likewise you shall observe that he hath rased and purged an ancient Record and speciall Evidence against the universality and supremacie of the Bishops of Rome It is an Epistle written by Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarea to St. Cyprian which St. Cyprian translated into Latin as your Pamelius doth confesse wherein he professeth that he is justly moved with indignation at the manifest folly of Stephanus then Bishop of Rome that boasting so much of his Bishoprick At que ego hâc in parte justè indignor ad hanc tam apertam manifestam Stephani stultitiam Firmilian Cyp. S. Ep. 75. p. 203 Noli te fallere siquidem ille est verè schismaticus c. p. 204. Insuper Cyprianum Pseudo-Christum Pseudo-Apostolum dolosum operarium dicere qui omnia inse conscius praevenit c. p. 205. and that he hath the succession of Peter upon whom the foundation of the Church was set brings in many other Rockes c. He bids him not deceive himselfe he hath made himselfe a Schismaticke by separating himselfe from the Communion of the Ecclesiasticall unitie for while he thinkes he can separate all from his Communion he hath separated himselfe onely from all He taxeth him for calling St. Cyprian a false Christ a false Apostle and a deceitfull workeman which he himselfe being guilty of and privie to himselfe that those termes of right belong to himselfe by way of prevention he objected them to another Touching these severall Additions and Extractions Pamelius by whom the Antwerp and Paris Cyprian were set forth first excuseth Manutius for adding the words in his Roman print and tells us they were found in a written Copie of the Cambron Abbey in Hannonia which was the best of all the Copies he had and therefore saith he we were not afraid to insert that Reading into the Text. Nonsumus veriti in textum inserere Yet Manutius himselfe professeth he perused five and twenty printed and Manuscript Copies which had none of those Additions and as touching the Epistle to or from Firmilianns which proves a resistance anciently made against the usurped power of the Pope Pamelius thinkes it was left out purposely by Manutius Argumentum Ep. 75. p. 198. and saith he Perhaps it had beene more wisedome it had never been set out at all but withall he addeth because Morelius did publish it before me I thought it not fit to let it passe but print it Now let us looke backe and examine the reason of these severall Editions and falsifications Mr. Hart sayth that the Additions were taken from a very ancient Copie gotten from Verona Pamelius saith they were borrowed from a Manuscript in the Cambron Ahbey in Hannonia but in 25. Copies the Additions were not to be found Mr. Hart saith the true Copie was printed at Rome by the Popes command and with the advise of vertuous and wise men to be perfectly corrected and free from all spots Pamelius saith it was better than any other but withall it was not so exact but that the old Proverbe might take place the latter is commonly the better Lastly touching the razing out the Epistle of Firmilianus Pamelius concludeth that his Copie which doth cite it is so perfect Indiculus Codicum in initio Cypriani that be it spoken without envie there will need no further recognition yet happely saith he it had beene better it had never come forth Thus you may discerne what forgeries are used by your men to support the circumgestation of your Sacrament and the Popes Supremacie which is a maine Pillar of your Faith And this may serve to shew your falsifications and forgeries in the third Age. In the fourth Age. The fourth age An. 300. to 400. The first Generall Councell of Nice is forged by Zozimus Bishop of Rome in behalfe of his owne supremacie The pretended Canon is this In Concil Carthag c. 1. Binius Those who in the Nicene Synod gave their sentence concerning Appeales of Bishops said in this manner If a Bishop shall be accused and the Bishops of his owne Province shall thereupon condemne and degrade him if he thinke fit to appeale and thereupon flye to the most holy Bishop of Rome if he be pleased to have the hearing of it the Bishop is to write to the Bishops adjoyning and let it be at his pleasure to doe what he will and as he in his judgement shall thinke fittest to be done This Canon is not to be found either in the Greeke or Latine Copies of the Nicene Councell and those Canons in all were but 20. It is true that you pretend that there were in all 60. Canons where of 40. were burned by the Arabians amongst which this Canon was one But if they were extant how were they burned And if they were burned how came you to the knowledge of them The truth is their Bastardie saith Contius your Lawyer is proved even by this that no man no not Gratian himselfe Raynold chap. 9. Divis 2. pag. 575. durst alledge them Eusebius Caesariensis Bishop of Caesarea is corrupted to prove the Popes supremacie In the Basil print translated by Ruffinus he sayth Peter James Euseb impr Basiliae ex Officinâ Henr. Petrina Ruffino Aquiliensi Interprete Sed Jacobum qui dicebatur Justus Apostolorum Episcopū statuerat Eus l. 2. Eccl. Hist c. 1. p. 677. Petrum Jacobum Johannem non de gloriâ honore contendisse interse sed uno consensu Jacobum Justū Hierosoly monum Episcopū designâsse Coloniae Allobrogum excudebat Petrus dela Roviere An. 1612. and John after the Assumption of our Saviour although they were preferred by him before all the rest of the Apostles yet did they not challenge the honor of Primacie to themselves but appointed James which is called Justus to be Bishop of the Apostles In your Coleine Edition you have altered the sense in this manner Peter James and John when they had obtained of our Lord a high degree of dignity they did not contend about glory and honor amongst themselves but with one consent made James Bishop of Jerusalem Thus the true and ancient Eusebius saith Peter and the rest did not challenge the honor of primacie the latter saith they did not strive about glory and honour the ancient saith they appointed James which is called Justus to be Bishop of the Apostles the other saith they nominated Justus Bishop of Jerusalē This Authority is so pregnant against the Popes Jurisdiction claimed from Peter that Bellarmine hath nothing to answer but this Although those words be found in the Basil print translated by Ruffinus yet in a Colein print translated and published by a Roman Catholike Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 26. the word Primacie is not to bee found and in stead of the words Bishop of the Apostles are inserted Bishop of Jerusalem The Cardinall doth not complaine that Ruffinus Translation was false and corrupt for they are the words in the Originall
