to shew the visibilitie of the Church by persons in all ages Then you demand of me where the Church was which S. Paul called the house of God and pillar of truth and thus you prescribe mee my weapons and teach mee how to fight Touching the visibilitie of the Church it is not to be confined within the narrow compasse of an Epistle and therefore I will answer you and your Jesuites challenge at large in place convenient and as touching your demand where the Church was which is called the pillar of truth I answer in briefe not in Rome but in Ephesus for otherwise it might seeme incongruous that the Apostle should exhort Timothy to walke circumspectly in the Church of God because the Church of Rome was the pillar and firmament of truth And therefore the Turke may better alledge this place to prove Mah mets religion being now subject to his power than you to justifie the Romish religion because Ephesus was the pillar of truth You proceed and by way of prevention you tell me the controversie is not so much of the doctrine as of the persons and then you conclude simply in the very same page The question is not of the doctrine but of the persons Oportet esse memorem I will but let you see your contradiction I quarrell it not onely I pray you tell mee in the words of sobernesse and truth did ever any wise man except your selfe undertake to prove the true Church by the visibilitie of the persons May not Jewes and Heretiques by the same reason claime a true Church because they had visible persons in all ages But say you this hath beene the way which the holy Fathers have taken either in proving the Catholique faith or disproving of heresies and for your Assertion you cite Tertullian Irenaeus Cyprian Optatus and Augustine give me leave to examine your Authors for as yet you have produced but one ancient Father and him you have falsified in the Frontispice of your booke Touching your first Author Tertull. prescript c. 32. lib. 3. Car. advers Marcion Tertullian in the first place cited by you hee demonstrates two wayes how to discerne the Church first by shewing some Apostle or Apostolicall person to have founded it next by the conformity of the doctrine to the Apostles and in his third book against Marcion which is your second citation hee hath nothing at all for your purpose Touching your second Author Iren. l. 3. c. 1 2 3. l. 4. c. 43 45 46. Irenaeus hee is expressely against you for in the first chapter and third booke cited by you he saith By the will of God they have delivered the Gospel to bee the pillar and foundation of truth In the second hee saith that when Heretiques are convinced by the Scriptures they fall to accuse them as if they were not right or of authoritie and that they are ambiguous and doubtfull In the third hee proveth the truth of the Church by the conformitie of doctrine to the Apostles not by the visibilitie as you pretend In his fourth booke cited by you he shewes that bare succession is no note of the Church and in his 45. chapter which you quote there is nothing that maketh for your question And lastly in the 46. chapter he proveth that the New Testament is as severe against fornication as the Old or rather more and this may touch the free-hold of that Church which dispenseth with Stewes but of the point in question he speakes nothing at all Touching your third Author S. Cyprian Cypr. Ep. 52. 76. in the 52. Epistle cited by you he perswades Antonianus rather to adhere to Cornelius than Novatianus and in his 76. Epistle alledged by you hee shewes that Novatianus succeeding none in that See was ordained by himselfe and therefore could bee no true Bishop but as touching the controversie in question Ne gry quidem Touching your fourth Author Optatus Optat. advers Parmen lib. 2. he handleth not the question neither maketh any thing at all for you Lastly August Psal 2. part Don. Ep. 165. de Utilit credendi c. 7. touching S. Austin you cite the second Psalme and there is nothing handled of the question you cite likewise his 165. Epistle wherein hee declares a succession of Bishops from the Apostles time to Anastasius Si ordo Episcoporum succedentium considerandus est Ep. 165. p. 751. Preculdubio ab Ecclesiâ Catholicâ sumendum exordium De Utilit credendi c. 7. Idem contr Cresc l. 1. c. 33. If saith he an orderly succession of Bishops is to be considered Yea but S. Austin say you particularly proves the question where he tels his friend Honoratus he must begin his enquirie from the Catholique Church Hee that told the Manichees wee must take our Exordium from the Church told the Donatists likewise wee must resort to that Church for the resolution of our faith which the sacred Scriptures undoubtedly demonstrate to be the true Church for in them saith he we have knowne Christ Idem Ep. 166. in them wee have knowne the Church If you can derive your succession in person and doctrine from Christ and his Apostles we will answer you as sometimes S. Austin answered Petilian the Donatist Idem contr l. Petil. l. 2. c. 85. Whether of us be Schismatiques we or you aske you not mee I will not aske