decrees I wonder that so many do blindly receiue without all ground of reason If then Owlyglasse haue any more testimonies in store his friends would be glad to heare of them for his own credit and promise sake Otherwise they will wish that he had been also prohibited to marie and to beget children least they be troubled with a race of such dizards Sect. IX That the regenerat cannot liue without sinne IN this ninth article Owlyglasse doth bewray his great ignorance neither well vnderstanding what we hold nor what his owne consorts hold If he did he would not imagine that we did distinguish sinnes into mortall and veniall nor would he denie that Papists hold that the regenerat may liue without sinne Sess 6. c. 5. For first the conuenticle of Trent anathematizeth whosoeuer shall say that freewill is lost since Adams fall Secondly Ibidem c. 18. the same anathematizeth all that shall affirme that a man regenerar cannot performe all the lawe and commandements of God If then a man after Adams fall haue freewill hee may as well doe all things well and so liue without sinne as all things euil Againe if he be able to performe all the commandements of God then may he liue without sinne sinne being nothing els but the transgression of the lawe Lib. de liber arb c. 3. Anselme defineth freewill to be a power to keepe the will right

in respect of righteousnesse it selfe Bellar. lib. 3. de grat lib. arb c. 3. saith that free will is a free power of things tending to an end to choose one before another He saith also Lib. 5. de lib. arbit c. 13. that by force of freewill man without grace hath power to choose that is good and to auoide that is euill to obserue precepts of manners or to transgresse them He holdeth further that the regenerat is able to fulfill all the lawe of God Ibidem consequently not to sinne And that he prooueth by the words of S. Iohn qui natus est ex deo non peccat which he expoundeth so as if no regenerat man did sin or transgresse Gods lawe If then man hath such a power as they say and may fulfill all the lawe and abstaine from all sinne then I trust I doe the Papists no wrong to say that they hold that the regenerat may liue without sinne And although they denie not that a iust man hath veniall sinnes yet of their doctrine it followeth that he may liue without veniall sinnes for if he be able to performe the lawe of God perfectly and to loue God with all his heart and all his soule and hath free will to doe whatsoeuer is good and to eschew whatsoeuer is euil then may the regenerat liue also without venial sinnes The Tridentine conuenticle granteth Sess 6. c. 23. that a man by speciall priuiledge may be without all veniall sinnes Whether we speake then of great or small sinnes true it is that the Papistes hold that the regenerat may be without all sinne and our aduersarie denying this point neither vnderstandeth the doctrine of his consorts nor the sequele of it But saith he this is not contrarie to al antiquitie that the regenerate may liue without mortall sinnes And his reasons are because Gods commandements may be kept and are not heauy Our Sauiour Christ saith also that his yoake is sweete and his burthen light and S. Luke affirmeth that Zachary and Elizabeth were iust before God walking in all the commandements and iustifications of our Lord without blame The second councell of Arausica C. Vlt. teacheth that by grace receiued in baptisme Christ helping and working with them all that are baptized may and ought to fulfill such thinges as pertaine to saluation if they will labour faithfully Saint Basill saith it is a wicked thing to say that the commandements of Gods spirit are impossible Saint Hierome maketh no doubt but God hath commanded thinges possible Finally Saint Augustine Ser. 191. de tempore detesteth the blasphemy of them that say that God hath commanded any impossible thing to man Let vs therefore sée what antiquity saith and what is the meaning of the fathers in this point Luk. 11. Our Sauiour Christ taught his Disciples and the most holy men to pray forgiue vs our trespasses But that néeded not if they did not commit any sinne And S. Iames saith we offend all in many things Iames 3. The Apostle Peter signifieth that neither the Disciples of Christ nor the fathers were able to beare the yoke of the law Act. 15. that which was impossible to the law saith the Apostle Rom. 8. He saith also that the flesh is not subiect to the law nor can be We know also that the flesh euermore lusteth against the spirit the scriptures teach vs that no mans heart is so cleane that he can say that he hath loued God with all his soule and with all his heart Saint Ierome epist 62. affirmeth that charity which cannot be increased as longe as a man liueth heere is in no man tanta mandata sunt saith Saint Ambrose In Galat. 3. vt impossibile sit seruare ea Hierome likewise writing vpon the 3. to the Galathians saith the Apostle teacheth vs that noe man can fulfill the law and doe all that is commanded nullus legem impleuit saith Saint Chrysostome in Gal. 2. Bernard vpon the Canticles Serm 50. saith that in this life the law cannot be fulfilled of any And experience teacheth vs as much For the blessed virgine called Christ her Sauiour But what néeded shée a Sauiour if shee had not sinned Neither can any be found that can say he is without sinne The aduersaries also confesse it sometimes Implere totam legem saith Thomas Aquinas in galat. 