Lord rebuke every proud tongue that dare attempt so high despight against God and his truth The Iesuite proceedes Lâ—c heere the Divells disputation against the Private Masse which I thought good to lay downe thus at large i Reply pag. 17â— Here the Iesuite beginneth to triumph but upon what reason the precedent discourse will declare yet his intent is pious that my poore deluded Countriman may understand whither his new Masters doe leade him k Ibid. The Owle might leave preaching unlesse it be to night birds for the Iesuite may assure himselfe that this most reverend Lord will never bee so deceived †Ruffin Hist Eccles lib. 1. cap. 11. Dolis apud ignorantes locus est scientibus vero dolum intendere non aliud est quam risum movere as to be taken with his delusions which are grounded vpon so filly a perswasion as Dabunt signa monstrous miracles and tale-Divinity His masters are CHRIST and his Apostles neyther doth hee refuse the sacred Chorus of the auncient Church these have not beene seducers they neither delude nor drawe into errors they will consume your man of sinne and because you feare the consumption you disgrace their effects and operations making the reading of the sacred scriptures l Reply pag. 17 the cause of most horrible impieties reviling with your tongue-prodigies GODS heavenly lampes least they should declare your filth by their celestiall light The holy Sacrifice of the Masse hath triumphed in the Church of God even from the beginning and shall continue mangre all Opposers unto the end m Reply pag. 17 c. If the Iesuite meane by the sacrifice of the Masse the administration of the body and blood of Christ whereby the sacrifice of Christs death is commemorated unto us he hath no Adversary For we know it was instituted by Christ and hath beene continued perpetually by the Catholicke Church even to these very times But if hee meane by the sacrifice of the Masse that outward visible sacrifice made by the Preist alone n Concil Trid. Sess 22. cap. 6. Sacrosancta Synodus Missas illas in quibus solus sacerdos sacramentaliter communicat non modo non damnaâ— ut illicitas sed etiam probat atque commendat wherein CHRIST is pretended really to be sacrificed this was never in the auncient Church much lesse triumphed therein and although the Iesuite would have it auncient yet it was not borne in the fathers time o Erasmus de concord Eccles versus sinem Sunt qui in Missa commâ—nionem requirant sic fateor a Christo suit institutum ita olim consuevit observari Casâ—ander Consult art 24. §. De iteratione pag. 223. Certe ex tota Canonis compositione manifestè apparet totam illâ—â—â—ysticam in qua Canon adhibebatur actionem vel publicam vel certe inter plures semper celebratam suisse Quod si â—odie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 queat facile verus â—ius intellectus restitui possit but brought into the Church by the decay of Devotion on the peoples part p Erasmus de amab concord Ecclesiae Verum id quo minus fiat haud stat per sacerdotes sed per laices in quibus hâ—u nimium refrixit charitas which defection it hath still nourished The word sacrifice indeed was in use amongst the fathers though Calvin thought it was abused neither did they or the Church of Rome thereby hold it a reall sacrificing of Christ but a commemoration of his death q Lombard Sent. lib. 4. Dist 12. par 2. Quaeritur Si quod gerit sacerdos proprie dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio si Christus quotidie immoletur vel semel tantum immolatus sit Ad hoc breviter dici potest illud quod offertur consecratur à sacerdote vocari sacrificium oblationem quia memoria est repraesentatio veâ—i sacrificii sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis Et semel Christus mortuus in crâ—ce est ibique immelatus est in semetipso quotidie autem immolatur in sacramento quia in sacramento recordatio fit illius quod factum est semel and therefore Calvin himselfe saith that your impiety in that particular being considered with the abuse of the auncients there would appeare betweene them and you an unmeasurable distance r Calvin lib. devera Eccles reform extat in Tractat. Theolog Calvini c. pag. 389. Vtrumque illis concedo veteres non mâ—do sacriâ—iciâ—â—oce abusoâ— esse sed etiam caeremoniâ Verum sireputemus quantum a veterum corruptelâ distet quae nunc abipsis fucatur â—â—pietas immensum est ferè intervallum and therefore the Iesuite abuseth their adversaries in making them to impute that to the fathers which they knew these never held Whereby the Iesuit might see how vaine he is in making us to be enemies of this mystery when we onely oppose their popish innovations and defiling of so sacred an institution And whereas the Iesuite would make Luther the first oppugner of private Masse it is a good argument that many were a sleepe when it first came into the Church seeing many of themselves forced by the testimony of the auncient Fathers confesse that it was not according to the auncient use of the Church of God Ignatius maketh all to communicate and all in both kindes Å¿ Ignatius ad Philadelphenses Vnuspanis omnibus confractus vnus calix qui omnibus distributus est in receiving of this blessed Sacrament Chrysostome t Chrysostomus in Cor Homil. â—8 Est autem ubi nihil differt sacerdos à subdito ut quando fruendum est hoâ—â—endis mysterijs similiter enim omnesut illa percipiamus digni habemur Non ficut in veteri lege partem quidem sacerdos comedebat partem autem populus non licebat populo participerâ— esse corum quorum particept erat sacerdos sed nunc non sic verum omnibus unum corpus proponâ—â—â— poculum â—um maketh Preist and People all alike This is acknowledged to be the practise of the primitive times by Innocent the third Innocent 3. lib. 6. Myster Missae cap. 5. In primitiva quidem Ecclesia singulis diebus qui celebrationi Missarum intererant communicare solebant sed excrescente multitudiâ—e c and by Durand Dur. raâ— l. 4. c. 53. In pâ—â—mitiva Ecclesiâ omnes qui celebrationi â—â—issarum interâ—rant singulis diebus communicarâ— â—lebant co quòd Apostoli omnes de â—alice biberâ—â— Domiâ—â— dicence Bibite exâ—â—oc â—mnes And to preserve pious mindes from embracing this fond perswasion of the Iesuites that Luther first impugned Private Masse I desire that they would consider with what impatience Chrysostome would have prosecuted the same when he expresseth bitternes even against the peoples neglect of communicating Indeed he could not actually dispute against that which was not yet we may coÌ„ceive by his words how he would have approved of Private Masse if it had
〈◊〉 Romana Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hist cap. 〈…〉 S. 〈◊〉 Basil Augustine stile thâ—se writings â—â—ving his counterfeit Calixius at Rome make these bookes Canonicall it being plaine that they were so tearmed in respect of other corrupt writings which were read in the Church at that time which practice was excepted against by the Third Councell of Carthage 〈◊〉 as it is urged by the Iesuite wherein it was decreed that nothing should be read in the Church under the name of divine Scriptures and I thinke you will not conceive this inhibition had any relation to any of those bookes we call Apocryphall they being never condemned to be read by the Church Besides Bellarmine telleth us the title of divine â—â— given by most 〈◊〉 and most 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Prayer of 〈◊〉 the 3 and 4. of 〈◊〉 the 3. and 4. of 〈◊〉 and the booke of Pastor â— c. And the calling of 〈◊〉 Propheticall Scripture by S. Ambrose is to like effect it being given to the fourth booke of Eâ—â—ras which the Iesuite will not have Canonical Scripture though it be lifted up with as great a testimony from that Faâ—her q Sixtus seneâ— Bibl. sancta lib. 1. de Esdâ—â— lib. 3. 4. Divus Ambrosius etiam quartum librum putat editum ab ipso Esdra non sine divinâ revelatione as the booke of Tobie which hee is willing to justifie But leaving Tobie with his dog the Iesuite hath some further proofe for the Macehabees They are alledged saith he as other Canonicall bookes of Scriptures are without any difference And who are the alledgers Cyprian 〈◊〉 â—en and Ambrose r Reply pag. â—â— Two things are here to be examined First whether every booke cited by a Father be Canonicall Secondly how and in what manner they be urged and cited by the Fathers First it is evident that there is no ground that the citing of a booke by a Father should turne his nature when an Apostles pen hath not that virtue in it selfe unlesse he will conclude all those Poets cited in the Scriptures and the booke of Eâ—â—ch by Iude to be reckoned within the Canon Besides if this Argument have any life in it against us why 〈◊〉 it not have the same strength against Papists to prove the booke called Pastor to be Canonicall which as Bellarmine observeth 〈◊〉 by the Fathers Irenaeus who giveth it the name of Scriptures Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen For the Bellarm de scriptor ecclesâ— Hermen five Hermes librum scripsit apud veteres valde celebrem 〈◊〉 inscripsit Pastorem Is libâ—â— quamvis à sancto 〈◊〉 reâ—â—o lib. 4 caprino Origeâ—â— et divinorum title Divine given by Cyprian and his testimony out of Augustine there needeth no further illustration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answered in substance before Our Iesuite from these grounds the principall whereof iâ— S. Hieromes ignorance beginnes his 〈◊〉 What wonder then if the Church at Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them also for Canonicall 〈…〉 The slightest cause hath two or three witnesses those without exception that directly agree one with an other in giving testimony to the proposed articles The Iesuiâ—e that pretended the auncient Church hath not given us â—â—â— compleat proofe from the same and those which he â—â—th produced are but particular men with one Provinâ—â—â—ll Councell which they themselves generally approve â—oâ— and some of his private testimonies say little to the pâ—rpose So all that our Iesuite can expect is this that in some private judgements these bookes might be judged Canonicall but never so delivered by the auncient Church which defence the booke Pastâ—r hath from 〈◊〉 confession and the fourth of Esdras by the confession of your owne Sixtuâ— Senensis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 1. de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefoâ—e there is reason sufficient that our Iesuite should 〈◊〉 doâ—â—â— his 〈◊〉 whichupon so vaine a confidence heâ— hath â—rected and acknowledge their change although they have doâ—â— it upon so good a ground as the imbracing of some private judgments three or foure hâ—â—dreth yâ—â—es after Christ leaving the streame of the ancient Church â—he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Thus the charge appâ—â—â—â—th to be 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 as the Iesuit hoped to have proved it that the Church of Rome hath leâ—â— the gâ—â—â—rall practise of the â—â—â—cient Church and hath imbracâ—◠〈◊〉 private 〈◊〉 not for love of their persons but 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 themselves they finde some shelter 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sâ—â—ing he cannot declare them scriptures by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither by the testimony of the ancient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all is sure if we cannot manifest that 〈◊〉 bookes held now 〈◊〉 by the Church of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a contrary sentence by the â—â—cient church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all his skill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—◠〈◊〉 saith the 〈◊〉 â—◠〈◊〉 thâ—â— evâ—â— the Church of God did 〈…〉 〈…〉 before the Church declared them for Canonicall by 〈◊〉 authoritie * Reply pag 2â— The Iesuit must tell us what he meâ—â—â—th by the Churches declaring them by publicke authority For if he understand a generall Councell it is idle for they never came to be so yâ— Canus loc Theol. l. â— c. â—â— Cyprianus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in expositione symboli â—osdem sex libros patrum anctoritate a quibus se 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quod idâ—◠〈◊〉 ci◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—ordium Cuâ—â—que diligeâ—ter de omnibus exploraverat omni investigatione comperit hos libâ—â—â— esse a veteris instrumenti am in Psalmum â—â—â— Sed i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril 〈◊〉 â—◠〈◊〉 Caâ— â—â— audacious in the primitive times as to claime the priviledge to â—â—eepe into the Canon Besides he is as foâ—d in the consequent that they have made no change herein froÌ„ the practise of the 〈◊〉 Church unlesse we can shewe that the ancient Church of God did give judgment or sentenâ—â— contrary to their Trent declaration in a generall councell For if this were good reason the councell of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have 〈◊〉 the 3. 4. booke of Esdras Pastor their decretall epistles Gregory Siâ—tus yea what not plead in the same manner that they had made no change they never being in your judgment I think condemned by the publicke authoritie of any generall councell in the ancient catholicke Church that did give judgment or sentence conâ—â—ry thereunto But if the Church might be said to give â—â—â— judgment against the bookes of Iudith Toby and the 〈◊〉 by keeping them out of the canoâ— as no doubt â—â— may practise being the best declareâ— of mens judgements it shal be manifested sufficieÌ„tly that they have long 〈◊〉 received their doome For first they were alwaies difâ—â—â—â—med in regard of the canon rule of faith 〈◊〉 that the Iesuit hath not produced one privat 〈◊〉 that is plaine and convincing for almost â—â—â— yeares 〈◊〉 Christ Secondly In the 〈◊〉 Catalogue
Iesuite make this good in his owne particular calling Bibling Babling Å¿ Reply pag. â—â— We know in this sence every meane may be despised not onely Stephen * Acts 7. â—4 and Paul †Acts 28. 24. Socrates histe Eccles l. 1. c 6. Sabinus qui haerefis Macedonianâ—â— princeps est dediâ—â— operâ his refragatur immo vero cos qui Nicaeae coacti crant impetitos 〈◊〉 vocat 〈◊〉 de vita Constantini l. 2. c. 71. Magis magisque lis accrevit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 provincias mali illius imperus invaserâ—t but Christ himselfe What Councels ever choaked Hereticks but they croaked afterwards â— It is sufficient if the Scriptum est may stupifie a Devill * Math. 4. 4. 7. amaze a Pharisee †〈◊〉 17. ◠◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eccles l. 1. c. â— Cum amplius â—recenti Episcopi â—unam candemque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exquisitis legis devinâ—â— testimoniis vera fides esse confirmatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—◠〈◊〉 â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 victus ab â—â— peâ—ituâ— deâ—eiverit convict an Arian â— consume Antichrist * 2. Thess 2. 8. in the effect or judgement of others What they themselves conceive hereof is nothing to the purpose the Rule is the Rule though a perverse Hereticke cannot be made to acknowledge it Thus saith the Iesuite we may easily espy the reason why our Answerer refuseth to stand to the verdict of either Church Councell or Fatherâ— admitting onely Scriptures for the judge of his cause x Reply pag. 33 Indeed by this place of Tertullian we may easily espie it is the same reason that mooved the auncient Fathers to urge the generall tradition of the auncient Church against certaine Heretickes of their time which perswaded the most learned Answerer to make use of the like weapons against the Iesuite in regard Papists as ancient Heretickes shift off the Scriptures many times by additions substractions depravations adulterous sences corrupted stiles c But to charge this most reverend Lord with refusing to stand to the verdict of either Church Councells or Fathers c. is one of the Iesuites truths He refuseth them indeed as judges of our faith as the absolute rule seclusis sacris litaris so do your owne y Marsilius def Pa. pa. 2. c. 28. Quas vero ipsorum auctoritate propria prae ter Scripturam protulerunt sententias scripturae sive canoni consonas recipiam quas vero dissonas reverenter abjiciam Non tamen aliter quam auctoritate Scripturae cui semper innitar Aquinas 1. part sum q. 1. ar 8. Auctoritatibus autem canonicae scripturae utitur propriè ex necessitate argumentando Auctoritatibus autem aliorum doctorum Ecclesiae quasi arguendo ex proprijs sed probabi liter Innititur enim fides nostra revelationi Apostolis Prophetis factae qui canonicos libroâ— scripserunt non autem revelationi si qua fuit alijs Doctoribus facta that have any conscience but not as good testimonies to assent to the truth And so farre are they from patronizing the Popish cause that you dare not accept them nisi ex cogitato commento but with mentall reservation of a false comment or a worse interpretation z Index Expurg Belgic pag. 5. Quum igitur in Catholicis veteribus alijs plurimos feramus errores exâ—enuemus excusemus excogitato commenso persaepè negemus commodum â—â—â— sensum assingamus dum 〈◊〉 in disputationibus aut in confliction but cum adversarijs Reply pag. 33. What followes to wit that by the confession of his own forefathers masters fellow Protestants they the fathers were no better then meere Papists a is both falshood and froath for which of our accompt the fathers Papists if the Iesuite knowes them let him produce them but we beleive his weaknes wil be seene before his detection And surely he dreameth to thinke we esteeme the Fathers Papists and slaves to that Tyrant whose usurpations their writings alwayes resisted And how can this hang together Wee acknowledge that for the first 400. or 500. yeares the Church of Rome remained a true Church free from Papall impostures and yet as the Iesuit spareth not to accuse us charge the fathers of the primitive Church c. as Papists to favour of that leaven which they ever cast out and expelled But this the Iesuit hath referred to another place till which time we will leave it Yet whereas the Iesuite still insisteth upon the most learned Answerers words no other Father but God do we know upon whose bare credit we may ground our consciences in things that are to be beleived that rocke upon which alone we build our faith is the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets from which no sleight that they can devise shall ever draw us and thinketh the same are uttered for no other end but to cast by the fathers as little respecting their authority b Reply pag. 33 We take this but for a wizards surmise and a vain repetition we having shewen before that the most learned Answerer hath given the Fathers their due respect and if he should do more hee would deny to God his due reverence You that give too much to Saints and Angels dare not justifie but distinguish your worship How much better is it then to deale plainely and to give unto Fathers that which is theirs and to God and his word what belongeth to them Yea whether is it greater disparagement to the Fathers to make them stoop to God or man We doe the first you doe the last where you dare you purge them they shall not speake one word against Babylon but by inventing some device you will deny them c Vide lit â— and if such dealing will not serve then downe with their buildings giving them no honour at all d Index expurg Hispanâ—ard Quiâ—ogae edit Madilti ann 1584. in fine literae â— Deleatur tota Epistola Vdalrici Episcopi Augustini de â—â—libatu cleri Item totus liber Bertrami presbyteri de corpore sanguine Domini penitusauferatur Lastly the Iesuite saith we will now discover for conclusion of the whole how farre herein the Answerer differeth from those Fathers of the auncient Church of God with whom he pretendeth to have so great affinity And this we will declare by the expresse words of an auncient learned Father Vineâ—â—tius Lyrinensis e Reply pag. 34 c. How willingly the Iesuite would have the auncient Church to be as corrupt as themselves may appeare by this his strugling with one onely Lyrinensis whose words largely translated speake not any thing in effect to prove his intention for who is ignorant that heresies are novelties and that Hereticks would justifie their new follies by the auncient testimonies of the sacred Scriptures neither by them alone but the auncient Fathers also Yet must this prove the Answerer to differ from the Fathers of the auncient Church because with them he useth the rule that was
the Pope had beene the Head and that all other Churches had held the Catholicke Faith of him in capite but I perceive the Romane Church is now presumed from the Ancients to have had this title Yet I thinke it will scarce be found what the Iesuite doth understand by the Roman Church For if by the Roman Church be comprehended all other Churches that are onely to be accounted Catholicke for the subordinate obeysance to Peter and other succeeding Bishops b See the Iesuits Reply pag. 49 then it is meere vanity to make an Head the Head of it selfe to make the Church all Head and no body If their particular Citie or Diocesse and Church therein then he cannot by the Roman Church understand the Roman Catholicke as hee confesseth in the last Section for saith he if the Roman Church be taken as it comprehendeth onely that Cleargie which maketh but one particular Bishopricke and Diocesse in tho Citie of Rome abstracting or as hee would say abstracted from that relation which it hath unto all other Christian Churches as the head unto the members then I say thâ—â— no man ever by the Church of Rome did understand the Vniversall Church c Reply 〈◊〉 Secondly if it be not the Roman Catholicke then all the testimonies produced make nothing for the Romane Catholicke Church but for the Roman Church that is not Catholicke But though hee doth not fully expresse himselfe herein yet he doth that which may give us a guesse of his meaning seeing the streame of his proofes is to set forth the eminencie of their Romane Pastor And to make this good hee cites some Fathers to prove the Pope to be the head of the faithfull d See S. Augustine cited by the Iesuite pag. â—1 head of Pastorall Honour e See Prosper ibid. pag. 52. so that notwithstanding he pleades for the Church Roman yet that which he laboureth to advance is the See and Pope Roman that is that they fight for this they desire Rome they would have the head of all Churches and the Pope the Head of her and their sleighting of Councels many times declare in their opinion the Pope to bee the onely Beasts head that must bee adored for the Councell maketh not the Pope infallible but the Pope the Councell f Wadding Legat. Phil. 3. c. Sect. 2 Non tribuit Concilium infallibilitatem Pontifici sed à Pontifice habeâ— Concilium ut fit ratum ac firmum For Peter and those that follow him in the faith of Peter not for a Councell did Christ pray g Ibid. Pro Pâ—tro in fide Petri succedentibus NON PRO CONCILIO oravit et exâ—ravit Well then let us see how wee shall answere what hee brings for the Roman Churches exaltation And first of all it seemeth a needlesse thing for this Iesuite to bring proofes to manifest the same It being so undoubted a truth if we may beleive this Iesuite that the very first Broachers of Protestancie when they speake without Passion doe not deny the same h Reply pag. 30 The Broachers of Protestancie were CHRIST his Apostles who gave us wine and oyle out of the Vessels of his Truth when such botchers as you have laboured to erect a phantastick frame of your owne His first instance is Martin Bucer whom he produceth confissing ingenuously that with the Fathers of the auncient Church the Romane Church obtained the Primacie before the rest for as much as shee hath S. Peters chaire and her Bishops almost ever still have beene held for Peters successors i Reply pag â—â— And what I pray you getteth your Church or Pope by this ingenuè confitemur Little I suppose to make Româ— caput infallibilitatis or the Pope the Pylot to guide thither For he saith that the Roman Church hath obtained the Primacie prae caeteris before other Churches not super not over all the rest and that the Bishops of Rome have beene held for Peters successors but not absolutely as an infallible truth but semper ferè almost ever not without doubts and jealousies as hee seemeth to expresse But if absolutely other Bishops nay all other Bishops have beene likewise so esteemed as is plaine by Chrysostomes exhortation to Basill Bishop of Caesarea who from the ground of Pasce oves exhorteth him to that duetie of Peters because it belongeth to his Successours as well as to himselfe k Chrâ—sost de Sacerdotio l. 2. â—â—tre amas me â—â—quit atque illo id conâ—iâ—ence adjungit Si amas me Pasâ—e ores meas Interrogat discipulum Praeceptor â—um ab eo non quo id ipse doâ—eatur â—erùm in NOS DOCEAâ— quanâ—ae sibi curae â—â— gregis hujus praefectura â—â— â—aulo cost Veâ—â—m hoc ille tum agebat ut Petrum caeterâ—s noâ— edoceret quantà beneâ—â—â—enâ—iâ— ac charitate erga suam ipse Ecclesiam afficeretur ut hac ratione NOS quoque ejusdem Ecclesiâ— studium curamque toto animo susciperemus 〈◊〉 item de causa Christus sanguinem effudit suum certe ut pecudes eâ—â— acquitereâ— quaâ—â—â—â— Petro â—um Petri successoribus gubernandas in manum 〈◊〉 whereunto agreeth Peter Lumbard lib. 4. Dist 18. We envie not the Bishop of the imperiall Cittie this Honour that in Procession hee shall goe last and in a Councell sit first If this will serve his turne let him put off his Crowne and assume his Myter and with an ingenuè confitemur wee will all acknowledge him the greatest Bishop first in place of all Peters Successours But for his Monarchie to make the whole Catholicke Church the Senate of Bishops and Preists a bare shadow this is too much to be allowed him Further whilst hee embraceth Peters faith wee will not deny him to have a part as the rest of the Catholicke bodie in Christs prayer Yet to thinke that Christ so prayed for Peter and his Successours Bishops of Rome that Hell might prevayle against all other his Successours the Bishops of the Catholicke Church this without extreame flatterie wee cannot graunt unto him So that Bucer hath not said much for this Head of Churches Yet he goeth not alone Luther himselfe saith the Iesuite doth confesse that the Bishop of Rome hath superiority over all other Bishops l Reply pag. â—â— This is no great matter for it was as the Iesuite confesseth when he made use of his bests wits m Ib â— that is when he did and said or at least submitted all to the determination of this Apollyon but afterwards in his raving pange of madnes hee spared not like madde-men and fooles to speake the truth and to call a spade a spade the Pope Antichrist and the Roman state the Whore of Babylon So that any may see this maketh little to the Producers purpose for if this were a good Testimonie why doth he not produce our Acts of Parliament in Queene Maries dayes and all those Testes which in the time of blindnes from men not well
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
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.