you let Christ bee asked that hee may shew us his owne Church After these severall passages you returne againe to your first Author Tertullian Tertull. prescript c. 19. and with him you conclude where it shall appeare that there is the truth of Christian discipline and faith there shall bee the truth of Scriptures and Expositions And from hence you inferre that we are first to seeke the persons that professe the faith that is the Church Whereas in truth his testimony doth rather prove the persons by the doctrine than the doctrine by the persons and this is most agreeable to his owne Assertion in the third chapter Idem c. 3. Ex personis probamus fidem an ex fide personas As if hee should say wee plainly prove the persons by the doctrine not the doctrine by the persons Now put on your Spectacles and take a review of your Authors The first maketh nothing for you the second is expressely against you the third speakes not to the point in question the fourth and fifth handle the question but not at all to your advantage or our prejudice and thus you have produced foureteene severall places out of the ancient Fathers in one page and all either impertinently or falsly or directly against your selfe by which the Reader may conjecture what is like to bee the issue of your whole worke who have so grossely falsified so many authorities in your Epistle and before the entrance into the body of your booke From your lame proofes of the Churches authoritie you proceed to the justification of your maimed commandements
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
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
elements is not reall and corporall but spirituall and sacramentall as that was in the Desert of which the Apostle speaketh the c 1 Cor. 10.4 spirituall rock followed them and that rock waes Christ When Manna fell and the rock was strucken Christ was not incarnate nor many hundred yeares after how then could the Manna or the water bee really and properly turned into his flesh and bloud Moreover howsoever hee eludeth the former words of Aelfrick There is a great difference betwixt the body wherein Christ suffered and the body which is received of the faithfull the body in which Christ suffered was borne of the flesh of Mary and consisted of bloud and bone but the other is gathered of many cornes without hloud and bone by saying that the difference which Aelfrick sheweth betweene Christ on the Crosse and Christ on the Sacrament is in his manner of being not in the being it selfe not denying him to bee really in both yet the later words which containe an inference upon the former therefore there is nothing to bee understood in the Sacrament bodily but spiritually admit of no colourable evasion for if nothing bee there understood bodily but spiritually then must needs the words This is my body be understood figuratively then must we not according to the doctrine of those times understand any substantiall change of the bread into Christs very body or the Wine into his bloud really and corporally To the third The difference betweene Papists of most eminent note concerning the words by vertue whereof they teach Transubstantiation is effected maketh much against the doctrine it selfe and by consequence quite overthroweth it For thus we argue against them out of this their difference If the bread bee turned into Christs body then either by the words of benediction before hee brake the bread or gave it c. or by the very words of Consecration viz. hoc est corpus meum But hee neither changed the bread into his Body by the one nor by the other Ergo hee changed it not at all Not by the precedent benediction as Aquinas and Bellarmine prove For till the last instant of the prolation of the words This is my Body the substance of bread remaineth Not by the words of Consecration for as Durand and Odo Cameracensis and Christopherus Archbishop of Caesarea prove Christ could not have said after hee had blessed the Bread This is my body unlesse by blessing it he had made it his body before If when Christ said Take yee and eat yea at that time the Bread by benediction were not changed it would follow that Christ did command his Disciples to take and eate the substance of Bread which to say is to deny the article of Transubstantiation Neither can the Iesuite heale this sore by his vertuall salve in saying that those men above alledged who impugne the prsent tenent of the Schooles concerning the words of Consecration in which the essence of the Sacrament consisteth vertually retracted such opinions because they submitted their writings to the censure of the Catholique Church for so wee may say with better reason that what they held against us they vertually retracted by submitting their judgement to the Catholique Church which we can easily prove not to bee the particular Roman but the Universall which in all times and all places through the Christian world hath professed the common faith once given to the Saints without any of those later Articles which P. Pius the fourth Jud. 13. and the late conventicle of