3. lect 4. est impossibile As for the reasons of our aduersary they are trifling Gods commandements may be keept as S. Iohn signifieth 1. Epist 2. but in part and in some imperfect sort Secondly our Sauiour also saith that his yoake is not heauy But Christs yoake is not the law but his mercy and grace Thirdly his commandements are not greeuous because euery one that is borne of God ouercummeth the world 1. Iohn 5. And this is the v●ctory that ouercummeth the world euen our faith To the councell of Arausica Orat. in haec verba attende tibi and the testimonies of Hierome S. Basill and S. Austine Ser. 191. de tempore one answere will serue for we doe not say absolutely That the law in it selfe is imposs ble but that man in this life cannot performe it by reason of his infirmity neither doe we say it is impossible to performe the law in part and imperfectly or that the law is impossible to be performed because man if hee had continued in grace might haue performed it Lib. 3. ad Bonifac c. 1. and now as S. Austine saith Omnia mandata dei facta deputantur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur and as he saith lib. 1. retract c. 19. If now we cannot yet sometime we shall performe the law of God But none of these say that wee can performe the whole law and that perfectly or that we can be without sinne posse omne vitare peccatum S. Hierome doth signifie to be the opinion of the Pelagians Lib. 3. aduers pelag If then Owlyglasse will auoyde Pelagianisme let him forbeare to charge mée with vntruth for saying that the auncient fathers beleeued not that a man regenerat might liue without sinne Againe if he deny that Papists teach that a regenerat man may be without venial sins the councel of Trent Sess 6. c. 23. wil giue him the lye He also in the latter end of the chapter doth contradict himselfe where hée saith That whether we speake of veniall or mortall sinnes we abuse the reader where we say the fathers hould not that a regenerate man may be without sinne for he himselfe confesseth regenerat men haue veniall sins But if he dispute no better of mortall and veniall sinnes hée will giue a mortall wounde to his owne cause Sect. X. That the forme of confirmation now vsed by the Romanistes is newe LIkewise in the cause of the sacrament of confirmation as he calleth it he talketh very idlely and weakely and is not able to confirme any thing which he saith nor to disproue that which I haue written although after his wonted fashion he scoreth vp vntruths I

neither visible nor palpable neither that he filleth a place or is conteined in one place nay they say he is substantially in euery one that receiueth the sacrament and not that onely but also in euery pixe and consecrated host argument 32 The Eutychianists deny that Christ after the vnion of the two natures had a true body but as x De ieiun 7. mens ser 6. Leo signifieth a bodie without shape dimensions or circumscription they said also that Christ was whole both in heauen and earth against whom Vigilius disputing y Lib 4. contr Eutych c. 4. saith that the flesh of Christ when it was in in earth was not in heauen and now being in heauen is not in earth and their chiefe ground was that Christes humane nature was abolished euen as the mysticall signes are changed into another nature after the consecration of the sacrament for this is plainly apparent in Theodorets second Dialogue Who then vnderstandeth not that the papists by their transubstantiation do bring in Eutychianisme holding that Christes body in the sacrament is without all shape and dimensions that may be perceiued and that his body is both in heauen and earth at one time also in as many altars and places as the sacrament is who doth not likewise perceiue that Christes humanitie is abolished if the substance of bread and wine be abolished in the sacrament especially if the vnion of the two natures in Christes person be fitly resembled by the fathers to the sacrament This certes is a matter very euident that both Theodoret dialog 1. and Gelasius writing against Eutyches doth confute his heresie by this reason for that the substance of the bread remaineth in the sacrament which being denied by papists is it not very plaine that they reduce and bring backe into the world the old decaied heresie of Eutyches argument 33 The papists also in many points conspire with the enemies of the grace of God the Pelagians z Augustin de haeres c. 88. Pelagius saith that without grace a man may doe all Gods commandements Voluit credi saith Augustine etiam si difficilius tamen posse homines sine gratia diuina facere iussa and a De grat lib. arb lib. 5. c. 5. c. 9. Bellar. saith Solis naturae viribus posse aliquem ad breuissimum tempus omnia seruare scilicit diuina mandata he shifteth off the matter with saying quoad substantiam operis but that no question but the Pelagians would also admit Pelagius said also that grace is infused according to merit The papists also teach that men doing quantum in se est God is present with his grace and this they call meritum congrui or preparations to iustification they do not deny also but after a man hath grace he may merit a greater measure of grace thirdly both Pelagians and papists agrée in the definition of sinne Propriè vocatur peccatum saith b Vid. August contra Iulian. de grat Pelagius quod libera voluntate à sciente committitur so also say the papists as appeareth by the censure of Coleine Againe the Pelagians teach that a iust man in this life may be without sinne Hoc Pelagiani audent dicere saith S. c De bono perseuerant lib. 2. c. 5. Augustine hominem iustum in hac vita omnino nullum habere peccatum and in his booke of heresies c. 88. he sheweth it is Pelagianisme to holde that the life of iust men in this life hath no sinne d Lib. 4. de iustif c. 11. Bellar. also holdeth that a man is able to performe the law perfectly of which it followeth that a man may be without all sinne for how can a man fulfill the law but he must be without all sinne All papists generally hold that all iust men are without mortall sinnes The Pelagians doe e Augustin contra Iulian. lib. 6. c. 6. teach that concupiscence by baptisme is sanctified and being before euill doth afterward begin not to be euill which doctrine S. Augustine calleth very absurd yet from this doctrine can not the papists cleare themselues when they teach that concupiscence after baptisme and in the regenerat is no sinne The Pelagians would not grant that the Gentiles sinned in all their actions nor that their actions were sinne as done without faith as S. f Contra Iulian lib. 4. c. 3. Augustine sheweth no more will the papists grant it as appeareth by Bellarmines disputes lib. 5. de grat lib. arb c. 5. 