of the ancient Eusebius neither could he say truly that the Colein was translated by a Catholike for indeed it is the property of an Here-ticke to falsifie and corrupt the Text. And thus you have done in your Colein Edition where you have altered the sense in that manner Eusebius Emissenus Bishop of Emesa in Syria is forged by Gratian for the doctrine of Transubstantiation Grat. Dist 2. de Consecrat Quia corpus fol. Mihi 432. his words are these Christ the invisible Priest turned the visible creature into the substance of his body and bloud with his word and secret power saying Take eate this is my Body whereas there are no such words to be found in all his Works The Councell of Laodicea is falsified in favour of your Iâ—vocation of Angels The words of the Originall are these a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Conc. Laod. Can. 35. Bin. Tom. 1. p. 245. Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God and depart aside and invocate Angels and make meetings which are things forbidden If any man therefore be found to give himselfe to this privie Idolatrie let him be accursed Now in the same Councell published by James Merlyn and Fryer Crab by transmutation of a letter you are taught a lesson contrary to sense and reason saying b Quod non oporteat EcclesiaÌ„ Dei relinquere abire at que angelos nominare congregationes facere Merlin Tom. 1. Concil edit Col. An. 1530. f. 68. Crab. edit An. 1538. Colon. fol. 226. Verit as non quaerit Angulos It is not lawfull for Christians to forsake the Church of God and goe and nominate or invocate Angels or corners and make meetings and thus Angeli are become Anguli Angels are become Angles or Corners as if truth did seeke Corners when so faire an Evidence is brought against Invocation of Angels St. Basil the great Archbishop of Caesarea was forged by Pope Adrian the first at the second Councell of Nice for the worship of Images his words are these c Pro quo siguras ImaginuÌ„ eorum honoro adoro veneror specialitèr hoc enim traditum est à Sanctis Apostolis necest prohibendum acideò in omâ—ibus Ecclesiis nostris eorum designamus Historias Citat ab Adriano in Synod Nic. 2. Act. 2. p. Mihi 504. For which cause I honor and openly adore the figures of the Images speaking of the Apostles Prophets and Martyrs and this being delivered us by the Apostles is not prohibited but in all Churches we set forth their Histories This Authority was cited by Pope Adrian in the name of Basil the Great in his Epistles when as in all his Epistles of which are extant 180. there are no such words to be found St. Hierome is likewise forged for the same doctrine and by the same Pope the words in the Epistle are these Sicut permisit Deus ador are omnem gentem manufacta c. Citatur ibid. Ep. Adr. p. Mihi 506. As God gave leave to the Gentiles to worship things made with hands and to the Jewes to worship the carved workes and two golden Cherubins which Moses made so hath he given to us Christians the crosse and permitted us to paint and reverence the Images of Gods workes and so to procure him to like of our labour These words you fee are cited by your owne Pope at a generall Councell as you pretend for a point of your Romish faith and yet there are no such words nor the meaning of of them to be found in either of those Fathers and without doubt there was great scarcity of true ancient Fathers to bee found at that time to prove your adoration of Images when your Pope was driven to shifts and forgeries especially when your owne Polydore tells you Polyd. de ReruÌ„ Invent. that the worship of Images not onely Basil but almost all the ancient holy Fathers condemned for feare of Idolatrie as S. Hierome himselfe witnesseth This puts me in mind of Erasmus complaint that the same measure was afforded to Basil Eras in Praefat. lib. de Spirit Sanct. Bas which hee had otherwise observed in Athanasius Chrysostome Hierome that in the middle of Treatises many things were stuffed and forced in by others in the name of the Fathers St. Ambrose Bishop of Millaine is falsified and corrupted Franciscus Junius as an eye witnesse Junius Praefat. in Ind. Expurg Belg. tells us that at Leyden in the yeare 1559. being familiarly acquainted with Ludovicus Saurius Corrector of the Printing house and going to visit him hee found him revising of St. Ambrose workes which then Frelonius was printing after some conference had betwixt them Ludovicus shewed him some printed leaves partly cancelled and partly razed saying this is the first Impression which wee printed most faithfully according to the best Copies but two Franciscan Fryers by command have blotted out those passages and caused this alteration to my great losse and astonishment It may be the discoverie of it by Junius might stay their further printing of it or else might be an occasion to call it in after the printing for otherwise if that Impression may be had it were worthy the examination Bolseus dicit se in manibus Secretarii hâ—c testimonium vidisse inspexisse In disp de Antichristo in Apend Nu. 49. 53. Laurent Rever Rom. Eccl. p. 190. Non habent Petri haereditatem qui Petri sedem non habent Grat de Paenit Dist 1. c. Potest fieri But for a proofe of this falsified Ambrose Lessius the Jesuit tells us that Bolseck doth confesse he saw the Copie in the hands of a Secretary howsoever their later Editions are sufficient proofe of your manifold falsifications But I will speak of Impressions onely that have been within my view First to prove your succession in doctrine in your owne Church Gratian tells us from St. Ambrose They have not the succession of Peter who have not the Chayre of Peter and thus he hath changed Fidem into Sedem Faith into Chaire This forgery in time may creepe into the Body of Ambrose but as yet the words of Ambrose are agreeable to our doctrine that is a Non habent Petri haereditatem qui Petri fidem non habent Ambr. de Paenit c. 6. Tom. 1. p. 156. Basil apud Joh. Frob. An. 1527. Ambr. de Sacr. l. 4. c. 5. Tom. 4. p. 393. Basilâ—ut supra they have not the succession of Peter which want the faith of Peter These be the words of true and ancient Ambrose hereby declaring unto us and them that they may have the See of Peter and yet want the faith of Peter Againe in his Booke of the Sacrament St. Ambrose saith b Fac nobis haÌ„c oblationem ascriptam c. quod fit in figuram corports sanguinis Jesu Christi Amb. Colon. Agripp An. 1616 Tom. 4. p. 173. Make this Oblation to be a reasonable acceptable one quod est
