A REIOYNDER TO THE REPLY PVBLISHED BY THE IESVITES VNDER THE NAME OF WILLIAM MALONE The First Part. Wherein the Generall Answer to the Challenge is cleared from all the IESUITES Cavills MATTH XXIII 9. 10. Call no man your FATHER upon the earth for one is your FATHER which is in Heaven Neither be yee called Masters for one is your Master even CHRIST II. TIMOTH III. 8. 9. As Iannes and Iambres withstood Moses so doe these also resist the Truth men of corrupt mindes reprobate concerning the Faith But they shall proceede no further for their folly shal be manifest unto all DUBLIN Printed by the Societie of Stationers Printers to the Kings most excellent Majestie 1632. TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE HENRY LO VISCOVNT FALKLAND ONE OF THE LORDS OF HIS MAIESTIES MOST HONOURABLE PRIVIE COUNCELL Right Honourable my singular good Lord IT was Tertullian's observation of Heretickes Nostra suffodiunt ut sua aedificent a Tertull de praescript aâ— vers haeret cap. 42. Your Lordship is well informed by experience that the Romish Clergie who disdain the stile of Hereticks are like Vnderminers like Builders For what kinde of Vndermining is left unpractised to make way ut sua aedificent that they may build up their Babell and advance their ROMAN See The Scripture the Rule of Faith they undermine by their Vnde scis allowing it neither authority nor Command but because their Cheife Pastour declares it expounds it The Church they undermine by assuming her Name defiling her Doctrine Councels by denying their lawfulnesse unlesse called and approved by Rome Bishops Preists by making them Delegates to his supposed Holyness rejecting their Commission received from CHRIST Neither cease they here but Princes and States they undermine also sometime by raising open VVarre sometime by Bosome-conspiracies Powder-plots other secret attempts Nor doe these Vnderminers looke alway like Faux in the Vault but they will appeare somtimes as it were Angels of Light Princes shall have Thousands of their Pennes b Iesuite Fisher in his Epistle to the King but I thinke rather Pen-knives They wil be strongly tyed and united to his Majesties Crowne the more familiaritie they have with him by whom Kings do raigne the more awfull will they be found unto his Holy annointed c The Iesuite in his Epistle Dedicatory and all this as the Divell to our Saviour ut sua aedificent that Princes may fall downe and worship their Beast We may goe further None escape them They undermine Populum Primates Populi by subverting their Estates Proselyting their Children and yet the keeping backe of these Vnderminers from his Majesties presence is censured by Mr Malone our Iesuite to be the fruite of waspish emulation d In his Epistle Dedicatory as if these things might be done and yet they remaine faithfull to their Prince his State and Dignitie But their Allegiance may well be discerned by their Obedience For besides their immediate addresse to Rome their acknowledging a PROTECTOVR e In a letter of LVD CAR. LVDVISIVS S. R. E. VICECANCELLARIVS superscribed thus Rev. P Pâ—i .. Praefectâ— p. P. Carâ— Excalceaterum in Regâ— Hibernia Dated Rome 10. Kal. Iâ—â—ii 1631. which is in my hands and concerneth the quarrels of the Regulars and Seculars in the points censured by the Doctors of Sâ—â—bon â—5 â—an 1631. Vt rei veritas innotesâ—at scriptum est ad quosdam illius Regni Praelatos â qu. bus expectatur informatio Interim vâ—sum est sacrae Congreg ni ut nos ex munere PROTECTORIS quo fungimur admoneamus rogemus V. 〈◊〉 ne ex dolore aut vindicta illatae ut praetenditur calumniae quid quam agat erga tumultus authores ne majâ—res â—xcitentur turbae sed offensiones injurias suas â—uorumque reâ—ittat sâ—crâ— Congreg 〈◊〉 quae plenè satisfaciet justâ censurâ corripiet ac poenâ afficiet â—â—â—â—mniae dum constire it Architectos there and abusing his Majesties Subjects by pressing their Consciences to yeeld subjection against his sacred Commaunds to none but from thence There is dayly resisting of his ROYAL Commaunds in matters that are not absolutely Spirituall For there being Publication of His Maiesties ROYALL pleasure for the changing of the Popish Calendar which ever since the times of Rebellion was observed in the Province of Vlster Did they obey This it may be they will glory in But for what other then Politick respects How was the Titular Primate advised by his Councell learned Was he not pressed to disobey Was it not reputed inconvenient to alter the same Did he not censure the receiving of the Kings command against this their disobedient practise to be no otherwise then to obey men more then GOD That if obedience should be yeelded herein their Adversaries so he stiles his sacred Majestie Councell wil be encouraged to publish more severe edicts against them sic paulatim serpet Cancer f In a letter written partly in Irish partly in Latine to the Titular Primate superscribed To his much esteemed assured loving frâ—ind Mr William Bitagh these in haste wheresoever These are the points for which it were inconvenient to alter the time heere praesâ—rtim hoc anno 〈◊〉 quod videamur obsdire hominibuâ— magis quam Deo recipiendo TEMPORALIVM Potestatum mandata contra râ—ceptam Ecclesiasticam lgem idque 〈◊〉 â—dium religionis nostrae undâ— ADVERSARII animentur ad alia magis nociva praecepta canâ—ra nos â—denda dum â—iderent nos minoribus praeceptis â—â—â—emperare sic paulatim serpet Cancer c. Doe they apprehend his Majestie Councell for Adversaries Who can then esteeme theÌ„ for Friends Shall a rebellious intrusion bee esteemed the Oracle of GOD and checke the Regall Power as proceeding from Men and yet Subjection not violated but their Obedience must remaine firme Much more in this kinde may be presented to your Lordship if it were not superfluous but by this it may appeare how that notwithstanding their pretences Princes are relished or distasted by them in ordine ad spiritualia as they countenance or exalt their Popish Faction For to omit other things the Iesuit his contemptuous reproaching of the learned defence of his Majesties supreame power made in the Castle-Chamber in the time of your Lordships Government here doth declare how inviously they heare of his Maiesties eminent and glorious Prerogatives But the more they declare themselves enemies to our Faith her Defender the more I doubt not but all sacredly affected will arme themselves to resist them in these their contrivings secret imaginations I doe not come with this Dedication to move your Lordship hereunto for it hath beene your VVorke who is or hath beene more Faithfull amongst all the Servants of my Lord the KING * 1. Sam. 2â— And for your pious affection to the true Religion I could speake more then I suppose your modesty would be willing to heare so that I doubt not but
otherwise Nâ—◠〈◊〉 sensum habemus they could espye errour there as well as in any other lesse eminent Church But he tells us This agreement in Communion with the Roman Church was in those primitive times held for an infallible marke of true faith aâ— appedreth most plainely by that which S. Ambrose relateth of his brother Satyrus f Reply pag. 52 It appeareth plainely that the Iesuite shootes at rovers not at the marke otherwise he would not produce a matter of fact knit to time and occasion to prove a thing absolutely and without dependance Satyrus would not communicate in the dread mysteries of the Eucharist but by the hand of a Catholicke Bishop opposite to the Luciferians who were Schismatickes at that time and to that purpose calling a certaine Bishop so him 〈◊〉 supposing that no true freindship could bee without true faith hee therefrre first of all enquired of him whethâ—â— hee did accord with the Catholicke Bishops that iâ— with the Romane Church g Reply ibid. Now the Iesuite would hereupon conclude that agreement in communion with the Romane Church was in those times held for an infallible marke of true faith h Reply ibid. In Satyrus his time the Romam Church was a good marke because by true doctrine it gave good aime but was it the same when Liberius Honorius were Romane Bishops Satyrus made not Bishops Catholicke because Romane but in regard they were opposite to Schismatickes Neither did Ambrose interprete Catholicke Bishops by the Romaâ—â— Church but because they were truely Catholick at that 〈◊〉 which were of the Roman cleargy About those times then they did choose Bishops by their agreement with the present Orthodoxall Bishops as Nectarius of Constantinople Timothieof Alexandria c. not because those Sees made their Bishops infallible and exempt from errour but because these men at that time by generall testimonie suis Ecclesijs religiose praessent did religiously governe their Churches i 〈◊〉 hist l. 7. c. 9. Hos enim imperator quo que visos cotam alloâ—â—â—tus approbavit de quibus et integra constabat fama quod suis Ecclesâ—â— religiosè praeessent The same reason made Satyrus call some Bishops Catholick and from the same ground Ambrose expoundeth Satyrus his Catholicke Bishops by the Romane Church The Iesuite commeth now to his last proofe from restaring of Bishops put out of their Bishopricks to conclude his Papall Monarchie and bringeth us onely one example and that but an attempt onely viz â— of Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria Paulus Arch-bishop of Constantinople Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra Asclepas Bishop of Gaza and Lucianus Bishop of Hadrianople who being all Patriarches and Prelates of the East Church and expelled from their places even by Councels of other Bishops came unto Rome complained unto Pope Iulius of their wrongs and were by him righted and restored As witnesse Sozomenus c k Reply pag â—â— The Bishop of Rome was a man of gâ—eat authority in regard of the Imperiall Citie whereof he was Bishop and much he might doe by perswasion advice and by the assistance of the Imperiall power yet all this will not conclude him the Monarch of the Catholicke Church And what did Iulius more then the Arch-Bishop of Canterbuâ—y ought to doe upon the like occasion Hee discussed the crimes of every one l Reply pag. â—â— And good reason for a good man ought to know the cause he would patronize much more a good Bishop Hee did receive them into his Communion finding that they all did agree to the Nicene Councell m Reply ibid. Could he have done otherwise without blame As one that had care of all by reason of the dignity of his See he did restore to every of them their owne Churches writing also to the Bishops of the East c. * Reply ibid. And what made him so confident of his power his Monarchie Surely no but because he was the Emperouâ—s Chaplaine and therefore might expect to bee graciously assisted by his Lord. And that this is not a conjecture you may conceive in regard the Bishops of the East made â— Reply pag. 53 light of his restitution returning him an answere full of scornes and threats o Sozomen Hist Eccles l 3. 