9. nay they sticke not to hold that they may do all good works according to the substance of the worke The g Contr. dua● epist Pelag. c. 19. Pelagians were woont to say in omni bono opere hominem semper adiuuari à gratia and h Ibid. lib. 4. c. 6. againe gratiam adiuuare bonum cuiusque propositum and Bellar. likewise lib. 2. de grat lib. arb c. 5. disputeth that God according to time and place giueth grace sufficient to all men The i August lib. 1. de grat c. 28. Pelagians say nos forte firmum habere ad non peccandum liberum arbitrium and S. k Lib. 2. de baptismo Augustine teacheth vs that this doctrine is Pelagianisme yet doe the papists hold that sinne is subiect to our will as the censurers of Coleyn doe speake Bellarmine also lib. 5. de grat lib. arb in diuers places alloweth this power to frée will to be able to doe good and to absteine from sinne The Pelagians deny orignall sinne as saint Augustine lib. de haeres c. 88. teacheth and most papists now hold that the virgine Mary was conceiued without originall sinne as appereth by the testimony of Bellarmine lib. 4. de amissione grat c. 15. now to deny originall sinne to be in any is Pelagianisme as Bellarmine lib. de notis ecclesiae c. 9. disputeth Saint Augustinne l Contra. epist Pelag. lib. 4. c. 6. 8. de grat lib 1. c. 14. teacheth vs that it is Pelagianisme to hold that God is ready with his grace if he see a mans soule ready and prepared to receiue it and that a naturall man may desire his owne conuersion and yet the papists will not denie these propositions nor seeme to dislike them S. m In Hierem. 13. Hierome saith that the Pelagians did interpret these sentences our iustice is like a cloth of a menstruous woman and no man is good no not one in this sort as if the holie Ghost had ment that man in comparison of God is not iust or good which is also the sleight and cunning interpretation of papists Both Pelagians and Papists vse the same reasons to prooue the strength of fréewill as first that we are commanded to choose and next that God would not command vs things impossible magnum aliquid se scire putant Pelagiani saith saint n Degrat lib. arb c. 16. Augustine quando dicunt non iuberet deus quod

in the definition of sinne and that they ioyntly holde that a man may be without sinne and that both maintaine that concupiscence is sanctified after baptisme after a sort and diuers other points of Pelagianisme he onely snatcheth at thrée or foure places of S. Augustine and so with a maske on his broade face passeth on to play the Zanni in other matters Where I say that Saint Augustine holdeth against the Pelagians that the Gentiles sinned in all their actions he saith I belie S. Augustine and maliciously peruert the sence and scope of his writing Afterward he denyeth that it is Pelagianisme to holde that Infidels sinne in all their actions Againe he saith that this point is forged by me and falsely fathered vpon S. Augustine And so he runneth on in a vaine of rayling led on as it séemeth by his dictates and not reading the place alleadged for otherwise he would neuer so impudently haue faced out an vntruth nor ignorantly denyed that which is to plainly and in diuers places of the chapter quoted by S. Augustine affirmed And of this I wil make any indifferent man iudge Lib. 4. contr Iulian. c. 3. Cum non ad suum finem saith S. Augustine referuntur dona dei hoc ipso mali his vtentes efficiuntur iniusti He saith that wicked men vsing Gods gifts are made sinners and vniust for that they referre them not to the right ende And afterward si gentilis qui non viuit ex fide nudum operuerit periclitantem liberauerit aegri vulnera fouerit diuitias honestae amicitiae impenderlt ad testimonium falsum nec tormentis potuerit impelli quaero abs te saith Augustine to Iulian the Pelagian vtrum haec opera bona bene faciat an male Si enim quamuis bona malè tamen facit negare non potes eum peccare qui malè quodlibet facit He saith plainly that Gentiles sinne in all their actions though the act be good Againe bonum malè facit qui infideliter facit qui autem malè facit profectò peccat Againe he saith that Infidels sinne in doing that which of it selfe is good Hée doth also prooue it out of the Apostles wordes because that whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne If then the Archpriest haue any power ouer this rayling fellow he may doe well to giue him some discipline that hath maintained Iulian the Pel●gians opinion and denyed S. Augustines doctrine and like an ignorant dolt crieth out that I haue forged these words and fathered them vpon S. Augustine But saith he S. Augustine doth not note this error in the Pelagians viz. that Infidels sinne in all their actions but reproueth the heretike for a different matter to wit for maintaining that Infidels had true vertues and to this point he reporteth a sentence out of S. Augustin But therin he doth also bewray his ignorance for as S. Augustine disputeth this point in the beginning of the chapter so he disputeth the other in the latter ende of the same chapter But either our aduersarie had not so much learning as to vnderstand latin or els he tooke this quotation out of Bellarmine or out of his dictates Againe our aduersarie sheweth himselfe to be blinde not séeing that what I say doth follow of that which himselfe alleadgeth For if Infidels haue no true vertues then doe they sinne in all their actions vnlesse our aduersary wil haue their morall actions neither to be good nor bad Furthermore if the will of Infidels be like an euill trée then can it bring foorth nothing but euill fruit And if whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne then if the actions of Infidels doe not proceede of faith it followeth that Infidels sinne in all their morall actions and this is the conclusion of S. Augustine Was not Owlyglasse then a wise fellow trow you to auouch an vntruth so impudently and doe you not take him to be a simple disputer that alleadgeth words that conuince him of folly ignorance and pelagianisme Sect. IX That man is not able now in this frailtie of nature to performe the lawe of God perfectly THis point hath also heretofore béen debated it resteth therefore now that we examine onely Saint Augustines opinion herein I say that this is the Pelagians argument to prooue that man is able to performe the lawe of God because that God would not say they commaund things impossible And this I prooue by Saint Augustines wordes lib. de gratia c. 16. Magnum aliquid se scire putant Pelagiani quando dicunt non iuberet deus quod sciret ab homine non posse perfici His words are cleare that the Pelagians vsed so to say and argue as I haue set downe What is then the reason that moued my aduersarie to charge me with falsification Forsooth saith he because he leaueth out these wordes following of S. Augustine quis haec nesciat As if euery one that leaueth out wordes following were to be charged with falsification Beside that albeit words following were to be rehearsed yet purposing only to rehearse the argument of the Pelagians I had no reason to ioyne Saint Augustines words with theirs But saith Owlyglasse S. Augustine ●eprehendeth not the Pelagians for bringing this reason But therein he sheweth his ignorance if not malice For what reasonable man cold euer haue imagined that S. Augustine disputing against the Pelagians did either allow their opinions or their grounds But if a man cold haue imagined so yet S. Augustines wordes that follow would haue taught him that he disputeth against the Pelagians argument For saith he God doth command vs thinges that wee cannot doe that we may learne what to aske of him For faith by prayer obtaineth that which the law commandeth His words are ideo iubet aliqua quae non possumus vt nouerimus quid ab eo petere debeamus Lib. de grat lib. arb c. 16. ipsa est enim fides quae orando impetrat quod lex postulat Now what can be more contrary then that which the Pelagians say Viz. That God would not commande if man were not able to performe And that which S. Augustine teacheth Viz. That God commandeth vs some thinges that we cannot doe Furthermore if man were able to performe the whole law because God would not els commande it then were it possible for iust men to liue without all sinne which Saint Augustine in his bookes against Pelagius and where he setteth downe the Pelagians heresies doth note to be flatte Pelagianisme with Saint Augustine also doth Herome accorde Fateberis saith Critobulus Lib. 3. contra Pelag. that susteineth the part of the Pelagians eos qui Christi baptisma consecuti sunt non habere peccatum si absque peccato sunt iustos esse That is thou wilt I trow acknowlege that such as are baptized haue noe sinne and if they haue noe sinne that they be iust But if man be able to kéepe Gods commandements then may he also be perfectly iust and without

second epistle Simon Petrus seruus apostolus Iesu Christi Finally I hope Clement the 8. will not write Clemens octauus alter Simon Petrus seruus apostolus Iesu Christi falsification 5 In his booke de Monachis c. 6. We read these words Dicit Lutherus saepissime repetit inculcat Paulū cū ait se potuisse circumducere sororē mulierem 1. cor 9. voluisse dicere se potuisse ducere vxorem that is Luther doth say and often repeat and inculcat that Paule when he sayd he might leade aboute a sister a woman as it is 1. cor 9. meant that he might mary a wife But he doth falsifie Luthers words For Luther saith onely that the words 1. cor 9. do not compell vs to beleeue that Paule had no wife but rather shew In. 1. cor 7. that he had a wife and would not lead her about with him for speaking of this place and of those that collected out of it that Paule was vnmaried hoc saith he non cog it verum multo magis indicat eum habuisse vxorem sed eam circumducere noluisse He doth also impudently affirme that Luther doth repeate inculcat that often which he is not able to shew to haue béene once vttred by him He speaketh also very improbably For séeing Luther affirmed that Paule had a wife already it is very vnlikely that he should say and that often that Paule might mary an other wife If then he will not be condemned both as a falsary and a lying fellow let him set downe Luthers words where that is often repeated falsification 6 He alledgeth also in the same place these words as taken out of Luther Voueo castitatem paupertatem obedientiam dicit saith Bellarmine formam vouendi hanc esse debere si piè vouendum sit voueo castitatem paupertatem obedientiam vsque ad mortē liberè id est vt mutare possim quando volo that is Luther saith that this is the best forme of vowes if we will make godly vowes I do vowe chastity pouerty obedience vnto death but freely or conditionally that is to say that I may change when I please But Luther speaketh not one word of the vowe of pouerty and monasticall obedience nor euer thought that any godly man might make a vowe concerning either nor doth he speake or place his words so ridiculously as Bellarmine doth report All that Luther saith to this purpose is this Videtur forma voti apud deum sic habere De votis monast voueo castitatem quam diu possibilis fuerit si autem seruare nequi ero vt liceat nubere That is in effect thus much That forme of vowe seemeth most pleasing to God that is thus vttered I vowe chastity as longe as I am able to containe if I be not able then that it may be lawfull for me to mary Doth it not appeare that Bellarmine hath falsified Luthers words made him contrary to his owne doctrine to