present Binius ibid. in his Annot. on the other side Peter Lombard and Gratian Pet. Lomb. l. 4. Sent. Dist 6. Grat. Can. Mulier de Consecr Dist 4. they have put in their exception nisi necessitate cogente except it be in case of necessitie so that in the absence of the Priest and in case of necessitie women may baptize by the authority of your Church notwithstanding the Councels decree And this is according to Bellarmines confession Although saith he those words of exception nisi necessitate cogente be not found in the Tomes of Councels Bell. de Baptis l. 1. c. 7. yet Peter Lombard and Gratian cite the Canon in that manner And thus by your owne Cardinals profession your Priests have added that exception to the Canon to dispense with women for Administration of the Sacrament which is not found in the Councell Againe the same Councell is razed both by the compiler of the decrees and publisher of the Councels for the Councell saith in the 44. Canon a Clericus nec comam nutriat nec barbam radat Concil Carth. Can 44. Let no Clerke weare long hayre nor shave his Beard The decretals and your late Councels published by Binius have left out the word Radat and have quite altered the sense of the decree and so your Church hath gone directly against the meaning of the Councell in shaving of Priests S. Austin Bishop of Hippo is both purged and falsified in favor of your doctrine First for the purging of him your own men make this declaration b Augustinus nuper Venetiis excusus in quo praeter multorum locorum restitutionem secundum collationem veterum exemplarium curavimus removeri illa omnia quae fideliū mentes haeretic â pravitate possent inficere aut a Catholica orthodoxa fide deviare Praefat Ind. lib. prohibit ad Lectorē Genevae impress an 1629. St. Austin was lately printed at Venice in which Edition as we have restored many places accerding to the ancient Copies so likewise we have taken care to remove all those things which might either infect the mindes of the faithfull with Heresies or cause them to wander from the Catholike faith This publike profession your men have made and accordingly the c In hunc modū est repurgatus ut in libri inscripsione testātur qui editioni praefuerunt Ibid. p. 6. Booke was purged as those who were present at that Edition doe witnesse in the Inscription of the Booke but let us returne to the corrupted Editions in our view St. d De Civitate Dci lib. 22. c. 24. Austin in his 22. booke of the Citie of God and 24. Chapter is cyted by e Bell. de Purg. l. 1. c. 4. Bellarmine for the proofe of Purgatory yet in that Chapter saith f Lud. Vives in lib de Civit. Dei c. 8. Vives in the ancient Manuscript Copies which are at Bruges and Colein those ten or twelve printed lines are not to be found And in the 22. booke and 8. Chapter he tells us there are many additions in that Chapter without question foysted in by such as make practise of depraving Authors of great Authority Touching forgeries and falsifications in particular The humane nature of Christ is destroyed if there be not given it after the manner of other bodies a certaine space wherein it may be contained In your Edition of Paris printed by Sebastian Nivelle An. 1571. this passage is wholly left out This is observed by Dr. Moulin but the Authour so printed I have not seene But when neither adding nor detracting could make good your Transubstantiation Fryer Walden thought it the surest way to forge a whole passage in the name of St. Austin which indeed strongly proves the very name and nature of it The words are these Wald. Tom. 2. de Sacram. c. 83. p. mihi 141. No man ought to doubt when Bread and Wine are consecrated into the substance of Christ so as the sabstance of bread and wine doe not remaine whereas we see many things in the workes of God no lesse marvellous A woman God changeth substantially into a stone as Lots wife and in the small workemanship of man hay and ferne into glasse Neither must we beleeve that the substance of bread and wine remaineth but the bread is turned into the Body of Christ and the wine into his bloud the qualities or accidents of bread and wine onely remaining This fo gery was judicially allowed by Pope Martin the fist and his Cardinals in their Consistorie and yet it savours rather of a Glasse-maker than an ancient Father but what answer maketh Walden to this invention * Egoenimreperi trāscripsi de vetustissimo exemplari scripto antiquā valdè manu formatâ Idem Ibid. I found it faith he and transcribed it out of a very ancient Copie written with a set hand Thus one while you adde another while you detract another while you falsifie the ancient Fathers if either they make for us or against you and yet you tell us that we are guiltie of corrupting the Fathers But above all Gratian hath most shamefully and lewdly falsified St. Austin whom he hath made to say Inter Canonicas Scriptur as decretales Epistolae connumerantur Dist 29. In Canonicis fol. 19. A. The decretall Epistles of the Popes are accounted in the number of Canonicall Scriptures The truth is St. Austin in his booke of Christian doctrine informes a Christian what Scripture hee should hold for Canonicall and thereupon bids him follow the greater part of the Catholike Church Amongst which those Churches are which had the happinesse to injoy the seates of the Apostles and to receive Epistles from them Gratian in the Canon Law altereth the words thus Amongst which Canonicall Scriptures those Epistles are which the Apostolicke See of Rome hath and which others have deserved to receive from her and accordingly the title of the Canon is Imer Canonicas Scripturas c. The decretall Epistles of Popes are counted by St. Austin for Canonicall Scriptures Now judge you what greater forgerie nay what greater blasphemie can be devised or uttered against Christ and his Spirit than that the Popes Epistles should bee termed canonicall Scriptures and held of equall authority with the Word of God especially since by your owne men they are censured as Apocryphall and counterfeit Epistles Your owne Bellarmine as a man ashamed of such grosse forgeries would seeme to excuse it Bell. de Concil Author l. 2. c. 12. Primo That Gratian was deceived by a corrupt copie of St. Austin which he had besides him and that the true and corrected copies have not the words as himselfe reporteth Thus Walden excuseth his forgerie by an ancient Manuscript the Cardinall by a corrupt copie and yet by your Cardinals leave this and many other such like forgeries stand printed in the Canon Law no Index Expurgatorius layes hold on them Idem de script Eccles An.
