we upon this ground deny also with the Lutherans the [i] Osiander a prime Lutheran speaking of the last Canon of the Laodicen Council commonly objected by our Adversaries wherein are omitted the Books now in question and the Apocalyps saith in his Epitom c. cent 4. pag. 299. fine Non recitantur libri Machabaeorum rectè quidem In eo autem erratum est quod Epistolam Jacobi Judae posteriores duas Joannis inter Canonica Scripta numerant quae Scripta non longè post Apostolorum tempora non pro Scriptis Canonicis habita sunt c. Rectè autem omissa est Apocalypsis ea enim non est Joannis Apostoli c. And see this point more fully in Brereley tract 1. sect 10. subdivis 3. fine at a. and tract 2. c. 2. sect 10. subdivis 2. initio in the text and margent there at o. p. q. r. s t. u. And see at large in the Protestant Authors themselves the places there cited wherein they reject these Scriptures under colour and pretence that they were denyed or doubted of in the Primitive Church Epistles of James Jude the second of Peter the 2. and 3. of John the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalyps no less than the other Books now in question but by that which many of the Fathers do constantly affirm And seeing the Churches assertion as being in the judgement of our very [k] Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick pag. 5. initio saith the Church of Christ hath judgement to discern true writings from counterfeit and the word of God from the writings of men and this judgement she hath of the Holy Ghost And Mr. Jewel in his defence of the Apology pag. 201. and after the other Edition of 1571. pag. 242. circa med saith The Church of God hath the spirit of Wisedom whereby to discern true Scripture from false The Protestant Author of the Scripture and the Church which Bullinger so greatly commendeth in his Preface thereof to the Reader doth cap. 15. fol. 71.72 cap. 16. fol. 74.75 affirm that The Church is indued with the Spirit of God and that the diligence and authority of the Church is to be acknowledged herein which hath partly given forth her testimony of the assured writings and hath partly by her Spiritual judgement refused the writings which are unworthy And afterwards he further saith We could not believe the Gospel were it not that the Church taught us and witnessed that this doctrin was delivered by the Apostles To this end Mr. Hooker in his first Book of Ecclesiastical Policy sect 14. pag. 86. ante med saith apud Brereley tract 1. sect 10. subd 3. Of things necessary the very chiefest is to know what Books we are bound to esteem holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it self to teach whereof he giveth a very sensible demonstration ibid. l. 2. sect 4. pag. 102. fine saying It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it his word for if any one Book of Scripture did give testimony of all yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest would require an other Scripture to give credit unto it Neither could we come to any pause wherein to rest unless besides Scripture there were some thing which might assure us c. Which he acknowledgeth to be the authority of Gods Church l. 3. sect 8. pag. 146. fine l. 2. sect 7. pag. 116. ante med And Brereley tract 2. cap. 3. sect 11. subd 1. at s allegeth further the like judgement of Mr. D. Covel in his defence of Mr. Hookers five Books art 4. c. pag. 31. ante med saying Doubtless it is a tolerable opinion of the Church of Rome if they go no further as some of them do not to affirm that the Scriptures are holy and divine in themselves but so esteemed by us for the authority of the Church And after in the same page It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it is the word of God the first outward motion leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the authority of Gods Church which teacheth us to receive Marks Gospel who was not an Apostle and to refuse the Gospel of Thomas who was an Apostle and to retain Lukes Gospel who saw not Christ and to reject the Gospel of Nicodemus that saw