allowe vowes of pouerty and monasticall obedience and to speake ridiculously and foolishly and far otherwise then euer he spoke or wrote falsification 7 In the same booke chap. 31. He saith that Chrysostome in his commentaries vpon the 19. of Math. teacheth vs that Christ by the similitude of Eunuches would proue that it is easie and profitable to absteine from mariage facile vtile esse abstinere a nuptiis But like a falsary where Chrysostome hath possible there he placeth facile But many thinges are possible that are not facile and easie falsification 8 Likewise in the same booke chap. 27. he falsifieth a place of Saint Chrysostome homil 15. in priorem ad Timoth. He rehearseth Chrysostomes words thus vidua in uiduitatis professione christo consentit id est christo nubit But these words id est Christo nubit are added by Bellarmine and that peruersely For Christ is the spouse of the Church and not of euery capriccious nonne falsification 9 In his booke de notis ecclesiae c. 9. he maketh Luther to speake thus non alia via potest homo cum deo conuenire aut agere quam per fidem opera ille non curat But Luthers words as they are set downe in his booke de captiuitate Baby Ionica c de Eucharistia which booke with the rest of his workes were set out at Wittemberge are these nec alia via potest homo cum deo conuenire aut agere quam per fidem id est vt non homo operibus suis vllis sed deus promissione sua sit author salutis vt omnia pendeant portentur seruenturque in verbo virtutis suae So it appeareth that Bellarmine cutteth off the ende of Luthers sentence and addeth these words opera ille non curat to make his doctrine odious falsification 10 In the same booke and chapter likewise Bellarmine falsifieth another place of Luther making him to speake thus tam diues est homo Christianus vt non possit perire si velit quantumcunque malè viuat But Luthers wordes in his booke de Capt. Babyl c. de baptismo of the edition aboue mentioned stand thus tam diues est homo Christianus vt volens non possit perdere salutem suam quantiscunque peccatis nisi nolit credere These wordes quantumcunque malè viuat are added by Bellarmine to make Luthers doctrine seeme contrarie to good workes falsification 11 He would make his reader beléeue that Caluin should say that God is cause of sinne De notis eccles c. 9. The place quoted instit lib. 1. c. 18. doth acquite Caluin and shew Bellarmine to be a falsary for he doth not teach any such matter nor hath any such words falsification 12 These wordes he setteth downe as taken out of Caluins instit Ibidem lib. 1. c. 18. § 2. non solum permissu sed voluntate dei homines peccant ita vt nihil ipsi deliberando agitent nisi quod deus apud se decreuerit arcana directione constituit but he forgeth these words quod dei voluntate homines peccant and altereth the latter end of the sentence falsification 13 Lib. 3. instit c. 23. § 24. dicit Caluinus saith Bellar. lib. de notis ecclesiae c. 9. dei non solum praeuisione permissione sed etiam voluntate in peccatum lapsum esse Adamum But these wordes are no where to be found in Caluin for he hath onely these wordes lapsus est primus homo quia dominus ita expedire censuerat falsification 14 Likewise he affirmeth that Caluin hath these wordes lib. 3. instit Ibidem c. 24. § 14. quod aliqui verbum dei audire contemnunt ipsorum est prauitas sed in hanc prauitatem à deo addicti sunt but these words à Deo are Bellarmines addition falsification 15 Speaking of Philip Melancthon dicit saith he ita fuisse opus dei Iudae proditionem Ibidem ac Pauli conuersionem and these wordes saith he are found in his commentaries vpon the eight

iustas And these heresies he affirmeth to be holden by Luther Caluin and Brentius and others But to cast some good colour vpon his accusation he hath made diuers grosse lies First the Eunomians taught not that no sins could hurt a man so he had faith but so he were partaker of that faith which he taught Haeres 54. Docebat Eunomius saith S. Augustine nihil obesse cuiquam quorumlibet peccatorum perpetrationem perseuerantiam modo eius quam ille docebat fidei particeps esset Secondly neither doth any of vs nor did Luther or Caluin or any true Christian euer holde that perseuerance in sinne doth hurt no man nay we say that he that beléeueth truely worketh also by charity Why then doth he charge vs so impudently with this error Thirdly we speake of a true faith and not of the heresie of Eunomius Fourthly not Simon Magus but the Apostle Paul taught that we are saued by grace As for the disciples of Simon they taught that men are saued by the grace of Simon Lib. 1. aduers haeres c. 20. Docebant saith Irenaeus seruari homines secundum gratiam Simonis non secundum operas iustas Fifthly we say anathema to all that beléeue to be saued by Simons grace or the Simoniacal Popes indulgences Are the papists then not ashamed to sée their champion ouerlash so farre in the report of these matters Finally we doe not deny but good workes are the way we are to walke in if we meane to attaine the kingdome of heauen though not the causes of obtaining that kingdome falsification 15 He saith further that as Florinus taught that God was the author of sinne Lib. de notis eccles c. 9. so Caluin did likewise teach Florini haeresis erat saith Bellarmine deum esse causam peccatorum And againe eadem sine vllo pudore docet Caluinus lib. 1. instit c. 18. § 2. Non solum permissu inquit sed etiam voluntate dei homines peccant c. lib. 3. c. 23. § 24. dicit non solum dei praeuisione permissione sed etiam voluntate in peccatum lapsum esse Adamum infra c. 24 § 14. quod inquit aliqui audire verbum dei contemnunt ipsorum est prauitas sed in hanc prauitatem à deo addicti sunt vt in eis potentiam suam seueritatem ostendat He doth say also that Luther Peter Martyr and Melancthon held the same opinion Dicit Melancthon in comment in c. 8. ad Romanos saith he ita fuisse opus dei Iudae