advers Valent. c. 3. and in thrusting himselfe into dark and blinde holes Such is the nature of false teachers they seeke nothing more saith the same Author than to hide that which they preach Idem c. 1. if yet they may be said to preach that they hide But good Physicians say you use to enquire of the causes effects and circumstances Pag. 73. for upon these circumstances dependeth the knowledge whether it be a disease or no. It is most true that Physicians will enquire of the causes of the disease but will they deny the Patient to be sicke or refuse to minister Physicke to him unlesse he tell them precisely how or when he first tooke his disease or infection For this is our case and the point in question touching a reformation Neither doth the knowledge of the disease of the body depend upon the circumstances of time place and person I thinke you never read such Aphorismes either in Gallen or Hyppocrates neither doth your knowledge of errors and heresie in your Church depend on the circumstances of time place and persons For some Authors at the same time and in the same place might have broached truth when another set his heresie abroach as namely Saint Austin precisely in the time and place delivered the Orthodox Doctrine of grace when and where Pelagius spread his heresie From your Rules of Physicke you returne to the Rules of Divinity and tell us from Saint Austin that * Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi authoritate Apostolicâ traditū rectissimè creditur De Baptis contr Donat. l. 5. c 24. in initio Tom. 7. p. mihi 433. whatsoever the Catholike Church doth generally beleeve or practise so as there can be no time assigned when it began it is to be taken for an Apostolicall tradition This place of Austin you neither quoted in your Answer neither have you recited his words faithfully for hee speakes not of assigning the time when the Doctrine begins but whatsoever the universall Church doth hold not being ordained by Councels but hath beene ever held that is most rightly beleeved for an Apostolicall tradition This is his Tenet and this is ours but you have put in the word Catholike in your sense for universall you have added generall beleefe and practise you have thrust in these words so as no time can be assigned when it began and you have omitted the principall verb that hath been ever held which makes me suspect you omitted the citing of this place lest your fraud should be descried But I pardon you let us heare the rest P. 73. But such say you are all those things which you are pleased to call errors If this were as easily proved as spoken you should not neede to put us to the search of times and Authors for the first Founder of your Faith For if your Popish Doctrines were alwayes held by the universall Church and not ordained by Councels we should not need to looke into your Councell of Lateran for your Doctrine of Transubstantiation nor into your Councell of Constance for Communion in both kindes nor into your Councell of Florence for your seven Sacraments nor into your second Councell of Nice for your worship of Images for these and many such traditions were first ordained by Councels and were not the generall beliefe and practice of the Church Againe if the universall Church had alwayes held your Doctrines from the Apostles times why doe you your selfe confesse that your prayer in an unknowne tongue Pag. praecedenti your private Masse your halfe Communion were taught otherwise in the primitive Churches Nay if they be Apostolicall how comes it that they are flat contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles And thus much of your two rules of Physicke and Divinity let us he are the rest of your authorities Tertullian say you hath this Rule for discerning heresie from truth Tertul. praescrip 31. p. mihi 78. That which goeth before is truth and that which commeth after is errour This Rule is most true but these words you cite by the halves for hee saith expresly Id autem extraneum falsum quod sit posterius immissum Id Dominicum verum quod sit prius traditum That was first delivered which was true and came from the God of truth and this was the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles for that which commeth after saith he is sarre different where hee shewes likewise in these words following that after Christs time and in the dayes of the Apostles there might be heresies Ut aliquem ex Apostolicis viris qui tamen cum illis persever averint habent authorem Ibid. for the mystery of iniquitie began then to worke and therefore hee will not have it enough to derive a Doctrine from a man which lived with the Apostles unlesse it can be proved that he continued with them and the reason as I conceive was given by Nicephorus After the sacred company of the Apostles was come to an end Niceph. l. 3. c. 16. and that their generation was wholly spent which had heard with their eares the heavenly wisdome of the Sonne of God then that conspiracie of detestable errour through the deceipt of such as delivered strange Doctrine tooke rooting and because that none of the Apostles survived they published boldly with all might possible the doctrine of falshood and impugned the manifest and knowne truth But wee plead say you prescription from the beginning It is not sufficient to plead it you must prove it The Mahometists at this day assume the name of Saracens as your men doe the name of Catholikes as if they came from Sara the free woman Abrahams true and lawfull wife when in truth they tooke their first beginning from Agar the bond-woman neither can there be any prescription against the ancient Records and Evidences of the Word written by Christ and his Apostles Indeed you have found a right and easie way to claime a prescription from the time of the Apostles for you have razed many prime Evidences of the Fathers for the first 800. yeeres which make for our Doctrine and you have proscribed many learned Authors and their Records as I have shewed before for the last 800. yeeres which testified against your errors And now I come to your Churches apostacie or falling from the truth which occasioned these errors Apostacie say you is a defection or forsaking of the Name of Christ and profession of Christianity as all men understand it I shewed in this Section that in the primitive Church when any heresie did arise that indangered the foundation such as was the heresie of the Arrians of the Pelagians and the like the Authors were observed the times were knowne the place was pointed at and forthwith letters of Premonition were sent to all the sound members of the Catholike Church by which publike advertisement the steale-truth
Cor. 14. chapter through the whole out of which wee thus argue if it be better in the Church to speake five words with understanding that by our voyce wee may teach others then a thousand words in an unknowne tongue then certainly the publike Service of the Church ought to be in a knowne tongue but it is better in the Church to speake five words with understanding to instruct others thereby then a thousand words in an unknowne tongue v. 19. Therefore the publike Service of the Church ought to bee in a knowne tongue If all things ought to be done in the Church to edification then ought the publike Service to bee in a knowne tongue for hee that speaketh in an unknowne tongue edifieth not v. 5. but in the Church all things ought to bee done to edification v. 26. Ergo the publike Service ought to bee in a knowne tongue If in the prayers of the Church the people are to joyne with the Priest and testifie their consent with him by saying Amen to his prayers and giving of thankes then ought the publike Service to be in a knowne tongue But in the prayers of the Church the people ought to joyne with the Priest and testifie their consent by saying Amen to his prayers and giving of thankes Ergo the publike Service ought to bee in a knowne tongue If in the Church prayers