2 7. Athanasi â—s autem Paulus ad suas sedes revertuntur literasque Iulit Episcopis Orientis mittunt Quibus illi graviter commoti conveniunt Antiochiae in unum epistolam verbis elegantibus ornatam disertè ut â—heto rum mos sert compositam ad Iulium scribunt eamque plenam ironiae minarum non expertem gravissimarum Neither was he ever able to bring to passe what he determined whilâ—st he used his owne power for they disdained that the greatnes of his Bishopprickâ— should make them his inferiors p Ibid-Indignati sunt se posteriores ideo ferre quòd magnitudine Ecclesiae superarentur Sozomen hist eccles l. 3. c. 9. At cum literis apud â—piscopos Orientis de rebus propter quas scripsisset nihil proficeret causam Aâ—hanasij Pauli ad Constantem retulit and therefore he sollicited his Lord by whose authoritie they were restored q Sozomen hist Eccles l. 3. c. 1â— Conâ—tans autem rebuâ— gestis in concilio Sardicensi cognitis scripsit ad fratrem Constantium literas uti Athanasio Paulo ecclesias suas redderet Vbi vâ—â—o intellexit fratrem diem de die ducere scripâ—iâ— denuo ut vel viros istos reciperet vel se ad bellum gerendum pararet Constantius igiâ—ur cùm de linere cum Episcopis Orientis communâ—casset stultum putavit obâ—eam causam bellum civile intestmum suscipere Quo quidem concilio inductus Athanasiuâ— ex Itaâ—â— acceâ—sit cap. 20. Imperator autem dimittit Athanasium in Aegyptum 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—â— literas cùm ad Episcopos et Presbytetos cujusque civitatis tùm ad populum Ecclesiae Alexandrinae quibus et vitam ejus piè actam et probitaâ—em morum commendavi◠〈◊〉 cohortatus est uti ei utpote suo antistiti pâ—rentâ— precibuses oraâ—ionibus 〈◊〉 reilgioâ—◠〈◊〉 And now the Iesuite having finished his testimonies concludes for the Papall Crowne How farre now may wee thinke doth our Answerer swarve from the auncient Fathere Pastors and Saints of the Primitive Church whilest hee by a separation from that Church which they acknowledged to bee their head and themselves to be members thereof faileth to be a member of the true body of Christ or one of his true flock forasmuch as he with-draweth himselfe from the true confessed Pastor And what wonder then that hee should dissipate and destroy all true faith and doctrine c r Reply pag. 53. It is cleare that the most learned Answerer hath with the Church that he by Gods providence governeth not swarved from the auncient Fathers Pastors and Saints of the primitive Church much lesse made a separation from the auncient Church How the Church of Rome was
ancient Doctrine Doe you thinke the Divell playeth â—ex onely in his owne Kingdome No assure your selves no more then the Pope Pontifex only at Rome for though hee swayes not universally yet many States â—eele his secret practices to worke division amongst those that are united to the truth Is not this the greatest part of your worke to make sedition to breake peace Divide impera is not a lesson that the Iesuites are now to learne seeing it hath beene their dayly practice l Dist Compeâ— Dâ— Iesuit 〈◊〉 â— 27. â— Watson Quodâ— 3. art 4. p. â—â— And although the Iesuite would now excuse it I cannot see but the Christian CoÌ„mon-wealth at this time is pestred by their Vrbanus or Turbanus as Cardinall Benno stiled an other of the like Condition of the same name m Benno in vita Hildebrand So that the Iesuites pretences to free his Supercilious Master from being that which he was justly stiled are too vaine and light there being no hope that we shall fee a generall peace for matters of Religion settled to the Christian world as long as he is suffered to keepe this rule in Gods house n The Iesuite might have taken notice of what was urged by the most reverend Primate immediately before those words whereas he carpeth in the Sermon preached before his Majesty pag. 13. 14. viz. That Nilus Arch bishop of Thessalonica entring into the consideration of the originall ground of that long continued schisme whereby the West standeth as yet divided from the East and the Latine Churches from the 〈◊〉 wrote a whole booke purposely of this Argument wherein he sheweth that there is no other cause to be assigned of this distraction but that the Pope will not permit the cognisance of the controversie unto a generall Councell but will needs sit himselfe as the alone Teacher of the point in question and have others hearken unto him as if they were his Schollars and that this is contrary both to the ordinances and the practise of the Apostles the Fathers thereunto we may adde the testimony of their owne Cassander consult Art 7. de Ecclesia vera Neque unquam credo controversia apud nos de externa Ecclesiae unitata extitisseâ— nisi Pontifices Romani hâc authoritate ad dominationis quandam speciem abusi fuissent eamque extra fines à Christo Ecelesia peaescriptos ambitionis et cupiditatis causâ â—utulissent But returning againe to the Answere he telleth us that Our Answerer alledgeth for himselfe the example of S. Cyprian who with the rest of the African Bishops dissented from the Pope and Church of Rome without being cut off from the Catholicke Communion To which the Iesuite replyes that this is easily answered forasmuch as the point wherein S. Cyprian did vary from the Pope was not declared by the Church untill after S. Cyprians death and therefore it might have beene maintained without any breach of Catholick Vnitie * Reply pag. 80 What he speakes concerning the Churches declaration will have a more fit place hereafter But to shew how little the Iesuite hath spoken for his cause wee may first consider That Cyprians opinion was condemned by your Pope his Councell the contrary defined o Bellar. l. 2. de Concil c. 5. Constat Cornelium Papam cum nationali Concilio omnium Episcoporum Italiae statuisse non debere haereticos rebaptiâ—â—ri et eundem sententiam postea approbasse Stephanum Papam et jussisse ut haeretici non rebaptizarentur yea S. Cyprian himselfe excommunicated and so severely dealt withall by Pope Stephen that he would not admit the African Legats to speake with him but styling Cyprian a Counterfeit said that CHRIST did deny any Communion to be held with him p Cassander Consult ar 7. Cùm Stephanus Episcopus Romae utbis Cyprianum quod in ipso erat repelleret Episcoposaâ— ipsum ex Africâ legatos nec ad sermonem communis colloquij admitteret praecip eret universae fraternitati ut venientibus non solum pax communio sed tectum hospitium negaretur insuper Cyprianum Pseudo Christum dolo sum operarium diceret Haec scribit Firmilianus Episcopus è Cappadociâ ad Cyprianum cujus Firmiliani meminit Eusebius Histor 6 l. c. 25. l 7. c. 13. Ad quem Stephanus scripsit non esse communicandum ijs qui ad Haereticos transcuntes rebaptizant All which did not make the declaration of the Church in Augustines opinion so that we may easily perceive that Augustine did not thinke the Pope to bee the Church or his declaration to be the Churches definition And indeed what toyle did Vincentius Lyrinensis q Advers prophan Novat take in vaine if the Pope could define alone if there were no true knowledge of Scriptures but where he gapes if for him CHRIST onely prayed Besides see what Church did define this Not the Roman out of which Cyprian was excommunicated and never reconciled but that for which Cyprian shed his blood r Augustin l. 2. cont Crescon c. 32. Non accipio quod de baptizandis haereticis et schismatics B. Cyprianus sensit quia hoc Ecclesia non accipit pro qua B. Cyprianus sanguinem fudit to wit the true Catholick which with Cyprian is every Maundy Thursday by their Bulla Coenae excommunicated at Rome And therefore the Iesuite hath unwisely urged S. Augustines wordes against the Donatists Put your selves into that Church which as it is manifest S. Cyprian defended and then may you alledge S. Cyprians authoritie for your Doctrine Å¿ Reply pag. 81. It being plaine that the Roman Schismatickes accuse and accurse that Church in which Cyprian dyed a blessed Martyr accompting it no further Catholicke then it is Roman All that followeth is chaffe Finally saith the Iesuite I would our Answerer did observe in this example how notwithstanding so many Bishops as in Africke joyned with S. Cyprian who in number were more then are in all his Majesties dominions yet was there found a superiour Church that did controule them all herein prescribing both to them others what they ought to follow and beleive by whose authority S. Augustine as we have heard and all the rest of the African Bishops did reject that opinioÌ„ of S. Cyprian embraced the contrary t Reply pag. 81. First wee may see that the Bishop of Rome had not so peaceable a dominion as the Iesuite pretends if so many Bishops did resist his controuling as the Iesuite acknowledgeth Secondly you may see his falshood in his cautelous conveighance labouring to perswade that the Roman Church was the superiour Church having authority to controule them all to prescribe to them and others what they ought to follow and believe whenas Augustine never dreamed of it when he and the African Bishops alwayes resisted and disdained it u See before pag. 301. That they did not adhere to Cyprians opinion the