proditionem ac Pauli conuersionem But here néedeth a fellow with a talye to score vp the Cardinals maine lyes For first Caluin doth expressely deny that God is the author of sinne as may appeare by his first booke of his institutions chapt 18. Secondly it came neuer in Luthers Peter Martyrs or Melancthons minde to holde any such wicked opinion as Bellarmine doth ascribe vnto them Thirdly Caluin hath not these wordes non solum permissu sed etiam voluntate dei homines peccare or that God is author or cause of sinne Nay he directly teacheth that the next cause of sinne is the deprauation of mans will Fourthly he forgeth lies where he saith that Caluin writeth that men are addicted to doe euill by God and that Adam did sinne by the will of God for neither of these points will be found in his third booke of Caluins institutions from whence Bellarmine would seeme to deriue thē Fifthly he doth impudently and without shame charge Luther and Peter Martyr with teaching that God is authour of sinne And if Robert Parsons be not able to alleadge their wordes out of which this may be proued he cannot deny but that the Cardinall is a lyar Finally he doth slander Philip Melancthon and without colour belye him for if Melancthon had taught any such wicked doctrine as he reporteth then would he neuer haue fayled to set downe his wordes Which not being done we will not fayle to charge him with vntruth which I doubt not but Rob. Parsons will discharge him of if he can falsification 16 Origenis fuit error saith Bellarmine infernum nihil esse nisi conscientiae horrorem teste Hieronymo in epistola ad Auitum Ibidem idem docet Caluinus lib. 3. instit c. vltimo § vlt. But he doth impudently belye Caluin for he neuer thought much lesse taught any such matter if he had done Bellarmine vseth not to conceale his wordes He belyeth also both Hierome and Origen as I haue shewed ●… the chapter ●…ing before falsification 17 He saith very impudently that in England a woman is our chiefe bishop Et iam reipsa saith he Lib. de notis eccles c. 9. Caluinistis in Anglia mulier quaedam est summus pontifex A shamelesse lye of the Popes chiefe parasite for albeit we giue her Maiesty supreme authority in ecclesiasticall ●am●es yet the same doth not include any power of ministeriall 〈◊〉 in preaching the word and administring the sacraments or vsing the keyes nor doth it comprehend more then doth belong to the French king and all other kings if they will take it and not suffer the same to be vsurped by Antichrist and his adherents His slandrous wordes where hee like a slaue of antichrist doth call vs Caluinists doth shew his had humor and howe without lying and rayling neither he nor his consorts can maintaine their credit falsification 18 Proclus Haereticus apud Epiphanium haeres 64. saith Bellarmine Ibidem dicebat peccatum in renatis semper viuere concupiscentiam enim verè esse peccatum nec tolli per baptismum sed sopiri per fidem quod idem docuerunt Meslaliani haeretici apud Theodoretum lib. 4. de haeret fabulis haec est ipsissima sententia Lutheri artic 2. 31. Item Philippi in locis communibus c. de peccato Originis Caluini lib. 4. instit c. 15. § 10. But to report somewhat that may tend to slander vs he hath reported a number of lies all vpon a heape for neither did Proclus say that concupiscence was sinne and that it was not taken away by baptisme but onely made dull by faith nor did the Messalians teach any such matter nor doth either Epiphanius say that of Proclus or Theodoret of the Messalians that Bellarmine reporteth nor doth either Luther or Melancthon or Caluin teach that sinne doth liue alwaies in the regenerat Proclus beléeued that the body was vinculum animae and that the soules were created before the body which was also the heresie of Origen But this which Bellarmine talketh of he neuer taught nor was any such thing condemned in him as an heresie Luther Melancthon Caluin and we all doe holde that euery christian man ought to mortifie his earthly members and concupiscences and that some doe it more some lesse Neither doth any man teach that concupiscence doth reigne or liue in the regenerat as this lying and slandrous mouth affirmeth falsification 19 Whereas Nouatus denyed reconciliation to such as had

fallen in time of persecution Ibidem or as Bellarmine saith power to reconcile men to God otherwise then by baptisme he chargeth Caluin with this heresie as if Caluin did deny reconciliation to repentant sinners or had said that the church hath no power to reconcile such as are fallen As not this therfore grosse impudency to lye so manifestly But saith he Caluin denied that there was any sacrament of repentance beside baptisme as if he that denied this must néedes say that the church hath no power to reconcile sinners to God This certes is not onely vntruth but want also of all vnderstanding and modesty falsification 20 He doth impudently affirme that Luther and Caluin denying freewill doe fall into the heresie of Manicheisme Manichaeorum est inquit Hieronymus saith Bellarmine Ibidem hominum damnare naturam liberum auferre arbitrium Augustinus de haeres c. 46. peccatorum originem inquit non tribuunt Manichaei libero arbitrio idem apertè sectarij omnes Now by sectaries he vnderstandeth all that professe the truth Afterward he doth specially name Luther and Caluin but if he had any shame he would not haue said that either Luther or Caluin doth condemne the nature of man as the Manicheyes doe or teach that man doth sinne necessarily and not by his fréewill And albeit they deny the force of mans will which is called commonly liberum arbitrium to be sufficient to vnderstand the will of God or to performe the same yet it doth not therefore follow that they sauour of Manicheisme But how the papists sauour of this heresie we haue shewed heretofore falsification 21 Ho● tamen est magis impius Caluinus Manichaeo quod Manichaeus deo malo tribuat peccatorum