Trent hath pinned unto it To the fourth Cajetan is truly alledged by the Knight for though neither the words Transubstantiation nor supposed are in him yet the sence of them is to be found in him for as both Suarez and Flood himselfe acknowledgeth p. 147. Cajetan said that these words This is my body doe not sufficiently prove the reall presence of our Saviours body without the presupposed authoritie of the Church and if in his judgement they prove not so much as the reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament much lesse prove they the presence thereof by Transubstantiation or turning the bread into it By the word supposed which the Knight addeth more fully to declare Cajetans meaning hee intended not suppositions or barely pretended authority of the Church but truly presupposed which maketh not the speech sound at all contemptibly of the Church as Flood would have it whose stomack is so bad that it turneth sweet and wholsome meate into choler Nectar cui fiet acetum vaticani perfida vappa cadi To the fifth The Knight transcribeth so much out of Biel as was pertinent to his purpose with the rest he thought not fit to trouble the reader In Can. Miss Lect. 40. notandum guod quamvis expressè tradatur in scriptur â quod corpus Christi veraciter sub speciebus panis continetur à fidelibus sumitur tamen quomodo sit ibi corpus Christi an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum an sine conversione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantiâ accidentibus panis in Canone bibliae non invenitur The whole passage in Biel standeth thus It is to bee noted that though it bee expressely delivered in Scripture that the body of Christ is truly contained under the forme or species of Bread and received by the faithfull yet it is not found in the canon of the Bible how the body of Christ is there whether by conversion of any thing into it or whether it beginneth to be there without conuersion or turning the substance and accidents of bread remaining The former words in which passage make nothing against the Knight Who in this chapter for the most part condemneth Papists out of their owne mouth and therefore taking Biel for such hee maketh use of his testimonie against the Roman Church in point of Transubstantiation Which is very direct and expresse and the Iesuites answer is very weake and unsufficient thereunto to wit that hee denieth only that Transubstantiation is found in Scripture in expresse words For first Biel saith not non invenitur expressum but non invenitur It is not found in Scripture whether Christs body be there by conversion of any thing into it Now many things are found in Scripture as the Trinity of persons the eternall generation of the Sonne the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne the number and nature of Sacraments which yet are not set downe in expresse words Secondly it is evident out of the former words of Biel that hee accounted those things expressely to be delivered in Scriptures which yet are not set downe in expresse words for hee saith that it is expresly delivered in Scriptures that the body of Christ is truly contained under the species of bread and yet those words are not found in Scripure If wee should admit then of Flood his glosse upon Biel Transubstantiation is not found in Scripture that is
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
there is no controversie betweene them and us concerning the immaculate conception of our Lady whereas both Chemnitius and Reynolds many other Protestant writers have overthrowne the ground of their feast of the immaculate conception of our Lady and all reformed Churches in generall have strucke that feast out of the Calender and the title of the 15. Article of religion of Christ alone without sinne sheweth to the world that we beleeve it to be the prerogative of our blessed Saviour among all the Sonnes of Adam that he alone was free from all originall and actuall sinne And now Master Flood sith you are taken in so many and fowle untruths in one Chapter I hope the Reader will not envie you that Guerdon which Aristotle bestowes upon a lewd and lowd Lyer not to be credited when he speaketh the truth Concerning Razing of Records and clipping Authors tongues Spectacles Chap. 13. a page 435. usque ad 446. BECAVSE there have beene many bookes published this last age by occasion of Haeresie and liberty which came therewith to the great prejudice of the Catholike faith there hath beene a course taken for the restraint of all such not onely writings of Haeretikes but even of Catholikes which have any tang of haeresie and this kinde of care hath beene ever used in the Catholike Church So wee see in Scripture it selfe some that followed curiosities becomming Christians confessed their deedes and burnt their bookes Gelasius in the yeare 490. maketh a Catalogue of haereticall bookes which he forbiddeth and I would know of the Knight or any man else that cryeth so bitterly against our Index Expurgatorius what he can say against it that he may not say against this Decree and Councell