him Adversaries an infallible and sure direction to us in this question of the Canonical Scriptures is as heretofore positively delivered and made plain to us by no less testimony than of St. Isidoâ—e Innocentius Gelasius the Fathers of the Carthage Council and to omit others of St. Austin himself who in our Adversaries confessed judgement was [l] M. D. Covel in his answer to John Burges pag. 3. fine saith Saint Austin a man far beyond all that ever were before him or shall in likelihood follow after him both for humane and divine learning those being excepted that were inspired Also M. D. Field of the Church l. 3. fol. 170. fine saith Austin the greatest of all the Fathers and worthiest Divine the Church of God ever had since the Apostles times And Gomarus in speculo verae Ecclesiae c. pag. 96. ante med saith Augustinus Patrum omnium communi sententia purissimus habetur chief and best of all the Fathers what can be more clear and convincing herein for us and against our Adversaries than that which is as heretofore though but briefly yet plainly thus delivered from the not doubtful but confessed judgement of St. Austin and those other many antient Fathers Mr. D. [m] M. D. Covel in his answer to Mr. John Burges pag. 85. fine saith of the untruths or repugnances supposed to be in these Books now in question We could without violence have afforded them the reconcilement of other Scriptures and undoubtedly have proved them to be most true And pag. 87. fine 88 89 90. â—e maketh special answer to certain such objected repugnances Covel a prime man among our Adversaries not forbearing in this case to undertake special defence and answer against such weak seeming repugnances or contradictions occuring [n] Concerning the like seeming repugnancy of other Scriptures Mr. Jewel in his defence c. pag. 361. fine affirmeth that St. Mark alleged Abiathar for Abimelech and that St. Matthew nameth Hieremias for Zacharias and in St. Matthew 27.9 are words alleged under the name of Hieremy which are not found in Hieremy but in Zachary 11.13 Also in Mark 15.25 our Saviour is said to be crucified in the third hour whereas in John 19.14 Pilate sate in judgement upon him about the sixt hour In like manner Luke 3.35 36. affirmeth Sale to be the son of Caynan and Caynan the son of Arphaxad and so Arphaxad was Grandfather to Sale whereas in Genesis 11.12 it is said that Arphaxad lived 35.
Scripture may have divers understandings and all of them true against our Adversaries practise who to make the same plain by one example for many if they can shew that St. Augustin or some other Father doth by Fire 1 Cor. 13.15 upon occasion of other application understand the tribulation of this life do therefore urge this Exposiâ—ion thus given against the other common received sense of Purgatory though also given elswhere by the very same and other Fathers which the said Fathers by their other foresaid firster sense never meant to gainsay This slight being usuall by our Adversaries is hereby once for all prevented affirmed by the Translator of the English Bible published 1576. in his Epistle to the Brethren of England Scotland and Ireland circa med by the Divines of Geneva in their Propositions and Principles disputed in Geneva c. cap. 52. pag. 149. post med by Hierome Zanchius de facra Scriptura pag. 422. fine 424 425. and by Aretius in loc com loc 59. pag. 187. circa med pag. 177. circa med with whom herein agreeth St. Augustine de Civit. Dei l. 11. c. 19. initio l. 12. confess c. 31. de Doct. Christ l 3. c. 27. lib. 1. c. 36. de util cred c. 3. de Gen. ad lit l. 1. c. 21 Yet contradaicted by Mr. Fulk in his confutation of Purgatory pag. 151. and M. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 26 fine 65 The distinction of Order and Jurisdiction whereby the greatest Archbishop and the meanest Bishop or Priest are said to be equal or unequal the equality being in respect of Order and the inequality in respect of Jurisdiction which distinction serveth to explain the seeming repugnant sayings whether of Scripture or Fathers which otherwise might be thought to affirm somtimes a superiority at other times an equality between Peter and the other Apostles and so likewise between the Pope and other Bishops Affirmed by Mr. Whitgift and [y] Brereley tract 2. c. 3 sect 10. subd 2. sine in the margent at m. Mr. Bridges in his defence c. pag. 313. 