originem Caluinus deo bono Herein saith Bellarmine Ibidem doth Caluin shew himselfe more wicked then the Manichey because he attributed vnto an euill god the beginning and cause of sinne and Caluin to a good God But if he passed not the Manicheyes and all other heretikes in impudent lying he would not haue thus falsly affirmed this of Caluin who in his first booke of institutions chap. 18. doth expressely prooue that God is not the author of sinne and in all places doth detest this opinion Why then did not Bellarmine alleadge his wordes if he had said any such matter In the place quoted certes he teacheth the contrary of that which Bellarmine affirmeth and belloweth out against him falsification 22 He is not ashamed also to affirme that all of vs teach that the visible church hath been lost now this many yeares Ibidem ecclesiam visibilem à multis seculis perijsse saith he nunc solum esse in septentrionalibus partibus vbi ipsi sunt docent omnes praecipuê Caluinus lib. 4. instit c. 2. § 2. But he doth belye Caluin and all the rest for we beléeue that in Italy there is a visible church now albeit the Pope sée it not and that the church at all times consisted not of spirits but of men visible albeit euery one did not know them neither doe we say that the church at any time shall faile or hath failed nor is this lying cardinall able to prooue it out of our writings falsification 23 Of Luther Melancthon and Caluin he affirmeth that they cannot deny Ibidem but that the seeds of Arianisme are sowne in their writings Which is a lye most odious and malicious for all the points of Arianisme they not only detested but haue learnedly refuted and those proofes that Bellarmine bringeth in his preface to his treatise de Christo are nothing but rayling termes and proofes of his owne malice falsification 24 He saith Iouinian taught that a man after baptisme could not sinne Ibidem especially if he were truely baptized and the same error he doth impute to Caluin But he lyeth both of the one and the other for neither did Iouinian teach so nor Caluin though by his lying reportes he doe endeuour to conioyne them in one opinion falsification 25 Hierome doth impute these heresies to Vigilantius first that he taught that the bodies of the Saints were vncleane and to be throwne out next that the prayers of the Apostles and Martyrs are not heard and lastly that the ministers of the Church ought to be married But if Bellarmine do say that in these thrée points we agrée with Vigilantius Ibidem as he doth then doth he make a thréefold lye For neither doe we allow those that would haue mens bodies thrown out to the beasts of the field and fowles of the ayre or otherwise vse the bodies of holy men departed this life vnreuerently nor doe we doubt but that God doth heare the prayers of the church triumphant nor doe we thinke any man is to be constrained either to marry or not to marry Would thē Bellarmine shew more plaine and true dealing in his disputations his readers would better like of him and his cause falsification 26 Of Pelagius he affirmeth that he taught that righteousnesse is lost by euery little sinne Ibidem and that therefore euery sinne is mortall and this saith he is confirmed by the testimony of Hierome lib. 2. contra Pelagianos But neither was this the error of Pelagius who rather as the papists suppose teach held that a regenerat man may be without all sin and that he is able to performe the law nor doth Hierome affirme any such thing of Pelagius falsification 27 Of Zuinglius he reporteth that he did simply deny original sinne to be in euery man He saith also Ibidem that Caluin and Bucer deny originall sinne to be in the children of the faithfull Matters vtterly false and which by the whole course of their writing is refuted neither doth it follow albeit the children of the faithfull be holy that therefore they are not borne in originall sinne For this holynesse they do not otherwise ascribe vnto them but in regard of spirituall regeneration and remission of sinnes But if it be Pelagianisme to teach that originall sinne is not in all men then are the papists Pelagians by Bellarmines confession which exempt the blessed virgin from this sinne falsification 28 Xenaias persa primus palam asseruit saith Bellarmine Christi sanctorum imagines non esse venerandas testis Nicephorus lib. 16. c. 27. But this lye is confuted by the law of God against the worship of images by S. Augustine that condemneth Marcellina for worshipping and burning incense to the images of Iesu Paul by Epiphanius and other fathers which I haue cited as witnesses against the idolatry of papists in my former challenge He doth also falsifie Nicephorus in adding these wordes primus palam vnto him falsification 29 In the 14. chapter de notis ecclesiae he telleth vs howe Dominick raysed three dead men to life and that he and Francis did many miracles as they are record do in the discourse of their liues He saith also that Francis de Paula did great miracles and that Xauier a Iebusite