muffling in part that can give it libertie to keep station in the Church of God without controule but when Piety is pretended and Heresie getteth in by protection thereof closed vp and vnespied this is Iniquitie in a Mysterie * 2. Thess â— 7. Whereby we see that the Iesuite hath not touched the most learned Primate his answer who for open heresies which like Edom cry out against the Church of God at their birth downe with it downe with it even to the ground †Psal 137. 7. confesseth that the impietie thereof is so notorious that at the very first appearance it is manifestly discerned c The most reverend the Lord Primate his Answere pag. 2. And whereas he dare challenge his Adversaries to give true instance so much as but of any one knowne and confessed Heresie which was not at it first divulging contradicted by some one or other Pastor of Gods Church how cunningly soever it came muffled in the mantle of Pietie d Page 6. making it as a thing impossible to be performed Heereby every man may perceive that the Iesuite is willing to close his owne eyes vpon condition he may pull out other mens For otherwise daâ—â— he be so bold as that hee should deny this Apostasie to have come into the Church without resistance when the spirit of God doth declare that the bringers in of it must have a time for detection not being opposed in the beginning but revealed and consumed * Thess 2. 6. 2. afterwards But leaving this what the Iesuite desires here was performed to him by the Testimony of Bernard and Reinerâ—us in the Answer to the first Section concerning the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 whom they have accounted condemâ—â—â—â— for Heretickes Yet because this point may bee morefully answered I will out of their owne authors gratifie him further in this particular And first from Prâ—teolus c Prateolus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Aquarij are knowne and confessed Her 〈◊〉 and yet quiâ— hujus 〈…〉 fuit ex quo tempore caeperit nemo est qui indicat Here the Iesuite must send for Saint Bridget for he will neede a Revelation in regard that as Prateolus acknowledgeth their first beginning is vnknowne So Alphonsus de Castro f Alphon de Castro adv haere lib 6. DeEuchaâ—istia Adversus hunc errorem tres Evangelistae pugnant Mathaeus scilicet Marcus Lucas cannot finde any throughout all the Ecclesiasticall History which opposed their Heresie at its first divulging and therefore runneth vp to the institution of the Sacrament and makes Mathew Marke and Luke the opposers A strange thing that this heresie concerning the Sacrament should have birth before the Sacrament was instituted or the institution thereof published by the Evangelists The Praedestinati are reputed by your owne for Heretickes yet Alphonsus de Castro g Idem lib. 12. de Praedestinatio Quis autem suerit hujus haeresis princeps Sigibertus subticuit nec egoapud aliquem alium reperi notwithstanding his search cannot finde their Author and Prateolus h Prateolus Elench Haeret. Quis eorum Dux institutor fuerit nescitur telleth vs their Captaine is not knowne So also the Abstinentes were taken for no better then Hereticks and yet you are so far from discovering the time of their birth that their spreading is not remembred as your Prateolus i Ibid Abstinentes quo tempore viguere non meminit Philastrius observeth Multitudes of this kinde might be produced but these shall for the present suffice in answer to the Iesuites challenge Hee secondlie observes that the most reverend Primate his distinction of such like Heresies and that Apostasie serve his turne nothing at all forasmuch as it hath no ground nor foundation which doth not proove more stronglie against his part then against vs. This distinction will presage as ill to Rome as a Comet if you faile to proove what you so confident he affirme But to make it good First he demaunds what can he infeâ—ta out of these sayings of the Apostle which we may not with farre more probabilitie apply to himselfe and to his Revolting Religion c rather then those auncient Fathers and holy Doctours of the Primitive Church whom he himselfe though else where hee confesseth them to â—â—ve beene godly 〈◊〉 yet in this place would have vs to thinke that they were of those who spake lyâ—â— in Hypocrisie and had a hand in bringing in of damnable Apostasie Secondly he saith That our Answerer and his mates did in their foreleaders Luther and Galvin revolt and depart from the Roman Church yea from all the world is voluntarily acknowledged by Calvin himselfe For which cause wee thinke that wee may with reason hold them guiltie of Apostasie indeed k Reply pag. 6. In all which observation wee finde him to charge vs first to further that mysticall iniquitie rather then those auncient Fathers of the Primitive Church Secondly that wee did revolt and depart from the Roman Church and are guiltie of this Apostasie But if all this were as true faith as the Iesuite professeth how maketh it to the overthrow of the exception A deepe charge but nothing to the purpose For the question in controversie is not who brought in the Apostasie but whether there bee such an Apostasie that concludeth within it many Heresies like terra filij begotten wee know not by whom borne wee know not where nor when The learned Answerer saith there are such and the Iesuite saith nothing materiall to the contrary and therefore the demaund to finde out all heresies onely by person time and place must remaine vaine and ill-grounded still But whereas the Iesuite by wrastling and strugling thinketh his demaund is made good if he can cast this Apostasie from themselves and Rome it maketh nothing for him but altereth the question as if his demaund excepting these mysticall iniquities had desired by circumstance of person time and place to have pointed out all other heresies onelie And who doth not see this defence erected by the most learned Answerer for the Catholicke faith impregnable and so far without his shot that he would fasten falshoods which are ridiculous vpon his learned pen that hee might with some shew and advantage fight against the same For who chargeth the Fathers that they speake lyes in hypocrisie let him point out the place if hee can in which the most reverend Primate would have them thinke that they were of those or such kinde of men Hee telleth vs indeed that when the seeds of mysticall iniquitie were a sowing they the Fathers that kept watch and ward against the one open heresies that oppose the foundation might sleepe yea peradventure might at vnawares themselves have some hand in bringing in this Trojan horse commended vnder the name of Religion l Page â— c. But is heere any thing that attempts to perswade you that the fathers speake lyes in Hypocrisie or doth crosse that testimony which elsewhere hee hath
mil lib 3. cap. 5. Neminem posse etiamsi velit subesse Christo communicare cum Ecclesia coelesti qui nen subest Pontifici non communicat cum Ecclesia militante viz Romana So that we can justly say that wee have beene forced to depart from your particular Communion you declaring your selves schismaticks and enemies to the Catholicke Church and that wee doe adhere to the vniversall body it selfe in which Salvation will be found notwithstanding all your desperate Decrees cast out against the members thereof But our Iesuite sayth that we are so far from discovering any such thing that a prime Doctour †Doctour Feild in his Treatise of the Church lib. 3. cap. 13. cited Reply pag. 7. of ours confesseth that the Roman Church held still Communion with those other Churches that never fell into error We find not this in the place alledged but allowing it to be so why might not a perverse company hold Communion outward Conformitie with the true Church You make Iudas an Hereticke wee thinke hee was scarce so good and yet how long in this Hypocrisie did hee keepe Communion with the Apostles Arius was worse if it were possible for as the first would have dissolved his humanity this attempted with grosse conceits against his Divinity and yet his Communion was Catholicke and in outward appearance he a Socrat. eccl hist lib. 1. and his consorts b Carron in sum Concil pag. 39 Vndeâ—â—â— consilio inter se habito acquiescunt ad subscribendum manu solâ non mente subscribed to the Nicene Creed If this be all that you can say for your faith that you have held outward Communion with the faithfull it doth little avayle For a theife may be with true men and Heretickes with them that professe the faith and the Divell himselfe among the sonnes of God nay present himselfe before the Lord * Iob 2. 1 But an other †Master Bunny in his treatise tending to pacification sect 14. pag. 89. of the same ranke telleth vs that the Church of Rome hath ever continued after a sort in profession of the faith since the time that by the Apostles it was delivered to them c. And hath also in some manner preserved c. the word and Sacraments that Christ himselfe did leave vnto vs All this will not make Rome Catholicke or free her from Apostasie backsliding which surely is a very speciciall blessing of God and an evident worke of the holy Ghost from which confession our Iesuite inferrs that the Church of Rome her enemies being Iudges is cleerely freed from all suspition of Apostasie and is confessed to have held faithfull Communion with the true Church of God c Reply pag. 7 But all this foolishly and without ground even by the judgment of as cunning an Arguer as himselfe Parsons the Iesuite for hee doth not thinke Mr Bunny so kinde d Parsons Resolution in the second part of his Preface to the Reader It is such a PacificatioÌ„ as the high Preists of the Iewes wold have made with the Apostles after they had whipt and beaten them vpon condition they should neither teach nor preach any more the Doctrine of Christ as the Iesuite would have him neither doth he pick out of those words any such conclusion as heere is pointed out vnto vs which I have no cause to thinke hee would have omitted if the words would have afforded any such thing Yet we must consider that Mr Bunny was a Pacificator and would speake as much as possibly he could if not more then was fit for perswading vnion betwixt Rome and other Churches Moreover all the good he speaketh of the Romish church is that after a sort they continued in the profession of the faith which might have beene spoken of the Arians Nestorians Pelagians the most heretickes that did not vtterly cast of the name profession of Christianity for which of them after a sort did not professe CHRIST to be the Messias the Saviour of the world Further in some manner it preserued the word and sacraments but in such a maner that may stand with Apostasie The word they acknowledge but with Additions traditionall written the Câ—â—on so corrupted must not speak but with a tongue of the Pope's making The Sacraments they reject not but deny the People in the Eucharist the cup the other they have corrupted with many mixtures whereby it appeareth plainely that they have fallen from the auncient puritie embraced by the Roman church and that after a sort and in some manner onely they have had Communion with other Churches the word and sacraments being preserved not from their desire so much as from the blessing of God For if they might have done all at pleasure the word of God had beene changed for Evangelium aternum e Vide hist explica reverendis simi dom Primar de success stat Eccl cap â— and what doe you thinke would have become of the Sacraments So that the Answerer his worke neither totters nor wants a supporter as yet His third observation is that the most learned Primate will not have those opinions wherein we differ from him to be Heresies but onely a kind of still creeping in Apostasie hooded with the name of Religion and semblance of Devotion and therefore pretendeth himselfe to be excused from discovering vnto vs the author time of their beginnings f Reply pag. 7. Againe he chargeth the learned Answerer page 12. to denounce their opinions Heresies far spread and of long continuance which he imputeth to forgetfulnes till hee remembreth himselfe that they are not exempted from being Heresies by the Answerer but from being such as doe openly oppose the foundation of our faith g Ibid. So that these sayings may stand well together notwithstanding any thing he hath as yet vttered But he telleth vs if the differing points be heresies that never any did more openly oppose the foundation of faith then they And to prove this hee produceth the point of adoration of the hoste in the Sacrament of which he maketh no question but every man will easily vnderstand that if Hell were raked vp a more notorious Heresie could not be found c. and therefore it seemeth impossible in this Iesuites iudgment that any Bishop of Rome could be able to perswade such an impietie c. without being manifestly discerned h ibid. That this grosse and idolatrous Practise of Adoration of the Host is founded vpon a grosse and hereticall foundation is not denyed by the most learned Answerer Neither doe I thinke any man will otherwise conceipt thereof and yet by this concession the Iesuite getteth no ground for his inference therein For suppose this doth fight against Gods divine truth and in as violent a manner as the gates of Hell or power of darknes it followeth not that every man will easily espy i Rhem annota upon the 2. Thess cap 2.
Angels and the Resurrection and convinced theÌ„ for such by the scriptures doe you think this tricke of Popish deceit would have exempted them from censure or preserved them for Saints Surely if this Iesuite â—nquired after truth he would not thus spend himselfe with vaine delayes and exceptions If a Sadduce should now appeare and teach the same doctrine as Pope Iohn z Concil Constan Sess 11. Item quod dictus Ioannes Papa vigesmus tertius â—apeè saepiùs coraâ— diverâ—â—â— praelatis alijs 〈◊〉 probis viriâ— pertinaâ—iter diabolo suadente dixit asservâ—â—â— dogmatiâ—avit adâ—â—â—uxit vitam aeternam non esse nequâ— aliam post hanc quin imo dixit pertinaciter 〈◊〉 animaâ—◠〈…〉 extingu◠〈…〉 dixitque 〈…〉 die 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contra articulum de resurrectione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de premissis fuit est dictus Ioannes Papa apud clerum populuae gravites diâ—â—aâ—atuâ— Sicque vt praediciâ—â—r fuit dictum tentum creditum reputatum diciâ—urque tenetur creditur reputatur palà m publicâ— notoriê the XXIIIth did how would hee stoppe his mouth Doe you thinke that he would be forced from necessitie to vrge the Scriptures Why the 〈◊〉 vrgeth them heere And I doubt not but hee could be content with them in other matters also if they would afford them the like â—â—elter But those that are strangled must needs make mouthes though they can speake nothing to the purpose and our Iesuite would seeme to defend that which he knoweth is impossible by his grounds to be made good So that you may hereby perceive that we can expect from him nothing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for his owne advantage for if he be not able to answere what is proposed then what is brought in against him is nothing to the purpose labouring to frame a pretence for vpholding of that which hee with no truth is able to justifie For his other answere viz Any man that hath read the thirteenth booke of Iosephus c. may easily declare how the Saduces brâ—ached both that and the rest of their errours vnder the high Priest Ionâ—â—has as Machabaeus who began his raigne about 163 yeeres before the birth of Christ and raigned twenty a Reply pag. 9. Whatsoever the Iesuite pretends there is not one word in Iosephus whereby he can proove the beginning of the Sadduces their opinion of denying Angels or indeede when they began to be a sect For in the place b Lib. 1â— antiâ—â—â—â— alledged by him Iosephus telleth vs that there were three Sects amongst the Iewes one of the Pharisees an other of the Sadduces the third of the Essenes who were accompted Sects not in their inchoation but perfection about 143. yeares before Christ in the time of this High Priest And the same Authour in an other place c 〈…〉 expressing things done some 11. yeares after Christ showeth that the Iewes were divided into sects a 〈◊〉 retrò 〈◊〉 which could not be if they began in the time assigned by the Iesuite Besides the Iesuite is so far from telling when the Sadduces or their Errours began that hee knoweth not when the High Priest 〈◊〉 vnder whom he would have vs beleive they 〈◊〉 that errour neither how long to vse his owne wordes he raigned For if hee had hee would not then have begun his raigne 163. yeares before Christ neither have extended his government to twentie yeares against the truth of Chronology in the manner that he hath done For 〈◊〉 his testimony I doe not need much to value it in regard his owne fellow-Iesuite Sâ—â—â—â—ius d In Triâ—haeres lib. 2. cap. 25. hath rejected and refuted his testimony in this particular So that this instance is not vainly brought nor so far wide as the Iesuite would have it but prest to purpose prooving strongly that to be an heresie the originall whereof he is no way able to demonstrate vnto vs which enervates cuts asunder the very heart-strings of his Argument The Grecians Câ—â—cassians Georgians Syrians Egyptians Habissines Muscovites Russians saith the most learned Primate dissâ—â—t at this day from the Church of Rome in many 〈◊〉 will you take vpon you to shew in what Bishops dayes these severall differences did first arise To this the Iesuite replyeth I will S â— and by Gods helpe performe it also out of the learned workes of our moderne Catholicke â—â—iters c Reply pag. â— But before this be performed the Iesuite must remember what their owne f A. C his true Relations of sundry Conferences pag. 11. 12. require of vs in this Quere that he may with the same strictnes satisfie vs in that which we desire of him First they desire vs to shew the point changed in the Roman Church from the auncient faith Secondly they â—rge vs to prove this change not by any reason of antiquity or the word of God but by the other circumstances of the Author 〈◊〉 place and who persisting in the former vnchanged faith opposed and continued opposition against is as against a Novelty and Heresie Besides this the Author time place of such novelties heresies must so be pointed out that no Papist may be â—ble to shew those points to have beene hold by more ancient approved authors in the same sence in which they are held by the Roman Church for if they are then they conclude that is able to convince that there was no such change â—ade Now if this Iesuite can performe what he hath promised in all the controversies betwixt the Roman the Greeke Church with that strictnes which is required of vs in the like kind theÌ„ may he have some colour for what he requireth at our hands but if he hath fayled herein the Reader will easily perceive that they are as little able to convince the Greek Church which yet notwithstanding they have rejected of Heresie by this rule as they thinke we are vnable to detect theÌ„ And seeing the Iesuit hath takeÌ„ vpoÌ„him the former task I will bestow the pains to give him a Catalogue of particulars wherin those Churches dissent froÌ„ the Roman to see out of what good authors he is able to lay me down the person time place by whom when where they were brought into those Churches with their opposers c. 1. For the Greciani they deny Purgatory fire and holde that the soules of holy men departed enjoy not the beatificall vision before the day of judgment g Concil Floren prope initium respons Graec. ad Cardinal Guisan q. 1. Thom. à Iesu de conv gen lib. 6 cap. 1. eit by Brere wood in his enquiries 2 The Habissenes have with them the practise of Circumcision not onely of males but females also h Zaga Zabo derel mor. Aethiop cit per cundem 3. They have a rule that no man must spit the same day that he hath received the Eucharist i Zago Zabo ibid cit per cundem 4. They teach that the soules
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
59. And here the Iesuite without doubt is gravelled for that which before he saith is notorious he cannot here lay downe he saith it was contradicted against Theodorus c. but he doth not tell vs that Theodorus was the first who brought that into the Church neither speaketh hee one syllable of the person time and place in what manner this supposed Heresie of Preists marriage was brought in But if we can proove this an Heresie as ancient as the Apostles time as the Church of the Iewes that the institution thereof is divine Surely they were asleepe that were watch-men in the Church or else the contradiction hereof had not beene left to their opposall mentioned by the Iesuite And to verify this the two last assertions neede not proofe it being plaine to every man that God instituted marriage without restraint in Paradise * Gen 2. â—2 and Preists and Levites †His enim cum â—aeteris omnibus jus connubii jam inde ab initio fuit vndè scriptum est 19 Iudicum Vir Levites habitans in monte Ephra im accepit uxorem de Bethleem Iuda Ioiada Pontifex ex tribu Levi in vâ—â—rem habuit â—esabeth sororem Ahoziae regis Iudae 22. 2. Pa. ralip. in after-timeâ— vsed that lawfull â—emedy as well as â—aiâ—â—s And for the Apostles practise that they had wives Clemens Alexandr h Clem Alex Strom lib â—â— Philippus autem 〈◊〉 quoque suas 〈◊〉 tradidit Eâ— Paulus quidem certè non veretur in quadam epistola suam appellaâ—e conjugem quam non circumâ—â—rebat quòd non magno ci esset â—pus â—inisterii in a manner all antiquity doth averte Neither doth Bellarmine i Lib. 1. de Clericis cap. 20. deny it for if he did how could he charge the Apostles postquam vocati à Christo fuerunt to doe that which hee can never proove to have beene done viz officio conjugali renunciásse seeing the Apostle testifieth the contrary 1. Cor. 9. 5. and the Canons of the Apostles k Carran sum Coâ—c caâ— 5. Episcopus aut presbyter vâ—â—rem propriam nequaqu â—â— sub obâ—â—nâ—â— religionis abâ—iciat Si vero rejecerit excommuâ—icetur sed si perseveraverit dejieiatur and Concil Gangrens l Caran sum cone can 4. Quicunque discernit à presbytero qui uxorem habuit quòd non oporteat co ministrante de oblatione percipere anathema sit expresse their distaste of such practises the first inhibiting Preists sub obtenâ—â— religionis to put away their wives the other the people for the like cause to contemne their ministration But if hee maketh Chrysostome and Epiphanius to reproove this errour or heresie in Theodorus and certaine others as the first opposers of necessity of Preists their single lives Alphonsus de Castro m Advers haeâ— lib. 13. De Sacerdo haer 4. may learne that Luther is not Hujus haeresis primus author And Innocent the third might have received instruction if he had had but as wise Councell as this Iesuite that before the time of Theodorus Monachus the Orientall Church did receive the vow of continency at least virtually which this holy father n Titul de Cler con cap cum olim cit ibid per Alphon de Castro could not finde out and that it was first opposed by him And how shall wee give credit to their compilers of Councels in their other narrations when Gratian in this particular is casheered by this Iesuite as an Ignoramus or a pettie observer for he telleth vs that o Distinc â—â— cap. syracusanae cit ibid per Alphon de Castro Orientalis Ecclesia non suscâ—pit votum castitatis Surely the Iesuite saith in effect that Innocent the Father and Gratian and Alphonsus de castro the sonnes were children in these affirmations and did not wisely observe precedent times for if they had they should have found Preists to have beene restrained either by law or vowe vntill Chrysostome and Epiphanius their time when Theodorus Monachus and some others did onely oppose this doctrine But Chrysostome was not so affected to oppose the marriage of Preists or Bishops as may appeare in his second Homile vpon the first chapter of the Epistle to Titus tom 4. p Obstruere prorsusintendit â—â—reticorum ora qui nuptias damount often dens eam rem culpa carere immò ita esse pretiosam vt cum ipsa etiam possit quispiaâ—â— ad sanctum episcopatus solium subvehi whatsoever he thought of Monks And for Epiphanius as he contradicted the marriage of Preists so did many Priests in his time practise the same as is confessed by himselfe q Epiph haer 5â— He tels vs also their denyall of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the father and the sonne was begunne and gainesayed about Anno 764. as witnesseth our Adversary Keckermanus in System Theolog. pag. 68. r Reply pag 10 â—Pag 9. The Iesuite promised s out of the learned workes of their moderne Catholick writers to shew vs in what Bishops dayes these differences did first arise but yet heere he is willing to imbrace the testimony of their Adversary Keckerman and for necessity we presume because he can have little evidence elsewhere Whereby we may see how convincing a rule that is which is taken from person time and place to detect Heresie and errour when as our Iesuite cannot by these circumstances point out from the evidence of good stories the prime Greekish errour for which they pretend A. C. his true Relations pag. 49. principally to cast off the Greeke Church and to make it hereticall But if Keckerman be observed he saith not much to the purpose for which the Iesuite hath produced him for whereas a set time a set place a notorius person ought to have beene produced Keckerman for time brings the whole compasse of 764 yeares pag. 6â— annis post Christâ—â— natum 764. the age of along-liued Pope and for the person the Iesuite nameth him not and for the place where this errour received birth if the Iesuite will have vs to conceive the Greeke Church the place is as much extended as the time as containing a larger circuite vnlesse he hop over to their new plantations of America then the Roman Catholick Church And heere let the Iesuite either confesse that he vnderstood not his Adversary or plead guiltie of wilfull a busing his author For Keckerman never sayd that the Greek Church denyed the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father neither doth he appoint the yeare when their denyall of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Sonne was begunne and gainsayed And therefore wee must conceive hee read this Author with a squint eye and a corrupt minde when he maketh him to point at the time for the beginning of this errour to bee about anno 764. it being plaine that this opinion had ground in the Church long before even in the judgment of this Author x Ibid. cited by himselfe In the next repeated errour
were first brought in whether by Balaam or an Apostle though the Iesuite his fellowes could proâ—e it by Apocrypha to be as auncient as the towre of Babeâ—â— it wil be prophane and new in the opinion of any Christian iudgment and vnderstanding still And here it is not to be omitted how the Iesuite flyes to that which they coÌ„temne in us the sacred scriptures deserting the successioÌ„ of this article of glorious RomaÌ„ faith suspecting the fathers so much boasted of by him to prove it of universall beleife must we be urged then in reason to tell you at what time Purgatory and Indulgences were first brought into the Church wheÌ„as the Greeke Fathers seldome mentioned Purgatory never received it x Roâ—â—ens ar 18. Graecis ad hunc vsque diem non est creditum Purgatorium esse when some of the Latine apprehended it not y Ibid. Sed neque Latini simul omnes ac sensim huâ—us rei veritatem conceperunt when sometime it was vnknowne z Ibid. Aliquandiu Purgatorium in cognitum and but lately knowne to the Church a Ibid Sero cognitum ac receptum Ecclesiae fuerit vniversae when it got strength pedetentim by little little not from scriptures or fathers interpreting them onely but partly ex revelationibus b Ibid. by some whisperer in a trunke or a worse Gipsy But if these notable points in the opinioÌ„ of Valentia Caiâ—tan Fisher had their original froÌ„ Christ his Apostles the word of God why should the Iesuit desire any other medium to examine the truth of their report but their own levell The word of God is sufficient to canonize these of faith could you but finde them delivered there But we are sure of your disability herein vnlesse you fly vnto the ayde of your pro ratione voluntas your will-guiding Interpreter And the Iesuit might have forborn to charge the Answerer with untruth in regard he but only repeats Fisher Caietans opinions and the Iesuite himselfe thus farre jumpeth with them that there is some uncertainty when first their vse began Besides I would gladly know whether the word of God without succession be able to point us out the certaine original of the Doctrine of faith if it be what will become of his demaund if it be not where findeth he the vntruth that he doth falsly charge the Answerer withall Finally Because Fisher affirmeth that the knowledge of Purgatory came in pedetentim by little little therefore it ought not to be admitted nor esteemed For by the same Logick he may prove that S. Iames his epistle ought not to be admitted for Canonicall Scripture because as S. Hierome c Paulatim tempore procedente meruit authoritatem Hieron de vitis illust verbo Iecobus doth witnesse by little and little in processe of time it obtained authority credit d Reply pag. 13 This is another brat of the Iesuites begetting let him foster it the most learned Answerer concludeth no such thing but shewes that this profane Novelty crept pedetentim like a snaile to the height of Papall faith and therefore is not easy to be discerned But the Iesuite had a great mind to make vse of Ierome's words and without a forged preparation hee was not able to bring them in Yet as he vrgeth them there is great difference betweene these two instances For the Epistle of S. Iames was first received by the Catholike Church e Eusebius apud Sixt. Sâ—nens Bibl. Sanct lib. 7. haer 9. Noâ— tamen scimusistam epistolâ—m Iacobi cum caeteris ab omnibus Ecclesijs recipi though doubted of by some particular members thereof f Sixtuâ— Senens ibid. Nec ita perperà m sequentia verba Hieronymi interpretanda sunt ut ex his dedueamus Epistolam hanc vel temporum successu vel Ecclesiae diâ—â—imulatione divinam factam Iaâ—obo ascriptam cum tadis ipsa non esset hoc enim impossibile prorsus est sed sic potius juxta veram Hieron mi mentem exponenda sunt quod Epistolam hanc de qua primum inter ALIQVOS ambigebatur an divino spiritu aâ— ab Apostolo Iacobo scripta esset Ecclesia Christi paulatim tempore procedente â—â—mperit esse veram et canonicam etipsiâ—s Iacobi germanam But Purgatory was not received so far as they can manifest but by degrees in particular Churches only never at the best esteemed as of faith but among Romanists Secondly Purgatory partim ex revelationibus came to be beleived of some particular Churches when the Epistle of S. Iames from the worth divine light that was in it selfe meruit authoritatem got authority not in the Catholicke but amongst those doubting Churches which had not received it So that heere is the difference of paulatim and pedetentim S. Iames his Epistle was knowne and received by the Catholicke Church and did by degrees remove the jealousie of those particular Churches that suspected it Purgatory being vnknowne at sometime to the Catholick Church which must either be in the Apostles dayes or never vnlesse this point were more vnhappy then any other point of Doctrine got to be knowne afterwards in the Roman Church not from Scriptures which knew it not but by revelations and tales of a Ghost When our Answerer then c. doth demand of us whence tho foresaid points of Purgatorie Indulgences Communion in one kind have their Originals we can shew even out of the very authors alledged by himselfe that they have their Originals from the institution of our Lord howsoever it be granted that there is some uncertainty when first began their publique and frequent use g Reply pag. 13 What doth the Iesuite get by this he affordeth us matter sufficient to prove his Demaund idle For first what little reason hath he to aske What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion which wee commend in them of the first 400. yeares and In what Pope his dayes was the true Religion overthrowne in Rome when they themselves are forced to distinguish in regard of time the practise of their faith from the person that instituted the Doctrine thereof confining this vnto the age of Christ acknowledging the other to have beene brought into the Roman Church they know not when †〈◊〉 constat Secondly what ground hath the Iesuite the rest of his profession to require the circumstances of person time and place to find out heresies by but because the true auncient faith hath beene ever continued in the Church by perpetuall succession being beleived practised therein without interruption And yet here our Adversaries confesse that a doctrine may be taught by Christ yet never practised in the immediate following times but as a thing forgotten begin in particular Churches after the Apostolick times and from thence slyde into the Roman never into the Catholick at such a time which they are not able to designe