wee ought to pray and sing with understanding then ought Church service to bee in a knowne tongue for if wee pray in an unknowne tongue our spirit prayeth but our understanding is unfruitfull v. 14. But in the prayers of the Church wee ought to pray and sing with understanding v. 15. Ergo the publike Service ought to bee in a knowne tongue Neither can the Iesuit shift off these passages with a wish saying that S. Paul indeed adviseth and wisheth that when any prayer is made in an unknowne tongue there should bee some to interpret but that hee requireth no such thing to bee observed as a divine precept for v. 37. hee addeth if any man thinke himselfe a prophet or spirituall let him know that the things which I write unto you are the commandements of God To conclude when S. Iames commandeth that whosoever prayeth Iames 1.6 aske in faith nothing doubting but that hee shall receive what he asketh hee necessarily implieth that wee ought to pray to God in a knowne tongue For how can hee beleeve that hee shall receive what he prayeth for if he knoweth not what himselfe saith in his prayers or what an other prayeth for him to whose prayers hee saith Amen To the Iesuits second quaere where prayer in an unknowne knowne tongue is forbidden I answer Esay 29.13 and Marke the 7.10 Well Esay prophesied of you hypocrites this people honoureth mee with their lips but their heart is farre from mee and 1 Cor. 14. where the Apostle professedly disputeth against speaking in the Church in an unknowne tongue But the Iesuit excepteth that S. Paul in that chapter condemneth not simply prayers in an unknowne tongue though hee preferreth prophecie By which his ignorant exception it should seeme that hee read that chapter in an unknowne tongue for hee speaketh so wide from the matter as if hee understood never a word in it It is true that the Apostle in that chapter comparing the gift of tongues and prophecie together condemneth neither of them but preferreth the gift of prophecie and in prosecution of the comparison falleth upon those who used the gift of tongues in publike prayers in the Church and hee expresly condemneth that practise of them because they that prayed in such sort uttering words that were not understood spake not to men because no man understood them v. 2. spake into the ayre v. 5. edified not by those prayers v. 12.17 because others could not joyne with them in their prayers nor say Amen to their thankes v. 15. Now if the Apostle reproved the use of the miraculous gift of tongues which redounded so much to the honour of God in the Church without an interpreter v. 28. saying if there bee no interpreter let them keepe silence in the Church How much more may wee conceive would he have sorbidden the use of an unknowne tongue acquired by humane industrie To his third quaere what authoritie we can bring for our selves or example I answer that the Knight hath brought the authoritie and example of the catholique Christian Church for 700. yeares at the least and because he calleth upō us to name any Father who teacheth as we do that the service of the Church ought to bee in a knowne tongue Exposit in psal 18. vult ut quod conamus intelligamus ac humana ratione non quasi avium voce canamus nam psittaci corvi picae hujusmodi volucres saepè abhominibus docentur sonate quod nesciunt sciunter autem cantare naturae hominis divina bonitate concessum est I name S. Chrysostome who in his Commentarie upon the 14. chapter of the first to the Corinthians saith that the Apostle teacheth that we ought to speak with our tongues and withall to minde what is spoken that wee may understand it and S. Austine willeth that wee understand what wee sing like men indued with reason and not chatter like birds for ousels parrats crowes pies and such other birds are often taught by men to sound out that which they know not but to know what they sing or sing with knowledge and understanding is by Gods will peculiarly given unto man I name also Iustine Martyre and S. Basil and many other ancient Doctours whose testimonies are plentifully alledged by Bishop Iewell Article the third and Bilson of Supremacie part the fourth and not yet answered by any Papist to my knowledge To the thirteenth The observation of Cardinall Bellarmine concerning the different custome of the ancient Church and the present Roman maketh rather against the Iesuits then for them For who will not attribute more to the uniforme practise of the primitive Church then to the heteroclyte practise of later Churches assuredly the practise of the primitive Church wherein the people answered the Priests and not the Clarke only is most agreeable to the doctrine of S. Paul and consonant to reason For publike prayers were instituted especially for three ends first for the most solemne worship of God when thousands of hands are at once lifted up to him and as many tongues confesse his name secondly for the stirring up of greater devotion when many hundreds praying and blessing and singing together like so many coales on the same hearth kindle one the other and increase the flame Thirdly for more prevalencie with God when we offer violence as it were to heaven and send up our united devotions like a vollie of shotte to batter the walls of it They who pray in a tongue which the people understand not and therefore cannot joyne with them in their prayer faile of all these ends Yet to sodder
atque depictum habens imaginem quasi Christi vel sancti alicujus non enim satis memini cujus imago fuerit cum ergo hoc vidissem in ecclesiâ Christi contra authoritatem scripturaruÌ„ hominis pendere imaginem scidi illud magis dedi consilium custodibus ejusdem loci ut pauperem mortunm eo obvolverent atque efferrent Ierome in Ezek l. 4. c. 16. nos unam habemus vivam unam veneramur imaginem quae est imago invisibilis omnipotentis Dei. Amphiloc citat à pat concil Constantinop An. 754 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aug. de mor. Eccl. c. 34 novi multos esse sepulchroruÌ„ picturarum adoratores c. Ep. 109. ad Ian. in primo praecepto prohibetur coli aliqua in figmentis hominum Deisimilitudo non quia non habet imaginem Deus sed quia nulla imago ejus coli debet nisi illa quae hoc est quod ipse L. de fid symb tale simulacrum Deo nefas est Christiano in templo collocare but you must understand that that was joyned to the glory of his God-head in so much that his Apostles could not behold the glory of his flesh in the mount much more glorious is it now having put off mortalitie who is therefore able with dead and livelesse colours and a shadowed picture to expresse those bright and shining beames of so great glorie Epiphanius as zealous as either for entring into a Church at Anablathra and finding there a vaile hanging at the doore died and painted and having the image as it were of Christ or some Saint seeing this that contrary to the authoritie of Scriptures the image of a man was hung upin the Church of Christ he cut it and the vaile and gave counsell to the Keepers of the place to wrap and burie some poore dead man in it and he intreated the Bishop of Ierusalem to give charge hereafter that such vailes as that was being repugnant to Christian religion should not bee hanged up in the Church of Christ S. Ierome in his Comment upon the sixteenth of Ezekiel teacheth that Christians never acknowledge nor worship any image of the invisible and omnipotent God save one to wit his Sonne In the fift age Amphilochius Bishop of Iconium instructeth us what account the Church made of images in these words Wee have no care to figure by colours the bodily visages of Saints in tables because wee have no need of suchthings But by vertue to imitate their conversation and S. Austine treating of the catholique Church professeth that hee knew many worshippers of graves and pictures and withall addeth the Church censure of them but the Church saith hee condemneth them and seeketh every way to correct them as ungracious