great ostentation Now to proue this to be true Baronius is not ashamed to test a greater lye affirming that Gregorius Thaumaturgus did remoue not a house but a mountaine Which if he cold doe it were to be wished that he would remoue the 7. hils of Rome together with the Pope and this lying cardinall and place them at the foote of mount Tabor for whence Baronius beleeueth that our Ladyes house did flye ouer the Seaes into Dalmatia first and then into Italie falsification 36 Of Augustus he saith Ibidem 97 that he made lawes against such as liued single and yet honored those that kept themselues continually true virgins which containeth a notorious contradiction be●…de that it is absurd to proue vowes of virginity frō heathen emperous very preiudicial to the Romish church that he alloweth not fictum caelibatum nor any but those that indéede are true virgins of which he shall find very few among his fellow cardinals and not many among priestes monkes friers nunnes falsification 37 Where Pilate as Iohn chap. 19. saith wrote the title ouer the crosse in Hebrew Ibidem Pag. 103. Greeke and Latine letters and as Luke testifieth chap. 23. in Hebrew Latin and Greeke Baronius supposeth that the order is changed and that the Latin inscription ought to be first But this is nothing but to contradict the euangelistes and to respect neither the apostles nor their writings so the Church of Rome may winne any preheminence aboue other churches He alledgeth I confesse the testimony of pope Nicholas in epist ad Michaelem But it is a poynt of blasphemy to beléeue that Nicholas knew those matters better and did report them more truely then the euangelists Beside that it may well be doubted whether Nicholas wrote that epistle to Michael or some other in his name that without all truth and modesty aduanceth the priuiledges of the Romish Sée falsification 38 Where Luke doth expresly set downe that Iohn Baptiste began to preach Pag. 113. when Annas and Caiphas were highe preistes Baronius saith that only Caiphas was high preist in the soccession of Aaron And that he is forced to hold for feare least hée should ouerthrowe the monarchy of the Church of Rome Annas he saith was chéefe priest as head of his ranke and one of the principall heads of the Sanedrin But if he were not high préest why should he be named before Cayphas or why should Luke so call him if he might not be high preist as contrary to law he must vnderstand that at this time neither the law of Moyses nor the order of succession was rightly obserued falsification 39 Talking of Saint Iohn Baptist he saith hee dwelt in the wildernesse Ibidem p. 114. and keept in a denne called Sapsas And that our Sauiour Christ did visit him oftentimes in this denne And this he proueth by the testimony of Sophronius and one Iohn a monke to whome Saint Iohn appeared as he beléeueth in this hole and told him all this story matters fabulous and ridiculous For who will grant that Saint Iohn Baptist whose soule was with God kéept in this denne it is as like that he dwelt there being dead as being aliue yet this is also a Romish tradition but whether Locustes that S. Iohn Baptist did eate were liuing creatures or no as yet Baronius hath not found out any certaine tradition Isidorus of Pelusium holdeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the gospell signified the tops of herbes and plantes falsification 40 Pag. 110 he saith that S. Iohn Baptist did lay the foundation of monasticall life and that all Catholikes confesse it to be so A lye notorious as appeareth by my answere to Bellarmines treatise de monachis Furthermore this his assertion may be conuinced first for that Iohn Baptist neither made vow nor liued after any certaine rule nor forswore mariage Secondly for that this manner of life was but for a time for after a while he left his habitation in the desert of Iudaea and came to Iorden and into cities Thirdly Iohn was ordained to be a forerunner of Christ and is commended as a singular prophet but monkes and friers are rather the forerunners staf●…ers of Antichrist then of Christ Neither is there any mention of them in scriptures but in generall termes Apocalyps 9. where we reade of locustes issuing out of the bottomelesse pit and such like places Prophets certes they are not vnlesse we giue the name of prophets to false teachers Fourthly if Iohn séeme in his manner of life to haue giuen any example to Eremites yet that serueth other monks and friers nothing that liue in most frequent cities and are in continuall action Finally albeit Chrysostome and Hierome say somewhat of Iohn Baptist as if he first had shewed an example of solitary life yet neither doth that serue to prooue that he was a precedent to other monkes nor doe other fathers or catholike authors affirme that he laid the first foundation of monasticall life I hope Rob. Parsons will not say that Iohn Baptist was like his father Ignatius Loyola that madde maranicall Spaniard and swaggring compagnion the first author founder and foundation of the hispaniolized Iesuites falsification 41 Pag. 117. he saith Christ was baptized the sixt of Ianuary and this he would prooue by the testimony of a letter of Eusebius ad Marinum whose fragments are in the edition of Christopher after the history of Euagrius as he writeth But séeing the holy scriptures haue concealed the exa●t day he sheweth not himselfe wise curiously to dispute of this point Beside that he should doe vs a fauour to shew who this Christopher was that set out Eusebius otherwise his followers will beléeue that he tooke Christopher for Christopherson Finally there is no credit to be giuen to such vaine fragments set out vnder the names of auncient writers In the historie of Eusebius we read not that he had any thing to do with this counterfeit Marinus so that this tradition séemeth to be built vpon a rotten foundation falsification 42 Gregorius Turonensis telleth how leprosie is cured by washing in water where our Sauiour Christ was baptized and Baronius beléeued he said true But yet was this Gregorie no good witnesse in this case writing nothing but by hearesay We are taught by holy scriptures that baptisme was ordained a sacrament of remission of sins and not that Iordane was made a medicine to purge lepres falsification 43 Pag. 119. he supposeth that he hath soundly confuted those that say that it was not said to Peter tu es Petra sed tu es Petrus but either must he lye or must he charge the Euangelist Matthew with vntruth which is a point blasphemous He saith also that such as translate the word Cephas and say it doth signifie a head are not to be reprehended But if he had had either head or braine hauing taken vpon him to relate histories and things done in auncient time he would haue omitted all curious disputations for the