received being in those times For he with vehemencie declareth that it is in vain for the Preist to attend the Altar where the people doe not communicate y Chrysost homil 61. ad populum Antiochen O consuetudinem ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frustra quotidi anum Incassum aâ—sistimus altari nullus qui communicetur And Cassander will tell you that this Dâ—pravation of the Sacrament in the Popish Church was distasted in two several Councels the Preist forbiddeÌ„ to celebrâ—â—â— alone z Cassander consult aâ— 24. §. de solitarijs missis pag. 21 Ex Canone quodam câ—â—cilij Nanetensis Sacerdos solus Missam celebrare vetatur absurdum enim est ut dicat Dominus vobiscum Sursum corda Gratias agamus Deo Domino nostro cùm nullus sit qui respondeat aut Oremus cùm nullus siâ— qui secum oret Itaq concludit ridiculosâ—â—â—perstitionem illam maximè à monasterijs monachoruÌ„ exterminandaÌ„ esse Et huic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decreto simile reperitur in conc Papiensi cap. â—32 ut â—â—llus â—resbyter solâ—◠〈◊〉 celebrare praesumat But if Luther had first opposed this practise did he not well was it not better to reduce things to that good order froÌ„ which they were fallen then to curse them who will not have things to coÌ„tinue unorderly stil See the whole face of the ancient Church see the confessioÌ„ of your own Doctors Câ—â—hlâ—us a Cochlaeus deâ—acrâ—ficio Miâ—sae Quòd inquit 〈◊〉 tam frequentes non 〈◊〉 Missae inde accidisse arbitâ—or quòd olim omnes tum Sacerdotes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interâ—raÌ„t sacrificio Missae peractâ oblatione cumâ—acrificaÌ„te 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex Câ—â— Apost ex libâ—is atque epist antiquissimorâ— Ecclesiae DoctoruÌ„ perspicuè coâ—â—oscitur Tum adjungit Nunc verò postquam CoÌ„munionis ordo à nobis observaâ—◠〈◊〉 idque propter negligentiaÌ„ atque soâ—â—â—diaÌ„ tam plebis quaÌ„ sacetdotuÌ„ Spiritus Sanctus missas privatas celebrâ—â—do 〈◊〉 remedâ—â—â—â—ic defectâ—â— invenit Teste Hospin l 4. hist sacr pag. 330. 331. Cassander b Cassaâ—â— conâ— aâ—â—4 §. De iteratione pag. 223. DubiuÌ„ non est quin unà cum ipso Sacerdoâ—â— ali qui adâ—â—â—rint qui haec 〈◊〉 laudis offerebant SacramentuÌ„ 〈◊〉 Id enim 〈◊〉 verba manifestè significant ut cùm dicitur Quotquot ex haâ—â—ltaris participatione sacrâ—sanctâ— corpus et 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tui sumpsâ—riâ—â—â—â—â—tâ—m Prosiâ—â—â—obis Domine Sacramenta quae sumpâ—imus Certè ex totâ Canonis coÌ„positione manifestâ— apparet totam illam mysticam in quâ Canon adâ—â—bebatur actionem vel publicaâ— velceâ—â— inter plures sempâ—â— celebratam suisse Quòd si â—odiè quoque impetrari quâ—at facilâ— verus ejus intellectus restitui 〈◊〉 tell me whether this bee the doctrine of Divells that was instituted by Christ and practised by the Fathers of the first ages or those practises which were brought into the Church by prescripts of men though imputed to the holy Ghost propter negligentiam socordiam 〈◊〉 plebis quâ—m sacerdoâ—â—â— c Vidâ— lit â—â— by the negligence sloathfulnesse aswell of the people as of the Preists The Iesuite now commeth to the second instance and would perswade that the Answerer doth farre more idlie range from the matter in this instance concerning the time when the People fill first from their vulgar languages d Reply pag. â—8 The end of the most learned Answerer his whole discourse is to point out the vanity of the Iesuites demaund and to this purpose he manifestly declareth that all their prophane Novelties were not effected by any one Bishop of Rome or in one Popes dayes But that some alterations within the Roman territories are to be attributed to the very change of time it selfe not being prevented by the Roman Pastors whom the Iesuite pretendeth to have beene so diligent and watchfull An experiment whereof we may see in the use of the Latin service in the Churches of Italy France and Spaine which was used in those Countries from the beginning the Latine tongue being at that time commonly understood of all and afterwards by little and little degenerated into those vâ—lgar languages which now are used This peirâ—ing Argument of the most learned Answerer against the Iesuites Demand is thought to bee avoyded by him with an idle chatt First he telleth us that this abuse belongeth not to any point of Religion e Reply pag. 18 which we confesse but it is a great helpe and pillar to irreligion f Aquinas comin 1. Cor. 14. fol. 100. Duplex est fructus orationis Alius est spiritualis consolatio devotio concepta ex oratione Et quantum ad fructum devotionis spâ—ritualiâ— privatur qui non attendiâ— ad â—a quae â—rat â—â—â— non intelligit that the service of the Church should be continued in a language which keepeth men from hearing God and knowing his will And yet what belongeth to Religion if this doth not that the People should both pray to God intelligently g Lyra in cap. 14. 1. Cor. Hic consequenter idem oâ—â—endit in oratioâ—â— publicâ quia â—i populus inteâ—ligat â—râ—tionem â—â—â— benedictionem sacer dotis melius reducitur in Dâ—â—m 〈◊〉 der Amen receive instruction froÌ„ him in a language which they familiarly vnderstand Secondly he saith that this change was unadvisedly brought in by him for an example Reply pag. 18 I pray you tell us of what this was produced an example Thirdly he perswadeth that it was untruelie affirmed that the Latine tongue in the beginning of the Church was commonly understood of all in Italie France and Spaine for the two last had their proper vulgar language farre differing from the Latine Ibid. But is not English common in Ireland at this day and commonly understood and yet the Irish have a proper language of their owne Why may not the same bee affirmed of France and Spaine in the Primitive times were not they vnder the Roman government were there not severall Colonies in each of them doe you thinke they left their language when they departed their Country Doe not the Latine remaines shew their usuall Speech Any may see who is not blinde that although the Gothes Vandalls and Moores by their intermixtures have somewhat corrupted the same Bellarm libro 2. cap. 15. De verbo Dei. Ante M. C. annos Hispania seperata â—â—it à Romano imperio subjâ—â—â—â— paâ—tim Gothis partim Mâ—uris qui novam linguam 〈◊〉 dubio invexerunt yet they brought their Religion and language at first from Rome And therefore what the Iesuite taketh from the concession of the most learned Answerer maketh nothing for his advantage vizt. that when be graunteth that the Latine service was used in those Countryes from the beginning c. full well and freindly doth hee justifie our use of the Latine service l Reply pag 18 c. For this is farre from freely justifying the present Latine service because it was in
the Roman Church could not free that age from darkenes Thirdly that the Spirit which assisted Popes Princes in those times was the Spirit that worketh in the Children of disobedience * Eph. â— â— Fourthly that Heresies might have come into the Church of Rome for any care the Pope had to keepe them out if GODS divine providence had not prevented them Fiftly that the Divell aboundantly sowed his tares of vices in Princes Prelates yet Gods divine providence did so worke that no new Heresies did then arise Is not heere a brave defence to make the Answerer his argument to languish and sleepe for ever Surely the Iesuite was betwixt sleeping and waking that he said he knew not what But did the Divell thinke no ground fit for his tares but Princes and Prelates Surely we are able to demonstrate that this bad blinde sleepie age did give seed-time for innumerable corruptions in others also yea so flourishing were the blossomes and prodigious the fruite which sprung from that seed husbanded by the Divell that it infected the whole Roman Church in such a manner that Gerebertus in his Apologie for the Councell of Rhemes put his petition up to Christ in Heaven as having no hope for good in the Roman Church upon earth it being so far infected that loosing the nature of a mother shee cursed the good blessed the evill communicated with those whom shee ought not to salute bound them with excommunication whom Christ had freed being accepted of him and zealous of his lawe z Gereber Apolog pro Rhemens Concil post acta Concil Rhem. Sed una salus hominis ô Christe â—â—â—eâ— Ipsa Roma omnium Ecclesiarum hactenus habita mater bonis maledicere malis benedicere fer tur quibus nec Ave dicendum est comâ—â—â—icare tuamque legem zelantes damnare abutens ligandi solvendi potestate à te acceptâ And so corrupt was that age that all vertue was consumed both in head and members a Io. Stella in vitâ Benedicti â— Papae 122. Acciderat illi aetati quòd omnis virtus tam in capite quam in membris ex hominum ignaviâ consumpta suerit nay so farre was Religion out of date that Preists and Bishops durst not speake of Iustice or righteousnes in regard they neither loved nor practised it b Aâ—lfric serm ad Sacerdotes MS. in Biblioth Colleg. Benedict Cantabrig His diebus tanta negligentia est in Sacerdotibus Episcopis qui deberent esse â—oâ—umnae Ecclesiae ut 〈◊〉 non audent de justitia loqui qui justitiam nec faciunt nec diligunt But the Iesuite thinketh all is well if Princes and Prelates were defiled together Yet Wernerus their owne Carthusian may assure us that our Iesuite putteth Princes causelesly into a lewd company when as hee coupleth them with Popes for hee telleth us it was most apparant that Holines had left the Pope and fled to the Emperours c Werner Fascic tempâ—tat 6. circ an 944. Sanctitatem Papam dimisisse ad Imperatoreâ— accessisse hoc tempore clarâ— apparet which is cleare on the one side also by the testimony of their owne Baronius who saith that most sordide whooâ—es governed at Rome their lustfull mates ascending the Chayre d Baron tom 10. Annal. an 912. §. 8. Quae tunc facies sanctae Ecclesiae Romanae quà m foedissisima cùm Romae dominarentur potentiffimae ae què ac fordidissimae meretrices quarum arbitrio mutarenâ—â—r sedes darenâ—ur Episâ—opi quod auditu horrendum infandum est intruderentur in Sedem Petri earum amaâ—â—pâ—eudâ— pontifices Here first this Iesuite hath abused Princes as their usuall practise is in joyning them with such filthy and foul-lived wretches as their Popes are confessed and acknowledged to be when Princes have reprehended and loathed them labouring to bring them to reformation as Otto and the Roman Synode did Iohn the 12. or 13. for you agree not whether he is calling him to purge himselfe of most fearfull offences as Homicide Perjury Sacriledge Incest drinking the Divels health Dicing invocating Iupiter Venus and other Divels e â—uitprand Tiâ—inens Hister l. 6. c. 9. â— 10. Summo Pontifici et universali Papae Domino Iohanni Otto divinae respectu clementiae Imperator Augustus cum Archiepiscopis Liguriae Tusciae Saxoniae Franciae in Domino salutem Romam ob servitium Dei venientes dum filios vestros Romanos scilicet Episcopos Cardinales Presbyteros Diaconos et universam plebem de vestra absentia percontaremur et quid caussae esset quòd nos Ecclesiae vestrae vestrique defensores videre noluissetis talia de vobis tamque obâ—â—oena protulerunt ut si de hiâ—â— oâ—ibus dicerentur vobis verecundiam ingererent Quae ne magnitudinem vestram omnia lateant quaedam vobis sub brevitate dâ—scribimus quum si cuncta nominatim exprimere cuperemus dies nobis non sufficeret unus Noveritis itaque non à paucis sed ab omnibus tam vestri quam alterius ordinis vos homicidij perjurij sacrilegij et expropria cognatione atque ex duabus sororibus incesti crimine esse accusatoâ— Dicunt et aliud audâ—â—â— ipso horrendum Diaboli vos in amoreâ— viâ—um bibisse c. Neither let the Iesuite thinke that the Divell made them so evill men and yet left them good Bishops to preserve the purity of Catholicke doctrine this surely would bee a Paradoxe in all places but at Rome where they acknowledge doctrines were not as the auncient Prophesies delivered to the Church by holy men as the Spirit gave them utterance but brought in by such that were not able to rule their owne houses well and therefore farre unfit to be governours of the Church of God And as the Iesuite was deceived in the Divels arable land so with Bellarmine is he mistaken in the seede also For iâ— iâ— probable that he who did sowe seedes of Heresie in the slumbering age before this snorting nap would bee idle when hee was altogether without resistance If Image-worship got footing when their eyes were open may wee not expect that other heresies came in when they were fast asleepe In what primitive times durst an Image by rowling eyes and sweating knavery require adoration from the people Durst any godly Bishops decree for this idolatry in the first sixe ages No this Heresie was resisted by three hundred thirtie eight Bishops at Constantinople Anno 754. And though afterwards it got strength at Nice was defended by Rome and at last got to be Roman faith yet was the same disliked denyed opposed resisted by all the good men that lived in that after-times as Charles the great the Councell of Franckford Lewes his son the Synode of Paris Alcuinus the Church of England and the Waldenses c. Neither did the English distaste it as an ordinary folly and superstition onely but as contrary to true faith such an opinion which the Church
S. Augustine's time there were many more heresies that oppugned the Primitive Roman Faith y Reply pag. 8. then hee nameth sects to discredite ours For Perkâ— as the Iesuite hath mistaken his name so his Author if he speake as he is alledged for I have him not hath forsaken the truth there being no ground in the Church of England to produce so vaine a charge But for that noble * Sir Edwine Sands Knight the true inheritour of his Fathers vertues he doth shew in the place cited z In his Relation of Religion that whatsoever unity is amongst us proceedeth from the meere force and vertue of veritie which he accompteth the best and blessedest and which onely doth unite the soule with God And that the Unity of the Church of Rome is but for order in the world c. antecedent before us for which worldly peace they are beholding to their Father and adviser yet he further acknowledgeth our differences are not essentiall or in any part capitall Whereby the Reader may see with what truth he hath cited this Author For the most learned Bilson hee doth onely bewayle the mindes of many men that are not so prone to peace as they ought A complaint that the best age of the Church might have taken up And therefore if the Iesuite will proove our jarres let him forsake such poore advantages that for the most part are raised from Passion and manifest that in fundamentall points we vary one from another or all from the Catholick Church for otherwise it is more then probable that Babell will remaine where the most learned Answerer left it even in the midst of the Roman blindnes SECT IIII. THe most learned Primate as he hath sufficiently shewed the meanes whereby tares that have crept into the Church might bee detected viz â— by having recourse unto the first and best times doth further shew that the like may be done by comparing the state of things present with the middle times of the Church To which the Iesuite replying sheweth himselfe offended not so much to be foyled by his Adversary as to have it knowne This word thus doth doth more perplexe the Iesuite then the blowes which make him smart and therefore his passion expresseth it selfe Why saith hee unlesse you performe it better then thus I see not but your selfe may be crowned an Innovator of idle arguments a Reply pag. 25 No neither of idle demaunds for that is so proper to the popish schooles that no man can deprive them of this catholicke title and least want of succession should make them loose their priviledge the Iesuite hath sufficiently continued it in this his vaine Reply The first of these Arguments which the Iesuite would have accompted idle is comprehended in these words I finde by the constant and approved practise of the auncient Church that all sortes of people men Weomen and children had free liberty to reade the holy scriptures I finde now the contrary among the Papists and shall I say for all this that they have not remooved the bounds which were set by the Fathers because perhaps I cannot name the Pope that ventured to make the first inclosure these commons of Gods people b See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Answere to the Iesuites Challenge pag 9. And hereunto the Iesuite giueth a downe-right answere that hee findes no truth in this his saying first because he layeth not downe where amongst the auncient any such practise is testified to have beene 2ly neither doth he shewe where amongst us he findes the contrary c Reply pag. 25 The most learned Answerer thought it not necessary to produce witnesses to manifest so open truthes whereof the Iesuite could not be ignorant besides he is vaine and wilfull to conclude a thing untrue because the proofe is not particularly urged for who will seeke to prove those things which are most manifest which the Iesuite without declaring his ignorance cannot deny But because he chargeth this most reverend Lord with untruth I will take away that scruple from whence he seemeth to deduce this conclusion and breifly manifest first that it was the constant and approved practise of the auncient Church that all sorts of people had free liberty to reade the holy scriptures secondly that we finde the contrary amongst the Papists that then we may see whether his impudency will deny that which his deceite in this place is willing to cover For the first it is a proposition so cleare that I am perswaded the Iesuite would not have denyed it if he could with safety to himself his cause acknowledge the same Yet although he doth not confesse it I neede not much to trouble my selfe in the manifesting thereof there being such cloudes of witnesses And to goe further then the Priâ—itive times after Christ It is apparant that Gods word was not given to be kept under a bushell but as the sunne in the Orbe of the Church to lighten and irradiate the hearts of his Children as may be gathered from the scriptures penning in their vulgar tongue when they spaâ—e Hebrew To this purpose it was that Moses commaunded the Israelites to * Deut. 6. â— write the law upon the posts of their houses and on their gates And that it was a custome amongst the Church of the Iewes to try doubtfull things by the scriptures may be collected by the words of our Saviour * 10. 5. 39. Search the Scriptures for in them yee thinke yee have eternall life and they are they which testifie of mee And why should the Iewes have sent their Hebrew text to be interpreted if they had conceived that the vulgar use had not beene permitted Also it appeareth 2. Tim. 3. 15. that it was the familiar practise of good people to breed up children in the knowledge of the sacred scriptures And that it was the practise of the primitive times is plaine by the * Act. 17. 11. Bereans who searched the scriptures dayly to try the truth of the Apostles Doctrine and were therefore accounted more noble then those in Thessalonica Neither was it practise onely but the Apostle in those times perswadeth thereunto by shewing the blessing which followed the same Apoc. 1. 3. Blessed is he that readeth and they that heare the words of this Prophesie c. And for the Ages following who can be ignorant that knowes any thing of that which the Iesuite desireth proofe of For Polycarpus to the Phillippians saith I trust that you are well exercised in sacred scriptures d Polyâ—arp ad Philippâ—n Confido benè exercitatos esse in sacris literis nihil vos latet And in Origen his time the reading of these divine mysteries dayly prayers the word of instruction were the nutriments whereby the Spirit e Origen in Levit hom 9. Nutrimenta igitur spiritus sunt divina lectio orationes assiduae sermo doctrinae His alitur cibis his coÌ„valescit his victor
acknowledgeth it no better to afford the people free libertie to reade the scriptures then to cast Pearles before swyne Å¿ Reply pag. 27. which he hath received from Hosius t De expresso Dei verbo Sed sic visum est haeresiarchae nostri temporis qui primus dare sanctum canibus ante porcos ausus est projicere margaritas And it is no marvaile that they so much desire to inclose these commons of Gods people in regard they find not any to bee made Papists by the Catholicke Doctrine contained in them For experience it selfe hath taught them what fruite the reading of these divine mysteries in a vulgar tongue hath brought forth u Hosius de sa vern leg Experientiâ magistrâ didicimus quid fructus ea res attulerit Tantum abest ut accesserit ad pietatem aliquid plus ut etiam diminutum esse videatur The People saith Bellarmine take no profit out of the Scriptures but hurt x Bellarm. De verbo Dei lib. 2 cap. 15. Populus non solum non caperet fructum ex scripturis sed â—tiam caperet detrimentum Experimento idem comprobatur And the Iesuite telleth us a whole legend of tales to confirme this Doctrine y Reply pag. 27. So that it is most apparant by what hath beene already said that the auncient Church not onely permitted all Christians without exception or dispensation to heare and read the sacred Scriptures but also earnestly exhorted them to the practise of those holy duties and that the present Roman exhorteth none permitteth very few to be acquainted with those heavenly Oracles And shall weâ— then deny that Papists have remooved the bounds set by the auncient Fathers and fedde the people with huskes of superstition whom they ought to have nourished with the sincere milke of the word of life unlesse we can point them out the Pope that first attempted to bereave Gods people of so great a blessing But the Iesuite hath an other frame for his defence That scripture which those of the auncient Church had free libertie as he saith to reade was onely such as was approved to bee true and lawfull by the same Church the reading whereof amongst us at this day is as free as ever it was amongst our forefathers z Reply pag. 25. How tenderly doth the Iesuite tread here if this Ice breake sure he will be swallowed up He dare not graunt that the auncient Church gave free libertie to reade the scriptures and therefore pointeth it out as the most learned Answerers assertion as hee saith neither dare he confesse the truth concerning themselves that they deny them to the people as hath beene fully proved yet declaimeth of the desperate effects that are produced by the reading of them neverthelesse would perswade us to beleive 1. that they vary not from their forefathers 2ly that their adversaries have removed those bounds which were set by the Fathers in this point leading yea and driving Christ his flocke out of the wholesome pastures wherein formerly they were fed unto Salvation into the marish weedy and poysoned grounds of their new fangled vulgar Bibles a Reply ibid. For the first of which I willingly assent thereunto if by forefathers he understand those wise grave learned fathers which in watching the Church lost Religion learning languages and suffered Barbarisme and superstition to invade the same But if he meane those auncient lights the vigilant Bishops and Preists of the first and best times as wee take them to be none of your fathers so is it made good that you altogether in this practise vary from them it being most evident that the prime fathers for the edifying of Christs Church exhorted the people to the reading of the scriptures when your forefathers Mr Malone for the advancement of their Templum Domini in which is adored your Lord God the Pope were forced blasphemoâ—sly to inhibite the same b See this proved before in this Section For the second he will never prove it although hee attempt to performe the same by a two fold argument 1. Because our vulgar Bibles are not approved for holy Scriptures by the Church of God c Reply pag. 26 Whereunto I answere first that any mâ—y perceive the Iesuite cannot deny those bookes which we offer to the Church to be divine and revealed from God although â—e dreamâ—th that they have lost their nature by their translation Secondâ—y hee doth calumâ—iate us for the oâ—iginalâ— Canon oâ—t of which wee translate is allowed by the catholicke Church which they cannot say for theirs and the translation by a renowned member thereof which is sufficient for the approbation of the same Yet it may be he would have ours to bee allowed as their vulgar Latine hath lately been by canon in the Roman Church as if the Spirit of God remained at Eckron no word of God were to be found in Israel * 1. Kings 1. 2 3 But we know if it were in their power to approve or disprove it Gregory Sixtus d Consilium Episcopi Bononiae congregat de sâ—abiliend Rom. eccl Consilium nostrum esset ut tua Sanetitas Cardinalibus illis at que Episcopis quos in suis residere eclesijâ— contigerit praeciperet ut Decretales Sextum Clementinas Extravagantes regulas Cancellariae in 〈◊〉 quisque civitate legi ac doceri publicè curet Vtinam legendis hujusmodi libris homines ubique diligentisù incubuissent Neque enim res nostrae in hujusmodi deploratissimum statum ad ductae essent should bee the Canon which should governe the Church the Scriptures should not onely bee cast out but Gratian e Ibid. Ac non item Decreâ—i quod minimè mirum videri debet Est enim perniciosus liber author tatem tuam valde vehementer imminuit licet alicui extollere videatur Nam inter alia negat multis in loâ—â—s posse Papam vel tantillum ad eam Doctrinam adjungere quam nobis Christus ipse tradidit Apostoli docuêre also as too opposite to their intents The titles which they have given to Gods divine Oracles will declare how great affection they beare to the approvlng of them Besides if no translation be the word of God before the Roman synagogue hath approoved it I would know whether Sixtus or Clemens his edition be the word of God As for their vulgar edition by this rule it was no Scripture before the Trent assembly and the Rhemish Translation no Scripture to this houre His second Argument is that as it is not confirmed by Rome so it is disproved by Protestant Doctours themselves f Reply pag. 26. But herein two things are fit to be observed First that the Churches under the government of our sacred Prince did never propose any translation absolutely as without all kind of errour they being the workes of industrious and painfull and yet but men but as a faire helpe and means to
convay those heavenly lampes into the most simple mans conceipt and understanding and in such a manner that they should alwayes stoope to the originall tongues wherein God delivereth theÌ„ to the people 2 dy we must make difference betwixt extreames of passion which did many times befall good men when they apprehended some small error with too much feircenes of conceit and their more selected judgments the one bursting froÌ„ them the other being a true birth Now if this bee truly apprehended what can the Churches of England and Ireland suffer who in proposing the Scriptures to the people have used all diligence viewing and amending those errours which time hath detected not defending them as the Romanists have doe their corruptest Latine g Praesatio Sixti Quinti praefixa Biblijs suiâ— Tanta per se est Vulgatae editionis auctoritas tamque excellens praestanâ—ia ut majorem desiderare penitus inane videatur It is far from the practise of ours to commit wilfull errors in translations and if any such are once found out be they never so light we are willing to amend and follow the truth If our late Soveraigne of ever blessed memory did find some errours in our translation amended them if the learned Dr Reynolds saw the same perswaded reformation what must this conclude that there was no truth in our Church no Scriptures there For his other citations some are passions others are of like nature with the first But esteeme them as you please your jealousies doe more bring your vulgar Latine into suspition then these testimonies can disgrace ours For you seeke to justify it because it commeth nearer the Hebrew then the Septuagint h Iacob Gordon Huntl Epit controvers contr 1. Deverbo Dei cap. 1â— Interpretatio septuaginta â—nterpretum longè magis recedit ab Haebrco textu qui jam extat quam nostra vulgata a muddie argument for him that chargeth the Hebrew text with corruption i Ibid. cap. 6. Hebraicus textus vitiatus sit depravatus Secondly they say that the best sence in the obscure places of the Scripture is not alwayes to be sought after for then there would be no end of translations k Ibidem cap. 15. Si interpres in manifestis apertis locis Scripturae omnia rectè interpretetur in obscuris aliquem sensum literae congruum exprimat etiamsi fortassis non assequatur optimum sensum sed posset alius melioâ— afferâ— non ob id censendus est errâsse aut officium boni Interpretis non implâ—sse 〈◊〉 si semper optimus sensus quaerendus esset nullus unquam erit finis interpretationum sed oportebit nos singulis ferè annis novam cudere interpretationem aut certè priorem â—mendare whereby they declare that all translations are subject to errour that the best interpretation is not alwayes to be reputed the authentick in the Church of Româ— And are they not driven in their defence of the vulgar to confesse errors l Ibid Hinc diluuntur omnia argumenta desumpta ex paâ—vis erratis vulgatae editioâ— is quae velex libraâ—iorum incuria aut aliunde irrepserunt though they would have them to be small and that that Church doth not erre which holdeth such a version of the Scriptures which may be corrected in some particulars when there is nothing to bee found that crosseth faith and good manners m Ibid. Consequitur Ecclesiam illam non errare quae reâ—inet versionem Scripturâ— quae in quibusdam corrigi possit dummodo nihil sit in ea quod fidei aut bonis moribuâ— adversetur Doe they not goe further telling us that translations of Scripture are not to be reprehended for their diversity in the manner of expression so they bee not contrary n Ibid. Non sunt reprehendendae translationes sacrae Scripturae ob id duntaxaâ— quod sint inter se diversae dummodo non sint contrariae to the truth If you for the justifying of the vulgar translation cast from you as corrupt the Greeke and Hebrew from which you differ in tenne thousand words o Vide Bellum Papal in append ad Lectorem Supersunt corrigenda â— doccâ— millia verborum in utroq testamento quae differre quantum ad sensum à Graecis Hebraeis fontibus Chaldaicoque Paraphraste observatum est annotatum jampridem à Lovaniensibus in notis marginalibus and all the Latine Copies that were found amongst your selves before that put forth by Sixtus 5. by which they should be amended p Praefatio Sixti Quinti praefixa Biblijs suis Auctoritate tenore praemissis mandamus ut Vulgatae editionis Biblia posthac non nisi uniformia imprimantur nec aliquid à textu diversum in margine scribatur Quae verò antehac quibuscunque in locis impressa sunt iuâ—ta hunc nostrum textum ad verbum ad literam corrigantur where will you find in the Roman Church the word of God for many ages together unlesse you be beholding to the corrupt Hebrew Greeke seeing your owne Pope presupposeth that your Latine Copies in some places can neither bee reconciled nor understood q Ibid. Nostri Codicesipsi perse aut conciliari aut intelligi non possunt And notwithstanding your vigilant Pastours were 22. yeares before they performed what was necessary by your Trent-Councell r Ibid. Per hosce jam 22. annos quia dicto Tâ—identini consilio decreâ—o ad nostri usque Pontificatus exordium interfluxerant licet hujusmodi opus aliquando coeptum fuerit tamen ob alias fortasse occupationes intermissum so carefull they were to bring the Word of God into your Church yet so poorely did Sixtus then performe his taske that Clement did afterwards put forth the same according to the Greeke and Hebrew fountaines Å¿ Praefatio ad Lecto ante Bibliam Sixti â—â— recognit atque edit per Clement In hac Bibliorum recognitione in codicibus manuscriptis Hebraeis Graecisque fontibus ipsis veterum Patrum commentarijs conâ—erendis non mediocre studium adhibiâ—â—m fuerir in hâc tamen pervulgatâ lectione nonnâ—lla consulâ—ò â—â—tata with many 1000. variances crossings and contradictings of Pope Sixtus his former edition I shall not need to lay downe any particulars seeing the whole catalogue of their discrepancies is made up by the labour and industry of Doctor Thomas Iames in his Bellum Papale So that the Iesuite may see what little reason they have to question our translations But what is all the Iesuites digression to the purpose the most learned Primates observation whereunto hee should have replyed is that all sorts of people had free libertie to read the holy Scriptures in the ancient Church that the contrary is now practised amongst Papists if the Iesuite confesse this we will presse him no further for this sufficeth to prove that although we cannot name the Pope
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleannes through the lusts of their owne hearts to dishonour their owne bodies betweene themselves Who changed the truth of God into a lye and worshipped the creature more then the Creatour who is blessed for ever Amen Whereby wee may see from whence such fearefull practises and opinions proceede not from Gods truth but from the contempt of it when men had rather adhere to their vaine imaginations then that heavenly light Which is further declared Rom. 1. 28. Even as they did not like to retaine God in their knowledge God gave them over to a reprobate minde to doe those things which are not convenient And what ground this Iesuite hath to charge the scriptures with these fearefull effects he saith not But let him tell us whether doth Gods booke afford one syllable to justifie any of these practises layed downe by him nay doth it not deterre them from such wickednes That corrupt men in the maliciousnes of imagination may pervert the Scriptures to their own destruction as we deny it not so it maketh nothing at all against the vulgar use thereof And heerein our Iesuite is worse then Adam Eve the Serpent or hee that possessed them in their corruptest nature none making God the cause of their fearefull wickednes as the Iesuite in these particulars doth his Word And I thinke the pollution of Popish Preists might with as much truth bee objected unto them as to Anabaptists nay I dare say though I hate to give them a word for defence that there is as much sufferance for notorious pollution within the Papal command as under any government and confusion in the world as will be cleared by their stewes incestuous dispensations filthy Sodomies and mincing those sinnes which a chaste minde is distempered to thinke on q Sanches lib. 4 de debito con jugali disp 46 and modestie forbiddeth me to name But our Iesuite will conclude the matter and tells us if our Answerer cannot prove as sure he cannot that ever any such liberty was granted to the people to read such like Scripture as is allowed amongst them at this day let him tell us himselfe how farre he is from agreeing with the practise of either first or middle ages of the Church wherein no such Bibling nor Babling amongst the common people was ever beard or dreamed of r Reply pag. 27 If this Iesuite by such like scriptures would have the same translations prooved to have beene in practise in the first or subsequent ages or if he would have us to proove that there were others which were as corrupt as he presupposeth ours to be in common practise then he requireth us to proove what we affirme not Yet this wee may justly say that there was never translation in the Latine Church before Hierome's time but was more corrupt then any he can finde allowed in the Church of Ireland since the Reformation which may bee demonstrated by their owne measure or rule for if our translations be nearer the Hebrew out of which they were translated then those afore-mentioned Versions out of the Septuagint it cannot bee denyed that they are more agreeable to the truth And that they come nearer the Hebrew we need not to goe farre for manifestation thereof in regard they are more agreeable to the Vulgar Latine which in the judgement of Papists is nearer to the Hebrew then the Septuagint and by consequent then any translation from thence whatsoever But it hath this notwithstanding beene formerly shewed in this Section that the Fathers not onely permitted the same scripture for the people to read as we doe now but exhorted them also to that dutie And this did continue in the Church of God untill God and his truth being neglected and contemned humane inventions and superstitious customes which did better consent to Papall tyrannie then the Scriptures could any way doe invaded the Church And notwithstanding our Iesuites pretences wee know it is not because the Scriptures are so dangerous in their use that they are not permitted by the Romish Faction but because by their light every weake judgement may discerne Papall Hypocrisy f Verger secretar Pont. act 1. pag. â—1 Et scio quidem te non ignorare prudentissimos homines qui diu in hâc causâ versati sunt ita sentire ut si ea judicanda sit ex verbo Dei in veteri novo testamento scripto juxta eum sensum quem ex Epistolis atque actis Apostolorum agnoscimus ipsos Apostolos tâ—nuisse docuisse fore ut vincamur à Lutheranis and thereupon bee inclined to cast off that Usurper which raigneth in their conscience t Consilium quorund Episcop Bonon congregat de stabiliend Rom Eccles Denique quod inter omnia consilla quae nos dare hoc tempore beatitudini tuae possumus omnium gravissimum ad extremum reserâ—aviâ—us oculi hic aperiendi sunt omnibus nervis admittendum erit ut quam minimum Eâ—angeliâ— poterit praesertim vulgari linguâ in â—â—s legatur civitatibus quae sub tuâ ditione potestate sunt Sufficiatque tantillum illud quod in Missa legi solet nec co amplius cuiquam mortaliâ—m legere permittatur Quamdiu enim pauculo illo homines contenti fuerunt tamdiu res tuae ex sententiâ successere eaedemque in contrarium labi coeperunt exquo ulterius legi-rulgò usur patum â—st Hic ille in summa est libes qui praeter caeteros hasâ—e nobis tempestates ac turbines concitavit quibus propè abrepti sumus Et sane si quis illum â—iligenter expendat deinde quae in nostris fieri ecclesijs consueveâ—unt singula ordine contempletur videbit plurimum inter se dissidere hanc doctrinam nostram ab illâ prorsus diversam esse ac saepè contrariam etiam So that whether you have made a change or our selves let the Reader determine and whether Bibling in a language that may be understood doth not better agree with the auncient practise then Babling in an unknown tongue where the people and the stones are equally edified I also desire the Reader further to conceive how the Iesuit hath behaved himselfe in this controversie that when hee should have freed his Church from the change mentioned and so have avoided the most learned Primates argument he doth nothing labour to prove their agreement with the Fathers as he should haue done but onely goeth about to perswade that the Fathers never permitted such translations or as he tearmeth it such like Scriptures to be read of the people as are allowed amongst us at this day Al which is nothing to the purpose in regard the change consisteth in their different practise from the auncients and not in our agreement with them For if all sorts of people did reade the Scriptures in the primitive times being invited thereunto by the Christian practise of the faithfull and the exhortations of the Bishops then living and that the