children and in his 109. Epistle to Ianuarius C. 11. hee writeth that in the first Commandement any similitude of God devised by man is forbidden to bee worshipped not because God hath not an image but because no image of him ought to bee worshipped but that which is the same thing that hee is as for drawing him after the similitude of a man hee utterly disliketh it saying it is unlawfull for a Christian to erect any such image and place it in the Church for as else-where hee argueth images prevaile more to bow downe the unhappy soule in that they have a mouth eyes eares Psal 113. Conc. 2. plus enim valent simulacra ad curvandam infaelicem animam quòd os babent oculos habent aures habent nares habent manus habent pedes habent quam ad corrigenâ—am quòd non loquantur non videant c. God li. 8. tit 12. prohibemus basilicam alicujus imagine obscurari Greg. Regis l. 7 ep 109. ad Seren praetereà judico dudum ad nos pervenisse quòd fraternit as vestra quosdam imaginum adoratores aspiciens easdem ecclefiae imagines confregit atque projecit quidem zelum vos ne quid manufactum adorari possit habuisse laudavimus sed frangere easdem imagines non debuisse judicamus idcirco enim pictura in ecclesia adhibetur ut ' hi qui liter as nesâ—iunt saltem in parietibus videndo legant quae legere in codicibus non valent Vid. Concil Nic. 2. Act. 6. Zonoras hist Tom. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nostrills hands and feet then to correct it in that they neither heare nor see nor smell nor handle nor walke In the sixt age The Emperour Iustinian setteth downe a law made by Theodosius and Valentinian which forbiddeth Churches to bee obscured with any images or painted tables In the seventh age When Images began to be set up in the Churches Serenus Bishop of Marsilis brake them downe which fact of his though Gregorie disliked because he thought that images might profitably be retained as lay-mens books yet in this hee commended his zeale that hee would by no meanes suffer them to bee worshipped In the seventh age There was a Councell held at Constantinople Anno 754. whereinlt was decreed by 338. Bishops in this manner Wee doe declare that all images of what nature soever made by the wicked art of the Painter be cast out of Christian Churches whosoever from this day forward shall dare to set up any images of God either in the Church or in a private house if hee be a Bishop let him bee deposed if he be a lay-man let him bee accursed Zonoras saith that in the hearing of all the people they openly forbad the worshipping of Images H. de orthodox fid l. 4. c. 17. orat de imag calling such as adored them idolater And in the yeare 794. Charles the great called a Councell of 300. Bishops of France Italie and Germany in which the second Synod of Nice which decreed the erecting and worshipping of images is refuted and condemned yea and some of the patrones of images as namely Durand and Gregorie the second professedly inveigh against all Images and Pictures made to represent the Deity or Trinitie it is unpossible saith Damascene that God who can neither bee seene by man nor circumscribed should be expressed in any shape or figure nay saith hee it is extreame madnesse and impietie to make a representation of the Godhead Ep. Greg. ad Leo. Imper. de imag in and Gregorie the second giveth this reason to Leo the Emperour why they painted not God the Father Quoniam quis sit non novimus because wee know not who hee is and the nature of God cannot be painted and set forth to mans sight In the eighth age Rhem. cont Hinc Laud. c. 20. Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes tells us that not long before his time a generall Synod was called in Germanie by Charles the great and therein by the rule of Scriptures and Fathers the Councell of Nice indeed saith he a wicked Councell touching images which some would have to bee broken in pieces and some to bee worshipped was utterly rejected In this age in the yeare
to be grandement suspicious of new coynage and if for no other cause yet for this alone they give a just occasion and jealousie when such poore shifts and evasions are devised by your Pope and his adherent to make them good for it is a true saying of a renowned Bishop and it is the faith of all reformed Catholiques B. Morton Grand Impost cap. 2. sect 2. He can onely make an article of faith who can create a soule and after make a Gospel to save that soule and then give unto that soule the gift of faith to beleeve that Gospel I proceed to your doctrine That is onely to bee called a new faith say you which is cleane of another kind that is differing or disagreeing from that was taught before Thus you I will not take advantage of your first Assertion that your faith is grounded upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles which you can never prove but wil joyne issue with you upon your last Assumpsit That is only to be called a new faith which is cleane of another kind and is different disagreeing from what was taught before but such are many of the Articles of Pope Pius the fourth extracted from the Councell of Trent as shall appeare by proofes at large in their proper places In the meane time let me tell you your Church teacheth not onely Novê but Nova not onely Praeter but Contra even besides and contrarie to that which she first received from the ancient Church so that howsoever you seeke to darken truth by faire and specious pretences yet in truth your Trent Additions are forraine to the faith as neither principles nor conclusions of it And that you may know and acknowledge with us that your Trent faith is differing and disagreeing from what was taught before I pray call to mind your owne confessions touching these particular Articles of your Roman Church Your doctrine touching Lay-peoples communicating under one kind namely in bread onely is an Article of the Roman faith and now generally taught and practised in the Roman Church but this practice by your owne confession is different and disagreeing from what was taught before for you say pag. 253. touching the Authors which you bring for proofe That it was the common practice of the Church for the Laytie to communicate in both kinds I allow of their authoritie Your Prayer and Service in an unknown tongue as it is now used in the Roman Church by your owne confession is different and disagreeing from what was taught before for say you pag. 270. It is true that Prayer and Service in the vulgar tongue was used in the first and best ages according to the precept of the Apostles and practice of the Fathers In the beginning it was so Your doctrine of Transubstantiation which at this day is generally received de substantia fidei for an Article of Faith yet by your owne confession is different and disagreeing from what was taught before for say you pag. 167. Transubstantiation might well be said not to have beene de substantia fidei in the Primitive Church as Yribarne speaketh because it had not beene so plainly delivered nor determined in any Councell till Gregorie the seventh his time and this was above a thousand yeares after Christ Your private or solitarie Masse wherein the Priests doe daily communicate without the people is by your own confession different and disagreeing from what was taught before and practised for say you pag. 191. They say speaking of divers Authors it was the practice of the Primitive Church to communicate everie day with the Priest I grant it These points of controversie which are so eagerly pursued by your men against the members of our Church the strength and force of truth hath extorted from you and therefore I may truly conclude Exore tuo from your owne confession that your Trent faith is new because it is different and disagreeing from what was taught before You that have taken an oath to maintaine the Papacie and are so ready to teach others you I say have either violated your oath or at leastwise have forgot your old lesson