also have defined contrarie to generall practise and custome of the Church though not in fundamentals yet in points of great consequence as your Councell of Constance * sess 13. against Communion in both kinds and your Trent Synode for private masse against the practise of primitive times a De consecr distinct â— cap peracta Peracta consecratione communicent omnes qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus sic enim Apostoli statueruntet sancta Romana tenet Ecclesia not of one particular Roman but of the vniversall body of the Catholicke Church so that there might be as good Musicke made of an emptie vessel as the impregâ—able harmonie you boast of and though there were no crosse definition against the foundation of faith yet that Pope is not hid and Councell which have made that faith from such an interpretation of scripture b Scot 4. â— 11. q 3. which Scotus could see no reason or authoritie for but what was in the sic volo sic jubeâ— of the Roman Church But further this Argument may bee retorted in their teeth if these points were not ab initio but got footing in the Church of Rome by Papall violence and decrees of Councels which were his owne then they have not the birth of Apostolicall traditions neither can they bee accounted cheife Articles c Suarez Ies dâ—trip â—iâ—t disput 5. § 4. num 4. Cum non sit vniversalis in tempore non potest per se fidem facere catholicam quae debet esse 〈◊〉 pore vniversalis but some of the points mentioned are by your owne thought to be put Iuris positivi which I thinke you will not stretch vp to the Apostles times as confession c all the rest have bene declared quibus gradibus they got footing in the church by the most learned Answerer against which the Iesuite hath in the point of Free will spoken little to all the rest materially nothing as wil be declared in the examination of them Now the Iesuite thinking hee hath performed some brave exployt concludes he hopes with triumph If we presse them to name those Popes who so 〈◊〉 from faith to infidelitie or brought in but one onely article of religion contrary to that of fore-going ages because they cannot satisfie our demaund herein it must be shuffled vp vnder the tearme of a vaine demaund d Reply pag 4. First we charge them not with decreeing contrary to the foundation interminis as that there is not one God three Persons c. but that they have added to the faith delivered by the Spirit of God many articles of their owne Neither do we say that they have forsaken the faithabsolutly for they professe it but the purity of it not contenting themselves with the auncient rule without mixtures of their own Such corruptioÌ„ such alteration of the faith they cannot deny therefore have laboured to excuse it that it is not new faith but a declaration of the old the birth of some of which â—aith was 1500. yeares after CHRIST and his Apostles had delivered the whole councell of God So that the Iesuite â—â—th marched valiantly and with Balaâ—m hath expressed his desire to curse Israell but all his hope is declared vpon which he founds his confidence that because we cannot satisfie his demaund hee is therefore secure that his demaund is not vaine when as the vanitie there of maketh it vnanswerable S â— Augustine thought it a vaine demaund to aske what God did before the creation of the world and therefore turnes it off with a menacing answere The most learned Answerer hath the same thoughts of the Iesuites Quare and casteth it off by just exception and both most rightly Yet the Iesuite inviteth vs to see SECT II. * Reply pag. 5. How vaynelie our Answerer proveth my Demaund to bee vayne IN this discourse the Iesuite is blinded and wanting reason to justifie his Demaund he will not want his good friend Frons ahenea to give some releife vnto his desperate cause The Answerer saith our Iesuite by a smooth and wylie sleight shrinketh from the Question a Reply ibid. c. But how proveth he this why in this manner Whereas I demaunded saith he What Bishop of Rome did first alter or corrupt the right faith He answereth that it is a vaine demaund to require the name of any one Bishop of Rome by whom or vnder whom this Babylonish Confusion was brought in And againe That it is a fond imagination to suppose that all such changes must be made by some Bishop or any one certaine Author And laying downe this he 〈◊〉 the 〈…〉 how wide this is from that which â—e demaunded b Reply ibid. Which I thinke the learned Answerer will not refuse for although the Iesuite would have this question which now in his iudgment is vnreasonable to have beene fâ—rged by the most reverend Primate yet it evidently appeares that it is an vnproportioned birth a deformed Embryo of his owne conceipt and that the Iesuite herein is driven not to smooth and â—ylie slâ—ights for his defence but to perverse boldnes and open outfacing For first in repeating his owne question and demaund What Bishop of Rome did first alter he not onely addes or corrupt the right faith but shamelesly omits that which woundeth him to the quicke In what Pope his dayes was the true Religion overthrowne in Rome d See the Iesuites demaund Now I would have this Iesuite to declare the difference betweene the bringing in of Babylonish Confusion and the altering the true Religion He proceedeth For saith he had he pointed vs out â—ny one Pope that had changed but one onely article of religion or true faith or brought in any one errour then had hee satisfied my demaund e Reply pag. â— That which the Iesuite here supposeth containeth two particulars first that we cannot assigne any one Pope which hath changed one onely article of Religion or true faith Secondly that we cannot assigne a Pope that hath brought any one error into the Church The first hath received answere in the precedent section The second the most learned Answerer hath satisfied in all the Demaundants particulars shewing how this Iesuites holy points of Doctrine and faith are such as the Apostles never knew the fathers scarce espied good men alwayes resisted and which came to receive authoritie amongst Papalines but were alwayes rejected by the Catholicke Church And notwithstanding the Iesuite braves it there are many other articles pretended by them to be of true Religion which are at the best but superstitious and grosse errors brought in by their holy Father or his children in after-ages to the disgrace of the true received doctrine of the Church in the first times But that which the Iesuite doth conclude herevpon is most chyldish that the pointing out any one Pope which had brought into the Church any one errour would satisfie his demand f Reply pag.
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto her so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 safely follow her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rest in her judgement in thâ—â— I say generall Counceâ—â— may 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church her selfe from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christian Religion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all This is a â—ad beginning being a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 him I lay down 〈…〉 first that the Church including in iâ— all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ appeared in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all those 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles times i◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 happily not from all ignorance Thirdly that the Church including 〈◊〉 the â—eleivers living 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 free not onely from 〈◊〉 in such things 〈…〉 to 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈…〉 thing that any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Christian 〈◊〉 and religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without all doubt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the judgement of the Church in 〈…〉 so â—â— to the thing◠〈◊〉 in Scripture or 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that â—ath beene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 or Rome but the Vniversâ—ll Church neither that Vniversall Church which 〈◊〉 be gathered together in a generall Councell which is 〈◊〉 sometimes to have erred but that which dispersed through the world from the Baptisme of Iohn continueth to 〈◊〉 times Sixtly that in the judgment of Waldensis the Fathers successively are more certaine judges in matters of faith then a Generall Councell of Bishops though it be in a sort the highest Court of the Church as the Treatisâ—r saith But saith the Iesuite if yet for all this our Answerer will not be brought to build his conscience upon any other authority d Reply pag. 32 I perceive a little thing will beget conâ—idence 〈◊〉 Iesuite that is so lifted up with producing two old objections to little purpose but what then why majora his agreat one of our owne shall schoole him a little better Pooâ—e â—edant in what manner By telling him out of Lyriâ—ensis that the auncient consent of godly Fathers is with great carâ— not onely to be searched but also to be followed of us cheifly in the rule of Faith Reply ibid. As if the consent of Fathers were the absolute rule of Faith without Scriptures when you yourselves dare not attribute to any Fathers authority power to expresse the rule of Faith by their bare consent For Durand saith that although the Church hath power of Gâ—â— on 〈◊〉 yet that doth not exceede thâ— limitation of the Scripturâ— f Durand â—â— Dist. 44. q. 3. â— 9. Ecclesia licet habet in terris dominationem Dei. illa tamen â—on excedit limitationem Scripturae Universall extent of Doctrine is a good directory to truth but the absolute foundation of Faith are the sacred Scriptures Neither are we at all to give credit saith the Author of the imperfect worke upon Matthew amongst the workes of Chrysostome unto the Churches themselves unlesse they teach or doe those things which are agreeable to the Scriptures g 〈◊〉 Commentar in Mat. homil 49. intes