445.446 1156. fine and Mr. Whitgift acknowledgeth this distinction affirming in his defence of the Answer to the Admonition pag. 303. post med that Archbishops quoad ministerium doe not differ from other Pastors but touching Government affirming also pag. 386. ante med and answering to a common objection out of Hierome who equalleth the meanest Bishop with the Pope that they are equal quoad Mnisterium but not quoad politiam And see him there further pag. 320. fine 461. initio pag. 390. prope initium and contradicted for Popish by Mr. Cartwright alleged in Mr. Whitgift's defence pag. 389. prope finem and by many others 66 That the true visible Church cannot wholly erre affirmed by Mr. Fox in his Martyrs as by Philpot Act. Mon. pag. 1401. a. prope finem by Bilney Act. Mon. 464. b. art 4. by Ridley Act. Mon. pag. 1361. b. post med pag. 1286. b. prope finem by James Baynham Act. Mon. pag. 493. b. prope finem also by Mr. Fox himself Act. Mon. pag. 999. a. fine at art 36. by Mr. Bancroft in his Sermon and page mentioned next hereafter in number 67. by the Divines of Geneva in their Propositions and Principles disputed c. pag. 141. sect 12. 13. and most expresly by Bertrand de Loque Minister of Delphinine who in his discourse of the Church c. 12. pag. 198. saith of this very question The Controversie in my judgement is not of the Catholike or universal Church for we all agree herein that she cannot erre touching Faith c. wherefore this question is touching only a particular Church Impugned by Mr. Fulk who in his answer to a counterfait Cathotholike pag. 8â— fine saith The whole Church militant consisting of men which are all liars may erre altogether as every part thereof And by the Puritans who in their Brief Discovery of untruths in a Sermon preached 1588. by D. Bancroft pag. 34. do expresly reprove Mr. Bancroft for his teaching our Catholike Doctrine herein 67 An external Judgment or difinitive sentence and not only Scripture appointed for the ending of Controversies affirmed by Mr. D. Field in his words alleged heretofore in this Consideration num 51. by M. Bilson in his perpetual government c. pag. 372. initio by Mr. Bancroft in his Sermon preached February 8. 1588. pag. 42 43. see his saying alleged and reprehended in the Puritans foresaid Discovery c. pag. 34. by Mr. D. Covell in his Modest Examination c. pag. 108. paulo ante med 109. prope finem by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity in the Preface sect 6. initio pag. 26. circa med pag. 28. ante med by Melancthon in Consil Theolog. part 2. pag. 1. 2. And in the end after much winding in and out by Mr. D. Reynolds in his Conference with Mr. Hart pag. 99. post medium and by the Puritans whereof see M. Bancroft's Survey c. pag. 304. fine Yet contradicted vulgarly by over many to be named Sectaries of all sorts who thereby to exempt themselves from all triall do pretend that the Church may erre and therefore that only Scripture is to be our Judge See this at large pretended by the Protestants throughout the late Conference at Ratisbon printed Lavingae Anno 1602. 68 Those that be learned know that the Government of the Church is neither Popular nor Aristocratical but a Monarchy affirmed in these words by Mr. Whitgift in his defence c. pag. 641. post medium by M. D. Covell in his Examination c. against the Plea of the Innocent pag. 109. 