Churches under Popish government have beene for many hundred of yeares without vulgar Bibles approoved and appointed to be read of the people whereby they might be exercised in the like auncient Christian duty doth it not then follow that let our custome bee what it will they denying free libertie unto the people to reade them without dispensation disagree herein from the practise of the auncient Church although wee doe not point out the Pope that did first seale up this treasure from the people and consequently that the Iesuites demaund is vaine Yet the Iesuite continueth his pursuite and his Vanitie also By an other instance saith hee no lesse vaine then the former he endeavoureth to tell us againe how wee differ from the middle ages of the Church u Reply pag. 27 If no more vaine then the former the learned Answerer needeth not to feare well where is this enclosure of Vanity I heare S. Hierome say The Church doth read indeede the bookes of Iudith and Toby and the Mâ—chabees but doth not receive them for canonicall scripture x Hieronym Praesat in libros Salomon Epist 113. I see that at this day the Church of Rome receiveth them for such May not I then conclude saith the most learned Primate y In his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge pag 9. that betwixt S. Hierome's time and ours there hath beene a change and that the Church of Rome now is not of the same judgement with the Church of God then howsoever I cannot precisely lay downe the time wherein shee first thought her selfe to bee wiser herein then her fore-fathers What Vanity can the Iesuite espye heere why saith hee Our Answerer playeth Bopeepe with his Reader affecting ignorance to wrong the truth for well hee knoweth that the same S. Hierome not long after did testifie unto the world that the first Nicen Councell declared the booke of Iudith for Canonicall which hee had not heard of when hee wrote the former words alledged by our Answerer z Reply pag. 2â— Here the Iesuite had need to be active for his weapons are but reedes The place he urgeth is Hierome in the prologne to the booke of Iudith And surely there will bee small grounds to make Iudith reputed canonicall in Hierome's time Paula and Eustochium desired Hierom to translate this booke of Iudith into Latine where by the way you may see if you make it canonicall Scripture wee may conclude a woman might have and reade the same in the vulgar tongue to whom St Hierome answereth that among the Hebrewes tht booke of Iudith was taken amongst the holy writings but yet of no authoritie to resolve a controversie being written in the Chaldey reckoned among the Histories yet because it is read that the Nicene Councell did take this booke in the number of the sacred Scriptures hee did yeild to translate the same a Hiero in Prolog ad librum Iudith Apud Hebraeos liber Iudith inter Hagiographa legitur cujus autoritas ad roboranda illa quae ad contentionem veniunt minus idonea judicatur Chaldaeo tamen sermone conscriptus inter historias computatur Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicena in numero sanctarum Scripturarum legitur compu tâsse acquicri postulationi vestrae imo exactioni But where was it read non ex canone de sacris libris confecto not out of the Canon made up of the holy bookes b Baronius in appendice decimi tomi notatione ad annum 32 Haud affirmandum omnino existimarem Canonem de libris sacris statutum esse à Nicaeno Concilio à quo neminem ausum fuisse recedere jure debet existimari Sed non ex Canone de sacris libris consecto id asseruisse S. Hieronymum verum potius ex actis cjus in quibus obiter citatus idem liber inventus â—uit this Baronius affirmeth where then in some obscure pamphlet for any thing the Iesuit knoweth and so farre was St Hierome from testifying to the world what the Iesuite so confidently affirmeth that it cannot be manifested St Hierome gave any credite to what he saith was onely read Yea their owne Lindanus from St Hieromes uncertaine manner of Speech Legitur computâsse seemeth to conclude that St Hierome beleived it not though he might reade it c Lindan Panopl Evangel l. 3. c. 3. Vehementer ut dubitem facit quod apud Hieronymum Praefat in Iudith reperitut paulâ— cost Sed legitur computasse ait Hiero. quod mihi dubitantis suspicionem subindicate videtur and saith if the Nicene Councell did aunciently reckon the booke of Iudith in the Canon why did not the Councell of Laodicea reckon it why did not Nazianzene make mention of it What meant the same St Hierome to say the Church at that time did reade the bookes of Iudith Tobic and the Maccabees but did not receive them amongst the Canonicall Scriptures d Idem ibid. Si Niâ—aena Synodus olim hunc Iudith librum cum alijs in Canonem redegerat cur annis 80. post â—um non accenset Laodicaena cur Nazianzenus ejus non meminit paulo post Quid sibi vult quod idem Hieron in librorum Salomoniâ— praefatione scribit Ecclesiam libros Iudith Thobiae ac Machabeorum legere quidem sed inter canonicas scripturas non recipere And Erasmus in his Censure upon this Prologue saith that St Hierome doth not affirme the booke of Iudith to have beene approoved in the Nicene Synode †Censura Prologi ad librum Iudith Non affirmat approbatum hunc in Synodo Nicaena sed ait legitur computâsse So that it is most apparant who it is that playeth Bopeepe with his Reader that affecteth ignorance to wrong the truth Further what did St Hierome afterwards that might cause the Iesuite to conceive it in his subsequent esteeme Canonicall He translated it but did he not the like to others which he denyeth to be in the Canon and where then is his retractation which hee ought to have performed for abusing the Canonicall booke of Iulith if he had committed violence against Gods sacred truth Neither ought it to amaze the Reader that this booke should be said to be taken in the number of sacred writings for who knowes not that Bookes were esteemed Hagiographa holy and divine from their matter and in opposition to prophane writings and yet were farre from the authoritie of the Canon And if it be a true rule that one falshood makes the whole testimonie suspected what shall we say to the corruption of this prologue to the booke of Iudith wherein Hagiographa is put for Apocrypha as may bee prooved by Lyranus c Lyrs Prolog in Bibl. Neque al quemm veat quod in Iudith Thobiae prologis dicitur quod apud Hebraeos inter Hâ—giographa leguntur qui manifestus error est apocripha non hagiographa est legendum qui error in omnibus quos viderim codicibus invenitur inolâ—uit
they list interpreting it according to the times how they pleasâ— d Epistola 2. Nich. de Cusa Card. de usu commu ad Boâ—emoâ— Ecclesia hodierna non ita ambulat in ritu communionis sicut ante ista tempora quando sanctissimi viri utriusque speciâ—i Sacramentum necessarium esse vi praecepti Christi et verbo opere aâ—â—â—uebant Poâ—â—â—â— ne tunc Ecclesia â—rrare Certè non Quod si non quomodo id â—â—diè verum non est quod tunc omnium opinione affirâ—abatur cùm non sit alia Ecclesia ista quam 〈◊〉 Ceâ—â—â— hoc te non movent quod diversis temporibus alius alius ritus sacrisiciorum at etiam 〈◊〉 stante veritate invenitur scripturasque esse ad tempus 〈◊〉 et vaâ—â—â— intellectas ita â—â—uno tempore secundùm currentem universalem 〈◊〉 â—â—poâ—â—rentur mutato 〈◊〉 iterum sententia mutaretur SECT V. How vainely our Answerer betaketh himselfe to the Scriptures againe IN all this Section we finde nothing but what the most learned Answerer before stiled a sleight a In his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge pag 11. for where will he manifest the most reverend Lord scared with the auncient Church whose testimonies he is assured afflict these worst and last times but that he might first give the sacred Scriptures the precedencie which is due to the word of God and that he might not erect a new faith which was never builded upon the foundatton of the Apostles and Prophest b Ibid. Now let us see to what purpose the Iesuite hath heere spent his paines He it should seem was willing to finde out a way whereby the true Religion might be knowne and first hee taketh it for graunted that the Primitive Church of Rome held the true Religion for the first 500. yeares Secondly that this true Church of Rome did generally hold the chiefe Articles of Religion pointed out by himselfe in his demaund and then would have men to judge of true points of Religion by the testimony of that Church c See the â—â—â—â—ites Reply pag. 29. The most learned Answerer in this place saith nothing to these things in particular but to the Iesuites whole frame which he maketh a rule to finde out true Religion by arguing it first as a needlesse labour secondly as a tedious rule in regard matters in controversie might be brought to a shorter tryall thirdly as derogating from the Word of God that Rocke upon which alone wee build our faith from which no sleight that they can devise saith he shall ever draw us d See the 〈◊〉 reverend Lord Primaâ—â— his Answer pag. 11 Vpon this the Iesuite hath almost spent a whole page to prove that the sayings and authorities of those auncient Fathers are sufficient to prove what their opinion was e Reply pag. 29. in the points controverted as if the most learned Answerer had denyed that which in the very place alledged by the Iesuite he undertaketh to make good viz r that the Fathers writings fortifie the Catholicke cause against the Pope his party And this we say saith the most learned Answerer not as if we feared that these men were able to produce better proofes out of the writings of the Fathers for the part of the Pope then we can doe for the Catholicke cause when we come to joyne in the particulars they shall find it far otherwise f In his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge â— Gregor de Valen. Analys Fidei l. 8. c. 8. Fatendum est raro accidere posse ut quae sit Doctorum omnium uno tempore viventium de religione sententia satis cognoscâ—tur Sunt enim Catholici Doctores in Ecclesia ubique diffusa plurimi qui proinde omnes nec facile congregari nec interrogari possunt quid senâ—iâ—nt Whereby it is cleare that the Iesuite hath altogether fought with his owne shadow or the Iesuite Valentiag having not assaulted either word or passage of the most learned Answerers For if this most reverend Lord had accepted the rule I doubt not but he would have acknowledged the Fathers able to relate their owne beliefe and would further have accepted them as sole Umpier but accompting this but a Iesuiticall shift to avoide the true touchstone or ground of faith the holy Scripture he tells him that alledge what authority you list without Scripture and it cannot suffice which the Iesuite did observe although he is unwilling to take notice of it in regard hee supposeth that the Answerer will not be satisfied herewith h Reply pag. 29 This dispute sheweth that the Iesuite hath not beene so well imployed as the Emperour for in all this his fishing ne musca quidem he hath not caught a Fly and therefore the good man is sleepie that thinketh the Answerer hath for got himselfe for although he should graunt the first that the primitive Church of Rome held the true Religion of Christ for the first 500. yeares it will not needes follow that whatsoever points the Fathers of that Church generally held without the Scriptures should be points of true Religion For then every point of Morality Philosophy Rhetorick 〈◊〉 should be points of true Religion and this is crossed in the Greeke Church which is a true one but yet notwithstanding may not bee justified in every particular that they generally handle Neither dare the Iesuite admit the consequent for then the points of the blessed Virgins conception in originall some k Canus â—oâ— Theol. l. 7. c. 1 n. 1. n. 3. receiving of the Sacrament by children l Rejoynder pag. 25. and the opinion of the Millenaries m Sixtus Senens Bibl. sancta l. 5. c. 233. of the vulgar reading of the Scriptures n Rejoynder p. 139. 14â— 145. communion in both kindes o Rejoynder pag. 116. that the bookes of Toâ—y Iudith and the Macchabees are Apocryphall p Rejoynder pag. 166. must be points of true Religion Nay further the Iesuite urgeth that the most learned Answerer elsewhere confesseth that those which dye in the communion of the Church of Rome at this day dye under the mercy of God q Reply pag. 5 which surely this most reverend Lord would not have granted to them if he had not beene perswaded that they beleived aright in the foundation of faith and yet he doth not take any Church since the Apostles times to have beene more corrupt or full of errour then your owne So that a particular Church as the Roman may in some of her members be true in the foundation of faith and yet tainted with many corruptions both of manners and doctrine Is not this plaine by many of S. Paul his Epistles by the Church of Pergaâ—â—s * Revel â— â—4 And therefore the Iesuite may consider how weake a rule hee would perswade us to follow as if this argument were concludent because we hold a particular Church a true Church therefore that Church
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
ever received in the Church with more truth and faithfulnes then Hereticks have done Surely the Iesuite hath payed it here for he that every where dreameth of false logicke in others doth not here speake true sence himselfe Lyrinensis maketh 1. one generall sufficient rule for all things the sacred Scriptures f Lyrinens Duplici modo munire fidem suam Domino adjuvante deberet Primo scilicet divinae legis autoritaâ—e Cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique AD OMNIA satis superque sufficiat 2ly another usefull in some cases onely g Ibid. Tum deinde ecclesiae catholicae traditione Sed neque semper neque omnes haereâ—â—s hoc modo impugnandae sunt yet never to be used in those cases without Scriptures which is the tradition of the Universall Church h Ibid. Multum necesse est propter tantos tam varij erroris anfractus ut Propheticae Apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum Ecclesiastici Catholici sensus normam dirigaâ—ur In ipsa autem catholica Ecclesia magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est hoc est etenim verè proprièque catholicum The first was used by the auncient Church from the worth that is in it selfe i Ibid. Sibique ad omnia superque sufficiat the other from the perversnes of Hereticks that many times abuse the sacred rule k Ibid. Quia videlicet scripturam sacram pro ipsa sui altitudine non uno codâ—mque sensus universi accipiunt sed ejusdem eloquia aliter atque aliter alius atque alius interpretatur Aliter namque illam Novatianus aliter Sabeilius Bring us now one Scripture expounded according to Lyrinensiâ— his rule l Ibid. Quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est by the universall consent of the primitive Church to prove traditions confession Purgatory prayer to Saints image-worship Free-will c. in your sence and wee will receive it if you cannot confesse the truth that you deale like hereticks and acknowledge that we follow the practise of the auncient times And here I would have the Iesuite consider how many of their owne doe cry the Scripture m Sanders Rocke of the Church chap. 8. pag. 193. They have most plaine Scriptures in all points for the Catholicke faith and none at all against the same Bristo Mot. 48 Most certain it is that from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Apocalypse there is no text that maketh for you against us but all for us though it be more Iudeorum as they templum Domini and further with greater pretended reverence kisse antiquity not that they love either but because the one is not so light as the other to lay open their errours and detect their deformities Moreover whereas Christ made it a note of his sheepe to heare his voyce this good man would have it to bee the signe and token of an Hereticke but if Hereticks make use of Scriptures this confirmes the rule to be what God made it though it cannot justifie their practise that abuse the same And for brutish and wilde interpretations of Hereticks which this Father makes woolvish let the Iesuite cast an eye to their owne and who hath dealt so grossly as they have done †See before pag. 149 â—it b. And although they bragge of Unity and interpretations of good consent yet for any thing we see it is to be suspected when their Popes could not agree about the Text that he as his schollers may faile to accord in interpretation thereof Further I could wish it were examined whether we or they faile in the Rule of interpreting the Scriptures according to the universall tradition of the Church and analogie of faith and then it would easily appeare if this be a note of Heresie who the Hereticks are For the Fathers beleived but halfe the faith according to that you interpret and to make those points traditions of the universall Church which needed decrees to authorize them 1500 yeares after Christ must needes conclude egregious vanity But who knoweth not that you had rather be tried by the Moone and seven Starres which cannot so easily detect the workes of darknes then the Scriptures the fountain of light that will declare the least errour in your doctrine or practise n Clem. Alex Serom. l. 7. Sicut improbi oueri excludunt Paedagogum ita etiam hi arcent Prophetias a suâ Ecclesâ—â suspectas â—as habentes propter repâ—eh ensionem admonitionem Quamplerima certe consarciunt mendacia figmenta ut jure videantur non admittere Scripturas So that we disclaime not the Fathers but in your Phantasies for we allowe them at all times what they ought to have and when by an universall consent they declare what the Apostles delivered to the Church wee grant them a more centrouling authoritie Yet we are not ashamed to distinguish betwixt God and man though you blush not to equall them and to make Gods ipse diceit a convincing rule which we cannot grant to man or the best of men the Fathers and Bishops of the auncient Church where they come alone without the Scriptures Our Iesuite hath done much in this Chapter to wit proved that we preferre God before men and I have shewed that we deny not to men what God hath allowed to them SECT VI. AND least Vanitie should be absent for a little here the Iesuite proceedes to take a veiw How vainely our Answerer excuseth his disclaime from the Fathers a Reply pag. 36 But how vainely he chargeth the Answerers most learned observation will presently appeare Here saith the Iesuite our Answerer meeteth us with the same auncient Father Vincentius Lirinensis who though a great Commender of the methode of confuting Heresies by the consent of holy Fathers yet is carefull herein to give us this caveat that neither alwayes nor all kinde of Heresies are to be impugned after this manner but such onely as are now and lately sprung namely when they doe first arise while by straitnes of the time it selfe they be hindred from falsifying the rules of the auncient Faith and before the time that their poyson spreading farther they attempt to corrupt the writings of the auncient But far-spred and inveterate heresies are not to bee dealt withall this way for as much as by long continuance of time a long occasion hath lyon open unto them to steale away the truth Out of which saying our Answerer inferres that our Heresies being farre-spred and of long continuance have had time enough and place to coyne and clipp and wash the 〈◊〉 of Antiquitie wherein saith hee they have not bene wanting and therefore must not be impugned by consent of holy Fathers b Reply pag. 36 Here is little Vanitie to be seene as yet how the Iesuite will make it appeare remaineth to be done and this hee will accomplish by espying
not the Fathers that assist and direct in understanding of the Scriptures be Rules as Vincentius Lirinensis onely stileth them in their kind yet give place unto the word of God as the absolute and sufficient rule of faith Moreover Rules Measures are either originall which we call the Standard or those which are proportioned and fitted thereby and might not this Father make the Scriptures as the Standard the onely absolute rule sufficicient of it selfe as he tearmeth it to try points of Catholick Faith and yet graunt the generall consent of all Bishops and Preists of the Catholicke Church in a generall Councell to be a Rule proportioned fitted and squared thereby Who knoweth not also that the Standard is a most absolute and controuling Rule without doubt and exception when there are many things that may call in question the truth of the other so that it may need to bee corrected thereby Now what doth the most learned Primate say that crosseth Liriuensis This auncient Father acknowledgeth the authority of the divine Canon sufficient of it selfe to trye the Catholicke Faith His learned Penne confesseth Gods Word to be that rocke alone upon which wee build our Faith Lirinensis to avoyde jarring interpretations would likewise from the Custome of Catholicks have the Traditions of the Catholick Church to wit the generall consent of Fathers to be requisite at some times to the understanding of heavenly Scriptures And for any thing I can find the most reverend Primate doth not urge a syllable against it So that untill the Iesuite can shew further then he hath done Vanitie I thinke will turne Fryar and remaine with him And although this Iesuite doth make the Fathers upon Lirinensis his experiment the absolute rule yet a further experience perswadeth them to leave Lirinensis at sometimes which although they will not doe with open face yet by covered shifts they labour to avoyde what they pretend to be his direction For they make the Fathers doctors not judges to be followed for their reason not for their authority p Bellarm. de verbo Dei l. 3. c. 10. Aliud est interpretari legem more Doctoris aliud more judicis ad explanationem more Doctoris requiritur cruditio ad explicationem more judicis requiritur auctoritas Doctor enim non proponit sententiam suam ut necessario sequendam fed SOLVM quatenus ratio suadet which destroyes their judgship to be rejected where excogitato commento they cannot helpe q Vasquez Iesâ— l. 2. de Adora disp 3. c. 2. initio Recentiores aliqui pondere hujus Concilij Elibertini quasi oppressi tanquam optimum â—ffugium elegerunt authoritatem Concilij negare quod Provinciale fuerit nec a Pontifice confirmatum c. Et sane si aliâ viâ Concilio satisfieri commodè non possit hoc nobis effugium sufficeret So Maldonate upon the xvi of Matthew r Maldonat in 16 Mat. Portae inferni non praevalebunt Quorum verborum sensus non videtur mihi esse quem omnes praeter Hilarium quos â—â—gisse mâ—mini authores putant Bellarmine upon the vi of Marke and the v. of Iames Å¿ Bellarm. de Extrem Vnct. c. z. Duae Scripturae proseâ—â—tur ab omnibus una ex cap. 6. Marci altera ex cap. 5. Iacobi De prioâ— non omnes conveniunt an cum Apostoli ungebant oleo infirmes curabant illa fuerit unctio Sacramentalis de quâ nunc disputamus an solum fuerit figura quaedam adumbratio hujus Sacramenti Qui tuentur Priorem sententiam ut Tho Waldens loco citate Alphons de castro l. de Haer verbo Extrema Vnctio ca ratione ducuntur quod Beda Theophilaâ—â—us OE cumenius in commentarijs Marci Iacobi videantur dicere eandem esse unctionem cujus fit mentio in utroque loco Sed profectò probabilior est sententia posterior que est Ruardi lansenij Dominici a Soto aliorum Et mihi certe eo etiam nomine graâ—â—â—or quod videam Lutherum Calvinum Chemnitium locis citatis esse in priore opinione existimant enim illi eandem esse unctionem Marci 6. luâ—â—â—i 5. reject the authorities of Fathers and any may tell me wherefore Besides the suspition of this rule is detected that when a wrangling Papist will question the true sence of the Fathers as it is easie to be done even where the minde is convinced how can the fathers be the assured touchstone to try all controversies when the Pope may order all matters as he pleaseth t Gregor 〈◊〉 Anal. Fidel l. 8. c 8. Quod si per sententiam Doctorum aliqua fidei controversia non 〈◊〉 commodè componi posset eo quod de illorum confensu non 〈◊〉 constareâ— â—â— tunc constat authoritas Pontifici But hereby we may see who feare the judgement of Antiquity you or our selves Wee receive them without appeale if true and not forged if cleare and not ambiguous in points that they were bound to beleive and teach from the sacred Scriptures upon paine of damnation You not at all unlesse when you please they will stoop unto and undergoe a Papall explanation Yet thirdly the Iesuite tels us Lirinensis as we see doth not so withdraw the tryall of inveterated Heresies from the consent of holy Fathers that he will have it brought to Scripture onely as our Answerer pretendeth but giveth us to understand that when they cannot sufficiently bee convinced by holy writ then the authoritie of generall Councells wherein by the consent of catholick Priests and Prelates of the Church they have beene condemned should suffice us to avoyde and detect them Reply pag. 37 Lirinensis maketh the sacred Scriptures the onelie absolute rule fit for all times and occasions x Vincen. Lirin adv profanas Novat Cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon â—â—â—ique ad omnia satis superâ—â—â— sufficiat but this directive helpe of Fathers he applieth to sometimes onely y Idem Sed noque semper neque omnes hae reses hoc mo â—â— impugnanâ—◠〈◊〉 But will the Iesuite perswade us that when Lirinensis doth withdraw the tryall of inveterated Heresies from the consent of holy Fathers it is left to other judgement on earth besides the Scriptures Surely the Iesuite did better adhere to the Fathers in his Epistle Dedicatory then in this place for there they were the assured touch stone to try all controversies betwixt us whether wee varie about the true sence of holy writ or about any Article of Christian beleife whatsoever but heere they may be suspended as hee acknowledgeth in Lirinensis his opinion and in some reserved cases neither Scriptures nor Fathers must be the rule but the authoritie of generall Councells c. So that you see their rule is that which best befreinds them The Fathers at one time shall helpe and bee the assured touchstone A generall Councell not auncient I hope but of the Popes calling when
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
de effectu Sacraâ—u l. 2. c. 10 Respondeo primo librum citatum non esse Augustini sed alicujus haeretici qui multa docet contra fidem contra Augustinum that taught many things both against faith against S. Augustine I doe not urge this as if his testimonies from hence were of any strength they being answered in substance before but because you may see that they will avoyde no witnesses though in other causes they reject them that will advantage their cause For the titles given to S. Peter by Chrysostome as Cheife Captaine Head of the Apostles t Reply pag. 54. they all have received answere before For we acknowledge Peter Head which is the same with cheife of the Apostles otherwise how could Paul compare himselfe to the very cheife if there had beene no cheife And if the Apostle had bene by divine institution Paules Soveraigne how could Paul compare himselfe with him he himselfe being divinely assisted But the Iesuite making a pause is willing for brevities sake to let passe manie other holy Fathers and Doctors of the auncient Church who are most copious in the confirmation of Peters primacy over the rest of the Apostles u Reply pag. 54. And you have seene for what kinde of Primacie it is that the Fathers speake not a Primacie of power to which all the members of the Church must stoop but of Order excellency gifts graces for the Fathers will expell from their mindes that will sincerely read them all conceite that Peter had a soveraigne Monarchy over the Apostles See Peters Primacie the same with that of Iames and Iohn for so saith Clemens Peter and Iames and Iohn after the assumption of our Saviour although they were preferred before others of our Lord himselfe yet did not challenge this glory to themselves x 〈◊〉 hist Eccles l. 2. c. 1. Clemens hoc asserit Petrus enim inquiâ— Iacobus Ioannes post 〈◊〉 Servatoris quamvis ab ipso quoque Domino alijs essent praelati gloriam tamen hanc sibiipsis non vendicaâ—â—â—â— â—â—â— Neither is Paul by Chrysostome made lesse then Peter himselfe and from S. Paul his owne testimony Gal. 2. 8. And now saith that ancient Father doth Paul shew himselfe to be equall to the rest of the Apostles in honour neither doth he compare himselfe to those others but unto the very Cheife declaring that every one of them had obtained alike dignity y Chrysost in Epist ad Gal. c. 2. Iamque se caeteris honore parem ostendit nec se reliquis illis sed ipsi summo comparat declarans quod horum unusquisqueâ— parem sortitus sit dignitatem Ambrose knowes not whether should bee preferred z Ambros serm 66. B. Petrus Paulus eminent inter universos Apostolos peculiari quâdam prerogativa praecellunt utrum inter ipsos quis cui praeponatur incertum est but Cyprian and Hierome make them all equall Christ after his resurrection saith Cyprian gave equall power to all the Apostles a Cyprian de Vnitate Ecclesiae Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat And the rest of the Apostles were even the same that Peter was being endued with the like fellowship both of honour and power b Ibid Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis Hierome also speaketh as much The Church is founded equally upon all the Apostles all received the kingdome of Heaven ex equo super eos Ecclesia fortitudo solidatur c Hierom. l. 1 cont Iâ—rin At dicis super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claves regni 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex â—â—â—â— c. So that the Iesuite had done well if he had taken up before if he had not troubled his Reader with proving that kinde of Primacy which is not denyed him and had forborne the attempting a proofe of that which the Fathers will never graunt But howsoever he resolves that Optatus Bishop of Milevetum must not be let passe in regard he will seeme to catechize our Answerer himselfe very handsomely in these words Thou canst not deny but that thou knowest full well that the Episcopall Chaire hath beene first given unto Peter in the cittie of Rome wherein Peter the head of the Apostles hath sitten whence also hee was called Cephas In the which one Chaire Vnitie might be kept of all men least the rest of the Apostles should maintaine every one their singular Chaires to themselves so that now he should be a schismaticke and an offender who would seeme to raise up another against this onely Chayre d Reply pag. 54. This place of Optatus if the Papists doe rightly interpret it must enclose a notorious falshood for can it be affirmed with truth by Optatus that in his time the Apostolicall Chayre was onely placed in the Citty of Rome when other Apostles had their severall seates and Chaires in other Citties also as Iames at Hierusalem aswell as Peter at Rome all which were visible and conspicuous to the Church before Optatus his time as we may see out of Tertullian Percurâ—e Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipse â—â—huc cathedra Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur c Tertul. praescrip con haereâ—â—â—â— And therefore Optutus his Chayre cannot be interpreted for the onely chayre of the Catholicke Church placed by Peter at Rome from which whosoever did separate himselfe upon what cause soever should be a Schismaticke But Optatus being rightly understood declareth thus much and no more That Peter having his seate placed at Rome and yet Eusebius maketh him not the first Bishop therâ— f Euseb hist Eccl. l. 3. c. â—â— 19. the Apostles did forbeare to place their seates in that Cittie and therefore judgeth the Donatists schismaticall that placed another Bishop of their Schisme in Rome contra singularem cathedram which this father sheweth was ever one in Rome in ea sedit primus Petrus succedit Linus Lino Clemens So that the Donatist Permenian with his fellowes were esteemed Schismaticks by Optatus not because they separated themselves from the Vnitie of the Roman Church as now they understand it but in regard by placing a Bishop of their faction in Rome they contemned the established policie of the Church that required in one Citty but one Episcopall Chayre Whereby we see that Optatus is so farre from catechizing the Answerer that hee doth checke the Iesuite and his faction that in like manner as the Donatists have done doe now intrude upon our Episcopall Chaires in Ireland titular Bishops of their faction of Schisme not forbearing the chayre of S. Patricke it selfe But drawing to conclusion of this point the Iesuite could wish that both the Answerer and all his Adherents would listen well unto S. Leo who saith that Peter onely in all the world is chosen