operâ— S. Chrys incerto auctore Nec ipsis ecclesijs omnino â—redendum est niâ—â—â—a dicant vel faciant quae convenientia sunt Scripturis No testimonies have any strength that walk without God his word The Fathers adhere to the Scriptures therfore we ought to adhere to them so are we to embrace the authority of the ancient Doctors Councels as those that embraced the holy Scriptures in their faith doctrin and for that cause this learned Bishop coupleth them together Wee rest saith he upon the scriptures of God upon the authority of the ancient Doctors and Councels Reply pag. 31 inferring thereby that those which fixe their faith have not onely divine testimonies but also the judgement and beliefe of the best men to declare the same as good subsidiarie helps to their convincing grounds which doth not conclude that any authority besides the Scripture is necessary but that it is a faire convenient rule to bridle mens fancies least the Scriptures should be wrested by them which are too much wedded to their owne conceits to patronage their errours And what Augustine gave to Bishops and Councels this learned Bishop assenteth unto but I am assured that the Iesuite will not bee able to prove that S. Augustine ever embraced such a thought as to believe that the receiving of humane testimonies should disable the Scriptures from being the onely concluding and sufficient rule for he is of a quite contrary opinion as is apparant in many places of his writings Aâ—g â— Donat. post collat c. 1â— Quâ—si Episcoporum Concilia Scripturis Canonicis fue â—int aliquandâ— comparata Neither will our Iesuite have us in our appâ—â—le to Scripture to betray our cause by our disagreement with our selves alone but also by our agreement with ancienâ— Heretickes and who are those Hereticks The Valentinians Ennomians Marcionists Arians and others whâ— as it is well knowne saith this Iesuite were wâ—nt to reject all other authorities and to â—â—nce with Scripture onely Reply pag. â—â— If this Iesuite be not a fencer judge by his weapons both edge and point being rebated for his most powerfull performance ends not so much as in a scratch or scarre And whereas he saith we fence with Scripture onely it seemeth he knoweth not the nature thereof otherwise he would repute it with the Apostle a sword for a â—ouldiâ—r yea sharper then a two-edged sword We acknowledge many subsidiarie helpes but indeed none sufficient to controule the conscience but Scriptures onely And herein we follow these ancient Hereticks 1. Augustâ—â—â— cited by the most learned Answerer and unanswered by the Iesuite Let humane writings be removed let Gods voice sound Aug. de Pastor c. 14. Aâ—ferantur chartae humanae sonâ—â—t voâ—â—s divinae ede mihi unam Scripturae â—ocem pro parte Donati and further in his booke of the Vnity of the Church hee saith Let them declare their Church if they be able not in the speech and rumours of the Africans not in Councels of their Bishops not in the passages of their disputes not in their â—ignes deceitfull wonders because even against these things the word of God hath perswaded us to be â—aâ—y but in the Law Prophets Psalmes the Pastors voyce the Evangelists preaching and labours that is in all the canonicall authority of holy Scriptures m Aug. de Vnit. Eccle. c. 88. Ecclesiam suam demonstrant si possunt non iâ— sermonibus rumoribus Afrorum non in concilijs Episcoporum suorum non in literis 〈◊〉 libet disputatorum non in signis prodigijs â—allaâ—ibus qui etiam contra ista verbo Domini prâ—parati cautiâ—â—ddiâ—i sumus
the Fathers fayle But for the Scriptures their confidence hath not beene so great therein as to make them alone a rule for the least article of their new faith And this Iesuite that even now would perswade others to beleive that we adhere to the Scriptures onely because we would not be subject to the sentence of any judge doth here detect himselfe what judge he will allow The Scriptures must be locked up Bibling is Babling and generall Councells must do the worke well why then doe they not confirme Constance and Basill If they dare not submit to them why do they vainly pretend their authority But it may be they are not confirmed by the Pope So that you may see by the Iesuit's wavering his aime is onely to have that Exlex who ought at this time principallie to be corrected for his heresies to be both the rule and the Iudge But we are as free saith the Iesuite from the imputation of Heresie as our Adversaries are farre from finding out any such generall Councell in which wee have beene condemned z Reply pag. 17 Have you no better Apologies then this to exempt you out of the Catalogue of Hereticks The Pelagians had as good and pleaded the same against S. Augustine who answered them with scorne Aut vero congregatione Synodi opus erat ut apertu pernicies damnaretur quasi nulla haeresis aliquando nisi Synodi congregatione damnata sit a Aug. con â— Epist Pelag 4 4 c. 12. What is it needfull to assemble a Synode that a manifest corruption should be condemned as if no Heresie hath at any time beene condemned without the calling of a Synode And they are as surely branded for Novelists and Sectaries saith this Loyolist as their opinions have beene certainely condemned by many the like generall Councells b Reply pag. 37 I wonder where the Iesuite will find them nay what have they besides the names of generall Councells that may honour the assembly of their so many Bishops Some of these you dare not confirme why then should they have generall faith and esteeme amongst us If you dare not subscribe to your Councels for what reason should they have power to condemne us Some against Faith given have martyred those which you acknowledge ours Your Trent Synode hath anathematized the Catholick Church Doctrine And I am perswaded if that faction had as much power as they give to their Head the Church Catholicke should not bee long from martyrdome also Besides whose opinions have Generall Councels condemned ours Surely then our pretended Heresies are ancienter then Luther he is not the first that taught our doctrine But where are your Councels Mr Malone that condemne the holy Scriptures the foure first Generall Councels the three Creeds These are ours to them wee subscribe If these are Noveltiâ—s we are Novelists if this be doctrine of Sectâ—ries the Hereticke hath justly stiled us But if the Iesuite cannot bring Councels that have condemned God in his Word the Primitive Church in her Decrees and the generall Confessions of Faith I hope hee will upon better thoughts except Noveltie from our Faith Schisme from our Persons Neither let the Iesuite runne about as in other-places he hath done to coyne us an other Faith when as he himselfe revileth us for adhering to the Scriptures c Reply Sect. â— when as our Lawes justifie our embracing the foure first Generall Councels and our Liturgie doth enclose the Creedes The Iesuite continueth his vaine discourse And as saith he they never yet assembled any Generall Councell of Catholick Preists and Prelates of that Church which is dispersed through many Nations neither by reason of their fatall discord amongst themselves will ever beâ— able to assemble the same so wee may for ever live secure d Reply pag. â—7 Every Iesuite is not a Prophet We may have a Coâ—â—â—â—ll such a one where your Papa shall not be Presidâ—nt â—or your Cloâ—ke-bagge carry the Spirit that shall direct iâ— when the Church of Rome it selfe shall be frâ—â—â— from that Factioâ— which now doth tyrannize over it and the true Bishops thereof shall enjoy that authoritie which most truely is their owne by divine institution and Fryars and Iesuites may turâ—e Turkes for any station that they shall have in the Hierarchiâ— of the Church of God e Censura â—â—â—positionum ad sacram Facultatem Theoâ—â—giae Parisiâ—â— sem allat c. Priâ—â—a Propositio Hierarchia Ecclesiastica constat ex Pontifice Cardinalibus Archiepiscopis Episcopis Regularibus Câ—â—sura In istâ primâ— proposâ—tiâ—â—◠〈◊〉 ratio memâ—â—â—rum Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae seu sacri Principatâ—â— divinâ ordinatione instituti est manca redundaâ—â— atque inducens in errorem Finally saith the Iesuite the reason of this his â—ergivâ—rsaâ—ion from the Fathers authority is vaine and idle when hee saith that we have coyned clipped and washed their monuments And why I pray you For though saith he he endeavour to proove this by severall instances yet not one doth he produce that will serve his turne and therefore tells the most learned Answerer that he is bound to bring forth â—â—und prooâ—â— of this his accusation under paine of incuâ—ring the brand of forgerie and spitefull calumnie himselfe f Reply pag. 38 We may perceive the Iesuite is unwilling to enter into dispute concerning these particulars and therefore â—â—sts them off as wanting proofe Yet indeed the matter is so notorious in many of the instances that your owne have espied the counterfeits and branded them with their Censures But the Iesuite might have forsaken his selfe flatterie and have taken notice that there is more proofe against the particulars then hee had answered unto For is it possible that there should bee little respect given to the Church of Rome before the Councell of Nice as their Cardinall and after-Pope urged by the most reverend the Lord Primate affirmeth when wee finde the first Bishops of that Church writing such controuling Epistles Councels before that of Nice giving such unlimited power and the Romane Emperour qualifying with such unmeasurable Principalitie their Romane Bishop But because the Iesuite desires a further manifestation of these Counterfeitâ— I will take them as they are layde downe in order by the most reverend the Lord Primate beginning with your Craftie Merchant Isidorus Mereator that is justly charged with counterfeiting Decretall Epistles c. Our Iesuite hath a minde to justifie these brattâ— and to make Isidorus his merchandize to passe for good wares yet Bellarmine confesseth that they are infected with Errour script into them g Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 14. Aliquos errores in eas irrepsisse non negaverim nec indubitatas esse affirmaâ—e audeam â— Cusanus de Concord cath l. 3. c. 2. Sunt meo judicio illa de Constantino apocrypha sicut fortassis etiam quaedam alia longa magna scripta Sanctiâ— Clementi Anacleto Papâ— attributa In quibus volentes Romanam