107. alleged heretofore in the second Consideration num 10. after 15. at a. b. c. e. by Luther alleged there afterwards in the margent under * next before 18. and vulgarly by many other Protestants who affirm the temporal Magistrate to be the head of the Church But yet many others who discern the known difference between the several Common-wealths of forein Nations governed by several Princes and the particular Churches of those Nations as namely that those sundry Common-wealths be each of them of it self a several absolute politike body governed severally by distinct lawes whereas yet all those several National Churches professing all of them one Faith and Religion make but one Catholike Church one Body Ephesians 2.16 3.16 One visible Church of Christ Hooker l. 3. sect 1. pag. 126. prope finem do therefore impugn Mr. Whitgift's foresaid Assertion foreseeing that by sequell thereof the several Churches of Forein Nations making as aforesaid all of them but one visible Church one Body should be accordingly governed by one visible Ecclesiastical Head or Monarch And hence it is that Mr. Jacob in his Reasons taken out of Gods word retorteth how probably we refer to judgement Mr. Hookers Assertions saying there pag. 24. paulo ante med It followeth from this necessarily that there ought to be a Catholike
Luther was also so known and [h] See hereof Belforest in Cosmogra l. 2. cap. 7. col 579 grateful to the Turk that as Luthers own Scholar reporteth [i] Manlius in loc com pag. 636. fine the Turkish Emperour to the great shame of Luther hearing hereof demanded of our Christian Embassador how old Luther was and wished him younger promising to be his very good Lord. And the Duke of Saxony a Professor of Luthers Doctrine was accordingly holden chargeable as [k] Hereof see Sleydan l. 18. fol. 277. ante medium being confederate with the Turk In so much as Erasmus whom our adversaries think to have been [l] Acts Mon. pag. 404. a. fine indifferently affected towards Luther saith hereof in Epistola ad Fratres inferiores Germaniae pag. 39. Many of the Saxons following that first Doctrine of Luher denyed to Caesar and King Ferdinand aid against the Turks c. and said they had rather fight for a Turk not Baptized then for a Turk Baptized thereby meaning the Emperour Whereunto might be added the further example of the German Protestants [m] See this in Sleydan l. 17. fol. 94. b. prope initium and fol. 95 a. post mediunt and in Osiander centur 16 pag. 193. circa medium denying their Emperour to give aid against the Turk unelss their own conditions were first agreed to 17. Concerning the [n] Brereley tract 2. cap. 2. sect 10. subdivis 2. Canonical Scriptures if it be true which M. Fulk saith in his confutation of Purgatory pag. 214. circa med that whosoever denyeth the authority of holy Scriptures thereby bewraieth himself to be an Heretick what is then to be thought of Luther who denyed sundry confessed parts thereof Concerning the Apocalyps Bullinger upon the Apocalyps Englished c. 1. serm 1 fol. 2. a. post med giveth testimony saying Doctor Martin Luther hath as it were sticked this Book by a sharp Preface set before his Edition of the New Testament in Dutch for which his judgement good and learned men were offended with him And concerning the Epistle of St. James Luther not in the latter edition of [n] Brereley tract 2. cap. 2. sect 10. subdivis 2. Wittemberg corrupted by the Zuinglians and others of which alteration made in Luthers works the zealous Lutherans in a Synod holden at [o] For Theodosius Fabricius in his collections of Luthers sayings intituled loci communes Doctoris Martini c. Printed 1594. in his Preface circa med set before the book professeth there to follow the Edition of Jena saying there further Cur ab iditione Wittembergensi discedam causas habeo non comtemnendas As in like manner Master Bancroft in his Survey of the pretended holy Discipline pag. 225. chargeth the Puritans with like corruption of other Protestants works Altemburg and [p] Colâ—oqui Altemberg in respon ad excusa Cor. fol. 227. vide 2. respons ad Hypoth â— fol. 284. ad fol. 290. fol. 353. 