of Gelasius and against which we may not defend our selves by opposing it as a buckler against all their darts Sith all swarving from the rule of faith is a declining to haeresie it appertaineth to the Catholike Roman Church which as Gelasius saith hath neither spot nor wrinkle to prevent the danger that may come by such bookes forbidding the use of them It were a more dangerous and unnaturall part in the Church not to use this care then it were in a mother that should see sugar and rats-bane lie together and seeing her child going to taste thereof should forbeare to warne it I will not stand particularly to examine every Author and justifie the inquisition onely I cannot omit one Author called Bertram whom of all men living me thinkes the Knight should never so much as have named considering how much disgrace he hath sustained by translating that booke and ventring his owne credit and the credit of his Church upon the faith thereof Another thing I am to note concerning his quoting the Canon of the Councell of Laodicea wherein first is to be noted his error in Chronologie concerning the time of this Councell which he maketh to be in the yeare 368. forty three yeares after the first Councell at Nice whereas it was celebrated before that Councell Secondly his corruption in the translation and cutting off the Canon which is thus non oportet relictâ ecclesiâ ad angelos abominandae idolatriae congregationes facere quicunque autem inventus fuerit occulte huic idololatriae vacans anathema sit Now where in this Canon doth the Knight finde the word invocation of Angells which is the thing he pretendeth to be forbidden Whereas the Knight objecteth to us the recantation of Henry Buxhorne who was sometime appointed to put in execution the tyrannicall Decree of the inquisitors and had noted 600. severall passages to be spunged and blotted out which animadversions of his he wished he could have washed away with his teares and blood his heart being smitten and his eyes open by the mercy of God I answere if such matter will serve the Knights turne he may have enough neither neede I search corners to finde out such obscure fellowes as this Buxhorne he might bring the Fathers of the Knights religion for example Luther Calvine Zuinglius Beza Carolstadius and who not for though they might pretend severall causes yet there was one principall one which consisted indeede in the smiting of their hearts with a fiery dart of carnall love and when they found an Eve to give them an Apple then their eyes were opened and so it proved also with their friend Buxhorne as I shall shew by a briefe story of his life most authentically related by that grave and Holy man Oliverius of the society of Jesus Henry Buxhorne a licentiate of Divinity c. It was not the razing then of evidences that made Buxhorne fall from his faith but there were certaine Lutheran baites wherewith many of them were catched which were aurum gloria delitiae veneres gold glory delights and Venus of which some are catched with one and some with another The Hammer IN the former Section the Iesuit shewed himselfe a prevaricatour but in this a cowardly runnagate For to the mangling of authors and razing out of Records objected against him namely this marginall note out of Stephanus his Bible Deus prohibet sculptilia fieri This Glosse upon Gratian the Priest cannot say significatively of the bread This is my Body without telling a lie Cassanders observation upon the same words that setting aside the authoritie of the Church they prove not sufficiently Transubstantiation Cassanders whole Tract concerning the Communion in both kinds Vdalricus his Epistle touching the lawfulnesse of Priests marriage Anselmes Treatise concerning the visitation of the sicke together with divers passages in Cassander against merit in Polydor Virgil against Images in Langus against Transubstantiation in Ferus against the Popes supremacie The Iesuit answereth nothing at all in particular but onely applies Salves in generall which no way heale the wounds given by the Knight to the Inquisitors as the Reader shall see by taking them off one after another and viewing the Sores To the first The Iesuits instance is wide from the purpose For those Books were not burnt by any decree of the Church much lesse the Church of Rome which was not then in being but by the owners of them to testifie their unfeined Repentance for so wee reade Acts 19.19 Many also of them brought their Bookes together and burned them before all men and they counted the price of them and found it 50000 pieces of silver Secondly these Bookes which the owners burnt of their owne accord were Bookes of such as used curious Arts that is Books of Art-magick Necromancie Sorcerie and the like Whereas the Bookes which the Romish Inquisitours either mangle or utterly deface are Christian Treatises written for the most part by them that lived and died in the bosome and peace of the Church of Rome To the second This Decree of Gelasius which the Iesuit opposeth as a Buckler against all our darts is not altogether approved by the present Romane Church for in reckoning the Canonicall bookes of Scripture the Pope there excludeth the booke