non habentem maculam aut rugam non sie accipiendum est quasi jam sit sed quae prâ—paratur ut sit quando apparebit etiam gloriosa Nunc enim propter quasdam ignoranties in firmitates membrorum fuorum habet unde quotidie tota dicat Dimitte nobis debita nostra Neither was it the question in those times whether the Catholicke Church could bee spotted with Heresie but with sinne which was affirmed by the Catholicke Church against the Pelagians and this the Iesuite seemeth now to conceive and therefore telleth us that by reason of ignorant and infirmities of her members in other matters the Church hath dayly occasion to pray for the forgivenesse of sinnes n Reply pag. 43. Now the Iesuite giving the title â—â—spotted unto the Primitive Church of Rome which he accounteth the Catholicke how could the most learned Answerer understand the Iesuites tearme but according to the sence of the word as it was vulgarly taken in the primitive times Secondly it were not amisse to conceive that the Iesuite in his Challenge calleth the Primitive Church of Rome 〈◊〉 o In his Challenge in his enquirie in this section hee layeth downe the Roman Church without reâ—â—raynt of Primitive and lastly in his proofe hee thinketh hee hath got the day if from antiquitie he can prove that the Catholicke Church cannot faile So that you may easily â—spy who is guiltie of mingling one question with another But let us examine this new question as the Iesuite hath proposed it Whether the Church of Rome may rightly be tearmed Vnspotted or no p Reply pag â—â— That the auncient Roman Church was invincible never fundamentally erring in the foundation of faith in all her members for the first 400. or 500. yeares after Christ The Iesuite telleth us our Doctors and Masters grannt q In his Challenge So that the Controversie is not what the Primitive Church of Rome was in regard of Heresie but what the Roman Church is lyable unto in her succession which the Iesuite resolves and as he would make us beleive from Augustine and other anncient Fathers saying that in the truth and soundnes of her faith and doctrine shee is evermore invincible and not lyable to any spot or stayne r Reply pag. 43 But neither doth Augustine Origen Eusebius Alexander B. of Alexandria Athanasius Cyrill B. of Hierusalem or Philo Carpathius c. whom he urgeth Å¿ Reply pag 64 pag 650 say any thing for the Roman but for the Catholicke Church to which they beare testimony that it cannot faile So that our Iesuite falleth under Bellarmines Censure who affirmeth that they doe but trifle away the time who contend to prove that the Church cannot absolutely faile because it is graunted by the Protestants themselves t Bellarm. de Ecclesia mil l. 3. c. 13. Notandum autem est muluâ— ex nostris tempus 〈◊〉 dum probant absolute Ecclesiam non posse dâ—ficere 〈◊〉 Calâ—â—â—â— eâ—teri 〈◊〉 â—i id concedunt which the Iesuite knowing though dissembling after he hath produced S. Chrysostome for the perpetuitie of the Catholicke Church argueth fâ—r her But what Church doth this holy Father meane thinke you Surely none other then Peters Church u Reply pag. â—â— c. Peters Churchâ— proâ— nefâ—â— was the Church espoused to Peter purchased by Peter redeemed by Peter At Antioth the Church was first called Christian * Acts 1. v. 26. which name it hath retained and shall it loose its title and 〈◊〉 now and bee denominated from Peter The Spouse of Christ the mysticall body of Christ the house of God the Lords granary and 〈◊〉 Stapleâ— Relect cont 1. q. â— art 1. not 5 Vt est corpus Christi in uno sensu propter internam gratiam ita est domus magna Cheisti â—st area ager dominicus in alio sensu propter externam collectionem c. but Peters Church is somewhat harsh Chrysostome neere giveth the Church no such title onely their poore forged Cyrill hath Ecclesia Apostolica Petri an evidence answerable to the cause yet not convincing for the same title might be given to the Church of Antioch But can the wordes of Chrysostome stretch to the Roman Church â—et the Iesuite shew it if he be able That Church whereof Chrysostome speaketh is the Church of Christ not of Peter that Church whereof he is a Pastor y Chrys in Mat homâ—â—â— Ecclesiae futurae pastorem constituit not a Monarch the rock upon which it is builded is not Peter but Christ beleived confessed by Peter Ibid. Et super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam id est fidem atque confessionem Peter had no gift given him to preserve this Church from amidst â—â—erce assaults and raging flouds in this Fathers opinion though the Iesuite would perswade it but Peter was confirmed in his faith confessed by this promise made that the gates of hel should not prevaile against the Churchâ— Neither had Peter power given him to make the Church invincible but to declare it Ibid Petrus Ecclesiam per universum orbem amplificatam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 validiâ—â—â—â— monstravit And as the Fathers ground this priviledge of the unspotted â— Non enim turbari te con venâ—â— cùm audicris quia traâ—ar crucifiâ—â—â— integritie of the Roman Church upon the promise of Christ to Peter Matt 16. so also they oftentimes deduce the same from the vertue of that prayer which Christ made to his Father for Peters faith that it should never faile Luc 22. wherin doubtlesse he was heard for his reverence Heb. 5. 7. Reply pag. â—â— There is no ground why the Roman should enjoy this priviledge either from Christs promise or his prayer as the Iesuite hath failed in deducing any thing from the former so doth he shew his abilities in this latter at his first entrance For first he brings in forged Epistles under the name of Lucius d Bellarm. l. 2 de Rom. Pont. c. â— dare not affirme this Epistle to be undoubted it is dared Gallo Volusâ— ano Cosâ— when as they were not Consule at that time as appeareth by Baron Annal. to â— an â— and Felix e The Epistle is dated Claudio Paterno Coss when as there were none such in his time Baron ad aâ— 273. good Bishops who would have 〈◊〉 the pride that they are urged heere to 〈…〉 the rest he cites 〈◊〉 good Bishop we will not deny yet his goodnes did not declare itselfe at all times when he spake of S. Peter or the Roman Church but his infirmity For as the Bishops of Rome both before and after him desired more then was fit so it will be no difficulty to shew that they contended to justifie their desires by unfit meanes and especially by swelling wordâ—â— in the honour of S. Peter and their owne Seâ— and practises sutable thereunto Insomuch that they were esteemed smoâ—â—â— by some
Heresies did arise and with different names did end avour to teare in peices and devide Christ his dove and his queene or spouse was it not reason that the true Apostolicall Church should be called by her syrname of Catholicke thereby to discerne and distinguish her incorrupted unitie least that Vnspotted Virgin by other mens errors and mistaking might be devided u Reply pag. 6â— c. What have we here for the unspotted Roman Church Here is nothing to exempt her from present staines or after pollutions That there was a Catholicke Church and not â—espotted with the impurities of the auncient Herâ—ticks who doth deny yet this doth not prove Augustine over-shot in his retractation or the Iesuite justified in â—â—â— tearme Now as if hee had performed what he made us expect â—e swels Might not a man now bee bold to bee tryed by the judgment of our Answerers owne conscience whether hee had any reason to except against me for tearming the 〈◊〉 Catholicke Roman Church unspotted x Reply pag. â—â— And indiscreet man may be bould in an arme of flesh a â—eed of Egypt a broken tooth but vainely and to his losse The most learned Answerers Conscience may for any thing you have said commiserate your confidence not justifie it unlesse you would have him to be convicted with forged words and bare names When as I have saith the Iesuite this generall warrant from the holy Fathers and Doctours of this Primitive times for the same y Reply pag. 67 The most learned Answerer by excepting at your unspotted Church did not charge the â—niversall built upon the rocke confessed by Peter with desperate Heresie Particular members and Churches which have outwardly professed Christ have fallen into Heresie so may Rome z Frauciscus Picus Theo. 13 Iuxta Theoso gorumquotuâ—dam Iuris Interpretum aliquorum dogmata fieri possetut Romana Ecclesia quae particularis Ecclesia est contra universalem distincta infide aberraret but that the Catholick Church should forsake the foundation of faith this he well knew would crosse Christs promise and make the gates of Hell prevaile against his Church It would then be no rock upon which the Church was builded but the sand subject to wind weather The Iesuite in his Challenge did not stile the auncient Catholick Church which he here tearmeth Roman but the primitive Church of Rome unspotted in this sense it is there acknowledged by himselfe that the ancient Roman is by us confessed to be unspotted so that what he hath produced for their Catholick exemption from Heresie is nothing to his purpose But he proceedes in his Oratory The which being maturely pondered of thee Christian Reader thou mayest easily perceive how farre unlike our Answeters Church is unto that of the primitive confessed best times notwithstanding that he seemeth to claime so great affinitie therewith But wherein is this dissimilitude unliâ—enes In regard the Roman Church being head of all other Churches in earth c. thereupon rightly called the Vniversall or Catholick Church c is blessed with the prerogative of an inâ—incible perpetuity of an unspotted faith c. But our Adversaries Church saith the Iesuit forasmuch as by them it is confessed to want this infallible rule of faith to be lyable to error cannot with reason challenge unto it self the name of an unspotted Church therefore is rightly concluded to have no affiâ—ity or aliance with the true ancient catholick Church at al a Reply pag. 67 and 68. In answer to this we have told the Iesuit truly that the Roman Church is so far from being the head over all other churches that for all the Iesuits proofs if it were utterly destroyed the Catholick Church would not faile 2ly that in no sense the Roman Church can be truly called Catholick or Vniversall And here Godwilling I will shew that no Church in the world hath beene more besmeared with spots staines even of misbeliefe then the Roman in her successioÌ„ And if an heretical Pope can bespot the primitive church of Rome with heresy which indeed we beleive not though Papists must not deny the same it will appeare that the Primitive Church of Rome was not blessed with the Prerogative of an invincible perpetuity of unspotted faith And first if we believe their owne Rhenanus Pope Zephsrinus was defiled with spots of misbeleife Montanizing which is warranted by Tertullians testimony that was well acquainted with the Favourers of Montanus b Bellarm. de Rom Pont. l. 4. c. 8. Zepherinus Victoris successor videtur haeresim Montani approbasse Scribit enim Tertullianus in libro contra Praxeam Romanum Pontificem agnoscentem prophetias Montani ex eâ agnitione pacem Ecclesijs Asiae Phrygiae inferentem à Praxea fuisse persuasum literas pacis revocare quas jam emiserat Constat autem ex historijâ— to tempore Zepherinum fuisse Romae Pontificem Quare Rhenanus in annotationibus ad Tertâ—llianum ponit hoc loco in margine Episcopus Romanus Montanizat Neque dici potest eo tempore nondum fuisse damnatam ab Ecclesia haeresim Montani Nam ut ibidem Tertullianus dicit Praâ—eas persuasit Pontifici revocare literas pacis eâ praecipâ—rè ratione quia praedecessores ejus haeresim illam antea damnavissent neither hath Bellarmine any better shift to excuse this Pope then by telling us as if a Montanist knew not a Montanist that faith is not to be given to Tertullian c Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 8. Respondeo non esse omnino fidem habendam Tertulliano in hac parte quandoquidem ipse Montanista erat Some hundred yeares after we finde an other bespotted Pope Marcellinus acknowledged for an Idolater by Câ—sterus d Costerus Enchirid. c. 3. p. 137. Fatemur siquidem 〈◊〉 posse ut Petri successor Idola eolat quod beatum Marcellinum fecisse aiunt Bellarmine e Bellarm recognit l. de 〈◊〉 Pont. p. 20. Concessimus S. Marcellinum Idolâ—â— sacriâ—â—casse and reported by a Councell of their friends making Sinâ—essa f Concil Sinuessanum Ecce introierunt testes 14. qui dicebant se Marcellinum vidisse in temple Veâ—ta 〈◊〉 thuâ—ificantem Ibid. In sinu autem trecenrorum Episcoporum caputeinere convolutum Marcellinus Episcopus urbis Romae voce clarâ 〈◊〉 dicebat Peccavi coram vobis non possum in ordine sacerdotum esse quoniam 〈◊〉 me corrupit auro Subscripserunt autem in ejus damnationem damnaverunt â—â—â— exâ—â—â— civitatem by Pope Nicholas the first g Nicholaus â— ad Michael Imperator Epist â— Tempore Dioclesiam Maximiani Augustorum Marcellinus Episcopus urbiâ— Romae adeo 〈◊〉 est à Paganis ut in tempâ—â—â— eorum ingressus grana thuris super 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cujus nei gratia collecto numerosorum Concilio Episcoporum inquisitione facta hoc se idem Pontifex egisse confessus est Platina h Platina de vita
Church which by the testimonie of venerable Antiquitie wee finde approved to remaine ever free from all errour to that rocke against which the power of hell shall never prevaile to that foundation which Christ hath setled by his promise and made for ever immoveable by his obtained Prayer Reply pag. 6â— How non-erring a Church your Roman hath beene in her head is already declared How infallible a rule of faith your Cheife Pastor hath proved in the primitive times venerable Antiquitie by severall examples hath detected What a rocke Peters pretended Successours have beene when the divell was let loose to split so farre as possible the ship of the Church hath not been left you untold And who can beleive that CHRIST his prayer for Peters faith was effectuall for the POPES when against faith they day he desire to usurpe his kingdome This we Catholickes saith the Iesuite are exhorted to doe by S. Cyrill sayinâ— Let us remaine as members in our head the Apostolicke Throne of the Roman Bishops from whence it is our part to seeke what wee ought to believe This also all Protestants are advised to doe by a Doctour of their owne who as we heard before telleth them that they ought diligently to search out the spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the pillar and ground of truth having found her then setting aside all other questions they ought to embrace her communion follow her direction and rest in her judgment y Reply pag. 6â— What Doctor Feild advised Protestants to doe hath beene formerly declared And for what Catholickes are exhorted to doe he urgeth S. Cyrill but from whence From Aquinâ—s z Cyril Alleâ— in Thesauro alleadged by S. Thomas in opusc cont Graecoâ— Reply pag. 6â— who forged it For Cyrill hath no such words His Thesaurus hath no such filth He neither consented unto nor approved this tyranny Hee was one of them that sent the Copy of the Councell of Nice to curbe these pretences before they got head I wonder why the Iesuite added not the like forgery of the Councel of Chalcedon to the same end from the same Author Here wee may see that the best grounds he hath to prove their holy Father to be infallible and the Romane Mother without spots are but authorities taken from deceit But leaving Doctor Feild formerly urged and answered he presents us with these sentences of the Auncient in which saith he as in a pure mirrour they may if they list espy their enorâ—ions disagreement from the truth Reply pag 63 And the first Ancient Father that he produceth is Ireneus All they that are in the Church of God ought to obey saith he unto those Preists who have their succession from the Apostles who together with the succession of their Bishoprick have received the assured grace of truth according to the good will of the heavenly Father And we ought to have for suspected such as withdraw themselves from the like principall succession and joyne themselves together in any other place I say wee ought to hold them as hereticks of a perverse judgment or as schismatickes selfe-liking presumptuous fellowes And elsewhere saith the Iesuite he declareth how such like hereticks are to be conâ—â—â—ed confounded according to the practice of his times to wit in the second age after Christ We confound saith he al those who gather otherwise then they ought how by that Church which is the cheifest the most auncient best knowne unto all men which was established grounded in Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul pointing forth that Tradition and faith which this Roman Church holdeth from the Apostles by the succession of Bishops even unto our dayes After this manner also saith the Iesuite did Tertullian troâ—â—ce wrest those Heretickes whom hee had to deale withal Let them shew unto us if they can the original of their Churches let them rip up the order of their Bishops in â—ueâ—â—ort that by a succession derived from the beginning they prove their cheife Bishop to have some one of the Apostles or Apostolicall men for his author and Predecessour for by this meanes the Apostolicall Churches doe make up their accounts And because the Heretickes then were destitute of all such proofe as Tertullian exacted of them for the maintenance of their cause even as our Adversaries saith the Iesuite are as this day He therefore bringeth in the Catholicke Church upbrayding them with them all Protestants in this manner Who â— God 's name are yeâ— When from whence came yoâ— hither What doe you amongst mine being none of mine By what right O Marcion doest thou cut my â—ood what leave hast â—hâ—â— O Valentine to turne my streames fountaines another way By what authority doest thou remove my bounds O Apelles O Luther O Calvin O Zuiâ—glius The possession is mine I have it of old I enjoyed it before you c Reply pag 69 and 70. All that the Iesuite hath produced from Irenâ—us Tertullian will make little for justifying his pretences if the point be truly considered For there is a bare personall succession which may accompany a false Church as it did the Iewish when the Pharisees saâ—e in Moses Chaire and the Churches of the East when Heretickes invaded the chaires of Catholicke Bishops Secondly there is a Successâ—â—â— not only personall of Bishops Preists but where the Catholick Apostoliâ—all doctrine is continued also The people wee say where this is plaine are bound to receive the Doctrin from Timothie every succeeding Bishop as Timothie â— Tim 1. 14. from the Apostle that established and first published the same Now whatsoever the Iesuite hath brought from these Fathers is no way advantageous for the Church of Rome For first we can shew and have done as good personall succession as the Roman Bishops can claime any Secondly to this our orderly Succession we can and have proved by comparison and consanguinity of Apostolicall doctrin that we are true and Apostolicall Churches Thirdly the Roman certaintie upon which their Profelyres must depend is no firmer by these Fathers testimonies then Ephesus Smyrna Corinth Philippi Germany Spaine France Egypt Lybia Thessalonica c Irenaeus pag. 140 142. Disci te ab Apostoli cis Ecclesijs Habetis Romae Linum Polycarpum Smyrnae ab Apostolis edoctum Tertull. Praeser p. c. 37. Proximè est tibi Achaâ— habes Corinthum Si non longè es â— Macedonia habes Philippos habes Thessalonicenses Si potes in Asiam tendere habes Ephesum si autem Italiae adjaces haqes Romam unde nobis quoque authoritas praest ò est Rhenanus Argum in Tert. de praescript alibi Impress Basil 1521. Tertullianus Ecclesiam unam Apostolicam nulla loco affigit Romanum Ec lesiam ornat magnificae laudis elogio non tamen tantam illam facit quantum hodiè fieri videmus nam Apostolicis Ecclesijs numerat non
â—olaâ— facit Apostolicam Videmus quod lac à Paulo Corinthij haufâ—rint Si superesset Tertullianus non â—â—punè illud diceret c which I thinke you will not defend from fayling Fourthly we shall finde that the Doctrine did alwayes honour the See the Sees were no further esteemed then because they gave true testimony to the Doctrine Zozomen l. 7 c. â— Eo autem declarabat Thodosius Imperator se velle ut illorum duntaxaâ— Ecclesia diceretur cathol ca qui Prinitatem divinam aequali honore colerent qui diveriam sentirent cos haeroticoâ— appellari intestabiles esse â—â—supplicio afficiâ— May wee not then from better grounds cry O FRAUNCIS O DOMINICK O IGNATIUS then the Iesuite O Luther O Calvin O Zuinglius and charge them for creepers into the Church without any personall or doctrinall succession either What the Iesuite further urgeth against the Protestants from Augustine to prove the Romanists the onely unspotted Church is meere vanitie As for my selfe saith Augustine there bee many things which make me to remaine within this Catholick Church First the uniforme consent of people and nations which saith the Iesuite is not seene amongst Protestants e Reply pag. 70 I am sure the Papists are not Catholickes from the body of their Church but from the Union with their Head when in fundamentalls the Protestants agree with all people and nations not thereticall and Dâ—â—â—tisticall over the face of the earth Secondly a certaine authority begun by miracles such as the Protestants themselves saith the Iesuite will sweare they have none nourished by hope increased by charitie and strengthened by antiquitie f Reply ibid. It is true we have no new Doctrine and therefore wee need not new miracles but I hope the Iesuite will not be so impudent to deny that the auncient and Apostolicall Doctrine had miracles for confirmation and that wee adhere and depend upon the same Thirdly the succession of Preists even from S. Peter the Apostle unto this present Bishop of Rome which saith the Iesuite I wish the Protestant Reader to observe well g Reply ibid I pray the Iesuite to consult with M. Mason and either to justifie us or condemne themselves Lastly the very name of Catholicke which is so proper to this Church amongest so many Heresies that howâ—â—ever all Heretickes affect the name of Catholicke yet if a stranger chance to enquire in what place doe the Catholickâ— meete together no Hereticke will dare to shew hiâ— own Church or house Reply pag. 70 First I desire the Iesuit to consider what Augustine saith that Hereticks affect the name never any 〈◊〉 more then Papists who are all but Donatists of which none are found in the auncient succession of the Roman Bishops Secondly that although the title Catholick did point at the true Church in the Primitive times yet it was no otherwise then the titles of men did point out Hereticks i Hieron cont Luâ—ferianos prope fineâ—â— Now if at this time many are called by the names of men which the Iesuit takes for Catholicks as Dominicans Franciscans c why may not many bee called Catholicks that truely are Hereticks as Iesuites and all Papalines Besides names make not Hereticks Nestorians in name are not ever Nestorians in Doctrine k Onuphrius de vita Iulij III. Longe maxima pars Christianorum qui per Assiriam Persiam ac reliquâ—â— orientales provincias habitant appellantur Nestoriani Ibid. Vero hi Nestoriani nomen potius Nestorij haeretici quam errores retinuisse nihi videntur Nam nihil plâ—nè quod illam sectam referat in his hominibus qui hic adsunt compeâ—io neither Papists Catholicks for howsoever they usurpe the name yet are they spotted and infected not onely with errors of life but with heresies and Apostafies also as hath beene plainly declared What Theophilus speakes concerning the Church we resist not neither can the Iesuite embrace it as enclosing any Prerogative for them So that all his labouring heere hath beene to cloath Rome with the Catholicke Priviledge of exemption from Heresie but with ill successe seeing it hath beene declared filthy in manners hereticall in Doctrine and Apostaticall from the auncient puritie wherein shee appeared in the primitive times And therefore the Iesuites Conclusion is nothing but the approbation of his Phantasie which out of selfe-love is bestowed uppon his enlarged endeavours SECT X. THe Tenth Section inquires How vninely our Answerer claymeth kindred with the Primitive Church Reply pag. 72 â— the Iesuite beginnes like a Bedlam or Franticke Here our Answerer like Saul in his distresse runnes upon his owne weapon and with Achitophel is strangled in a knot of his owne twisting Reply ibid. Iesuites I confesse doe not fall upon their owne swords but make others to fall by them Yet they cannot deny that some of them have beene choaked with halters which they never twisted themselves and meritoriously But how farre the most learned Primate is from Saul any man may see when his learned answere hath made the Iesuite to travaile Vagabound to compile and build up this frame which he hath sent us And whereas he assimulates him to Achitophell I thinke he ought not from his strangling himselfe but because hee hath both saddled and bridled M. Malone and rid him out of breath also But any may espy to whom these things would best belong whether to the Iesuite or to the Answerer Qui enim appetit quod adipisci non potest cruciatur Augustia â—â—â—or Eccl. c. â— The Iesuite expected glorie by his demaund but seeing his expectation frustrate his reviling expresseth his torture and pointeth out the desperate Saul the amazed Achitophel Now what is the cheife ground that the Iesuite produceth to manifest the vanitie of the Anâ—â—rers claimeâ— Surely a wise one and from confession of the â—â—swerer Forasmuch as clayming kindred with 〈◊〉 annâ—â—us Church of Rome he yet confesseth saith the 〈…〉 Church is indeed unlike unto her having wasted away such spots as impaired both the bountie and health too of that auncient Church Reply pag. 7â— And what hinders this but the Church of Ireland might clayme kindred with the auncient Roman Why hee tels us If the auncient Roman Church was the true Church and spouse of Christ for 500 yeares as he will â—oâ— deny what may we thinke of his I pray you which he himselfe doth grant to be unlike unto the same Reply pag 72 Doth dissimilitude take away kindred Brethren may be unlike as Iacob and Esau Why not Sisters It is sufficient to conclude a Prince of the house of Austria from the lippe although they much varie in their other proportions Hippocrates his twinnes were not I thinke in all parts so alike as the Iesuite would have particular Churches and yet they were not without that Sympathie of Nature to cry together laugh together and die together Omne fimile est dissimile or else they would be
numerically the same and therefore although there be some dissimilitude betwixt the auncient Roman Church and that wherein the learned Answerer communicates yet it is not in those things that will cut off kinred or acquaintance either But here we see the Iesuite wresting and tugging to perfect this Argument hath most falsly charged the Answerer with confession of that which he doth but for Argument sake admit as is plaine by his owne words And therefore saith the most reverend Primate though we should admit that the auncient Church of Rome was somewhat impaired both in beautie and in health too wherein wee have no reason to be sorie that wee are unlike unto her there is no necessitie that hereupon presently she must câ—ase to be our Sister f See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Answere to the Iesuites Challenge p. 22 so that we may easilie perceive whose neckâ— is taken in the halter by his strugling and striving to get out thence And if the Iesuite will endure examination I thinke hee will not so justifie the Roman Church for the first five hundred yeares but that it had something practised in it which other Churches did dislike Neither doth this so farre deface it as the Iesuite would perswade For what will hee say of all those Churches in the Apocalypse None dâ—re denie their spots because God hath registred them And if the Iesuite bee interrogated whether the Roman then as now differs from them in their Spots I thinke hee will affirme it and yet accompt them true Churches also Doth not this Iesuite then abuse his Reader by his vaine flourish when he grounds it for an Argument that wee are no true Church because wee doe in some particulars differ from a true one to wit the auncient Romane Surelie this Argument would better fit the mouthes of Atheists Who doth not see that Rome now in many things differeth from Rome auncient it selfe For if Rome auncient were without spots and you in all things like unto it Why did your Councels pretend reformation Why did all gooâ— men call for Councels Why did your Doctours complaine of the corrupt estate of the Church Nay why did your assemblies amend those things that were never amisse But the Iesuite suspecting the strength of this pretence laboureth further to discredite the most learned Primate his answere He seekes indeede to recover his head out of the halter saith the Iesuite by telling us that those things wherein his Church is unlike unto that of auncient time are not of any such moment but that hee may for all that claime her for his Sister though poore soule a disfigured and diseased one g Reply pag. â—â— Doe you see how skilfull this Iesuite is to take his Metaphors from the Halter and the Hangman In this my Answere shall bee the admiration of his Rhetoricke But what produceth hee to put by this defence Why as if hee were making an Oration to his Novices he cryes out To whom would not such babish conceipts as these moove laughter h Reply pag. 7â— Is it possible that a Iesuite can leave his fixos oculos his complicatas manus to prove ridiculum quid upon so small provocation Surely hee would never have answered so discreete an answere with derision as you perceive hee heere doth if hee had had any thing else to have furnished his Reply withall But let us see the grounds of his laughter That Christ forsooth after all his promises to the contrarie shâ—uld suffâ—r his beloved spouse even in those first ages to bee so impaired as these men dreame that for so manie Centuries of yearâ—s hee should abandon her lying in disgrace and languishing in disease untill such time as a luxurious Apostata arising from his sacrilegious bed should come with his impure hands to wash away â—eâ— spots or untill such time as a branded Sodomite tooke in hand to play the Paracelsian thereby to cure her malady i Reply pag. 7â— Here were matter of weeping rather then of laughter if this charge were just For who makes the Roman Church in the first ages to be abâ—â—doned by CHRIST to be lyeing in disgrace to bee languishing in disease Not the Answerer but this Iesuite out of his honesty hath invented it because against the Answerers words he hath no ground for exception But I would know whether the promises are made to the Church quâ Roman and not otherwise whether hee hath any other Arguments then what are answered to prove it and how it came to pâ—sse that there were invented Epistles and other proofes urged to declare this besides the Scripture when the institution is pretended to come from thence Secondly I desire to know where he can finde us the â—â—urches of England and Ireland acknowledging Lutheâ— â—â— Calvin their dictates any further then they are agreeable to the truth delivered by CHRIST and his Apostles or whether we have depended upon them or either of them for reformation Thirdly I desire the Iesuite to certifie whether Luther were not a luxurious Fryar and how hee can proove the Apostacie which he brandeth him with let him further declare Fourthly whether Bolsecke be not the best testmionie that the Iesuite hath to proove Calvin to have beene a â—anded Sodomite as without shame hee blusheth not to traduce him These things when the Iesuite hath declared we will confesse he hath raved zealously but for the present we can but conceive this to be the effect of his received wounds which forceth his impatiencie that he cannot containe himselfe But that which the Iesuite supposeth will countenance his pâ—ssion is that the Fathers whom he deservedly commendeth in their best times are concluded hereby to have lesse understanding to knowe or lesse grace and courage to performe what was necessarie for the washing and câ—ring of Gods Church then certaine tumultuous Vpstarts k Reply pag. 7â— c. I desire that you would confesse ingenuously whether you or our selves give more honour to the Fathers Wee that acknowledge them to bee Counsellors appointed to the Church to be pastors and doctors raised up by God to feede his people and when they are met together in a Councell or Consent their sentence to be the greatest determination on earth whose credit immediately followes the sacred page Or you that accompt the best of them whilst they lived except the Roman Bishops themselves but a Roman Delegate that all of them when they ruled their Church could not teach the Church any point of doctrine but by the Popes call and appointment whose workes you so esteeme that you have made them companions but of bastard broods base births and have professed in your practise to make them speake as you desire them by falsE interpretation l See before Sect. â— c. Secondly I desire that the Vanitie of this pretence might be seene Is it any thing to the dishonour of the understanding grace or courage of the Fathers that somethings were since