355. vide ibidem Hypotheses de libero arâ—trio fol. 574. b. 575. a. And Conradus Schlusseburg in his Theologia Calviâ—istarum l. 2. fol. 56. b. chargeth the Calvinists with alteration of Luthers Works [q] Of the great contentions is Germany between the rigid and soft Lutherans concerning the false and corrupt editions of Luthers works See Walterus contra Aurifabrum de corrupta editione Operum Lutheri Anno 1566. And see further proof of Luthers works corrupted in the defence of the censure pag. 55. And see Brereley in the conclusion to the Judges sect 9. and in the margent at d. Of this corrupting Luthers Works see also above elsewhere do greatly complain as also Joachim [r] Westphalus Apol. contra Calvinist c. 46. pag. 458. And Luther himself in Epist ad Jo. Harvagium Typographum Argentinensem â—hargeth Bucer with corrupting his works Westphalus a Lutheran doth in like manner charge Calvin with most foul mutations and corruptions made in certain of Luthers Works translated into French and Printed at Geneva but in the more antient edition of Jena a City in Religion Lutheran uttereth these words which some of our adversaries to speak the least have no less then over boldly [s] Over-boldly denyed in the Tower disputation with Edmund Campian the first days conference c.iiii. Luther praefat in Epist Jacobi in editione Jenensi fine denyed The Epistle of James is contentious swelling dry strawy and unworthy an Apostolical Spirit In so much as Illyricus Luthers own Scholar whom Mr. Thomas Bell tearmeth a [t] Bell in his regiment of the Church pag. 28. See Pomeran in Epist ad Rom. c. 4. And Vitus Theodorus in Annot. in nov Test pag. ult And the Century writers of Magdeburg cent â— l. 2. c. 4 cent 2. l. 3. c. 4. And Hafferefferus in loc Theologic l. 3. staâ— 3. loc 7. pag. 292. And Adamus Francisci in Margarita Theol pag. 488. saith Apocâ—aphi libri novi Testamenti sunt Epistola ad Haebreos Epistola Jacobi secunda tertia Joannis posterior Petri Epistola Judae Apocalyp very famous Writer and most worthy defender of the Christian truth expresseth and defendeth Luthers foresaid judgement saying Luther in his Preface upon St. James Epistle giveth great reasons why this Epistle ought in no case to be accompted for a writing of Apostolical authority to which reasons I think every godly man ought to yield Which foresaid judgement of Luther concerning this and other parts of the new Testament is yet to this day so continued and defended by Luthers other Scholars that to omit sundry of them Chemnitius Luthers greatest Scholar affirmeth that [u] Chemâ—itius in Enchyrid c. pag. 63. And see Chemnitius in his examen Concil Trident. part 1. pag. 55. the second Epistle of Peter the second and third of John the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of James the Epistle of Jude and the Apocalyps of John are Apocryphal [x] Chemnitius exam part 1. pag. 56. b. initio as not having sufficient testimony of their authority and therefore [y] Chemnitius ibidem p. 57. a. that nothing in controversie may be proved out of these Books Moreover Luther lib de servo arbitrio contra Erasmum tom 2. Wittemberg fol. 471. saith The Jews place the Book of Esther in the Canon which yet if I might be Judge doth rather deserve to be put out of the Canon Protestants when they will exclude from the Canon Books received by Catholicks they allege that they are not in Hebrew and yet Luther likes not Esther though he confesseth the Hebrews admit it And of Ecclesiastes he saith in latinis sermonibus convivalibus Francofurt in Octavo impres Anno 1571. This Book is not full there are in it many abrupt things he wants Boots and Spurs that is he hath no perfect sentence he rides upon a long reed like me when I was in the Monastery And much more is to be read in him who in Germ. Colloq ab Aurifabro editis