this is inviolably to be observed You see then that howsoever your Pius Pope gave a dispensation for the reading of the Scriptures yet Pope Clement his Successor declared that license to be void and of none effect and that which concludes your Assertion for an untruth it was by him decreed to bee kept without any dispensation or violation Inviolatè servandum Thus touching the sacred Bible you have severall Translations upon severall paines to be received and both different each from other in many hundred places you have ranked the sacred Bible amongst the Bookes prohibited and lastly you seemingly grant a license for the Ignorant to reade the Scripture and by another decree you abridge that license so granted I proceed from the forbidding of Scriptures to your purging and falsifying of the ancient Fathers As for Fathers say you it is most grossely false which the Knight after the ordinary Ministeriall tune stands canting that we blot out and raze them at our pleasures What is it then that these men would have What is it they can carpe at Nothing but that they themselves are stung in that hereby they are kept either from publishing their owne wicked workes or corrupting the Fathers at their pleasure and to wipe away this blemish from themselves would lay it upon us Thus you It seemes you have beene well acquainted with Rogues and sturdy Beggers who have taught you the Terme of Canting a word proper for such kinde of people but whereas you say it is grossely false that you blot and raze the Fathers and that therein we seeke to wipe away the blemish from our selves and lay it upon you for the better manifestation of the truth first looke I pray upon the place where the corrupted Fathers were printed see by whom they were licensed then heare your owne men witnessing their owne confession of purging them and lastly peruse the places which I shall produce razed and corrupted and then tell me if the Mysterie of Iniquity doth not closely worke in your Roman Church and that the ancient Fathers are grossely falsified and notoriously corrupted by your owne men even in the principall points of Doctrine controverted betwixt us First then wee must observe that corruptions and abuse of ancient Fathers may be of three sorts either by foisting into the Editions bastard Treatises and intitling them to the Fathers or by falsifying their undoubted Treatises by additions detractions or mutations or lastly by alledging passages and places out of them which are not extant in their workes and of all these three kindes your men are guilty Expurgari emaculari curâsti omnium CatholicoruÌ„ scriptoruÌ„ praecipuè veterum Patrum scripta Sixt. Senens in Ep. Pio 5. as it shall appeare by instances in their severall Ages for the first 800. yeares First concerning the purging of Fathers your Sixtus Senensis in his Epistle dedicated to Pope Pius the fifth amongst his many and famous deeds recounts this for one of the greatest That he caused the writings of all Catholike Authours but especially those of the ancient Fathers to bee purged And Greâ—zerus your Jesuit proclaimes it by way of justification Gretz l. 2. c. 10 If it be lawfull to suppresse or inhibite whole Bookes as namely Tertullian and Origen then it is lawfull likewise to suppresse a greater or lesser part of one by cutting out razing blotting out or by omitting the same simply for the benefit of the Reader And Possevine your Jesuit tells us Adistos enim quoque purgatio pertinet Possev l. 1. Bib. lioth select c. 12. that Manuscript Books are also to be purged as well as printed which shewes your good intention to the ancient Writers I may adde to these that you doe not onely purge and corrupt the Fathers as shall appeare in matter of fact in severall Ages but you forge Bastard Epistles in the names of ancient Bishops and you thrust counterfeits into the Chayre of the true and Catholike Doctors Peter Warbeck is taken for Richard Duke of Yorke and obscure Authors as namely Dorotheus Hormisda Hermes Hypolitus Martialis and other counterfeits for famous Writers and all to supply your defects of doctrine in the Orthodox Fathers Severinus Binius hath published certaine decretall Epistles in the names of Clemens Anacletus Evaristus Sixtus and many others to the number of thirty one all Bishops of Rome Insomuch as their Epistles are cited by Bellarmine by Peresius by Coccius by Baronius by your Rhemists for severall proofes of your Trent Doctrine Gratian saith Grat. Dist 20. Decretales they are of equall Authority with Councels nay more he labours to prove out of St. Austin Distinct 19. in Canonicis that those decretall Epistles were reckoned by him amongst the Canonicall Scriptures and yet by the severall Confessions of your learned Writers are adjudged to be all counterfeit and without doubt their leaden-stile their deepe silence of Antiquity concerning them the Scriptures alledged by them after St. Hieroms Translation being long before his time doe easily convince