wheredomes and fornications wherewith they defiled the Court of Rome and usurie in the highest degree i Nâ—ch Cleâ—â—â—ng in lib de corrupto Ecclesiae stam c. 10. Cardinalium qui Papae assident spiritus verba tumenâ—ia gestus tam sunt insolentâ—s ut si aâ—tifex quisque vellet superbiae simulachâ—um effingere nullâ congruentius tatiâ—â—â—id facere â—osset quam Cardinalis effigiâ—â— oculis inâ—â—â—â—iâ—m objectaâ—â—o Idem c. 12. Quis â—esciâ—â— â—ctionis schismaticâ— horrend am pâ—â—â—â—m per nequitiam Cardiâ—alium in Ecclesiae grâ—mium injectam c. Idem c. tâ— Quis immensam iâ—â—â—tâ—icabiâ—em voraginem ipâ—orum concupiscentiâ— ver bis â—quare valeat c. Idem c. 12. Transâ—o Simoâ—â—â—câ—â— aâ—â—d Papaâ— intercessioneâ— patrocinia veâ—alia corruptiones aut promotioneâ—â—â—â—pisâ—imâ—â— damnaâ—isâ—â—â—s quae omnes ferè istis auctoribus suasoribus â—iâ—bant c. Neâ— enumâ—rare volo câ—rum adulteria flupra â—oâ—â—icâ—â—â—ones quibus Romanam Curiâ—â—â—â—â—am nuâ—â— incâ—â—â—ant c. Neâ— refero usuras c. quâ ex causa nâ—â—mularioâ— supreme 〈…〉 non incongruâ—nâ—er â—oâ— quidam vocant And for their Cleargie how are they esteemed amongst themselves Aventine tearmes them in his time great wolves lustfull per sons adulterers ravishers of Virgins and Nunnes theives and Vsurpers Drones leacherous perfidious perjured ignorant asses wolves hypocrites k Aveâ—iniâ— l. 6. Annal. 〈◊〉 Cuâ— Oâ—iâ—â—â—apâ—oâ— â—iâ—â—â—â— luâ—â—â— liâ—idinoâ—os adulteros virginum sacratâ—rum foeminarum â—â—upra 〈…〉 cocosâ—â—â—liâ—â—â—s latroâ—â—â— argeâ—tarioâ— numâ—xâ—â—rioâ— â—ucos pecuniarum aucupes â—uâ—â—â—â—â—ditos peâ—â—â—do◠〈◊〉 literarum omnium penitus rudes imponiâ— Non audita loquoâ— â—â— quae â—isâ—e oculis video narro c. Albertus expresseth the rulers of the Church by the messengers of Antichrist supplanters of the flocke of CHRIST l Albertus in Evangel Iohan. c. 10 And how long they have continued this good opinion amongst all men the complaints and greife of men that have had any modestie in severall ages will declare m Hoâ—oriâ—â— Aâ—gust Dial. de praedest lib. Arbit Verte te ad Cives Babyloniae vide quales sint c. Alvares Pelagiâ—s de planâ—â—â— Ecclesiae Nic. 〈◊〉 de coâ—â—â—pto Ecclesi◠〈◊〉 Neâ—â—â—â— Berâ—â—â—dâ—â— alij Neither doth this age minister unto us any hope that their Doctrine is now of better efficacie though the Papacie be honoured with more glorious titles then ever it was before in regard they doe not as Luther is by them pretended to have done tearme only some dissolure persons swyne but all their Cleargie and Laytie also for so our Irish Regulars would have the Irish Bishops to be swinâ—â—erds their flock swine this being their argumeÌ„t to prove the Provincials of the Regulars to be greater Prâ—lates then the Bishops because the Pastor is knowne by his flocke Opilio digâ—ior est sâ—bâ—â—câ— A sheephâ—â—rd is better then a sâ—yâ—eheard n Consuâ—a â—â—â—iâ—ien Proâ—â—â—â— Superiores Regularium digniores sâ—nt Episcopis siquidem digâ—â—tas Pastoris petenda est ex condition◠〈◊〉 gregiâ— quemadmodum â—â—iâ—â—o dignior â—â— â—â—bulâ—o So that if the Iesuite make loosenes of conversation in some particulars an Argument against the truth of Religion and doctrine in the reformation and would thereby take away our kinred with the Primitive Church What may we conclude from the universall leprosie that hath by their owne confession over-growne both head and members throughout the Papacie But iâ— this manner of arguing from corrupt manners to corrupt doctrines be of small force as is acknowledged by themselves in so much that no inward Vertue in Bellarmines judgment is required to make one a part of the true Church o Bellarm. de Eccles miliâ—â—â—â—â— l. 3. c. 3. Vt aliquis aliquâ— modo dici possit pars veâ—â— Ecclesiae de qua Scripturâ—â— loquâ—nâ—â—r â—on â—â—taâ—â—â—s requiri ullam internam virtâ—â—eâ— Yet I am sure it is able to moderate this Vaunter from triumphing like the Pharisee God I thanke thee I am not like other men Luke â—8 9. But here our Answerer domandeth of me saith the Iesuite whether I be able to shew one point wherein they have broken that Harmonie which Irenâ—â—s commendeth in the Catholicke Church of his time I answere that I can very easily show it and make good withall what I said in my demand and 〈◊〉 which he keepeth such a vaine stirre to wit that the â—rotestants agreewith that ancient holy Church in very few points of Religion or rather to say better that they agree not in any one point at all p Reply pag. 76 How well able the Iesuite is or hath beene to make good whaâ— he said in his demaund wil be examined in the XIth Section Here we expect what point of Doctrine hee â—an finde out held by us wherein it will appeare that we vary from that Harmony which Irenaeus commendeth in the Catholicke Church of his time And for his orderly â—andling of this matter he puts downe Irenaeus his words as his Major Proposiâ—ion That Church which is spread throughout the whole World presenteth her faith as â—â— were dwelling in one house and likewise beleiveth as it were having on soule and one heart and uniformely preacheth teacheth and delivereth this faith amongst all nations having as it were one mouth q Reply Ibid. And now as if this repetition were our confusion he telleth us Our Adversaries neither have nor beleive any such Church therefore they keepe no such Harmony The Minor he is willing to prove by a twofold Mediâ—m First by what hath beene heeretofore produced by him concerning our disagreement which I hope the Reader hath observed will not serve his turne Secondly by a farre greater dissention which happeneth saith the Iesuite betwixt them and those Protestants with whom they pretend this Harmony in other Nations r Reply ibid. So that it seemes the Iesuite will first attempt to prove that wee bee not of that Church which keepeth Irenaeus his harmony and that he will reserve unto the last place the point he should prove to wit that we deny the Catholicke Church His best argument to manifest the first is the testimonies of some Lutherans Brownists and Puritans who disâ—â—aime and discard our Answerer and his Church as the Iesuite tells us from all this pretended harmony and agreement with him Å¿ Reply Ibid. And we say if they charge us so deepely as the Iesuite affirmes that this is not sufficient to prove his undertakings seeing that Doctor Stapleton denyes the Fathers and especially S. Hieroâ—e the priviledge of testimony when they write contentiously and with passion Stapleton â—rinc Doctriâ—â—l l. 67. Distinctio de his 〈◊〉 à pâ—â—â—ibus 〈◊〉 â—â—ae coâ—tentio â— scribuntur in verbis Hiero 〈◊〉 locum 〈◊〉 and therefore these rigide Lutherans though they befriend a Iesuite cannot in their disputes be allowed an inâ—allible priviledge Besides these Lutherans which the Iesuite urgeth if their words be as hee layeth them downe for I cannot come by their bookes doe
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
the Councell of Basill but also whole fraternities of Orders accused and charged with Schisme or Heresie Whatsoever in this Section followeth is but the tâ—arâ— of a Crocodile or the preaching of a Foxe an Homily made of what hath beene answered before That which we are now to examine is the Iesuites ensuing Discourse wherein he promiseth to shew that SECT XI OVr Answerer by Vanitie offereth wroâ—g tâ— Truth and Charity a Reply pag 87 This our Iesuite makes the Scope of his XI Section which he doubts not to make as manifest as he hath done his former undertakings with a nil ultrà I hope wee have given sufficient satisfaction saith he unto our Answerers deâ—aâ—â—nd when he enquired whether I was able to shew one point wherein he and his have broken that Harmony which Iraeneus commendeth in the Catholicke Church of his time b Reply pag 87 Mr Malone is not so good in his payments as banqueâ—oâ—ts for they will pay debts with good words but the Iesuite thinkes he can satisfie all with invectives and with the same Method wanting matter as they money to pay quarrels with the forme or by out-facing pretends the debt satisfied when poore man he hath onely snarled a little against the specialtie for that which he tearmes to be the holy Catholicke Church hath bene declared a Schisme and that the Catholicke Church is not inclosed within the mountaines but dispersed â—ver the face of the earth with which we communicate and are members hath beene sufficiently declared to which wee referre the Reader And now saith he aâ— we have â—ully â—â—swâ—red â—ntâ— his demaund so have we just cause to complaiâ—â— that he hath not given us any reâ—â—â—â—tion of that which I propoundâ—d when I dâ—sired him to tell whether of us both have the true Religion we who doe not disagree with the auncient Church in any one point or they who agree with it in very few and disagree in almost all Observe I pray you how vainely he shapeth his answere 〈◊〉 unto c Râ—â—lâ— pag 88 c. Indeed if that which the Iesuite affirmeth for graunted could as easily be proved as it is bouldly avouched saith the most reverend Primate the question would quickely be resolved whether of us both have the true religion But he is to understand that strong conceipts are but weake proofes and that the Iesuites have not beene the first from whom such brags as these have beene heard Dioscâ—rus the hereticke was as pâ—arte when hee uttered these speeches in the Councell of Chalcedon I am cast out with the Fathers I defend the doctrine of the Fathers I transgresse them not in any point and I have their testimonies not barely but in their verie bookes d Answ pag. â—â— Lâ—e here what a flourish of words he hath unfâ—ulded and not one to the purpose c e Reply pag â—8 You see that the most reverend Primate his Answere justly conceiveth that such a Proposition as the Iesuite desires to be resolved in supposeth that by the confession of our Church either antiquitie speakes onely for them and against our selves or else that the supposition is so cleare in it selfe that it cannot be denyed Then which nothing is more ridiculous and therefore you were a little too hastie M. Malone as the most learned Answerer tels you to â—ry out Whether of us both have the true Religion and might have done well indeed to have bethought your selfe more advisedly of that which you had undertaken to performe as also to have remembred the saying of the King of Israell unto Bâ—nhâ—dâ—d Let not him that girdeth on his harnesse boast himselfe as he that putteth it off For if you can convince us that we agree not with the auncient Church in any one point we will plead guiltie and confesse our errour if you can justifie your selves by the auncient doctrine of the Catholicke Church we will recanâ— the charge of Apostasie which now we deservedly cast upon you In the meane time we know that such as you can pretend with Dioscâ—rus the doctrine of the Fathers when indeed you exclude them and foyst upon the Christian world old Gibeonitish mustinesse of Decretall Epistles and false birthes to prove you to be ex genere antique when for all this your cheifest Heraulds stagger at your Pedigree so that his learned Answere is not a flourish of words but a detection of your follie who supposing in your Challenge that to be confessed by us which is the point in controversie would vainely flatter your selfe as if you had borne us downe with the weight of the authoritie of the Fathers and so astonished us therewith that we could not tell what to say for our selves whenas you had not layde downe so much as the name of any one Father at that time But you aske the question Why may not Dioscorus his peartenes in bragging so of the holy Fathers when they least of all made for him be applied unto our Answerer vainely boasting of them in the same nature rather then to us who have alledged their assured authorities for our cause so abundantly f Reply pag. 88 This is nothing to the purpose let him be like whom he will it is apparant by Dioscorus that men may pretend a propertie in that which is none of their owne as the Divell and the Pope in the kingdomes of the world which being granted it cannot be denyed but you may also pretend that Scriptures antiquity make for you when truely and re ver â they batter you and beate you downe And although it be nothing to the point controverted that the Iesuite speakes of Dioscorus yet we may consider it without offence He tels us Dioscorus was condemned and cast out for maintaining his owne opinion against that of the whole Councell g Reply pag. 88 Not so but an hereticall opinion hee might have varied from a whole Councell in a truth as your Panormitane insinuateth h Panorm super p. Decret Deelect etelec potestate c. signif Quod si Papa movere tur melioribus rationibus et auctoritatibus quam Concilium quod standum esset sententiae suae nam et Concilium potest errare c. In concernentibus fidem etiam dictum unius privati esset praeferendum dicto PAPAE si ille moveratur melioribus rationibus eâ— auctoritatibus novi veteris testamenti quam Papâ— And had our Answerer lived in those dayes would he not thinke you have received the like censure of the said Councell for denying unto the Pope that Supremacie i Reply pag â—â— c. A fancie the Councell you dare not stand to you in part except against it and in a point that comes neere the Supremacy k Binâ—not in Conc. Chaleed verb. Concilium Decretum illud act 16. quo Patres Concil absentibus legatis postea reclamantibus Constantinopolitanae sedi primatum attribuerunt ideo quod instar Romae caputiâ—â—perij effects primatum meruerit
what fetches they use to drag the people to their opinion so they may sway in the Church of God and tyrannize with their Antichristian Scepter over the Kingdome of Saynts The Iesuite before hee leaves off would faine say something for himselfe and cause as first that wheresoever the Fathers doe professe them in their workes they never tell him that they hold them for opinions rather then for points of faith o Reply pag. 95 which wee acknowledge for indeede there is no such profession in the Fathers yet I thinke and upon good grounds if they had knowne of any such fundamentall points some would have declared them to the Church Secondly he confesseth that some of the said points were not declared by the Church in former ages to be necessary and cheife Articles of faith and Religion yet they were ever belonging to the substance of faith from the beginning and without doubt were held for such at least implicitly and virtually by the holy Fathers howsoever our Answerer upon no better ground then his divining humour doth give out the coÌ„trary p Reply pag. 9â— Surely it could not be faith at any time if not then for to the Church long before was declared the whole counsell of God so that indeed it may bee of the Popish faith which may be declared 1500. yeares after Christ but not that of the ancient Church which was once delivered to the Saints And if the Iesuite will have that of the Foundation which was never so declared or reputed till our last times let him proove ex re â—atâ— that it is so and not thinke himselfe able by his without doubt to perswade us that the Fathers held those points virtually and iâ—plicitely â—â— belonging to the substance of faith and then hee doth something for if the bare act of declaration may make an article of faith the Bishop of Rome with his â—â—â—ncell may make us an other beleife and turne Christianity into a new mould a thing much desired if more then probable grounds doe not deceive us But if these points were decreed in after-times from some inward and virtuall substance of faith which was inherent in them let him declare it and by some meanes or other helpe our eye-fight that can perceive no such thing in the points here mentioned And whereas the wisard thinkes every man of his own profession hee is deceived his conjectures are farre from the grounds that are followed by the most learned Answerer and how farre it is from divining to expresse a truth any wil apprehend that knowes that divining hath relation to things to come and not to things past But what he promiseth in the next Chapter we will examine whereby I thinke wee may come to more perfect knowledge of their Catholicke frâ—â—des though not of their 〈◊〉 as he would perswade SECT XII THe Iesuite having travailed in the defence of certaine points from the Fathers testimony that are not of the foundation of Faith and fearing to be censured by Lyrinensis who saith that the aunciâ—â—t consent of the holy Fathers is with great care to bee sâ—ught and followed by us not in every pettie question belonging to the Law of GOD but ONE 〈◊〉 at least principally in the Rule of Faith a See the testimony urged by the most reverend the Lord Primate in his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge pag. 26. doth in this Section enquire Hâ—â—â— a point of Faith may be discerned from an indifferent opinion in Religion b Reply p. 96. and declares the reason of his so doing Forasmuch saith he â—â— our Answerer affirmeth that all the points by me laid downe in my demaund be not cheife articles I thought it meet by this disputation to disproove him herein and to shâ—w that they be all such cheife articles of faith at the obstinate denyall of any of them depriveth a man of all true beleife and maketh him a faithlesse Hereticke For performance whereof we are first to enquire which is the way or certaine Rule to know an article of Faith from an indifferent opinion and that being found out by squaring the said points thereby we shall easily understand whether they be theife articles yea or â—â— c Reply pag. 96 Now in this passage the Iesuite meeteth not at all with the most learned Answerers observation For he denyes all the points propounded by the Iesuite to be cheife articles in regard of those which are more necessary fundamentall which onely are to be enquired of by consent of Fathers in Lirinensis his judgment d See above lit â— and not because in their owne nature they are indifferent for if he should conceite them such why should he style you Heretickes for your false declarations concerning them nay why should there be controversies at all betwixt us Secondly all that the Iesuite urgeth here satisfieth not the most learned Answerer in shew onely For unlesse he can prove that these points were according to his Rule declared by the Catholicke Romane Church for cheife Articles of Faith before those Fathers times which he urgeth in Lirinensis his judgment all his quotations of antiquitie in defence of them are to no purpose And I would willingly see where the Romane Catholicke Church by her declaration hath defined these points de fide before the Ages of those Fathers which the Iesuite produceth for confirmation of the same But notwithstanding hee goeth a by way and followeth not his Answerer yet I will not leave him but take some breife veiwe of this discourse also And first he excepts against the Scriptures These must bee no Rule whereby to discerne cheife Articles of Faith from indifferent opinions in Religion nay to make Scriptures the Rule is but to shake hands with all condemned Heretickes Reply pag. 96 And this hee telleth us he hath already discovered but fearing least it be in conceit and opinion onely hee is heere resolved further to prosequute the same and layeth this for his ground There be many confessed points of Faith which are not in any sort expressed or as much as once touched by the Scripture f Ibid. Sure they are of the Popish Creed or not at all for the Catholicke Church taught none as necessary to salvation but what were contained in the Scriptures g Bellarm. de verbo Dei non scripto l. 4. c. 11 Dico illa omnia scripta esse ab Apostolis quae sunt omnibus necessaria quae ipsi palam omnibus vulgo praedicaverant Yet hee will proove his proposition from Augustine The Apostles truly saith S. Augustine as he is urged by the Iesuite have not delivered any thing concerning this point but that custome which was alledged against Cyprian ought to be held to have beene derived from their tradition b Reply pag. 96 But what point is this Rebaptization a point as farre from the foundation as Rome from Heaven that only concernes the manner forâ—â— of 〈◊〉 Baptisme What points else
doe as yet expect my sentence what I thinke fit to write concerning Easter day saith Saint Ambrose m Ambros ep 83. Meam adhuc expectant sententiam quid 〈◊〉 scribere de die Pascha But wee are not ignorant that the consent of the Patriarchall Sees was a great helpe to the advancement of Truth and repelling of errour and therefore those Bishops were sought unto to adde their assistance for suppression of innovations or arising Heresies Yet was not Rome sought unto in point of infallibilitie any otherwise then Alexandria For wee finde lovinian seeking to Athanasius that from his hand-writing hee might receive an exact exemplar or declaration of the Faith n Theodoror histor Eccless l. 4 c. 2. But what Iudgment would the Iesuite have their Innocent to have had A judgment of assent This what Bishops had not Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theoguis of Nice Heretickes exercised it o Sozom. hist Eccles l. 2. c. 15 Illa quae vestro judicio decreta sunt non contradicendo impugnare sed consentientibus animis confirmare decrevimus et hoc libello consensum illum roboramus Yea Liberius a Pope desires the Emperour that the Nicene Councell might in the same manner of all Bishops bee confirmed p Sozom. hist Eccles l. 4. c. 10. Liberius postulavit ab Imperatore ut fides in Concilio Nicaeno tradita subscriptionibus omnium obique Episcoporum confirmaretur which I am perswaded hee would not have done if he had conceived that subscriptive Confirmation had made a Iudge of Faith It may be he will have the Bishop of Romes subscription to make an Edict Why if this were graunted it were too weake to conclude him the rule of Faith for Emperors did the like with a power not usurped but sollicited and that by Councels and Popes too The first Councell of Constantinople petitioned Theodosius to ratifie the Decrees of that Councell that as by his Letters he called the Councel so by Seale he should fortifie their Decrees q Epistola Synodalis ad Theodosium Imperatorem Rogamus igitur tuam clementiam ut per literas tuâ— pietatis ratum esse jubeas confirmesque Concilij decretum et sicuti literis quibus nos convocasti Ecclesiam honore prosecutus es ita etiam summam corum quae decreta sunt conclusionem sententiâ â—tque sigillo tuo corrobores And Euagrius reports your Pope Felix to doe the like sending his Nunâ—ies to the Emperour by his authoritie to confirme the Chalcedon Councell r Enagrius histor Eccles l. 3. c. 18 Mittantur à Felice ad Zenonem Vitalius Misinus Episcopi ut ejus authoritate tum Concilium Chalcedoâ—â—â—se confirmaretur and many places to the like purpose may be urged But if the Church be the rule of Faith how many absurdities will follow thereupon As first that there must bee a Church before and so without Faith because faith in the Iesuits judgment cannot be before it is defined Secondly the Church must be the Rule of it selfe unlesse they will put forth that Article The holy Catholicke Church out of the Creed Thirdly the Church must rule the foundation upon which it is builded Ephes 2. Revel 21. Fourthly it is not denyed by the Iesuite that this rule is ruled someway by Scripture and therefore it hath not its rectitude in it selfe So that we see the Church of God hath her ministery the word of God the controule The Councell of Nice did her duty but Theodores telleth us how l. 1. c. 8 Å¿ Ibi animadversa fraudulcÌ„tia allegârunt Episcopi ex Scriptura resplendentiam soutem flumen charactera ad substantiam hoc In lumine tuo videbimus lumen Et hoc Ego Pater unum sumus luculentius deinceps ac com pendiosius conscripsere EIVS DEM CVM PATRE ESSE FILIVM ESSENTIAE And that all may perceive with how much fraud and falshood these places of Augustine are forced we may consider that the Scriptures are sufficient t August in Ioan tract 49. Cum multa fecisset Dominus Iesus non omnia scripta sunt sicut idem ipse sanctus Evan gelista testatur multa Dominum Christum dixisse fecisse quae Scripta non sunt electa sunt autem quae scriberentur quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur Serm. 38. ad fratres in Eremo inter opera August Legite sacram Scripturam in qua quid tenendum quid fugiendum sit plene invenietâ— not onely to teach faith but also to condemne heresies * See before pag. 199. in that fathers judgment and that Generall Councels themselves may be amended u See before pag. 319. Further he would never have moved to have past by the Councels of Nice and Ariminum x August con Maximin l. 3. c. 14. Neque ego Nicenum nec tu debes Ariminense tau quam praejudicaturus proferre Concilium Nec ego hujus autoritate nec illius detineris Scripturarum autoritatibus non quorumcunque proprijs sed utriusque communibus testibus res cum re caussa cum caussa ratio cum ratione decertet Reply pag. 100. if the Church had onely ruled the Faith So that the Iesuite hath concluded upon halting principles For never was the Pope acknowledged alwayes or at any time the onely Pastor of the Church neither the Roman Church the rule to find out heresies or to declare truthes neither did the auncient Bishops dreame of submitting to the Roman Church as the onely way to prevent errour neither did they thinke Arius his blasphemy onely cursed after the determination at Nice neither did Augustine ever breath forth as the Iesuit would father upon him y though with caution that an opinion which formerly was not held for a point of Faith may by the declaration of the Church be received and held for such Neither lastly did the Catholick Church expresly declare the Iesuites points for Cheifâ— articles of Faith True it is that a point of the Catholicke Faith may not be so fully preached or so openly professed or so publickely declared at one time as at another but that the same article might be no cheife point of faith at one time in the Christian Church and at another time by the Churches declaration be fundamentall is grosse and ridiculous For either the Churches declaration doth make that which was not to be of the substance of Faith giving it authoritie and credit making it of necessary beleife and so fundamentall which is too grosse to bee defended at Mid-day or else it doth declare to others what was formerly the foundation out of the Scriptures against some new arising Heresie And what doth the point gaine from the Church whether authoritie or light Authoritie they feare to say Light they cannot affirme for by the producing of it the darkenes is detected the Heresie is condemned Truth it receives not for it was there before Nay how could an Heresie against the foundation be
antiquitie rejecting sundry points which the major and sounder part of the auncient Fathers did teach in the Church r Wadding legat de Concep Virg. Mariae Sect. 2. orat 9 §. 6. mâ—â— 31. â—lures sunt graviores ij quos supra retuli contra quos cum alijâ— definitum est circa animaâ—uâ— ante diâ—m Iudicij beatitudâ—â—em Plures gra viores contra quos docet ecclesia Aâ—gelos esse spirituales Plures graviores contra quos â—el quibus dubitantibus dâ— varijs libris Scripturis Canonicis â—oâ—umque editionibus plâ—tâ— sunt statuta ab Ecclesia Multi graves sunt quos quidam citant â—t volunt â—â—nsisse ipsissâ—â—am hanc Virginem actualitâ—r peccâ—sse contra quos tamen actualem ejus inâ—oâ—enâ—iam 〈◊〉 â—â—â—dit Ecclesia Aliaque multa sunt hâ—jusmodi And if his confidence in this kinde of reasoning be so strong why doth he after labour to manifest us for Novelists when Bristâ— acknowledgeth That some there have bene in many ages in some points of the Protestants opinions Å¿ Mot. preâ— et Mot. â—â— And Reinerius hath as before Pag. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Margin hath beene shewed derived our doctrine condemned by you in the Leonistâ— from the Apostolicall times Whereas he saith that the most learned Answerer may much more be ashamed to tearâ—e them prophane and Hereticall when he is not able to finde out as I said before saith the Iesuite that either by authoritie of Church Councell or Fathers they have beene condemned for such Reply p. 109 I have answered hereunto before x Pag 99. and but even now told him out of Tertullian that whatsoever savoureth against the Truth is Heresie y Aboue lit p. but if a point as Bellarmine affirmes may be defined usu ecclesiâ— z Bellarm. de Reliq sanct c. 6. 〈◊〉 determinata â—rat usu totius Ecclesiae why may not the precedent Non-use of the Church condemne their intrusion of those points which the Church in her best times never practised And if no points of Religion can be prophane and Hereticall but such as are condemned by authority of Church Councels and Fathers I desire the Iesuite that he would forbeare to style us either Heretickes or prophane untill he can produce one Article of those agreed upon in the Synode held at London in the yeare 1562. concerning which he and all his Complices have beene Challenged †In the Lord Primate his Prefacâ— to the Reader before the Answere to the Iesuites Challengâ— but have given no Answere thereunto that hath beene condemned by authority of Church Councels or Fathers within the first 500. yeares Now the Iesuite vainely conceiting that he hath freed themselves from the imputation of Novelty proceedeth in this manner Let us as heretofore we have often done retort his tearmes upon himselfe and make him swallow downe his throat the shamefull reproach of Novelisme a Reply p. 10â— Here is a Champion in campis Gurgustidonijs Hee tels strange things monsters of his owne labour yet very few I thinke will beleive him But how will he performe this Why by proving that Martin Luther was the first broacher of the Protestants Religion b Reply ibid The Iesuite I suppose knowes that the Apostles were first called Christians at Antioch though the Reformed Churches are mistyled by them after Luther began to Preach But let them prove the Doctrine as new as the name they have given it otherwise they vainely contend Whereas he is further of opinion that this same cannot be more strongly proved then by the open confession of the said Luther himselfe c Reply p. 109. c. To This I Answere that if Luther should speake as the Iesuite beareth us in hand yet this should sway no more with us then Tetzelius did with Luther when he preached for Indulgences But I know not how this Iesuite is turned out of the way for we finde him snarling at a Latine worke formerly set forth by the most reverend Primate but never answered by any Iesuite wherein he hath pointed out a continuall succession of his Church for many ages before Luther but with such unfortunate event as even his own if we might beleive the Iesuit have judged him ridiculous herein d Reply ibid. And for what reasons I pray you Because first of all saith the Iesuite he tooke upon himselfe a taske impossible to be performed when he went about to search and to finde out his Church in those times wherein by the confâ—ssion of his owne learned Fathers and Brâ—thren it was invisible and not able to be sâ—â—nâ— Reply p. 1â—â— This wil be be tryed in the examination when the Iesuite will entreate one of his Brethren to examine the same and answere it In the meane time he chargeth us falsly to hold the Church absolutely invisible For if the Church be considered as containing all of all ages that beleeved the truth this wee say is not totally visible the greatest part being in Heaven If wee take the Church for those which are sinâ—â—re in their profession and are true members of CHRIST 2. Tim. 2. 19. Then we say that an humane eye cannot behold any member thereof but by probability and conjecture If foâ— the people that professe and the Pastors that teach the faith of CHRIST in severall ages this we say was never totally invisible but was knowne to them that professed the same though to persecutors that contemned the faith 2. Cor. 4. 3. or sought to oppresse it Rev. 12. 14. it might many times be hidd So that all the places brought by the Iesuit may be answered by that which hath bin said for some speak coÌ„paratively in regard of the outward glory of the Roâ—an Synagogue some in regard of precedent times some in regard of the world that persecuted them But doth the Iesuite conjecture that the most reverâ—â—d Primate thought by that booke to declare the Church in her succession as outwardly visible and glorious as Râ—me This was not his inâ—ent but to declare that there were many that professed the truth of CHRIST in all ages though under persecution in the succession of the Babylonish tyrannie And this the Iesuit might have observed if he had read the same for by the place of Ambrose in the Title-page we may conceive that his intention was to shew that though the Church be in condition many times like the Mâ—â—ne at full decreasing increasing yet it euer doth remaine a Church and such a one whose motions may be discerned and described f Ambros Hâ—xâ—â—â—er l. 4. c. â— Ecclesia vide tuâ— sicut Luna dâ—ficere sed noâ— dâ—ficit obâ—â—â—â—ari poâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secoâ—dly saith the Iesuite he bringeth in for Pillarâ— of his successive Church Waldo Wicklife and Husse g Reply p. 110. Here is sufficient to shew that the Iesuite doth not care what he saith nor feareth to censure things that he never saw For it is câ—â—are