all Prelates d Reply pag. 51 Which of these words M. Malone prooves Rome to be above Hierusalem the Hils of Babylon to bee higher then the mountaines of the Lord Not the title of Cheife Bishop for this gives the Bishop no power but place no authoritie but precedency Is it the other that he sits in the Apostolicall eminencie Who doubts that the Apostleship is attributed to other Bishops aswell as Rome that dare not adventure to imagine the effect of this appellation to be a spirituall Monarchie As Sidonius to Lupus praeter officium quod incomparabiliter eminenti Apostolatui tuo sine fine debetur e 〈◊〉 l. 4. Epist 4. So likewise in the renunciation of the Metropoliticall Sea of Heraclea thus speakes Theodoret Chritâ—pulus Deprecor thronum principatum sacerdotium adhortorque eum qui vocatur quem Paracletus ad Apostolatum suum separabit And if we will give credit to Pacianus Episcopi Apostoli nominantur Bishops are called Apostles f 〈◊〉 Epist 1. so that it was no unusuall thing to give good Bishops titles that were indeed proper and peculiar to the Apostles of Christ as Prophets Apostles Evangelists and the like And therefore this can bee no rest for him to depend upon For the two places to prove Rome the head of all Churches cited out of Victor Vticensis Ennodius g Reply pag. 51 we have answered thereunto that this title is but an appellation that betokens honour and precedencie not power and superioritie Surely the Church of Rome got not this height by such arguments neither doe I thinke that it could bee maintained if it wanted other strength and defence So that any may see his capitall argument getteth no more then what we yeeld unto him in What his other endeavours will effect we may easily conjecture He bringeth in S. Ambrose next h Reply ibid. but with as little helpe for the Roman headship as the former from whom he expected assistance But here is no truth in this quotation all neither true Author true word true consequence For first how many can we finde that reject those commentaries upon Paules Epistles as being none of Ambroses some charging them as upon the Epistle to the Romans with Pelagianisme from which I thinke the Iesuite will defend this Father Secondly let the Author be who he will these words seeme to be inserted Cujus hodie rector est Damasuâ— for if it be he as by some of the learned of your side is supposed that wrot the booke of questions of the old and new testament i Bellarm de Script Eccles De Ambrosio M. credibile igitur est auctorem horum commentariorum esse Hilarium Diaconum Romanum qui Luciferi schisma propagavit he lived * Quaeâ—â— 43. 300 yeares after Christ and so could not speake these words of Damasus who was Bishop 367. Or if he were Remigias Lugdnnensis as Maldonat thinkes k Maldonat in Ioh. c. 12. v. 32. who lived about the yeare 870. I thinke you will say he spared the truth if he had said Hodie rector est Damasus And who doth not see the poore consequence that followeth hereupon Damasus is Rector of Gods house therefore the Roman Church is the head of all other Churches By this I dare say a man may prove any Church the Head of another for to what Bishop is not this style given Paul calleth himselfe and Timothie and others that were called to the regiment of the Church ministers of Christ stewards of the mysteries of God * 1 Cor. 4. v. 1 and himselfe a minister of the Church * Coloss 1â— 25. But let Gods word prevayle as the Iesuite is affected what hath heerein beene said of Damasus that hath not beene said and by Rome it selfe of Andrew the Apostle who I feare will not be admitted to enjoy the conclusion though the Roman Breviarie give him the premisses Majestatem tuam Domine suppliciter exoramus ut sicut Ecclesiae tuae beatus Andraeas Apostolus existit Praedicator Rector O Lord we humbly beseech thy Majestie that as blessed Andrew the Apostle is Preacher and Rector of thy Church l Cassander Prec Eccles De sancto Andreâ— I feare he would smell like Spalato that from hence should conclude that the Church which Andrew governed as a Bishop was the mother church of all others or that he were the universall Bishop from whom every man should receive his faith Nay Bellarmine will not exclude others from this title m Bellarm. de Rom. Pont l. c. 11. Omnes enim Apostoli fuerunt capita Rectores Pastores Ecclesiae universae and yet none shall have what the Iesuite infers thereupon but his owne Roman mistresse After Ambrose comes S. Hierome whom he bringeth in saying I following none as fiâ—st but Christ am united in one Communion to thy blessedneâ— that is to say to Petâ—rs Chaire Vpon this rocke I know the Church is builâ— Whosoever eateth the Lambe out of this house he is prophane He that gathereth not with thee doth scatter that is to say He that belongeth not to Christ standeth upon the side of Antichrist n Reply pag. 5â— What our Iesuite would have here is plaine that consent with the Roman Church makes a Catholicke and therefore it must be the Mother Church Is there no difference betwixt Rome now and then Who could then argue her of falshood or false beleife It were a poore reaâ—on to aâ—gue from her being pure to her corrupt defylings But wherein lyeth the strength of this Testimony Surely in side-â—â—king communion as if it were certaine that to commucate with Rome and her Bishop is suâ—ficient to declare a man catholicke and that non-union to that head were as much as not to be of the body of Christ Now what force hath this testimonie for confirmation hereof For we see Popish confession will not acknowledge Sergius a catholicke though he communicated with Honorius o Concil â— VI Oecum 〈◊〉 Act. 12. 1â— Neither doe the present Romanists embrace those Arrianâ— as Catholicke for Liberiâ—â— his familiarity nor condemne Athanasius though condemned by their Pope p Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4 c. 9. Nam ut colligitur ex Athanasij verbis ex Epistolis ipsius Liberij duo mala Liberius commisit Vnum quod subscripsit in damnationem Athanasij Altemâ—â— quod cum Haereticis communicavit Binnius Not. it Epist Liberij ad Episcopoâ— Orien extat tomo 1. Concil Quisquis innocentem Athanasium à Cathoâ—icorum communioâ—e arcet impioâ— verò Arianoâ— ad communionis vinculum admitti audeat 〈◊〉 non Catholicum sed Arianum esse oportet Will you accompt all for Hereticks that have not obeyed your Romane Bishop What say you to Irenaeus q Eusebius hist Eccles l. 5. c. 23. Extant autem verba illorum qâ—i Victorem acriter reprehenderunt Equibus Irenaeus To Cyprian r Bellarm. de Rom
denyall thereof and that his Monarchy 〈◊〉 consist not in matter of outward glory and precedency but of spirituall regency and power for els how could they deny what was never established or consented vnto by the Catholicke Church or any famous or glorious member of the same And further in manifesting the falshood of his supposition you may conceive it is impossible to 〈◊〉 the ancient testimonies i◠〈◊〉 that the fathers denyed this spirituall and divine regency of the Roman Bishops because they never assumed or exercised it yet all those steps whereby they laboured to ascend vnto this spirituall height were ever resisted in all times and ages For in the first place their attempt of divine derivation of this power is cast off by their owne Cusaâ—us t Cusanus de Concord cath lib 2. cap. 13. is so far from giving the Bishop of Rome this spirituall eminency by divine Canon that he denieth it to have beene granted vnto him by any Canon of the Church and proveth it to have beene onely brought in by coÌ„mon vse custome And surely what priviledges the Bishops of Rome enioyed above their brethren which were far from that oecumenicall spirituall regency u Turrecrem d. 2â— Constantino Consistebat hic honor in hoc videlicet quod ad locum in fedendo primo post Rom â—oat in responsionibus haberet secundam vocem in subscriptionibus or papall omnipotency the Councell of Chalcedon x Chalced concil act 16. Etâ—â—im 〈◊〉 â—â—nioris Romae propter imperium civitatis illius patres consequenter privilegia teddiderum atributed to the guift of their fathers which fathers we may coniecture Pius y Aeneas Sylv. epist 301. the second thought to be the fathers assembled in the Nicene Councell as Marsilius z Defens pa. 2. cap. 1â— Patavinus hath plainely declared Now all practises of insurrection to gaine this vniversall regency either before or after they received this limited honour of sitting and subscribing first were ever resisted by the Catholicke Bishops as by this one instance wil be sufficiently cleared The Bishops of Rome did many timesstrive that the finale judicium next to the determination of a â—â—â—â—cell for a Papa a Concil Constan sess 4. â— Consil Basil sess 2. Idem assent Cardinal Cameracensis Ioannes Gerson Iacobus Almainus Nicolaus Cusanus â—anoriâ—itan Cardinal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alii teste Bellarmin d concil 〈◊〉 lib. cap. 14. supra was never dreamed of in primitive times should depend vpon theÌ„ in matters not of faith which they never pretended authority to declare but of fact this Cyprian b Lib. 1. epist 3. Nam cùm statutuÌ„ sit omnibus nobis aequum sit pariter justum vt vniuscujusque causa illic audiatur vbi est crimen admissum singuliâ— pastoribus â—â—â—tio gregis sit adscripta quam regat vnusquisque guberâ—eâ— rationem sui actus Domino redditurus oporter vtique cos quibus prae suâ—â—s nâ—â— circumcurfare nec Episcoporum concordiam cohaereâ—â—â—â— suâ subdolâ fallaci temeritate collidere sed agere illic causam suam vbi accusatores habere testes sui criminis possuÌ„â— nisi si paucis desperatis perditis minor videtur esse auctoritas Episcoporum in Africa constiâ—utorum qui iam de illis judicaverunt et eorum