them of falshood Antoninus Contius the Kings Professor of Law in the Universitie of Bruges tells us that he brought many reasons in his Preface An. 1570. and notes upon your Canon Law which was printed at Antwerp by which hee proved and shewed manifestly that the Epistles of the Popes Silvester An. 314. who were before Silvester were all false and counterfeit The Preface with the reasons alledged against it is now razed and purged and Plantin the Printer gives this answer for it Raynold Hart. Cap. 8. Divis 3. p. 451. The Censor who was to oversee the printed Bookes would not suffer it to passe and what became of it he remembred not nor knew how to procure it Thus your men are not onely ashamed to publish their Bastard Epistles and equall them to the Word of God in behalfe of your new doctrine but you censure also and purge your owne men for condemning such lying inventions Whether to forge a false deed or to raze a true one be the greater fault it is not greatly materiall for your owne men are guilty of both And lastly when neither purging nor falsifying will serve the turne which you have practised in Bookes set out the first 800. yeares you bring a Prohibition against all Authors Priests and Professors in the bosome of your owne Church which testifie the truth of our doctrine and injoyne them silence by your Index Expurgatorius by cutting out their tongues and refining them with a new impression and this hath beene your ordinarie practice for the last 800. yeares I will give you instances in both and so I come to the second Age. In the second Age Ignatius Bishop of Antioch witnesseth the antiquity of our Doctrine he shews that our Communion in both kindes was practised in his dayes There is one Bread saith he broken for all and one Cup distributed to all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignat Ep.
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
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
agener all Councell may erre the Church may erne if the Church may erre the faith which that Church teacheth may faile and consequently there can bee no certaintie How easily are these leaves plucked away and torne in pieces 1. Though such a Councell as the Councell of Trent consisting of a few Bishops swaied by the Italian faction may erre it would not from thence follow that the whole representative Church might erre 2. Though the whole representative Church in a free and generall Councell lawfully called might erre yet many millions in the Catholique Church may hold the orthodox beliefe and consequently the faith of the Church not totally faile Yea but saith the Iesuit take away the infallibilitie of the Church there is no rule of faith This assertion of his is open blasphemie as if God would not bee true though all men were found liars though the Roman Church and Pope erre a thousand times yet the rule of faith remaineth unvariable in the holy Scriptures Yea but S. Gregorie equalizeth the foure first generall Councels to the Gospel and saith in effect that they could as little erre as the 4. Gospels and that upon the deniall of their authoritie the Christian faith might be shaken as well as by the deniall of the Gospels and the like authoritie giveth your Parliament unto them I answer S. Gregorie equalizeth the foure first generall Councels to the foure Gospels not in respect of authoritie but in respect of the veritie of the articles defined in them he saith not they could as little erre but they did as little erre in their decisions or to speake more properly that their doctrine was as true as Gospell because the determinations in those first generall Councels against Heretiques are evidently deduced out of holy Scriptures Our Parliament alluding to the words of S. Gregorie speaketh in the same sense as hee doth Yea but saith the Iesuit your Parliament lawes acknowledge that for heresie whatsoever is condemned for such in any of those Councels which is in other words to acknowledge them for a rule of faith and consequently to bee of infallible authoritie and to joyne them in the same ranke with the Canonicall Seriptures Idem jungat Vulpes by the like reason the Iesuit might say we joyne the booke of Articles of Religion and Homilies in the same ranke with the Canonicall Scriptures because we condemne for heretiques all that obstinatly maintaine any doctrine repugnant to them which wee doe not because we hold the Decrees of a provinciall Synod to bee of in fallible authoritie but because wee are able to prove all the Articles there established to be consonant to the holy Scriptures Yea but further saith the Iesuit in the same statute P. 203. you give power to the Court of Parliament with the assent of the Clergie in their Convocation to adjudge or determine a matter to be heresie which is the very same as to give it power to declare faith or to be the rule thereof I answer the statute giveth power to the Convocation to declare faith and determine heresie out of Gods word and by the sentence thereof and no otherwise In such sort to declare faith is not to be the