he proceeded I say further to deliver Paradoxes strange and before unheard-of all tending to liberty of life or Doctrine As first the discouragement which his Doctrine affordeth against all good works in general saying tom 1. de Providentia Dei fol. 371. a. versus finem Sed contra ista sunt hyperochae atque hyperbolae Si vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata c. quaecunque alia promissa nostris operibus facta sunt What can more discourage us to good works than thus to affirm with Zuinglius that the promise of reward made to us is but hyperbolical 25. Secondly concerning Original sin he taught that it is but a [e] Zuing. tom 2. l. de Baptismo fol. 89. b. circa med saying Peccatum ergo originale damnationem non meretur si modo quis Parentes fideles nactus fuerit And 90. a. post med he saith of Original sin Qui enim fieri potest ut quod morbus contagio est peccati nomen mereatur vel peccatum revera sit c. Morbus enim hic damnationem nobis afferre nâ—quit And pag. 90. b. ante med Ea quoque Pauli verba considerabimus quibus Theologi nostri abusi Originalem illum morbum peccatum esse dixerunt c. sed toto caelo errant And tom 2. fol. 115. a. paulo post med in Epist Zuinglii Occolampadii l. 1. pag. 252. paulo ante med he saith Quid enim brevius dici potuit quam Originale peccatum non esse peccatum sed morbum c disease which of it self is not culpable neither can bring the pain of damnation that [f] Zuing. tom 2. de peccato orig declar fol. 116. a. post med saith Hoc ipsum volo culpam Originalem non vere sed metonimice à primi Parentis admisso culpam vocari And in Epist Zuinglii Oecolampadii l. 1. pag. 258. fine he saith Est ergo ista ad peccandum amore sui propensio peccatum originale quae quidem propensio non est propriè peccatum sed fons c. And tom a. ad Cardum Imp. fidei rat fol. 539. b. initio he saith Patrem igitur nostrum Adam peccavisse fateor peccatum quod verè peccatum est c. At qui ex isto prognati sunt hoc morbo non peccaverunt c. Velimus igitur nolimus admittere cogimur peccatum originale ut est in filiis Adae non propriè peccatum esse quomodo jam exposuimus Non enim est facinus contra legem morbus est propriè c. it is not truly called sin sed metonimice but figuratively concluding [g] See Zuinglius his words hereof alleged by Schlusselburg in Theologia Calvinistarum l. 1. fol. 65. a. fine b. initio the offence and fault of Adam cannot condemn Infants and young Children thinking [h] Tom. 2. l. de Baptismo fol. 90. a. post med he saith Ubi legis cognitio nulla est ibi nec peccati cognitio esse potest ubi verò pâ—ccati cognitio non est ibi nec praevaricatio est adeoque nec damnatio c. sic igitur jacet Theologorum sententia omnibus constat fidelium liberos propter originalem illum haereditarium morbum damnationem subire nullam quoad legem legis sententiam ignorant De iis autem loquor qui per aetatem legis cognitionem habere non possunt non de iis qui vel scire nolunt vel etiam scientes nesciunt And see the lâ—ke tom 2. fol. 118. a. paulo post med tom 1. fol 372. b. initio In so much as in Epist Zuinglii Oecolampadii pag 505. paulo ante med he thinketh that the Children of the Gentiles and Infidels are free from all guilt hereof because saith he lex nulla cos damnat c. And see him there pag. 969. circa med tom 2. fol. 540. ante med where he saith Verum quomodocunque de Gentilium infantibus statuendum sit hoc certè adseveramus propter virtutem salutis per Christum praestitae praeter rem pronuntiare qui eos aeternae maledictioni addicunt c. non debent igitur temere à nobis damnari qui fidem per aetatem non habent c. original sin only damnable in those that be of years and discretion when in them it bursteth forth into action And all this so grosly as his own Brethren do therefore [i] Reprehended by Schlusselburg in Theol. Calvinist l. 1. fol. 65. a. fine b. initio and by Hunnius in Papism Calvinistarum c. Papism 21. sect 132.133 And Zuinglius tom 2. de peccat orâ—g declar initio fol. 115. b. paulo post initium saith thereof to Urbanus Regius Nec enim solus insolitè nos putas de humanae generationis contagione tum sentire tum scribere sunt enim alia magna nomina qui idem existimant c. reprehend him [k] Amicis cavent ne in ruinam se à . nobis trahi patiantur Ibidem fol. 115. circa med giving warning to their friends lest they suffer themselves to be drawn into ruin by this his damnable opinion 26. Thirdly concerning salvation and the way to Heaven he maketh it so easy and open that he affirmeth even the salvation of the [l] Zuinglius in Epist Zuinglii Oecolampadii l. 1. pag. 39. a. circa med saith Ethnicus