Oportet esse memorem c. for verily it behoves him that speakes lyes and contradictions to have a good memorie But it seemes you did conceive the Reader might easily passe by many such contradictions being in severall passages and farre distant pages For otherwise it would seeme strange that you which so bitterly inveigh against our reformed religion should confesse the antiquitie of our Articles and the noveltie of your owne with flat contradictions to your owne Assertions I will say to you therefore as sometimes St. Hierome spake in his Epistle to Pamachius and Oceanus Hieronym ad Pamach Oceanum Tom. 2. Thou who art a maintainer of new doctrine whatsoever thou he I pray thee spare the Romane eares spare the faith that is commanded by the Apostles mouth why goest thou about now after foure hundred yeares I may say foureteen hundred yeares to teach us that faith which we before never knew why bringest thou forth that thing that Peter and Paul never uttered Evermore untill this day the Christiam world hath beene without this doctrine To pursue the rest of your Allegations The Church of England say you admitteth of divers Books of the New Testament for Canonicall whereof there was doubt of three or foure hundred yeares to gether in the Church of God as the Epistle to the Hebrewes the second Epistle of St. Peter the Epistle of St. Jude the Apocalyps of St. John and some others which were after admitted for Canonicall 〈◊〉 I would know of him whether upon the admittance of them there were any change of faith in the Church or whether ever those books have received any change in themselves Thus you It seemes you begin to feare that your Trent faith would be discovered to be different and disagreeing from what was taught before and thereupon you would seemingly illustrate the antiquitie of your new Articles by the authoritie of the ancient Books of Canonicall Scripture But I pray where doe you find that the Books of the New Testament as namely the Epistle to the Hebrewes the Epistle of St. Peter and St. Jude and the Apocalyps were not received for three or foure hundred yeares for Canonicall It is true there was some doubt who were the right Authors of those Books but their divine authoritie was ever generally approved by all Christian Churches and allowed for Canonicall The Epistle to the Hebrewes was therefore doubted of by some because the difference diversity of the stile made them think it not to be St. Pauls and by others because the Author of it seemed to them to favour the error of the Novatian heretikes in denying the reconciliation of such as fall after Baptisme The second Epistle of St. Peter which you speake of some doubted of because of the diversitie of the style The Epistle of St. Jude was doubted
lust and riot of his wordly state which he hath lifted up above Kings and Emperours Lastly he complaines that the Study of Divinity is made a mocking stocke and that which was most monstrous for the Popes themselves they preferred their owne traditions before the Commandements of God These bee the pretended errors Mr. Floyd which causeth your Index expurgatorius to spare no Author for his age and yet you tell us such corner-correcting you leave for such corner-companions as shunne the light p. 144. Aeneas Sylvius who was afterwards Pope Pius the second is forbidden by your Index and the reason is given for it Aeneas wrote in behalfe of the Councell of Basil when he was a young man saith a Bell. de script Eccles de Aenea Sylvio p. 289. An. 1450. Bellarmine but when he was an old man and Pope he retracted it and so his Bookes are deservedly forbidden But what say you then to his Retractations are you pleased with them No b Cautè legenda opera Aeneae Sylvii ipse enim in Bulla Retractationis nonnulla quae scripserat daÌ„navit c. Ind. lib. prohib Class 2. a. p. 3. you must yet warily read the Workes of Aeneas Sylvius for in his Bull of Retractations hee hath condemned something himselfe which he had written and therefore when a new Edition shall come out let that Bull also be purged in the beginning of his Workes It seemes then neither that which hee wrote as a private man in his younger dayes nor that which he retracted as Pope in his latter dayes are well pleasing to your Church Let us therefore compare the difference of his Doctrine with the difference of his degrees and then you shall observe whether according to the ancient saying Honours have changed manners Aeneas Sylvius as a private man protested that c Antè NicenaÌ„ Synodum unusquisque sibi vixit parvus respectus ad EcclesiaÌ„ Romanam habebatur Aene. Sylv. in Epist 288. before the Councell of Nice each Bishop lived severally to himselfe and little regard was there then had to the Church of Rome Pope Pius the second being the same man but onely that hee was now become a Pope doth exhort and d Suadete omnibus ut id solium prae caeteris venerentur in quo salvator Dominus suos vicarios collocavit c. Bulla Retract Pii 2. Tom. Concil 4. post Concil Floren. p. 739. perswade all that they would reverence the See of Rome or that Throne of Majesty above all Aeneas Sylvius saith They thinke themselves well armed with authority that say no Councell may be kept without the consent of the Pope Ex hisce authoritatibus mirum in modum se putant armatos qui CoÌ„cilia nâ—gant fieri posse sine consensu Papae QuoruÌ„ sententia si ut ipst volunt inviolata persistat ruinaÌ„ secum Ecclesiae trahet Quid enim remedli erit si criminosus Papa perturbet Ecclesiam si animas perdat si pervertat malo exemplo populos si denique contraria fidei praedicet haereticisque dogmatibus inbuat subditos sinemusque cum ipso cuncta ruere At ego dum veteres lego historias dumastus perspicio Apostolorum hunc equidem morem non invenio ut soli Papae Concilia convocaverint nec post tempore Constantini magni alioruÌ„ AugustoruÌ„ adcongreganda Concilia quaesitus est magnopere Romani consensus Papae Idem de Concil Basil l. 1. Whose judgement if it should stand as they would have it would draw with it the decay and ruine of the Church For what remedy were there then if the Pope himselfe were vitious destroyed soules overthrew the people with evill example taught Doctrine contrary to the faith and filled his subjects full of Heresies should wee suffer all to goe to the Devill Verily when I read the old Stories and consider the acts of the Apostles I finde no such order in those dayes that onely the Pope should summon Councels And afterward the time of Constantine the Great and of other Emperours when Councels should be called there was no great accompt made of the Popes consent On the contrary Pope a Bulla Pii 2. Retractat p. mihi 739. Pius saith Order requireth that inferiours should be governed by their superiours and all should appertaine to one as the Prince and Governour of all things which are below him As Geese follow one for a leader and amongst the Bees there is but one King even so in the Church militant as also in the Church triumphant there is one Governour and Judge of all which is the Vicar of Christ Jesus from whence as from a head all power and authoritie is derived into the subordinate members Thus when he was young and had read the old Stories and considered the acts of the Apostles hee found no such Authority and respect given to the Pope but when he was Pope and old it seemes he forgat the Apostles and ancient Writers then hee attributes all power and reverence to the Pope of Rome Briefly Aeneas Sylvius saith a De Româ—nis Pontificibus liceret exempla admodum multa adferre si tempus sineret quoniam aut haeretici aut aliis imbuti vitiis sunt reperti Idem de Concil Basil lib. 1. Of the Popes of Rome wee might shew forth very many examples if time would permit that they have beene found either Hereticks or else defiled with other vices But Pope Pius saith speaking of these and the like assertions b Pudet erroris poenitet malè fecisse male dictoruÌ„ scriptorumque vehementer poenitet