rule of faith but to judge and measure things by the rule There is a maine difference betweene these two which yet the Iesuit here confoundeth as if they were coincident to declare faith and to bee the rule of faith every Iudge declareth the Law yet is he not the rule of the Law The Inquisitors in their jndices expurgatorij and the Sorbonists in their censures declare what is heresie yet the y are not Itrow the Rule of popish faith every meater in the market declareth that such or such is the measure of corne and graine yet is not every or any corne-meater the Winchester standerd It is one thing to be the rule and another to measure by the rule and declare what we have measured But to retort the Iesuits phrase upon himselfe hee is not capable it seemes of this discourse which yet every market-woman or boy is Well let the authoritie of generall Councels bee great in the Church and of the foure first Councels greatest of all quid hoc ad Rombum what maketh this for the infallibilitie of the Trent conventicle much saith the Iesuit every way for what saith hee can you say more against the present Church and present Councell of Trent then against the Church and Councels of those times What can we say nay what can we not say what have we not said or what could all the Papists in the world answer to what wee have already said After hee hath taken away the legall exceptions made against this conventicle by the Authour of the historie of the Councell of Trent and of the litterae missivae and Iewel his Treatise affixed to that Historie and Chemnisius his Examen and Doctor Bowles his latine Sermon preached to the Convocation and lately printed after hee hath proved which hee will never bee able that the Assemblie at Trent was a free and generall Councell and called by lawfull authoritie and all the proceedings in it according to ancient Canons yet it will still fall as short of the Councell of Nice in authoritie as in antiquitie that consisted of most eminent learned and holy Bishops and Confessors this for the most part of hungrie animals depending on the Popes trencher as Dudithius a Bishop present at that Councell declareth at large in his letter set before the Historie of the Councell of Trent to which I referre the reader To the second The testimonies alledged by the Knight for the sufficiencie of holy Scriptures are ponderous and weightie and the Iesuits exceptions to them are sleight vaine and frivolous To the testimonie out of the Acts I have kept backe nothing that was profitable unto you and I am pure from the bloud of all men Act. 20.20.27 for I have not shunned to declare unto you all the Councell of God hee saith that S. Paul speaketh of the doctrine by him preached not of the written word of God as in like manner our Saviour saith that what hee heard from his Father hee made knowne unto them Iohn 15.15 and yet delivered not one word in writing It is true S. Paul speaketh of the doctrine which he preached but it is as true that the doctrine which he preached hee confirmed unto them by testimonie of Scripture For S. Luke saith Acts 17.2 that S. Paul as his manner was reasoned with them out of the Scriptures opening and alledging that Iesus whom hee preached unto them was Christ and they that received the word with all readinesse of mind searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so Act. 24.14 and again I confesse that after that way which they call heresie so worship I the God of my fathers beleeving all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets If the Iesuit had read the verse immediatly following testifying
image-worship which is so directly and expresly forbidden by God in the law That the Iewes are thus scandalized at the idolatrous practice of the Roman Church the Knight proveth by an eye-witnesse Sir Edwine Sands who in his description of the religion in the West parts observeth that the worship of images as it is at this day practised by the Roman Church is such a stumbling block to the Iewes and hinderance to their conversion that when they come to Christian Sermons as in Rome they are enjoyned at least once a yeare so long as they see the Preacher direct his speech to a little woodden crucifix that standeth on the Pulpit by him to call it his Lord and Saviour kneele to it embrace it and kisse it to weepe upon it as it is their fashion in Italie it is preaching sufficient for them and perswadeth them more with the very sight of it to hate Christian religion then any reason the world can alledge to love it To the seventh The argument drawne from the Cherubins is refelled professedly by Tertullian De idol c. 5. Apostolus affirmat omnia tunc figuratè populo accidisse addit benè quòd idem Deus quilege vetuit similitudinem fimilitudinem fieri extraordinario praecepto serpent is similitudinem fieri mandavit si eundem Deum observas habes logem ejus nefeceris similitudinem si praeceptum factae posteà similitudinis respicis tu imit are Mosen ne facias adversus legem simulacrum aliquod nisi tibi Deus jusserit the Apostle saith he affirmeth that all things happened