si piam mentem domi foveat Christianus est etiamsi Christum ignoret And see Zuinglius tom 2. de pec orig fol. 118. a. circa med Aâ—so tom 2. in exposit fidei Christianae fol. 159. b. circa med he affirmeth the being in Heaven of Adam Abel Enoch c. Hercules Theseus Aristides c. Heathen who never believed in Christ as Hercules Theseus Socrates [m] See next heretofore k. attributing also salvation to the young dying Children of the Heathen c. In which his opinion defended nevertheless by [n] Gualter in Apologia pro Zuinglio operibus ejus praesix tom operum Zuinglii fol. 27. a. b. fol. 28 29. a. b. Gualter and [o] See Simlerus in vita Bullingeri and see Bullingers allowance of Zuinglius his foresaid Treatise in Zuinglius tom 2. fol. 550. b. initio Bullinger he is so unworthy that sundry other Protestant Writers do therefore [o] Reproved by Hunnius in Papismis Calvinianorum part 1. Papism 18. numer 115 117. and by Benedict Morgensterne tract de Ecclesia p. 72. And by Lobechius Indisput Theolog. pag. 163. initio And by Luther who tom 6. in Cap. 47. Genes fol. 633. a. fine tearmeth it a most pernicious errour reprove him 27. Fourthly concerning the Apostles assured authority in their writings let his judgement of them all appear in the only examples of St. Paul of whom he affirmeth that though he for his part would not but that St. Pauls writings should be now holden for Canonical yet we ought not to think that Paul did
wholy tend unto trouble and rebellion Beza in his Book of the power of Magistrates doth arm the subjects against the Prince in these causes A Book saith he yet further ibid. pag. 192. post med which overthroweth in effect all the authority of Christian Kings and Magistrates And again ubi supra pag. 98. initio he allegeth Beza his judgement concerning excommunicated Princes saying Beza roundly teacheth what reason have Christians to obey him that is Satans slave And the like is yet further confessed in this kind against Beza by Mr. Bancroft in his Survey of the holy pretended Disciplin pag. 48. prope initium And in his Book entituled dangerous Positions pag. 21. 18. As also that temperate Protestant Writer D. Saravia argueth sufficiently Beza his seditious Doctrin in this his over-modest or rather excusing reprehension and answer thereto saying Quid his verbis c. Some rest doubtful what Mr. Beza intendeth by these words where he thinketh it not right that the godly should stay till the Wolves be expelled by publick authority and that he may seem secretly to insinuate that those Wolves may be expelled by private authority as was done in the Low-Countries and other places c. Saravia in defens tract de diversis gradibus Ministrorum contra responsionem Clarissimi viri D. Theodori Bezae c. 2. pag. 74. paulo ante med And see Beza's own words there And see him also in his Epist Theolog. Epist 68. pag. 318. ante med where he saith Habeo alia nonnulla majoris momenti quae tamen per liter as satis commodè significare non possum perplacet autem mihi quod de conventu absque ulla Principum aut civitatem authoritate privatim instituendo scribis And then thrusteth in this Bodge Quamvis nullis prorsus conselis Principibus id fieri minimè velim And so likewise in the words reprehended as before by Saravia he saith expresly Si piis semper expectandum putas dum lupi ultro cedant vel publica authoritate expulsi tibi minime assentior But yet saith he with a like Bodge Nihil seditiose movendum extra controversiam est sed piè constanter amplectendas affirmo omnes Divinitus oblatas veri cultûs Divini restituendi occasiones c. Et ni ita factum esset quas tandem Ecclesias bodie haberemus What hypocrisic is this to teach Reformation against the Magistrates mind And yet forsooth not seditiously as though it could be so performed without sedition These are in words smooth pretences but indeed no other than plain seditions and treasons whereby himself in his foresaid words signifieth his Church to have enlarged her self Hereto may be added Mr. Bancrofts saying in his Survey of the pretended holy Disciplin