câ—â—scientiam multiâ— delictorum laqueis vinctam judicij sui nuper gravitate damnârunt I am causâ— coâ—â—â—â— cognita est iam de eis dicta sententia est nec censurâ— congruit sacerdoâ—um mobilis atque in constantis animi levitate reprehendi cum Dominus doceat et dicat sit sermo vester est est non non resisteth as savouring of usurpation shewing vpon what poore grounds this practise dependeth even vpon the judgment of a few desperat graceless people who were of opinion that Bishops were vnequall in their authority wherevpon the Bishops laboured to restraine these busie-bodies by lawfull remedy in Councels afterwards as may be collected from the sixt Councell of Carthage c Epistol concil Aphricani ad Caelest vrbis Romae Episcopum the 8th generall Councell held at Constantinople d can 26. Secondly the Iesuite doth falsly point out the Patriarch to deny Papall height or their spirituall monarchy for the Popes at that time pretended nothing of that nature and therfore he could not dâ—ny that which was never affirmed It is true that Iohn could not be content to enjoy the priviledges of his predecessors given him by the Councels of Constantinople and Chalcedon but that he would be more the onely Bishop and vniversall Patriarch yet that he denyed the honour of the Bishop of Rome no more then the other Patâ—iarchs Gregory e Epistol 36. will cleare in regard he lamenteth their losse as much as his owne Neither is there any thing urged by this Iesuite that proveth the point of denyall of this Top-gallant of Papall vsurpation and therefore we may well reject it as to no purpose For why should Gregory by this thinke the Patriarchall Sees in their Priviledges violated if that Papal pride had only bin contradicted by Iohn of Constantinople Secondly he assumeth that their denâ—al of prayer for the dead was begun by Acrius contradicted by Augustine Epiphan 1. This is boldnes and impudency in the Iesuite to charge the Greek Church to follow that Hereticke whom they have do in their practise vtterly abdicate condemne 2. He speaketh not any thing to the purpose for Acrius did never crosse prayer for the dead in the sence that the Greeke Church doth at this time for they deny prayers for soules in Purgatory f Cocciâ—◠〈◊〉 2. lib. 7 art 5. pag. 846. Grâ—ci ac Musâ—â—vitae etsi funeâ—re sacrum 〈…〉 tamen Purgatorium Purgâ—â—oâ—ium 〈◊〉 art 1â— coâ— Lutheâ— Gâ—â—â—is ad â—unc usque diem non est creditum Purgatorium esse which the ancient Churchâ— never dreamed of nor Aerius ever opposed but that Hereticke denyed the Commemoration and prayer for the Saints departed vsed by the ancient Church which had no relation to Purgatory flames or soules pretended to be punished there as will be seen in handling of the point and for this and not the other was he condemned of hereticall rashnes So that the Iesuite is mistaken framing an answere to that which was not required at his hands and therefore we desire him to recâ—llect his thoughts tell vs what person among the Greekes did first deny prayer for soules out of Purgatory or els he saith nothing to the demaund In the third place he tells vs their defence of marriage of Preists was contradicted against Theodorus by Chrysostome g Roâ—â—enâ— ibid Legat qui velit Graecorum veterum commentarios nullum quantum opinâ—â— aut quam â—arissi mum de Purgatoriâ— seâ—â—oâ—em inveniet sed neque Laâ—iâ—i simâ—l omnes ac sensim hujus â—â—i veritatem conceperunt and against certaine other by Epiphanius hâ—r
Pont. l 4. c. 7 Cyprianus pertinaciter restitit Stephano Pontifici doâ—â—â—ienti haereticos non rebaprixandâ—â— ut patet ex Epistola ejusdem Cypriani ad Pompeiâ—â— tamen non solum non fuit haereticus sed neque mortaliter peccavit et tamen Ecâ—â—esia Cypriaâ—um ut sanctam colit qui non videtur unquam resipuisse ab illo suo error To the African Bishops in the cause of Appeales Å¿ Epist Bonifacii â— ad Alex. Episc Aurelius enim praefatae Carthaginensis Ecclesiae olim Episcopus cum câ—llegis suiâ— instigante Diabolo superbire temporibus praedecessorum noâ—â—â—orum Bonifacii atque Coelestiâ—i contra Romanam Ecclesiam coepit Sed videâ—s se modo peccatis Aurelij Eulalius à Romanae Ecclesiae communione segregatum humiliam recognovit se pacem communionem Romanae Ecclesiae petens subscribendo non cum collegis suiâ— damnavit Apostolica auctoritate omnes Scripturas quae adversus Romanae Ecclesiae privilegia factae quoquo ingenio fuerunt Must all Africa not afford one Bishop that is catholick or Lay-man that is a right Christian and true Catholicke How are they acknowledged Martyrs How Saints Besides I wonder that this truth never appeared in Canon of Councell nor was ever registred by the Fathers in the ages mentioned with generall consent For that phrase upon this rocke I know the Church is built meaning S. Peters chaire I dare say with reverence to S. Hierome that it was either upon Christ or Peters confession of Christ to bee the Sonne of God as the Fathers in multitudes doe interprete it or upon Peter himselfe whom your owne would have thâ— rocke and not upon Peters â—haire which was not of such an unmooveable stability â—s that rocke ought to bee upon which the Church is builded Further I thinke Mr Malone will not deâ—y that the foundation of the Church was layde before Peter had any chaire either at Antioch or at Rome and if hee say S. Hierome meant not his chaire but in relation to Peter then who can deny but all the Apostles are rockes as Peter was Petrae omnes Apostoli All the Apostles are rockes upon which the Church is built saith Origen t Origen in Mat. hom 1. The Iesuite proceedes and brings two places from St Augustine if we will believe him to bee the Author of the questions of the old and new testament For to make this other then a counterfeit he shall never bee able but what saith he that may procure such an universal preheminence to this onely Father Why hee is called caput fidelium Head of the faithfull u Reply pag. 51. So may every Preist in his Parish unlesse his flocke be Infidels And for the other title Pastor gregis Dominici Pastor of our Lords flock Reply ibid. What Bishop is not Pastor of the flocke of Christ but Papall Bishops who poore Delegates have not their institution from CHRIST but as poore hirelings from the Papacie In the second place the Iesuite tels us thot S. Augustiâ—â— giveth this testimonie of the Church of Rome that the Principalitie or supremacie of the See Apostolicke hath alwayes borne sway therein y Reply pag. 52 This Father will not serve the Iesuites turne without a glosse Principalitie Supremacie must be the same so the Iesuite would have it for if this be not true Augustine forsakes his engager But the Iesuite may know that principalitie is not Papall Dominion there was a primatuâ— or principalitie of the Church of Constantinople z Theodoret. l. 2 c 27. and a primatus or primacie of the Church of Hierusalem 〈◊〉 l. 7. â— 6. into which seates ascended none of these Monarcâ—s He commeth to the principalitie of a See or Bishoprick that entereth by orderly election as Augustine acknowledgeth the Bishop of Rome to have done And a man may get a principalitie in the Church by sedition and ambition as Leo expresseth himselfe to the Bishops of Africke Leo Epist 87. ad Episc Africanos Principatus autem quem seditio exâ—orfit auâ— ambitus occupavit etiam si â—oribus atque actibus non â—ssendâ—t ip 〈◊〉 tamen iniâ—â—â—â—ui est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What hee can picke out of the word Apostolicall hath beene answered before Next to the Master he produceth the Scholler Prosper in two places but to no more purpose or advantage then the former For who will deny the Church of Rome in Prospers time in regard of her outward eminencie to bee made the head of pastorall honour unto the world c Reply pag. 52 and that she was more conspicuous by being a towre to Religion in defending the faith against hereticks then by exercising any power not temporall * No such word in the originall quotation out of Prosper as the Iesuite addeth but Ecclesiasticall that was given him by Councels Whereby we may see the difference betwixt Rome now and then their eminencie their honour then was extended arce religionis by defâ—nding the true faith Your holy Fathers now seeke advancement solio potestatis by obtaining a Monarchie and bringing all powers but hell that must triumph over you * Revel 19. â—â— into subjection under their feete But the Iesuite confident of Prosper telleth us Therefore the holy Bishop 〈◊〉 doth testifie how in his dayes The whole world agreed with Pope Siricius in one and the same fellowship of communion d Reply pag. â—â— Here is a Logicall therefore Prosper telleth us that Rome the See of Peter is made the head of pastorall honour unto the world c. therefore Optaâ—â—â— that lived many Decades of years before him doth testifie how in his dayes the whole world agreed with Pope Siriâ—â—us in one and the same fellowship of communion We will leave the inference the evidence is nothing For was there not reason that they should doe as they did to wit agree in truth with the eminentest opposing Bishop for otherwise they should have beene Donatists Make your Popes as Siricius was and we will agree with them in communion not because Popes but because they â—defend the true Doctrine against Donatisticall and hereticall rashnes Doe you thinke Hierome thought himselfe bound to Liberius his Communion when he styled him an Arian e Hieroâ— Catalog Scrip. Eccles Fortunatianus Episcopus Liberium Romanae Vrbis Episcopum ad subscriptioâ—â—â— Haereseâ—â— compuiit Ambrose would not endure to give a stupide consent to the Church of Rome itselfe unlesse he saw reason for it lib. 3. de sacram cap. 1. In omnibus cupio sequi Romaâ—â—â— Ecclesiaâ— sed tamen nos omnes sensum habeâ—â—â— Id quod alibi rectius servatur nos custodimus Heere you may see how the Auncients did adhere to the Roman Bishop not in every thing from opinion of his authoritie infallibilitie mother-hood or mistresseship for they thought in other places something might be more rightly observâ—d but so farre as they might convince them of the truth of their doctrine and profession