to the Iewes in figures and hee addeth well the same God who in his generall law forbad any similitude to be made by an extraordinary precept commanded some similitude to bee made if thou dost serve the same God thou hast his law Make to thy selfe no graven image or similitude if thou regardest the Precept of making a similitude as of the Cherubins or brazen serpent e. imitate thou Moses make thou no image against the law unlesse God command thee by a Precept Whereunto wee may farther adde that the Cherubins were not made publikely to bee seene and gazed upon by the people but were kept in the holy place whither the Priests only resorted neither were they worshipped by the Priests as Lyra cited by the Iesuit who was himselfe a Iew at the first and well knew their practice professeth the Iewes saith he worshipped not the Arke nor the Cherubins nor the mercy seate but the true God which promised to helpe them neither were they set up in the Temple for adoration but for ornament L. 9. c. 6. q. 7. non ut adorarentur sed ob ornatum pulchritudinem Tabernaculi vel Templi ad majestatem Dei plenius ostendendam Lorin in Act Apost c. 17. de Cherubinis jussu Dei factis de alijs imaginibus â— Solomone dicendum fuisse duntaxat ut appendices additamenta ornatus alterius rei non verò per se propositas modo accommodato ad adorationem quam conslat quoque ab Haebreis ipsis non fuisse exhibitam quod utrumque docet Tertullianus eritque id magis verum si verumâ—est Cherubin ore manibus cruribus erectione corporis bumanam jubis à pectore cervice pendentibus Leoninam alis aquilinam ungulis pedum vitulinam figuram retulisse Vasq I de adorat 2. disp 4. c. 6. nunquam cherubinis honor aut adoratio adhibita fuit aut osculo aut genuflexione aut oblatione â—huris aut alio signo peculiari ad ipsos directo nec quisquam nisi ex suo cerebro absque ullo fundamento contrarium poterit affirmare as Azorius convinced by evidence of truth acknowledgeth saying the Cherubins were not painted or engraven on the Arke to the end they might bee adored but only to adorne and beautifie the Tabernacle and more fully to expresse the majestie of God with whom Lorinus and Vasquez accord concerning the Cherubins made by the command of God and other images in Solomons Temple wee must say that they were there as appendices and additions for the adorning of something else not set forth by themselves in a manner fit for adoration which it is manifest that the Iewes never exhibited to them both which Tertullian teacheth Vasquez commeth not behind Lorinus teaching a contrarie lesson to Flood here his words are That the Cherubins were never adored nor worshipped neither by kissing them nor with bowing of the knee or by offering Frankinsence or by any other meanes neither can any man affirm the contrarie except it be out of his owne braine without any foundation or ground at all To the eighth In this allegation the Iesuit sheweth from whence he and his fellowes are descended L. 3. cont haeres c. 2. cum ex scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum scripturarum quasi non rectè haheant neque sint ex auiboritate quia variè sint dictae juia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciunt traditionem non enim perliter as traditam illam sed pervivam vocem Aug. in 10. tract 49. Sanctus Evangelifia testatur multa Dominum Christum dixisse fecisse quae scripta non sunt electa sunt autem quae scriberentur quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur Cyr. in 10.12 c. 68. non omnia quae Dominus fecit conscripta sunt sed quae scribentes sufficere put ârunt tam admores quà m ad dogmata ut rect â fide operibus virtute rutilantes ad regnum caelorum perveniamus viz. from the ancient Gnosticks and Valentinians who as Irenaeus testifieth against them When they are convinced of their heresies out of Scripture they fall on accusing the Scriptures themselves impeaching their authoritie and charging them with ambiguity and saying that the truth cannot be found out of them by those who know not tradition for that it was not delivered by letters but by word of mouth But because I have beate the Iesuit heretofore out of this dodge and have proved abundantly the sufficiencie and perfection of Scriptures I will spare farther labour herein and only shew how shamefully he depraveth one text to the derogation of the whole Scripture S. Iohn in the place alledged by him speaketh not of points of faith or manners precepts or examples for our imitation but of miracles 10.20 30. Many things truly did Iesus in the presence of his Disciples which are not written in this booke Upon which words S. Austine and S. Cyrill thus glosse full in the Protestant language the holy Evangelist testifieth that Christ did and said many things that are not written but those things were chosen to bee written which seemed sufficient for the salvation of them that beleeve and S. Cyrill all things which Christ did are not written but what the writers thought to bee sufficient as well for our conversation as doctrine
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