pag. 42. circa med He that shall read Mr. Calvins and Mr. Beza 's two Books of Epistles and likewise the Commentaries of France with divers other discourses about those affairs should withall give any credit either to Heshusius Balduinus Carpentarins or others men learned all of them and some of them known Protestaents would certainly mervail to understand into what actions and dealings they thrust themselves of War of Peace of subjection how far is enter ded of Reformation without staying for the Magistrates c. Besides [z] Brâ—â—â—ky in the Presaâ—◠〈…〉 〈…〉 pag. â—4 See a was present in the Battaâ—â— of Dreâ—â— defended by him present as 〈◊〉 Fasus de vita obâ—â—â— Beâ—â— pag. 45. prope 〈◊〉 saith Post mense◠〈◊〉 contenâ—â—sun◠〈…〉 〈…〉 c. side 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Chrâ—st◠〈…〉 〈…〉 bor are 〈◊〉 c. And the Protestants of Meaâ—â— as is recorded in the general inventory of the History of France pag. 593. transported with indiscreet zeal grounded upon their numbers did â—ly to the Churches be at down Images and make the Priests retire Whereto is but agreeable their like confessed insolency at Greuoble Chartiâ—â—s and Orleâ—nce â—eâ—â— Preaching thereâ—â— with his Sword and Pistol and exhorted the people to shew their manhood rather in killing the Papists than in breaking Images Reâ—â— [a] Apud liâ—â—ley in his 〈…〉 of the 〈◊〉 of the late 〈…〉 cap. 〈◊〉 sect 4 〈…〉 pag. 18â— 184. is also charged with Pultrâ—â—s known murther of the old Duke of Guise who being thereupon [b] 〈◊〉 Pulâ—â—â— â—◠〈…〉 〈…〉 all might 〈…〉 hiâ— Pâ—stol 〈◊〉 the 〈…〉 and of his 〈◊〉 being sound and taken 〈◊〉 th◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after at the 〈…〉 be did the deed the Protestant Author of seâ—undâ—◠〈…〉 c. saith 〈…〉 pesta noâ—â— in eum prope locum unde 〈◊〉 c. 〈…〉 〈…〉 pag. 345. 〈◊〉 very strangely if not miraculously apprehended did at the time of his execution publickly [c] The Protestant Author of the Treatise intiuled Secundae partis Commentariorum de statu Religionis reip in Regno Galliae libri tres Carolo nono Rege Printed 1571. pag. 357. post med saith of Poltrots execution illud interfecti Guisii supplicium dedâ—â— quaestionis habitae edito quodam se ipto Polâ—rot us Amiralâ—um facinoris illius authorem hortatorem appellabat Theodo um Bezam cum alio mimmè nominato Ministro illi accusationâ— involvebat ut ad eam rem impulsorem c. Also Pultrots confession at his death yet extant in Pâ—int chargeth Beza as persuader and procurer thereof in answer whereto Mr. Whitaker in his answer to F. Camp an rat 8. and after the English Edition pag. 223. doth surmise that Pultrot was induced to accuse noble and innocent men through hope of impunity or sear of punishment By which pretext all accusations made by the confessions of offenders at their deaths are most improbably taken away charge Beza as being the first Author and perswader thereof 50. As [d] Brereley tract 1. sect 3. subd 14. in the text and margent at 15. concerning his unworthy opinion of the Apostolical times he doubted not if not most arrogantly read and judge to prefer in knowledge of the truth the now Protestant Writers even before those other that flourished immediatly and next after the Apostles times For in Epist Theolog. Epist 1. pag. 5. initio he saith Itaque dicere nec immeritò quidem ut opinor consuevi dum illa tempora Apostolicis etiam proxima cum nostris comparo plus illos conscientiae scientiae minus habuisse nos contra scientiae plus conscientiae minus habere haec mea sententia est 51. Whereas [e] Brereley tract 2. cap. 2. sect 10. subd 15. sect 2. the Catholick Faith holdeth one substance or unity of Essence in three Persons Beza saith to the contrary in his Confession in English Printed 1585. pag. 1. and see Confes Genev. c. 1. the word of God teacheth plainly that the Divine substance is not wholy in three Persons but distinct really and truly from everlasting into three Persons 52. Concerning [f] Brereley tract 2. cap. 2. sect 10. subd 8. at 15. our Blessed Saviour Beza ad Haebr 5. ver 7. affirmeth that