c. Bull. Retract ut supra I am ashamed of my error I earnestly repent both of my words and deeds and I say Lord remember not the faults and ignorance of my youth And thus being Pope saving all advantages to his See he hath condemned him selfe and his Writings as published by him when he was a private man and yet notwithstanding the Inquisitors professe hee hath retracted that as Pope which afterwards hee condemned and therefore by their doome hee must have a new purgation and from thenceforth Tum Pius Aeneas But tell mee I pray was hee Pius Aeneas when he complained that at Rome the c Nam ipsae manus impositiones Spiritus sancti dona venduntur Aene. Sylv. Ep. 66. imposition of hands and the gifts of the Holy Ghost were sold for money Was hee Pius Aeneas when he complained that the Court of d Quid est Romana curia his qui summam tenent nisi turpissimum pelagus ventis undique durissimis reÌ„pestatibus agitatuÌ„ Idem Ep. 188. Rome in the chief amongst them was but a most filthy Sea tossed on every side with winds and strong tempests Was hee Pius Aeneas when he protested with griefe that e Jacet spreta religio justitiae nullus honos fides penè incognita Ep. 398. religion was despised righteousnesse dishonoured faith in a manner unknowne Or was hee Pius
contradict Romish doctrines not out of disobedience to man but out of obedience to him who commandeth us to contend for the true faith and to reprove and convince all gainesayers What Papists intentions are we take not upon us to judge their doctrines we put to the test of Gods word and finde them false and adulterine and all be it some points of their beliefe considered in themselves might seeme indifferent yet as they hold them they are not because they are not of faith Rom. 14.23 and what soever is not of faith is sinne Now no point of the Romish Creed as they hold it is of that faith the Apostle speaketh of that is divine faith because they ground and finally resolve all their articles not upon Gods word but upon the authority of the Pope Resp ad Archiepis Spalaten c. 47. Firmitas fundamenti â—â— firma licet implicita in aureo hoc fundamento veritatis adhaesio valebit ut in Cypriano sic in nobis ad salutem faenum stipula imbecilitas caries in tecto contignatione explicitae erroris opinio non valebit nec in Cypriano nec in nobis ad perâ—â—tiem or Church of Rome which is but the authority of man whereas on the contrary as Doctor Crakent horpe demonstrateth If any Protestant build hay or stubble upon the true foundation he may he saved because be holdeth the true foundation which is that every doctrine of faith ought to be built upon Scripture If the Iesuit wonder at this conclusion let him weigh the Authors reasons and he will be forced to confesse that the errors if there be any in Protestants in regard they sticke close to the true foundation and implicitly deny them cannot in them be damnable whereas the very true doctrines of faith in Papists because they hold them upon a wrong ground and foundation very much derogatory to God and his truth are not so safe To the third With what face can the Iesuit avow this considering that Prieras before alleaged and other writers approved by the Church of Rome mainetaine this blasphemous assertion that the authority of the Church is greater then the anthority of Scripture and all Papists of note at this day hold that the Scripture is but an imperfect and partiall rule of faith all Protestants on the contrary teach that it is an entire and perfect rule of faith Papists believe the Scripture for the Churches sake Protestants the Church for the Scripture sake Papists resolve all points of faith generally into the Popes infalibility or Churches authority Protestants into the written word of God which as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth De verbo Dei non script l. 4. c. 11. containeth all things necessary for all men to beleeve and is a most certaine and safe rule of beleeveing Yea but saith the Iesuit out of Vincentius Lerinensis De verbo Dei l. 1. c. 2. he that will avoid the deceits and snares of Haeretikes and remaine soundin the faith must strengthen his faith two wayes to wit by the authority of the divine law and the tradition of the Catholike Church This advise of Vincentius is sound and good if it be rightly understood and not in the Iesuits sense Vincentius there by tradition of the Catholike Church understandeth not unwritten verities but the Catholike expositions of holy Scriptures extant in the writings of the Doctors of the Church in all ages and we grant that this Catholike exposition of the Doctors where it can be had is of great force to confirme faith and confound Heretikes Vt Scripturae ecclesiastice intelligentiae jungatur authoritas For the stopping of whose mouth that Father saith and we deny it not that there is great neede to add to the Scripture the Churches sense or interpretation albeit as he there addeth which cutteth the throat of the Iesuits cause The Canon of Scripture is perfect and sufficient of it selfe for all things nay rather as hee correcteth himselfe Over and above sufficient cum sit perfectus scripturae canon sibique adomnia satis superque sufficiat To the fourth Here the Iesuit would make his Reader study a little and his Adversarie to muse Vero nihil verius certo nihil certius but it is indeed whether hee be in his right wits or no. For first as Seneca well resolveth one thing cannot be said truer than another one truth in Divinitie may be more evident to us than another but in it selfe it cannot be truer or surer Secondly admitting there could be degrees of certainty at least quoad nos there can be yet no comparison in regard of such certaintie betweene an Article of the Creed assented unto by all Christians and a controverted conclusion maintained onely by a late faction in the Westerne Church But the sitting of Christ at the right hand of his Father is an Article of the Creed set downe in expresse words in holy Scripture Mark 16.19 Luke 24. consented unto by all Christians in the world whereas the carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament by Tranfubstantiation is no Article extant in any Creed save onely that of Pope Pius his coyning in the yeare of our Lord 1564. It is neither in words set downe in Scripture as the other Articles are neither can it be necssarily inforced or deduced by consequence as foure great Cardinals of the Roman Church confesse Cameracensis Cajetan Roffensis and Bellarmine Neither was this Doctrine of the Romane Church ever assented unto by the Greeke Church nor by the Latine anciently or generally as I shewed before Thirdly the Iesuit contradicteth himselfe within eight lines for having said in the eighteenth line Pag. 384. that Christ his corporall presence in the Sacrament was more sure than his presence in heaven at the right hand of his Father about seven lines after forgetting himselfe hee saith that Wee shall find as much to doe marke as much not more in expounding that Article of the Creed as they doe in expounding the words This is my Body Wherein it is well hee confesseth that Papists make much to doe in expounding the words This is my Body which is most true for by the demonstrative Hoc they understand they know not what Neither this Body nor this Bread but an Individum vagum something contained under the accidents of Bread which when the Priests saith Hoc it is Bread but when hee hath muttered out an Vm it is Christs Body Likewise by the Copula est is they understand they know not what either shall be as soone as the words are spoken or is converted unto or is by Transubstantiation Lastly by Body they understand such a body as indeed is no body without the extension of place without distinction of Organs without facultie of sense or motion and will hee make this figment so incredible so impossible as sure nay more sure than the Article of Christs ascension into heaven and his sitting at the right hand of his