in this way you will prosper and flourish Vnus Deus plures Amici being confident that there will never be wanting Blessings Honour to him that either walkes with GOD or for him Neither is it a light Argument of your loue to Pietie and Religion that in the time of your Lordships Government imitating herein BOTH your most glorious MASTERS you were a Father to the Cleargie and Ministers of GOD your last Act amongst us shewing with how sacred an esteeme you reverenced their Persons when by your practise you taught the most Honourable of the Kingdome to acknowledge them for men appointed by GOD to blesse in his Name I will now draw to an end excusing my presumption in offering this to your Lordship but I could doe no lesse in regard I have no other meanes to acknowledge your liberall favours and bountie to mee and to give your Lordship an Accompt that although they can never be deserved yet they are not altogether misplaced or cast away The LORD multiply his Blessings upon your Lordship and inflame your affections more and more to his Glory that hee may crowne you with his mercies here and eternitie hereafter which he shall ever pray for that is Your Lordships most humble servant and Chaplaine GEO SYNGE To the Reader I Am to give thee notice Christian Reader that M. Malone the Iesuite writing a DEMAUND and sending it to the most reverend Father in God the Lord Primate of all Ireland his Grace when he was Chancellor of the Cathedrall Church of S. Patrickes Dublin received an ANSWER from him to the same full of gravitie and learning when he was Bishop of Meath having the first coppie that came forth of the Presse sent unto him Since which time he hath printed A REPLY TO Mr VSHERS ANSWER so fully expressing an impatient disquieted minde that scarce a page may be found wherein he useth not a licentious libertie and reviling tongue against the most learned Answerer This booke travailed long before it could bee espyed by us but having got it at last wee found it to bee as before is declared Whereupon some Divines did labour to disswade the most reverend the Lord Primate from rejoyning thereunto in regard of the indignity of the raylor and violence of the worke as also because it would hinder him in other studies more necessary for the Church and did offer their endeavours to examine the same VVhich being accepted by his Grace the worke is now so farre prepared that it waytes at the Presse Onely this Peice prepares the way which I have sent out of due course and order without the rest occasioned by the adverse part who have reported it to bee in answering before many sheetes thereof were printed whereby I had reason to suspect that to get the coppie they used some deceit But before I leave thee Christian Reader I must first acquaint thee that in the examination of the Generall Controversie in the Iesuites Reply I have passed by sundry mistakes solecismes and false Quotations casting them aside as the Israelite did the body of Amasa * 2. Sam. 2. 20. lest they should hinder me in a more necessary pursuite Neither have I beene moved with every provocation of the invious Iesuite knowing that the sinne which provoked him to this bitternes is as Cyprian observes sine fine peccatum everlastingly extended and without an end set on fire by Hell Cyprian de Zelo Livore Zelus terminum non habet permanent jugiter malum sine fine peccatum quantóque ille cui invidetur successu meliore profecerit tanto invidus in majus incendium livoris ignibus inâ—r descit though the fuell that nourisheth it come from Heaven whereby the most learned Answerer is justified in regard that the more GOD hath beautified him with excellencies and admirable perfections the more he is persecuted by this fierie inflammation Besides his owne have censured him for his rage heerein admiring Quae causa indigna SERENOS Foedavit vultus and therefore he being condemned by them I did take libertie many times to spare my reproofe VVhat errours have passed in the Presse I have taken the best course I could for their correction I pray GOD blesse and protect his Church against all the proud holdes that are erected against the Scepter of IESUS CHRIST A BREIFE VIEVV OF THE IESVITES PREPARATIVES TO HIS REPLY IT is sufficient to procure iealousie when an Adversary raves But it is a convincing Argument of desperate feare when one flyes vpon a partie to countenance his Cause That this hath beene our Iesuites practise I thinke will easily appeare In his first page if Painters and Poets were to bee beleived hee a In the preface to the Reader Emblematically sâ—ts forth our private spirit iarring Synagogues and would perswade the world that there is amongst them b Pag 1. the Vnity of the spirit in the bond of Peace But all this in a shadowe onely I hope the Reader will not thinke wee esteeme our persons as our cause or that we conceit wee are as free from Passion as our Faith from falshood This humour were too Pharisaicall and fit for a Iesuite Some humours will extend a gnat to a c As Lutheranes c. mountaine and determine every thing damnable which they conceive an error On the other side others have consciences so largely capacious that nothing offends them and therefore can as well receive a precept or command from Satan as GOD from Antichrist as CHRIST and obey with more obsequiousnesse the d I. Gordon Huntl in epist ad Paulum 5. ante epit contr Tu Petra firma immobilis in qua religio coÌ„quieseit Bell. de Rom. Pont. lib 4. c. 5. Si Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia vel prohibendo virtutes teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bo na virtutes malas nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare Tyrant then the e Chrys hom 37. in Gen. Christus praecepit dicens scrutemini scripturas yet I. Gordon Huntl cont epit with other Papists except that wee know not the Scriptures neither their sence but by the Pope and his Church that they are obscure in the originall ambiguous the points ill placed the text corrupted Prince of peace the onely true Lord of the Conscience Let vs now argue with the Iesuite if our discourse doe not interrupt his Musicke and enquire If it be granted that there have beene some bitter passages among our owne whether Discord of f As Paul and Barnabas Act. 15. 39. Paul and Peter Gal. 2 11. the Churches of Asia the Latine in Pepe Victor's time Euseb eccl hist lib. 5. Chrysost Epiphanius Augustine Ierome c. Brethren so it bee not deadly is not better then Concord of g As Saul his Divell as Balaâ— Balaam that agree to curse the Church Num. 22. as Pilate the Priests to crucifie the Lord of Life Slaves Or if there
questions then fight combates to begge the points controverted then to purchase the glory and honour of a Triumph He declares the preparation to the warre Mr Vsher vpon his receipt proclaimes this a Iesuites Challenge prepares himselfe to the fight buckâ—ls on his harnesse What to doe to warre with a Pigmie you are deceived A sling and a few stones * will best answere currish 1. Sam. 17. 40. Rhetoricke alicentious Rayler He desires to informe his Reader that for as much as the maine controversy concerneth the fathers iudgments for the first 500 yeares in his proofes hee hath kept compasse howsoever he hath descended to disproove his Adversary Here let him know that we will follow him in the path that he should tread in his extravagant collections and descent from the rule prescribed wee desert him and herein we take no other libertie then what he assumeth to himselfe as is apparant in his second information He hath enlarged himselfe in that article of the Reall presence and why I pray you In regard of the eagernesse wherewith the adverse part doth impugne the same Who seeth not that the blind beggar strikes but hee knoweth not whom for if he vnderstand by the adverse part that part of the Catholicke Church which liveth vnder his Majesties government as his words import he is blindlie mistaken for who knowes not that many in the Church of England confesse Christs presence in the sacrament though they assigne not the manner how but to entertaine the Catholicke meane as he tearmes it †pag. 44. to acknowledge Christs presence in the Eucharist in a sacrament all manner I thinke he can neither find pen nor tongue that contradicteth the same Yet what he saith he will proove by miraculous demonstration and surely I thinke he is better able to iustifie their doctrine about the Sacrament by their legends then the Scriptures and by new invented wonders c Alexand de Hales in 4. sent q. 〈◊〉 In sacramento apparet caro interdum humanâ procuratione interdum operatione diabolicâ then the venerable testimonie of the auncient Church And it is not to be neglected what an open way to Atheisme is prepared by their published legends and approoved miracles whilst they dare averre that none can beleive the scriptures wherein are contained Christs miracles but by their Churches proposall and that the same hand though not in the same manner doth deliver their legends for the comfort of her pretended catholicke children although the consequence be not necessary may it not fall out that one finding fraud and falshood in these wonders d Lyranus in Daniel 14. Aliquando fit in Ecclesia maxima deceptio populi in miraculis fictis à Sacerdotibus vel eis adhaerentibus propter luciuÌ„ temporale Ga Biel in Can Miss lect 49 Miracula dicit fieri hominibus ad imagines confluentibus nonnunquam operatione Daemonum ad fallendum inoidinatâ—s cultores Deo permittente exigente talium infidelitate may entertaine a jealousie of the truth of those miracles that confirme our faith e De tribus mundi impostoribus Italy I thinke knowes the effect of this snare not infecting inferiors alone but your infallible Chaire f Io. 23. Concil Const Sess 2. And doe not your imaginarie fables herein next to your images and idolls confirme the Iewes in their hardnesse of heart to thinke Atheisticallie of our faith and Messias For working feeling in the well disposed Protestant Reader by those your pretended supernaturall events I thinke vnlesse it be such as Augustine found in himselfe in reading Dido and Aenâ—as an imaginarie discourse a phantasticke compassion you may despaire of For we are not now to receive new doctrines or new miraculous confirmations g Stella in Luc. 11. 19. We have Moses and the Prophets let vs heare them * Luke 16. 29. if any man preach any other Gospell then that we have received let him be accursed †Gal. â— 9. Wadding Legat Phiâ— terâ—ii c. sect 3. And we need not to be ignorant Mr Malone how the Dominicans answered the Patrons of the immaculat conception of the blessed Virgin when they brought to confirme their cause miraculous proofes that they were of the same stampe that Iannes and Iambres wrought in Aegypt but let this expect its proper place I will not yet forsake the Preface The Iesuite confesseth that he hath roughly and freelie dealt with the Answerer and this he desires might not be imputed to any disregard that hee hath to his person or learning which hee honours and highly esteemes The Iesuites Common-wealth is not Athens all ingenuous men are not cloystered in their Colledges The Iesuite confesseth that we have one But to deale with one whose person he professeth to honour and learning highly to esteeme in more disgracefull and virulent straines then Michael did with the Divell * Iude. 9. how can the Iesuite apologise for this But here I hope his Maiestie and all others of eminent place will consider to what a height this spaune of Ignatius hath ascended in this kingdome that they did not onely builde the Babylonian turrets scorne and outface our true Religion practised by his sacred Maiestie established by the lawes of Church and State but also revile the most eminent for Pietie Learning and Prelacy in our Ecclesiasticall Government Yet let him triumph in his snarling language all good men doe see such eminencies of learning and sincerity in the most reverend Primate that a Iesuites tongue though more besmeared cannot defile his honour or his name Neither doth this coelestiall luminary greeve any more then the Moone at his Dogge-Rhetoricke That which vexeth Lots * â— Pet 2. 7. righteous soule is to see his Country made Sodome and Aegipt by blindnes and Idolatry An heard of swine he knowes may make a greater noise then an army of men and who wypeth her mâ—uth or vseth her tongue more then the harlot If such things as these will justifie Papall intrusions Mr Malone will not faile who hath given vs loud cryes and a large volume but praetereà nihil Some things else we finde in this preface as their pretence of Vnitie and our Division which because hee pipeth it so often in the body of his Reply we will there take some opportunitie for the consideration of the same The Iesuite a vayne Demaundant THe Iesuite after his Preparatives addresseth himselfe to the Reply and first layeth downe his demaund What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion which the Protestants commend in those of the first 400. or 500. yeares confessing it to have beene the true religion of Christ and his Apostles a Reply pag. â— And here we may see the Iesuites additions In his first demaund he expressed onely the true religion here he addeth of Christ and his Apostles which I do not except against as if I did conceive a religion might bee true that is not from Christ and
n Cap 21. hath published a Booke in French translated into English whereby hee hath prooved it to bee an vnjust proceeding to deny the change happened to the Church vnder pâ—â—tence that the authors time and place of it cannot be specified And also Doctor Fulke o In his answer to a counterfite Catholick ar 11. â— 24 hereto agreeth that when the Scripture telleth vs that the Mysterie of iniquitie preparing for the generall defection and revelation of Antichrist wrought even in Saint Paules time 2. Thess 2. it is folly to aske whether suddenly and in one yeare all Religion was corrupted and if Mr Malone will have more hee shall not want numbers of our owne to witnes our consent heerein May not this shamelesse Iesuite blush then to produce Fulke and Whitaker and the rest to have answered this question when they conclude it vaine and of no necessity and never dreamed of answering the same For all the Quotations of the Iesuite out of our Authors doe not expresse one word of answere to his question Fulke speaketh of the time that the Pope began to blind the world Napier of the beginning of the Popes Papisticall and Antichristian raigne Brokard of the Popes falling from Christ Leigh sheweth his opinion how long the Popes have beene Divells Winckelman relates the different opinions touching the beginning of the 42. monethâ— in the 11. of the Revelation Whitaker coniectures at the last true and godlie Bishop of the Roman Church and so in like manner the rest of the learned men mentioned by him but there is not one of them whose words he expressely layeth downe that answeres the question What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion which you commend in them of the first 400 yeares or In what Popes dayes was the true religion over-throwne in Rome To this question from his owne words wee may proove a consent that this observation of times seasons doth often fayle and that they are not so easie to be discerned as fooleâ— are borne in hand they are For heerein with the learned Answerer doth Powell and the learned Whitaker agree yea so consonant are they in their resolutions that the learned Answererin this Iesuites observation seemeth to be spit out of Whitaker his mouth and Mr Powell hee confesseth agreeth with them The difference is not in answering this question In what Popes dayes was the true religion over throwne but In what Popes dayes did the revelation of the Antichristian tyrannie beginne The Iesuite may know there is a distance betwixt the blading of Antichrist his tyrannie whereby it became visible and the power of it the blading was but a preparation for evill the power and authoritie it got afterwards was that which brought these frauds and corruptions in whereby it appeareth that there is great difference in these questions and that worthy Whitaker was no weather-cock as this Buzard tearmeth him Yet notwithstanding we doe not deny that as Hectick agues whose beginnings are obscure declare themselves to Physitians by divers symptomes of the bodies decay waste whereby one Physitian at one time by one signe another by an other in a different houre may judge of the disease though from divers symptomes yet all aright So have our Divines done some perceiving the symptomes of Apostacie in the Church at one time some at another have declared the appearing of this defection fore-told some from one Popes tyrannie some from another Some saw this Apostacie by symptomes of notorious pride as in Boniface the third Others by out-daring impieties when Dagon images and idols were put vp in the Church of God Others by open vilenes and prophâ—nesse visible to Parasites p Plat. in Iohan 13. Onuph annot in Plat Iohan. â— themselves when your monstra and pertenta opened heaven gates But what is this to the Iesuites demaund the question that he is to exempt from vanity concerneth the time of the alteration or overthrowe of the true or the so much commended Religion of the first 400. or 500. yeares The Apostacie or defection began indeed in the Apostles time and the seedes of Antichristianisme were layde for the sixe following ages q See the most reverend Lord Primate in his book de Christ Eccl. success statu pag. 16. 17 18. and yet no Papist to bee found no such visible alteration that thereby religion should bee overthrowne About the sixt Centurie some of these tares began to blade and yet all the good grayne not vtterly choaked whereby the Iesuites question appeareth more vaine For consider this Apostacie in its beginning or inchoation then it not apparantly altered much lesse overthrew the Catholick faith consider it in the encrease although it assaulted Religion yet neither wholly or in any fundamentall part did it alter the same consider it when it came to more perfect ripenes if there be any perfection in Apostacie as in the latter Centuries doe not thinke that we conclude the Church of God overthrowne because that Antichrist playeth the Tyrant therein So that Mr Covell sayth nothing of the alteration or overthrow of catholick faith when he speaketh of the beginning of Apostacie His last objection is taken from S. Augustine his rule that whatsoever the vniversall Church vseth if no time can be found when that vse began it must necessarily be derived from the very Apostles themselves r Reply pag 4. We need not to question this ground although S. Augustine gave this rule not to discerne points of faith by for he knew they were in the divine word plenarily contained but ceremonies and matters belonging to Ecclesiasticall practise For can we thinke the Fathers in S. Augustine his dayes were so ignorant of the catholicke rule of faith that they must leane vpon such a conjecture as this for points fundamentall of necessary beleife Shew me one Councell that decreed any point of faith by the bare strength of this rule if you can I can shew you a point of practise that had all that this rule could give it as Childrens necessary eating the Eucharist Å¿ Maldon in 6. Iohan. Aug. de peccator merit remiss lib. 1. c. 24. and yet is rejected both by the doctrine practise of your Traditiondefenders Yet may we iustly reproove this Iesuites assertion that dare affirme those points vniversally held and practised by the Church at the time as he cals it of Luthers revolt then which nothing is more grosse for if he meane the very waiters of the Roman Mistresse Sylvester Prierias his representative Church the Pope and his Cardinalls they will not be found to agree in the points mentioned but did differ amongst themselves And for the Catholicke Church let him proove it if hee bee able for bare words will not sway it Yet if this will serve their turne we shal be able to proove that in the Catholicke Church these points were never generally received take the Church for the vniversall body of the
ver 6. The mystery of iniquity is commonly referred to Heretickes who worke to the same do that that Antichrist shall doe but yet not openly but in covert and vnder the cloake of Christs name the scriptures the word of the Lord shew of holines c. it Serpents are not seene in the egges though in their growth they are full of horror and the most dangerous opposall many times proceedeth from an Ambush and not from the Army Who knoweth not that the fowlest Divell may appeare the fairest Angell the loosest Abbesse may be inclosed in your chastest vestment the most licentious Nunne be esteemed a Saint and the most trayterous Iesuite face it like a Subiect Besides we know that Heresies which in their nature might be damnable and destroyers of the foundation to their receivers many times appeare not neither are they esteemed so vile And Heresies that are accompted deadly at one time and to some receivers have bene but staynes in others when the intention of the receiver was considered As Cyprian his rebaptization So that Error concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and not from the Sonne is fundamentall in its owne nature although to the Greeke Church that hold not thereby the inequalitie of the persons it is no fundamentall Heresie k Lomb lib 1 distinct 11. Sciendum est tamen quòd Graeci confitentur spiritum sanctum esse filij sicut patris quia Apostolus dicit Spiritum filiâ— Et veritas in Evangelio spiritum votitatis Sed cum non sit aliud spiritum sanctum esse patris vel filij quam esse à . patre et filio etiam in hoc in eandem nobiscum fidei sententiam conveniâ—e videntur licet in verbis dissentiant Bellar De Christo lib. 2 cap. 27 Respondeo igitur cum Bessatione et Gennadlo Damascenum non negasse spiritum sanctum procedere ex filio quod ad rem attiner cum dixerit Spiritum eâ—se imagineâ—◠〈◊〉 et per filluâ— esse sed existimasse tutius dici per filium quam ex filio quantum ad 〈◊〉 loqucindi propter haeresim Macedonii et Eunomij c. Tolet. in Iohan cap. 25. annot 25. Graecus intelligens spiritum sanctum procedere per filium quod non aliud significat quam quod nos dicimus at all So many might adore CHRIST in receiving the Sacrament that never thought of his bodily presence by Transubstantiation nor dreamed of your Wafer-god nor your Preist able to create the Almighty Moreover the Reall presence may stand and yet you may be Idolators in adoring the Host And in Substance the Host may be but onely bread and yet Christ be present in the Sacrament and in the same manner as the Iesuite hath confessed Reply pag 44. the same But this point is considered elsewhere and therefore may be heere omitted Secondly the question is not about the earing or blading of these tares for every man can tell this even hee that asked the question vnde Zizania * Mat. 13. 26. 27. he knew the tares and saw the blade but not their seeding time this is a question for the Lord onely to answere who seeth the secret working of enemies against his kingdome and not for the servants to lay downe The Plot of powder-Conspiracie in the first conception if it was not observed of the Watchmen of our Israell yet in the blading it was espied and the Plotters choaked before Harvest Many Heresies have beene plotted by the Divell by Antichrist but spread abroad by their emissaries frogges locusts with their croaking Rhetoricke And suppose our learned Answerer knew not all the plots in hell and Rome yet he hath layde downe the spreading of these damnable Heresies when the Church was first troubled with them and when they received strength and humane confirmation So this Iesuite closeth vp all and finding he hath sayd little to the purpose he adds that if all alledged by the learned Answerer were suffered to passe it is but might bee or peradventure Reply pag. â— which he taketh to be of little force But it followeth by this his confession that his demaund is not absolutely exempted from Vanitie but lyeth within the compasse at least of a might be and peradventure to be foolish and ridiculous Whereby we may inferre that this vnwise man his owne mouth being his Iudge doth not know nor this foole vnderstand the infallibitie of those things which hee would have vs to be wise in at last The third Answere pleaseth not the Iesuite vizâ— The originall of errors is oftentimes so obscure their breed so base that no wiseman will marvaile if in tract of time the beginning of many of them should be forgotten n The most reverend the Le Primate pag. 2. And what of all that n Reply pag. â— saith our Iesuit Sufficient I thinke to declare the vanitie of the Iesuites demand for if Heresies be obscure in birth and oftentimes not taken notice of or if taken notice of yet by the espyers not judged worthy of a Register to continue their memory but barely of a contempt then it must of necessitie follow that that demaund is vaine which presupposeth the Church to take notice of the father of every baâ—â—â—rd doctrine and to keep Registry therof as she doth of those sacred truthes which were legitimately declared to the Church I but although they bee oftentimes so obscure as this man saith must it follow that they are alwayes so p ibid No it must not But it is no strange thing that when your wisdome cannot answer your wits should be amazed and although the wise Answerer hath endured many of your bolts with this answere he hath choked you with the feathers for he standeth not in need of any such vniversals if some Heresies are of this temper it is sufficient if you cannot manifest that every heresie declareth it selfe in its birth and is registred to Succession then that cannot be excused from vanity which requireth for detection of every Heresie in your Church their beginning with the circumstance of person time and place Arians Manichees c. are diligently recorded saith the Iesuite why should not those wherewith he chargeth us haue bene more notorius q Reply pag. â— He doth not rest heere but as if all his skill were in demaunding he asketh Above two hundred Heresies have been gainsayâ—â— by the skilfull watchmen c. what Doctour did ever gainesay any of those supposed heresies by word or writting r ibid. This Crambe is but of small valew all this hath beene answered before the effect is this Every Heresie in it's birth appeares not but some expresse their venemous disposition afterwards Who knoweth not that those base birthes which are generated expuâ—redine are never taken notice of till they reveale themselves by their filth and motion And have you not been faiâ—e to derive the Pedigree of some Heresies from the Divell
Å¿ See Bern cited before in the 1. Section Besides iâ— iâ— a good Consequent Some Heresies have beene detected in their beginnings with the circuÌ„stances of person time place therefore those which have not in like manner beene maâ—e knowne are notheresies Are not false doctrines many times like false Christians like Hypocrites who are often accounted the best of those which professe righteousnes whenas afterwards Iudas is detected their fraud is apparant were all the Iewish corruptions before our Sauiours time vnvailed was the curtain of painted appearance drawne aside among the Pharisees were not many good men deceived by theÌ„ as Nicâ—◠〈◊〉 â— Iohn 3. 1. that entred their order who espied their painted Hypocrisies till Christ layd them open in their colours making them appeare to every pur-blinde eye what they truely were Our Iesuite to prove his demaund hath produced two t Reply pag. 8. places first Isaiah 62. 2. And what saith the Prophet there The Iesuite I thinke suspects the strength of his quotation or otherwise he would have layde downe the words nakedly and not with his glosse I have set watchmen vpon thy walles O Ierusalem which shall never hold their peace day or night These are the words but not one syllable that they should cry out still vpon every arising errour or Heresie Nay what is here to confirme that which he would prove God giveth his Church faithfull watchmen that will neither day or night be idle and keepe cloyster but will labour to build vp Ierusalem till GOD make it a prayse of the earth But alas what is this to the roote of Heresies to the circumstance of their espyall The birth of every Prodigy is not observed in the shepheards Calendar but of Comets those which are of like nature neither is every Heresie detected by the Iesuite's rule but such as in their first appearing shew themselves to be against faith and good life as Augustine u epist 119. cap. 19. saith in the words alledged Who knoweth not that little clouds may end in stormes which without an Elias * 1. King 18. 44 cannot be suspected Yet must God faile in his promise for his servants not espying the taresower The Apostle that could cry * 2. Cor 2. 16. quis idoneus ad hâ—c did not thinke the perfection of Pastors such that compleatly they might performe every circumstance which their Office doth require If God give faithfull watchmen that will not be tongue-tyed in Gods service nor cease to sound when the enemie approacheth this is sufficient to repute the watchmen faithfull to free their soules For God requires not the trumpet to be vsed before the enemie be espied when your cunnings appeared trechery they have not wanted opposers in all ages so that herein God hath no wayes failed his word For the other place Ephe 4. 11. it maketh no better to his purpose for who denyeth but Christ gave some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers but to what purpose to espy the person time place of hereticall beginnings no but for the perfecting of the Saints for the works of the ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ * Eph 4. â—â— which might be effected by the faithfull resisting of heresies by scriptures although their beginning time and place should be vnknowne For St Augustines words they are true make nothing against the Answerer for if every Pastor ought not to passe ever in silence their manners and doctrine which be against faith and good life but should labour to disgrace and condemne the same much more this will be required of the Church in generall but they must appeare first to be so Paul did not bitterly enveigh against Elimas till he appeared the child of the divell * Aâ—â—â—â—3 â— 10 resisted the streight wayes of the Lord Neither are mens opinions resisted till they appeare hereticall for otherwise every Pastor should be Iohannes ad opposituÌ„ fighting with his own shadow It is for Christ that knoweth the secret of hearts to say that Iudas is a divel * Iohn 6. â—0 And to as much purpose is Dr Fulks confession That the true Church hath resisted all false opinions with open reprehension This no man denyes but first they did appeare to befalse opinioÌ„s Besides cannot heresies be resisted with out naming their beginning time place Yes nodoubt as openly as Luther Fulke have resisted your errors whose beginnings you say they know not or you the Leoniste whose genealogy your great Inquisitor Reinerius x See this alledged in the â— Section could not find out So that the Iesuite may perceive it is no gross assertion to avouch such horrible errours as their opinions are to have assaulted the Church with most secret mysticall fraud although the beginnings of many of them may bee obscured hid But that ever we said they conquered the whole Church that they obtained vniversall estimation of true faith without being either contradicted or asmuch as once observed by any Watchman whatsoever this is no better then Iesuiticall jugling there remaining no truth in the same And now as the learned Answerer hath prooved this question or demaund to be vaine so here he goeth further to demonstrate the same by particular illustration shewing that the same things which they desire of vs cannot in the like case be performed by them And first saith the most reverend Primate We read that the Sadduces taught there were no Angels is any man able to declare vnto vs vnder what high Preist they first broached this errour To this he maketh a twofold Answere one of them is that if the certaine time of the beginning of this errour of the Saduces were not knowne at all little could that availe when as the like circumstance of time is vrged onely to finde out the truth of an â—â—ter in controversy c. which because you affirme we who deny the same doe vrge you to point vs out the time when c but that the Sadduces taught that errour there is no doubt nor controversy it being plainly testified by the scripture y Reply pag. â— Which is but a vaine simple straine of the Iesuite For how can it be but the reason must be alike in all even in those which be not declared expresly in scriptures as those that are And it is as plaine that you teach those particulars by your selfe proposed as the Sadduces did that there was no Angell So that if yours cannot be adjudged Heresies by GODS word vnlesse they be revealed by the circumstance of person time and place Why should this opinion of the Sadduces by strength of scriptures and other grounds be judge â—nd concluded to be so For otherwise if any Nathaniel in whom there was no guile * Iohn 1. 47. should have preached against the Sadduces before Christ revealed the same that they had beene Heretickes for denying
who being not justified doe dye are appointed for euerlasting punishments By which it is evident that the fiction of Purgatory is not to be admitted but in the truth it is determined that every one ought to repent in this life to obtaine remission of his sinnes by our Lord Iesus Christ if he will be saved And let this be the end This compendious and briefe Confession of vs we conjecture wil be a contradiction to them who are pleased to slander maliciously accuse vs and vnjustly persecute vs But we trust in our Lord Iesus Christ and hope that he will not relinquish the cause of his faithfull ones nor let the rod of wickednes lye vpon the lot of the righteous Dated in Constantinople in the Moneth of March 1629. CYRILL Patriarch of Constantinople OVr Iesuite is charged by the most reverend Primate Some things are maintained by you which have not beene delivered for Catholicke Doctrine in the primitive times but brought in afterwards your selves know not when The Iesuite pumping for an answere herevnto talketh of ambiguity doubtfull phrases fighting in a cloud As if a man could deale more plainely with the Roman faction then to tell them that there are many points held now of faith by them which the first times never received for Catholicke doctrine and that they themselves know not when many of them were first broached in the Roman Church But the Iesuite fearing least he should be espied in opposing so manifest a truth would here raife a myst or fogge that he might the better steale out of danger for he indeavoureth to perswade That by those words the Answerer goeth about to make his simple Reader beleive that we maintaine doctrine contrary to that of primitive times because forsooth we maintaine now somethings which were not expresly declared nor delivered as necessary articles of Christian faith c Reply pag. 11 He were a simple reader indeed that would beleive this Iesuite either in his faith or doctrine if it have no better support then the declaration of some of their late Councels to confirme it But he were more then simple that can pick the Iesuite his collection from the learned Answerer his words Simple men interprete the Bels as they imagine and imagination hath directed the Iesuite heere and not the truth For what hath the words of the most reverend Primate to doe with the species of opposition where chargeth he you with maintaining doctrine contrarie to that of primitive times where doth he insinuate so much He that discovered your intrufions to have been brought in vnder the name of Piety was not so forgetfull to judge those points contrary to the received doctrine of faith You teach new faith this is the charge You deny not the old professedly in any point this were too grosse and fit for the fooles your brethren open Heretickes and not for the wisest sonne that can promote his fathers kingdome by a more secret and mysticall fraud So that let his words be softer then oyle or sharper then darts I am sure heerein the Iesuite fayles when hee thinketh them to be shot at the innocent The Iesuite would speake more to purpose to free himselfe and his faction and to this end he delivereth to us two propositions 1. We maintaine some things as Articles of faith which were not in primitive times expressely determined declared delivered for such And 2. Wee maintaine some things as articles of our faith which are contrary to that which hath beene declared for Catholick doctrine in primitive times would have vs know that there is a great difference betwixt these two sayings d Ibid. But as the Iesuite granteth the former to be true of themselves so the most learned Answerer in this place doth not charge them with this latter at all For I doubt not but that the most reverend Primate will yeeld so farre vnto you that in shew at least you holde the Apostles Creed and with the Pharisees give it the first place of honour as they Moses law yet notwithstanding your additions have cast contumely many times vpon the ancient faith as Pharisaicall traditions vpon Moses law * Mat. 25. â— 9. That which Roffensis sayth may be acknowledged in a right sence that there were many points universally held by the Primitive Church in beleife and practise the which with explanation were defended against contradicting Hereticks that arose in after-times But what is this to new doctrine never universally received nor anciently knowne or what argument is heere perswading you to declare that for ancient faith which was never delivered from the Apostâ—â—s c. or received by the Primitive Church But the Iesuite that he might gaine credit to his first proposition tels vs. Before the Nicen Councell some books of Canonicall Scripture were doubted of yea and rejected from the Canon by some of the Ancient without any blame at all which after the said Councel could not lawfully be called in quèstioÌ„ e Reply pag. 11 And all to very little purpose For first the Nicene Councell did not declare doubtfull books for Canonical Scripture nor point out the Canon which the Catholick Church did universally receive neither doth it make at all against their universall receipt of those bookes that some privat men or Church doubted of or rejected them For the Iesuite will have his doctrine generally received if affirmed by ten or eleven Fathers †Valentia if by the choysest Why shall f Reply pag. 94 not Gods booke have equall priviledge with a Papall Indulgence when the first is acknowledged in a manner by most this never taken notice of nor acknowledged at all Besides suppose that some private men or some few Churches did not receive some booke of the Canon yet this can no way hinder the universal receipt of the whole more then a mountaine or a wave the Globes roâ—undity Secondly although they were not blame worthy as the Iesuite would have it which should not receive some bookes of the New Testament which is false yet they were not without blemish for if it were an honour to the Iewes especially to the tribes of Iudah Benjamin that to them wholly intirely were commended the Oracles of God * Rom. 3 2. it must needes bee a dishonour to the ten tribes to have rejected all but the five bookes of Moses Thirdly although those bookes were doubted of yet they were doubtingly received for you cannot finde them by any Church canonically rejected Fourthly it had bin as foule an errour to have decreed any thing against the authority of those books before the Nicen Councel as afterwards For if the Iesuit will take it to bee such a tye that all are bound to stand vnto the declaration of a Councel why did not the Councel of Laodicea f Carran in sum Concilâ— can 59. performe their obligatioÌ„ but in the repetition of the Canon leave the book of Iudith to be placed amoÌ„gst the Apocrypha not