reason was not because it was condemned by the Roman Bishop or his Roman Church but because out of the sacred Scripture by a lawfull Councell * Concil Nicen of the Catholick Church it was detected as erroneous and false But whilst our Adversaries doe not acknowledge any such superiour Church what wonder saith the Iesuite that they live forlorne consumed and confounded with â—dious discord and debate amongst themselves deprived of all true faith forasmuch as they refuse to listen unto her by whom God hath decreed all faith should be delivered unto his people throughout the world x Reply pag. 81. This is but fuming froth We acknowledge a Catholick Church as superiour to all particular Churches in the world But wee say your Roman is so farre from being it that it gaines well if it appeare a true member thereof when it comes to be examined What is there no God but at Dan and Bethel Must your Calves measure true worship or your Excommunicating the Levites make the Catholick to be no Church It is not your censuring of all others for Heretickes that can exempt you from being Schismatickes any more then the Donatists which did the like Being then aliens from this Church wherein no where else the right Christian faith is certaine to be found they must not wonder saith the Iesuite that we should thus bewayle them as perished and lost y Reply pag. â—â— For your bewayling us as perished and lost it is but a fetch of your Hypocrisie I could wish your teares if you shed any were bestowed upon your selves who need them We 〈◊〉 know the temper of your teares too well How bewayled you the French Massacre the Butchery of Princes but with teares of blood with groanes of applause z See the Oration of Pope Sixtus the fift upon the death of the French King Henry the third The places which you brought out of the Fathers against Schismatickes doe most properly point out your selves and therefore ill chosen to discredit us Take then your owne charge unto your selves who justly deserve it for howsoever you glory as if you onely had the Church of CHRIST which we doe not it will not therefore follow that you belong unto his consecration in regard you are separated from the body of CHRIST keeping neither Communion nor Unity with the whole being sequestred by your selves doe censure all that will not forsake the libertie of CHRIST and hold from you in villany and Vassalage Whereas the Iesuite thinketh to despise the Answerers Church by his frames of folly and falshood tearming it â— Church lurking in a corner of the earth obscure and in glorious that can neither obtaine friendship with any abroad nor yet maintaine agreement in itself at home a Reply pag. 8. Wee know the true Church many times doth lurke when the where sits as Queene and knowes no sorrow * Rev. 18. 2. Yet it is not so obscure but it hath enlightned the world that it can despise your outward glory and deride your lyes in Hypocrisie your tales of Hobgoblins your deceit from Purgatory your holinesse for gaine and new declarative doctrines Secondly we hold peace with the Catholick Church as hath beene manifested when you have and doe really excommunicate it And in fundamentalls both with them and amongst our selves wee are faithfully knit together although there be some differences in matters of nâ— absolute consequence which the purest Churches have been ever subject unto when you are not agreed who is onely able to teach uncontroulâ—ably an infallible point of doctrine whether a Councell or the Pope b Francise â—icus Theorem 16. Fuere qui diâ—erent Concilium in â—ausa fidei praeesse Pontifici fuêre qui Pontificem Concilio praeponerent alia etiam quaestio utrum sine Pontifice utrum â—o â—efragante convocari colligique possit Bellarm l. 2. de Conciliâ— cap. 13. § Sed dum Vsque ad hunc diem quaestio superest When your Church is so farre from holding freindship with other Churchâ—â— that it malitiously sets it selfe against the whole raiâ—ing warres and tumults against the true members thereof as lately against the Greekes and eveâ— against that part of the Latin Church that refused her command as the Monkes of Bangor the Waldenses c. can well witnesse And although you are continually speaking of dissentions yet the best judgments wisest eyes that our ages have afforded have found your peace to be but the outward effect of Policy not naturall from truth but forced from your bloody laweâ— and cruellest Inquisition What is further urged against Schismatickes out of the Fathers we assent unto Which the Iesuite well know and therefore telleth us I know our Answerer here will say that these heavy threats admonitions and exhortations of the ancient Fathers doe make nothing against him at all forasmuch as hee pretendeth himselfe to bee within the true Church alreadie c Reply pag â—5 Here wee may perceive the Iesuite hath taken a great deale of paines to little purpose For whereas hee should have proved us to have beene schismatickes before hee had given sentence against us hee as it seemes according to the practise of their Inquisition with Hallyfax-law condemneth first and enquires for the Schismatick afterward and so poorely that a Iurie of morall honest Papistâ— rightly informed would finde an Ignoramus upon his bill for he bringeth us no proofe but repeates what hee hath formerly done But howsoever saith the Iesuite hee is able with this â—ond conceipt to sâ—oth up and quiet his owne Conscience â— doubt not but otherâ— many wil be found who taking more tâ—â—eart the businesse of their salvation will ponder advisedly what Church the holy Fathers above produced doe point at and whether they declare it not plaine enough to bee the Roman Church embracing in her holy Communion all Christian Churches of the earth out of which our Adversaries are confessedly departed and have erected to themselves a new Congregation so farre unlike unto that Vniversâ—ll and Apostolicall Church designed by the Fathers that neither in other Nationâ— doth she find any other Churches to joyne in one sincere Communion with her nor yet is able to maintaine agreement amongst her owne at home it selfe as above hath beene abundantly declared d Reply pag â—â— Wee have shewed in answere to that which the Iesuite hath formerly produced that the Fathers never thought the Romane Church to be the Catholicke nor dreamed of necessary Communion with her any further then she communicated with the Catholicke Church teaching that Truth which was first delivered by the Apostles And that we have left your Romane schisme it is just as before is declared in regard you have gone out of the Catholicke Church and corrupted and depraved the Catholicke Faith The repetition of Lutheran and Puritan accusations might have beene spared seeing they have beene urged and answered before where the Reader may see not onely the Pope and
of our Faith be grounded some way or other in the Scripture yet the Rule to finde out which is a point of faith and which not must be taken from the Church Reply p. 100. Observe here what we gaine from the Iesuite and then we will attend his arguments First he that in the page before told us that there be many confessed points of Faith which are not in any sort expressed or as much as once touched by the Scriptures f Reply pag. â—â— in this place would perswade the gentle Reader that the articles of their Faith are some way or other grounded in the Scripture Secondly he makes the ground of Faith to be the Scripture yet the Rule to finde out which is a point of Faith and which not must be taken from the Church so that although hee make their Pope their Cater-Pillar yet Scripture is acknowledged the ground of Faith But to make this discourse an over-sight I would know how the Rule can measure without the ground or how Faith can remaine grounded in Scripture when their rule measures without it Now the Iesuite would make this knowne by the practise of the Primitive Church but before he begins he prepares his Reader Some points there are in which controversie arising 〈◊〉 the affirmative nor yet the negative part is by the Church declared to be true nor commanded to be so beleived professed by her followers in which saith S. Augustine that Faith whereby we are Christians remaining safe either we doe not know which part in true and â—â— suspend our definitive sentence or else by humane and weake suspicion we doe guesse otherwise then the truth is and consequently are deceived Reply p. 100 Wee know that Augustine in this place speaketh not of any matter of Faith that is or can be by declaration of the Church but telleth us that our beleife whereby wee are Christians remaining sure and setled our ignorance errour in other things which are far from being of faith will not be so dangerous And other sort of points there is saith the Iesuite wherein when controversie doth arise one part is already found declared for true and commaunded of necessity to be so beleived by all and in these if a man be advertised of the Churches declaration and notwithstanding will obstinately maintaine the contrary then is he said to hold against a point of Catholick faith and therefore accounted to be an hereticke Let us suppose saith S. Augustin that some man doth hold of CHRIST that errour which Photinus held which he thinketh to be the true Catholicke Faith I doe not yet account him for an Hereticke except when the doctrine of the Church is layde open unto him he yet maketh choise to continue in that errour which before he held Reply ibid. Was ever any man so mad to thinke that the Church could not point out an article of Faith This may be done by private Churches private Doctors but shew us if you can that Augustine made a point of Faith from the naked ground of the Churches declaration with Scriptures or without onely and for no other reason then because it is declared Augustine affordeth nothing here for this purpose he sheweth his charity that if some man by weaknes and infirmitie hold on hereticall opinion if it be not obstinately and pertinaciously he doth not accompt him an Heretick â—ut I aske you although 〈◊〉 with mercie the errant whether you are perswaded that he would doe so of the Heresie The point is whether S. Augustine would have accounted Photius his opinion denying CHRIST to be GOD an indifferent point of Religion as the Iesuite would perswade us before it was defined by the Church No the words of Augustine plainely declare that the doctrine of the Church taught from the Scriptures not defined by a Councel is sufficient to detect Heresie though he would have the obstinacie of the party appeare against the truth before he condemnes him for an Hereticke But this will appeare saith the Iesuite yet more manifest by the manner wherewith S. Augustine excused S. Cyprian c. for that his errour was not against any point as yet declared by the Church i Reply ibid. pag. 101. Surely S. Augustine doth not contest for that the Iesuite dreameth He excuseth Cyprian why Because the Roman Church had not condemned this opinion This is false for this opinion was condemned Cyprian excommunicated by the strength of Rome as is before shewed confessed by your own * See before Sect. 10. yet he adhered therunto But that which Augustine saith here may be interpreted by his words urged immediately before that though Cyprian held this opinion yet was it not with obstinacie as the 〈◊〉 maintained theirs but that he would have forsaken that errour if the falshood thereof had beene demonstrated unto him not by a Generall Councell onely as it was at Nice but as the Iesuite urgeth his words if any man had shewed the contrary unto him Now the Pope with his Councell did decree against it but this Augustine did not conceive as the Iesuite would collect to be a demonstration sufficient to convict S. Cyprian so that the Iesuit doth but trifle in urging this testimony Now saith the Iesuite although this point is made plaine 〈◊〉 by this holy Fathers authority k Reply p. 101. c. What hath the 〈◊〉 no more but one Fathers authoritie and as you perceive a poore one for his infallible Iudge Yes That I may leave it past all doubt saith hee or replication wee will give a glance to see how the practise of this Doctrine was performed and to this purpose hee telleth us that wee shall finde how 68. Bishops writing from Garthage to Pope Innocentius after having related unto his Holines what they had concluded themselves in the matter they say that they thought it convenient to intimate the same unto his Charitie to the end that unto the decrees of our mediacritie say they be annexed the authoritie of the See Apostolicke for the preservation of the health and good estate of many and also for the correction of the perversitie of some others And that the second Councell held at Milevitum sent an epistle to Pope Innocentius about the same matter beginning with these words Seeing our Lord God by the gift of his especiall grace hath placed you in the See Apostolicke c we beseech you to use your pastorall diligence in remedying the great dangers wherewith the weaker members of Christ are invironed l Reply p. 101. 102. Nowhere is nothing that may conclude the Roman Bishop to be this infallible rule it being manifest that other Bishops were sought unto and consulted as well as himselfe nay after hee had declared his judgement For in the point of Easter after the Bishops of Egypt had declared their mindes and the Church of Alexandria with the Bishop of the Roman Church had defined the matter yet They
Sea that have any busines l Antiochenum Concil â— sub â—ulio can 9. Ad Metropolin omnes undique qui negotia videntur habere concurrant And who can perceive any other thing in Irenaeus for he doth not as the Iesuite interprets him make all Churches to agree with the Roman for her more powerfull principalitie but sheweth that all faithfull men from all parts of the world comming to Rome in regard it was the imperiall Seate might learne what Scriptures were delivered by the Apostles Peter and Paul in regard at that time in this Fathers judgment they were there conserved by the Church And so Chrysostome in like manner doth attribute to the Citty of Antioch the titles of the great Cittie the Metropolis of the whole world to which multitudes of Bishops and Doctors came for instructions and being taught by the people departed m Chryâ—ostom de Verbis E 〈◊〉 Vidi Dominum hom 4. Magna civitas ac totius orbis Metropolis Quot Episcopi quot doctores huc venerunt a populo docti discedunt In the next course appeareth Athanasius who if wee may beleive this Iesuite together with all the Bishops of Egypt did acknowledge themselves subject unto the same viz the Roman Church though farre distant The ground that moves the Iesuite to be so well perswaded is their Epistle written to Pope Marke with this Inscription To the holy Lord Venerable Marke sitting in the Apostolicall height Pope of the Roman Apostolicke Sea and of the Church Vniversall Athanasius and all the Bishops of Egypt send greeting Besides he tels us that in this Epistle this holy Father with his fellow Bishops ingenuously acknowledgeth the Roman Church to be the mother and head of all other Churches and therefore they professe themselves to belong thereunto and that both they and all theirs will alwayes live obedient unto the same n Reply pag. 51 Here is a heape of Fathers like Abdisu and his company in the Trent councelli a fayned Athanasius a troupe of Gipsies These know better how to cant M. Malone then to speake Athanasius or like Bishops of the Catholicke Church Such bastard birthes as these may advance your now scarlet Mistresse to be the Lais orflourishing Flora of the world but never prove that auncient holy Church of Rome to have taken upon her as her right to bee the Head and mother of the Catholicke Church as you desire to manifest thereby Bellarmine tels us that both these Epistles of Athanasius to Pope Marke and Marke to Athanasius are supposititious o Bellar. Script Eccles De Athanasio De Epistolis Athanasij ad Marcum Papam Marci Papae ad Athanasium constat ex ratione temporis eas epistolas esse supposititias and Baronius gives them the like honor p Baronius an Christi 336. sect 58. 5â— At Mercaâ—â—is merces nonnihil suspectae redduntur But M. Malone may be excused for why may not he aswell cite a bastard father for the Catholicke Roman mother as their Pope did a fictitious Canon for the Catholicke Roman Father q Concil Carthag 6 Yet I wonder all these paines should be taken when the headship of the Church might by a generall Councell be taken from the Roman and given to any other as Cameracensis r Camerace nsis in Vesp aâ— 3 pag. 380. affirmes His next evidence is the generall Councell of Chalcedon where Paschasinus and other Fathers assembled there doe manifestly declare the Pope to be caput universalis Ecclesiae Heal of the Church universall Å¿ Reply pag. 5â— The Iesuite should have forsaken this for feare of losse For surely it is no otherwise then they gave it to the Church of Constantinople which at that time when this Councell was held had the same cause for her headship to wit the Empire and Senate as old Rome had Whereupon thâ—se Bishops thought it very reasonable that she should enjoye the same Priviledges as old Rome had and in ecclesiasticall matters sicut illa majestatem habere be an head of the Universall Church t Concil Chalced Act 16. Eadem intentione permeti centuÌ„ quinquaginta Deo amantissimi Episcopiae qua sedi novae Roma privilegia tribuerunt rationabiliter judicantes imperio Senatu urbem oâ—naâ—aÌ„ aequis senioris Romae privilegijs frui in ecclesiasticis sicut illa majestatem habere And what doth the Councell give to Rome if she had this title more then hath beene given to other Bishops and Churches Did not Basill tearme Athanasius caput universorum the head of all u Basil epist 52 Nazianzen also saith of him that he gave lawes to the whole world x Nazianzen Orat in laudeÌ„ Athanasij Leges orbi terrarum praescribit And Chrysostome calleth Antioch the Metropolis of the whole world y Chrysost de verbis Esaiae Vidi Dominum c. hom 4. Magna civitas ac totius orbis metropolis and in another place the head of all the world z Chrysost hom 3. ad Populum Caput totius orbis Iustinian likewise calleth Constantinople caput omnium civitatum the Head of all citties a Institut l. â— de satisdat § vlt. Whereby it appeares that the title of head was given to many persons and places for their excellency in some kinde or other and not for their supremacy Besides this to any that will veiw the Councell it will evidently appeare that the Roman Bishop was considered as then he appeared in the Councel by his Legates and not as hee was in his private chaire and was reputed Head of the Church not in regard of his Sea or succession but because hee did presede by his Legate that Church representative which was there gathered together as Cyrill was Head of the Ephesine b Concil Ephesiâ— apud Binn in Epistola ad Imperator tom in act Concil 〈◊〉 cap. 8. Quia inquam triginta illi contra sacram Synodum â—anctissimorumque Episcoporum hic coactorum CAPVT Cyrillum sanctissimum Alexandriae Archiepiscopum blasphemam depositionis noram ut 〈◊〉 in se continentem protulerunt and Hosius of the Nicene Councell c Bellarm. l. 1â— de Concil c. 19. Athanasius in Epist ad solitariam vitam agentes dicit Hosium Principem fuisse in eoâ— Concilio ipsum esse qui composuit Symbolum quod dicitur Nicaenum so that the Iesuite prooveth nothing here but onely amazeth his Reader with this pretence of a Councell having not one word in this Councell that will give him the priviledge of a Semper-President because he is head but accompting him Head because by the generall Councell he was accepted President and did discharge that office by his Legate there present The Iesuite hath ommitted nothing Steven Arch-Bishop of Carthage in that Epistle to Damasus which he wrote in the name of three African Councels hath this title To our most blessed Lord sitting in the Apostolicall eminencie Pope Damasus the cheife Bishop of