acknowledging it the more authenticke for that imaginary decree mentioned by the Iesuit Besides there is no questioÌ„ but the denyal of those books of the new testameÌ„t were blameworthy else Epiphanius g Har. 51. 75. would not have charged the Alogi with Heresie for denying the Revelation of St Iohn The most learned Answerer goeth further to expresse the blindnes of this Rule to finde out Heresie by Gregorius de Valentia one of your principall Champions doth confesse that the vse of receiving the Sacrament in one kind began not by the Decree of any Bishop but the very vse of the Churches and the consent of the faithfull To which the Iesuite maketh Reply And is not that vse of the Churches and Consent of the faithfull a sufficient warrant I pray you to cleere it from the odious tearme of Sacriledge wherewith you vnadvisedly doe stile it h Reply pag. 12 And here if that which the Iesuite doth insinuate were granted for truth it were no sufficient warrant against CHRISTS institution but that justly it might bee styled Sacriledge even as the Answerer hath done What brought in the high places in Israel doe you suppose they were erected by any decree of Councell or otherwise if not so then by the Consent and practise of the Israelites and yet I doubt not but you will style that sinne Sacriledge or as bad vnlesse you thinke it piety to keepe backe from the temple what GOD had appointed for his service there Compare the omission of a typicall sacrifice with the removing of one of the Sacramentall expressions of Christ his death and passion instituted by himselfe and then judge which deserveth the baser Epithite But if you further question with Valentia when first did that Custome get footing in some Churches he returneth you for Answere saith the most reverend Primate Minimè constat it is more then he can tell 1. And yet saith our Iesuite hee largely and learnedly there proveth even by the expresse word of God that it was vsed in the Apostles times c. i Reply pag. 12 Did he attempt it his learning was exercised without his conscience Did he prove it the Iesuite saith so but I will thinke him worthy to be Generall of his Order if hee can doe either the Pope or the Diuell so much service as to perswade the world to beleive the same 2. Vpon which vse the ensuing Customer which got footing in some particular Churches were grounded k Reply pag. 12 This is as true as their new Creed for who will say that Valentia knew the ground vpon which this Custome was received in some particular Churches that hath his Minimè constat his know not whâ—â— for the Person that brought it in 3. The Councell of Constâ—â—ce from this chaine viz. Customes so grounded and other good reasons made it a laâ— c. l ibid True it is that your 〈◊〉 Orbis or Catholicke world never received it before and he that readeth their law must see that wilfulnes and not reason perswaded it For first they have a non obstâ—â—â—e for Christs institution Secondly they reject the Primitive practise m Concil Constan sess 13. apud Bin Licet Christus post coenam instituerit suis discipulis administraverit sub vtrâque specie panis vini hoc venerabile sacramentum tamen hoc non obstante c. licet in primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub vtrâque specie c. Thirdly they are forced to invent or confirme the poore deceitfull Cousenage of Concomitancy And all to make good this faith never heard of before Further what needed that to be made a law at Constance which Gods expresse word hath declared to be the vse and practise of the Apostles times how could that come into the Church by degrees which was brought in first by them that converted the whole Catholicke Church How ordained in the first Councell of Ephesus about a thousand yeares before the said Synode of Basil c. if but made â— law from Customes so grounded onely at Constance And now let Mr Malone consider how far he slideth â—rom that he ought to aime at the wisdome of his interâ—gation and let him also apprehend how he is forced by â—ecessity to seeke protection from the Apostles omitting â—mpora intermedia which they scorne in vs. And I could â—kewise wish him not to be vnmindefull how this Councell doth 〈◊〉 Antiqâ—â—ty which he so much desires to magnify and defend But if none of these considerations may worke any mutation in him let him vse his Vrbanus Regius †Cited by the Iesuite ibid. who for my part I know not neither will believe if hee were ever so prime a Doctour that should fasten so false a calumny on the Ephesiâ—â— Councell But grant the Iesuit all that he desires which is to make his Doctrine of receiving in one kinde as auncient as the Councell of Constance for opposition of their Decree wee are able to produce the Bohemianâ— not long after Gregorius de Valentia saith the most reverend Primate n In the answere to the Iesuites challenge pag. 3. 4. confesseth that it is more thâ—n he can tell when the Custome of receiving the Sacrament in one kinde began in some Churches The like doth Fisher and Caiâ—tan giue vs to vnderstand of Indulgences that no certainty â—â—â— be had what their originall was or by whom they were first brought in Fisher also further addeth concerning Purgatory that in the auncient Fathers there is either â—none at all or very rare mention of it that by the Grecians it is not beleived even to this day that the Latines also not all at once but by little and little received it and that Purgatory being so lately knowne it is not to be marvailed that in the first times of the Church there was no vse of Indulgences seeing these had their beginning after that men for a while had beene affrighted with the torments of Purgatory Out of which confession of the adverse part you may observe 1 What little reason these men have to require vs to set downe the precise time wherein all their prophane novelties were first brought in seeing that this is more then they themselves are able to doe 2. That some of them may come in podetentim as Fisher acknowledgeth Purgatory did by little and little and by very slowe steppes which are not so easie to be discerned as fooles bee borne in hand they are 3. That it is a fond imagination to suppose that all such changes must be made by some Bâ—â—â—â—or any one certaine author whereas it is confessed thâ— some may come in by the tacite coÌ„sent of many grow after into a generall custome the beginning whereof is past mans memory Here the Iesuite observes first want of Truth when he saith that we required him to set downe the precise time wherein all our profâ—â—â— novelties were brought in c o Reply
pag. 1â— This Iesuite wanteth honesty otherwise he would not observe with falshood and jealousie that for which there is no ground in the most reverend Primates words For first he speaketh not of the Iesuit alone but of all his Tribe and do you thinke it is so hard a thing to find some of you asking What yeare the Religion of the Papists came in prevailed Whether all nations suddenly and in one yeare were moved to the doctrine of the Papistes Whether in a moment the masse was said in stead of other Apostolicke communion p See Doctor Fulks answere of a true Christian to a Counterfeite catholicke Is it not your owne Demaund In what Popes dayes was true Religion overthrowne in Rome and when you come to explaine your selfe in your Reply is it not the certaine time which you demaund of us page 1. and the precise time page 14. Secondly saith the Iesuite I observe false logick to wit Because Fisher Caietan or Valentia cannot tell therefore none else can tell q Reply pag. 13 This is none of the most learned Primates inference but the Iesuites Yet I dare say that it is better logicke then the Iesuite hath usually replyed withall For may not one argue from a probable ground but it must destroy the whole Systeme of Logick drive Aristotles Topicks out of his Organon Fisher Caietan Valentia not Punies though Mr. Malone seeme to sleight them but great Rabbins of Popish Divinity nay I thinke I may say the greatest without deserving censure cannot tell therefore none can tell is a probable argument and not false Logicke as this sixt Predicable would have it For if the best learned caÌ„not find out the time when these Customes c. were first brought in it is a vehemeÌ„t if not a violent presuÌ„ption that poore Punies cannot finde that out If a Sheriffe that hath posse CoÌ„mitatus returne non est inventus vpoÌ„ a persoÌ„ a Catchpole will scarse find out the fugitive And I thinke it is good logick for I am sure it is good reasoÌ„ that if Fisher Caietan Valentia cannot tell this Iesuite as he hath done may well hold his peace Yet here is more logick theÌ„ the Iesuite 〈◊〉 see or at least theÌ„ he hath observed for Valentia saith minimè coÌ„stat it doth not appeare wheÌ„ that Custome of receiving the sacrameÌ„t in one kind did first get footing in some Churche Fisher Câ—ietan say that no certainty can be had by whoÌ„ Indulgences were first brought in or what was their original r See them veged by the most reverend the Lord Primate in his answer to the Iesuit's challenge pag. 3 therefore it will follow necessarily that all the wise men in the Roman Church are not able to set downe the precise or certaine time wherein these Novelties did first arise vnlesse the Iesuite will despise the iudgments of their learned Cardinall their highly esteemed Bishop and his owne Valentia Againe Because Valentia cannot tell when the Custome of receiving the Sacrament in one kind began in some particular Churches therefore we know not when it was first vsed in the Church at all whereas it is shewen to have beene first brought in by Christ his Apostles Å¿ Reply pag. 13 Here is impudeÌ„cy would make an Ethiop blush for what can be more fowle theÌ„ to fasteÌ„ those things vpoÌ„ this most reverend Lord which he never intended neither can bee collected froÌ„ his wordes But the Iesuite frames argumeÌ„ts that he may with more facility answer theÌ„ the most reverend Primates are not so easily digested That which hee collecteth froÌ„ Valentia is that the vse of receiving the sacrament in one kinde began first in some Churches grew to be a generall custome in the latine Church not much before the Councell of Constance in which at last to wit 200 yeares ago this custome was made a law SecoÌ„dly that it doth not appeare when first that Custome did get footing c And out of this confession c. he observeth What little reason these men have to require us to set downe the precise time wherein all their prophane novelties were first brought in seeing this is more then they themselues are able to doe * See the most reverend the Lord Primate in his answere to the Iesuites challenge pag â— Which observatioÌ„ or inference the Iesuit durst not touch as being too well guarded by the premisses if Valentia may be beleived for him to avoyd For suppose one should say speake as true as Valentia that the plague or a leprosie as heresy is did begin first in some Provinces was afterwards scattered throughout the Roman Empire and should further adde that it doth not appeare wheÌ„ first that infectioÌ„ did get footing in some Provinces Doth it not necessarily follow that all men must be ignorant when the ContagioÌ„ or Leprosie first infected the Empyre So that if this Iesuite had framed his argumeÌ„t truly according to this most reverend Lords collection it would have made him gape for an answere Valentia that speaketh truth for wee must not thinke that a Iesuit can lye telleth vs that the receiving of the SacrameÌ„t in one kind did first begin in some churches at a time that doth not appeare afterwards got by custome into the Latine being made a law by a decree at Constance therfore it is more theÌ„ your selves can do to tell wheÌ„ this custome got footing in the Church at all And further if Valentia did coÌ„tradict himselfe saying at one time that this custome was brought in by Christ and his Apostles at another that it began first in particular churches so spread at a time that doth not appeare let the Iesuite bedaube him with an excuse or condemne the waverer And againe Because Fisher Caietan grant that no certainty can be had by whom Indulgences were first brought in therefore they must be profane novelties wheÌ„ as both Fisher Caietan ground theÌ„ vpon the word of God condemning him of another untruth when he affirmeth that they give us to understand how no certainty can be had what their originall was u Reply pag. 13 Here the Iesuite is driveÌ„ to the like inventioÌ„ for the learned Answerer maketh no such infereÌ„ce His intentioÌ„ there being onely by Popish witnesses to prove that you know not the originall of some points of your faith to discover thereby your vanity in requiring of vs the precise time of their birthes Profane novelties he stileth not these alone but all your other after-byrthes also yet proveth theÌ„ prophane and new in his most learned answere following And although the most reverend Primate intended in this place no such thing yet if a Popish Martyr and Cardinall beare not false witnesse they wil be little better then prophane and novelties also by their testimonies For if Indulgences be such a point of faith that no certainty can be had what their originall was or by whom they
unto us without some uncertainty h Reply pag. 13 Thirdly he flyeth to the institution of Christ as a sufficient rule to declare the originall of their faith which we like in them accepting the tryall thereby what he pretendeth for himselfe wee will on our part undertake to prove viz â— that all the points of our Religion by the confession of the very authors alledged by the Iesuite have their originals from the institution of our Lord. But if the Iesuite deny us the like liberty which he taketh unto himselfe he befooles his owne argument if he grant the same unto us then hee demonstrateth his owne demaund to bee vaine which requireth person time place as a necessary ground whereby to detect Heresie and errour by Finally it will most plainly appeare how vainly our Answerer proveth my demaund to be vaine if we gather his reason to a head thus we our selves cannot tell when some of those points which we maintaine against them began or by whom they were first brought in Ergo we have little reason to demaund the same of him seeing as he saith it is more then we our selves are able to tell The Antecedent hath beene already disproved i Reply pag. 13 How the Antecedent hath been disproved the Reader may judge by what hath been already said but I am sure it hath driven this Iesuite the Defenders of Purgatory c. to the Scriptures which the Iesuite â—â—r any Saylor in the Roman Gulfe would never anchor 〈◊〉 unlesse forced by a storme in case of necessity And further I wonder that the Iesuite should confesse that iâ— all their profession wee cannot shâ—we them any point or article whose Originall they cannot derive most plainely from Christ and his Apostles c. whenas they charge the Scripture with obscurity k Bellarm De verbo Dei lib. 3 cap. 1. Si res consideres necessarió fatendum est Scripturas esse obscurissimas Siquidem tradunt summa mysteria de divina Trinitate de incarnations verbi c Et 〈◊〉 post Si veromodum dicendi consideremus inveniâ—mus innumerabiles rationes 〈◊〉 darknes And thirdly you may perceive this Antecedent hath beene so well proved that omissâ successione intermediâ the Iesuite is willing to breake downe their bulwarke of succession and to originalize every point in his profession from Christ and his Apostles thinking that to be a sufficient meanes to declare the truth of Doctrine when their Champions Fisher and Sweet denyed the said liberty for the same end to their acute and learned opponent Doctor Featly l Answer to the Fisher catched in his own nâ—t Sect. 2. And although we should not stand with him upon his said Antecedent truely hee deduceth not a right conclusion out of the same For say that we our selves could not tell the precise time of their beginnings yet have we good cause to demaund the same of him m Reply pag. 14. c This is but a fancy and hath no ground in reason as if your Catholick Roman Church ought not to have as much care to prevent heresies as we to detect them or that you who make succession your note of truthes should not bee bound to shew their perpetuity by a preciâ—e continuance from the Apostles downewards as well as we to declare their falshood and to shew their upstartednes in following times Our Answerer surmising as it seemeth that the vanity of these foresaid proofes would quickly be descryed by his judicious Reader endeavoureth with other vaine instances and examples to cast a mist before his eyes n Reply pag. 14 c. Silly Dreamer how did his selfe-conceit flatter him when he compiled his Reply Doth he thinke a judicious Reader can espy that in transitu on a sudden and by view barely which a Iesuite and his fellow-labourers cannot manifest with all their paines Yet let the judicious Reader judge of things past he promiseth much in time to come But wee by Gods grace setting forth the light of veritie will easily disperse the foggie vapors of his vanitie that so wee may reduce the Reader to the path of truth o Reply ibid Gods grace assisteth truth not herefie the breath of his mouth must consume Antichrist not fortifie his kingdome the light of verity is so far from being set forth by this Iesuite that it is his master-peice to rayle against it to eclypse it if such a moone-calfe could performe the worke Yet let us see what these foggie vapors are which the glorious light of the Iesuites veritie will disperse He saith then concerning our Private Masse that he will tell us in what Popes dayes it first beganne if wee tell him in what Popes dayes the People first began to fall from their devotion r Reply ibid. But he hath left the most learned Primate's answere not because a fogge but because the light thereof ofâ—ends his sight For first the most learned Answerer setteth forth the vanity of his Demand in asking What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion which you commend in them of the first 400 yeares In what Pope his dayes was the true Religion over-throwne in Rome by severall arguments 1. from their owne disability 2. from their comming in pedetentim their lingring birth which cannot bee in one Popes dayes 3. from the tacite confent of many which cannot be wrought by one And heere hee bringeth two more instances the first taken from want of Devotion in the people the second from time it selfe And therefore to require a Pope for the altering of that which was done by another or to restraine us so to time as to urge us for to shew that to have beene brought into the Roman Church in one Popes dayes which perhaps was not effected in the lives of 100. of them this must needes be a vaine and ridiculous Demand But let us see whether the Iesuite be not lost in this mist Wee urge him with hiâ— promise saith he as he is a man of his word and wee give him to understand that in Pope Peter the Apostles time the people fell from their devotion of whom therefore the same Apostle saith That it had beene better for them not to have knowne the way of Iustice then after having knowne it to turne froÌ„ the holy comandement given them * 1. Peâ—â—â—â— 21. c. Behold now when people fill from their devotion and consequently when our private Masse began even by our Answerers owne rule unlesse he put chance betweene q Reply pag. 14 Did people in generall want devotion in S. Peters time was the best age of the Church the worst by your censure Is it the decay of love in some one or few hypocrites mindes that can answere the most learned Primates demaund You must shew us a time when the people did as universally lack Devotion as they doe among you the Sacrament or else you have accepted the Answerers promise to your
of God did execrate and abhorre All which is fully justified out of ancient monuments by the most learned Answerer f See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Answere to the Iesuites challenge pag. 461. 462. 463. And his booke De successione statu cap â— the Iesuite being tongue-tyed replying nothing thereunto But were there no seedes of Heresie in that age Bellarmine is willing to have it so and the Iesuite is confident in the same opinion but the truth is Heresie was embraced of them which should have resisted it otherwise there would not have been so many fruitlesse complaints as holy men powred forth in the immediate following times Yet how shall wee make a true search for Heresies in this age when Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that it was vnhappie as affording neither writers of any worth nor Councells g Bellarm. in Chronol Vâ—de hic Seculum infelix in quo nulli Scriptores illustres nulla Consilia It seemes wee must be beholding to their experiences which did observe somthing when they did awake Genebrard then telleth us that for almost 150 yeares Pontifices circiter 50. à virtute majorum prorsus defecerint Apotactici Apostaticive potiùs quam Apostolici About fifty Popes altogether fell away from the vertue of their Ancestors being disordered and Apostaticall rather then Apostolicall h Genebrard Chron in Annum Christi 901. Others relate that the Devill got power to elect him whom Papists now would have to be as an infallible oracle to direct to Heaven i Platina in vitâ Silvestri secundi Gerebertus ambitione et diabolicâ dominandi cupiditate impulsus largitione primò quidem archiepiscopatum Rhemensem inde Ravennatem adeptus Pontificatum postremò maiore conatu adiuvante Diabolo consecutus est hac tamen lege ut post mortem totius illius esset cuius fraudibus tantam dignitatem adeptus erat Aenaeas Sylv. in comment de gestis Basil Concil lib. 1. Nec â—â—â— fugit Marcellinum iussu Caesareo idolis thurificà sse alium vero quod majus horribilius est diabolicâ fraude Romanum pontificatum ascendisse Others amazed mourned for the Church as if in Rome Sathan had beene at liberty in perniciem totius Ecclesiae to the destruction of the whole Church k Baron Annal. toâ— 12. an 1170. And many not long after wondring at the face of the Church concluded that Antichrist had placed his seate in the Church of God l Vide reverendum doctissimum Episcop Derens de Antichristo l â— cap. 9 Could all this be effected and not one error creepe into your Church to bespot the Roman Puritie I might tell you that the opinion of the grosse and carnall eating of Christ in the Sacrament had so little admittance in the Church before this carelesse and snorting time that in the precedent age it was scorned of the most learned in the Christian Church Rabanus Bertramus Iohannos Scotus c. I might name you Purgatory if the most learned Primate had not declared it to be a new devise never heard of in the Church of God for the space of a thousand yeeres after the birth of our Saviour Christ * In the answere to the Iesuites challenge pag. 178. And it were no great matter to shew you the Hildebrandine Heresie which must have had his seeding in this age or not farre from it By all which the Iesuite may perceive how sleepy a defence he hath made for a snorting age and how vainely he deduceth arguments to make good his Popish Religion from our nescience of person time and place it being cleared that his demaund in respect of these circumstances is meerely vaine and that his Digressions doe nothing benefit his cause SECT III. IN this peice of Vanity the Iesuite proceeds to discover How vaynelie our Answerer betaketh himselfe to the Scriptures a Reply pag. 19 and the Iesuite hath shewed more vanity in his entrance into this third Section then I am perswaded he wil be able to declare against the Answerer throughout his whole Reply for he confesseth that the most learned Answerer hath thus farrerun on answerlesse b Reply ibid. a wonderfull thing that hee who hath so domineered should acknowledge here for a part as before for the whole that Responsa ejus which were replyed unto sine responsionibus were answerlesse notwithstanding the Reply Secondly he telleth us that the most reverend Primate in betaking himselfe to the Scriptures and shewing his copiousnes of Abilities hath abandoned all that he hath formerly said c Reply ibid. But if this were forcible and not Vanitie surely wee should have vaine Answerers amongst their Schoolemen their Commentators especially and the more learnedly and fully they expresse their thoughts the more vaine should they be demonstrated to bee by this line and measure Thirdly he insinuateth that this most reverend Lord is hereby brought to confesse that he cannot by the Iesuites way give them satisfaction d Reply ibid when as he hath most learnedly and punctually answered each particular of his demaund which sheweth in him not Vanity onely but Iesuiticall impudency and out-facing falshood There are other meanes left saith the most learned Answerer whereby wee may discerne the tures brought in by the instruments of Sathan from the good seed which was sowen by the Apostles of Christ besides this observation of times and seasons which will often faile us But the Iesuite would know what other meanes are these that yet remaine and the most reverend Primate hath manifested out of Tertullian e Tertull praescript advers Haeret cap. 32. that their very Doctrine it selfe being compared with the Apostolickâ— by the diversity and contrarietie thereof will pronounce that it had for author neither any Apostle nor any man Apostolicall f Reply pag. 20. I hope this meane is no new invention but Tertullians advice no upstart direction but the practise of his times whereby the Iesuite may see that the repugning of the vaine pretences of Heretickes may bee as well or better performed by comparing their heresies with that doctrine which is Apostolicall then by the circumstances of person time and place which convicteth him of notorious vanity in making his vaine demaund the necessary square to measure heresies by And whereas this Iesuite saith hee is content to winke a little for this time at the Answerers converghance g Reply pag. 20 The Iesuite for one promise keepeth faith he is not alwayes of Carthage his speech doth not here bewray him for hee winkes indeed and is so wilfully blinde that he will not take notice of Christs practise in convincing Pharisaicall novelties urged by the most learned Primate h In his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge from Mat. 19. 8. from the beginning it was not so neither Apostolicall Councell to prescribe against the infection of Seducers crept in at unawares earnestly to contend for the faith which was first
delivered to the Saints * Iude v. 3. 4. neither the instrument Gods Booke †Luke 1. 4. written for this purpose and continued for this end that it might be a memoriall of Gods truth for the time to come for ever and ever * Esai 3â— â— Doe you thinke that if all or any of this had made for him or given advantage to his cause the Iesuite would have closed his eyes I cannot beleive that it was courtesie which made him for beare but the brightnesse of the testimony which this 〈◊〉 his tender eyes durst not behold whereby you may take notice of the Iesuits practise in leaving convincing grounds untouched that he might the better and with the lesse reproofe stile that a vaine betaking to the Scriptures which truely is done in imitation of Christ and by Apostolicall direction And furthermore who amongst his owne will not be ashamed of his wry mouth and cloven tongue that dare stile that a conveighance which this most reverend Father urgeth from antiquity citing Tertullians wordes Is this the honourer of the auncient Church that accounteth the iudgement of the fathers as the assured touchstone to try all controversies betwixt us i In his Epistle to the King Here wee see what esteeme they may expect at his handes if they crosse his way for though he forbeare to question Tertullian whom he cannot answere yet you may perceive his direction followed by the most learned Answerer is persecuted by this Mountebanke with a base invective But although the Iesuite dare not absolutely submit his cause unto this tryall yet for the present he will accept his motion upon condition that if the Answerer come short of proving this way that a change hath beene made that saying of Tertullian shall point at him and his doctrine and all the rest which he casteth at us shall fall upon his owne head k Reply pag 20 I understand not this condition nor I thinke he himselfe but if the Iesuite convict us by Tertullian his rule we are content that he shall triumph and be acknowledged a Victor The first instance then produced by the most reverend Primate is this In the Apostles dayes when a man had examined himselfe he was admitted unto the Lords table there to eate of that bread and drinke of that cuppe as appeareth plainely 1. Cor. 11. 28. In the Church of Rome at this day the people are indeed permitted to eate of the bread if bread they may call it but not allowed to drinke of the cuppe Must all of us now sâ—â—t our eyes and siâ—â— * As it was in the beginning so now Sicâ—â— erat in principio nunc unlesse we be able to tell by whom and when this first institution was altered l See the most reuerend the Lord Primate his answere to the Iesuites challenge And the Iesuite would perswade that this is a weake argument by his crosse pleading of foure things practised by us 1. In the Apostles dayes the faithfull received the sacrament after meate in the euening * 1. Cor. 11. â—1 in the Protestants Church at this day it is commonly received fasting and in the morning therefore it is not with them sicut erat in principiâ— nunc 2. In the Apostles dayes the sick were annointed * Marke 6. 3. Ia. 5. 14. with oyle and a commandement given so to doe the Protestants practise no such thing therefore c. 3. In the Apostles dayes the faithfull were commanded to obstaine from eating of bloud * Act. 15. and strangled meates Among the Protestants there is no such abstinâ—nce observed Therefore c. 4. Christ when hee ministred the sacrament said * Mat. 26 6. Take eate this is my Body the Protestants now adayes say not so but take â—ate this in remembrance c. And from this he concludes that it is not with the Protestants sicut erat in principio m Reply pag. 20 c. Heere any man may see that this Iesuite dare not stand to his accepted motion to bee tryed by Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles the sacred Scriptures and therefore hee laboureth to weaken the strength thereof but let him mantle himselfe in his pretences never so much this is sufficient to declare that a change hath beene made which is all that the most learned Answerer desireth to conclude So that if wee can declare that Papists not Protestants in their changes made have fallen from the puritie of Doctrine and practise of primitive times the Iesuite will rest like a Franciscan Novice demure and tongue-tyed for ever For the three first instances wee confesse that a change hath beene made and that heerein wee have followed the practise of those that brought them in But for the fourth hee deales like a shuffler and would seeme to insinuate that we have dealt with those words * This is my Body Hoc est corpus 〈◊〉 as they haue done with some of the Commandements either cast them out or put something in the place thereof as their owne 〈◊〉 and Ribadâ—nâ—yra n The second they have left out and â—ut in stead of the fourth Commandement Remember to sanctifie the holy Dayes have done Wheâ—â—â— our Church teacheth Children before Confirmation that the Body and Bloud of Christ which is the inward part or thing signified of the sacrament are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithfull in the Lords Supper o See the Catâ—chisme in our Common Prayer Booke and in the celebration of the Communion the whole institution is repeated in these words expressely Take â—ate this is my Body which is given for you p See there the Order for the Administration of the Communion So that this is but an imaginary change pretended having no truth in it at all For the Changes confessed they are not but in things indifferent and ceremonies which no Papist dare deny but the Church of God had and hath power to alter CHRIST as in the Sacrament prescribing the substance leaving the Ceremonie to the ordering of the Church r Augustin epistol 118. Salvator non praecepit quo deinceps ordine sumeretuâ— ut Apostolis per quos dispositurus erat Ecclesiam servaret hunc loâ—â—m Nam si hoc ille monuisset ut post cibos alios semper acciperetur credo quòd cum morem nemo variâsset as is apparant in those wordes This doe not thus in 〈◊〉 of â—ee Luke 22. 19. This Answere the Iesuite knew would put a period to his vaine flourish and therefore by repeating it hee thinkes to avoyde the same as if the rule by Scriptures were of no force if this answere were permitted for saith hee What force leaveth he to his owne argument made against us in a matter of the like indifferency Å¿ Reply pag. 20. If the Iesuite could prove it so it were something to the purpose but lame Ignatius heere leaves his armes and fals to
may see where our Iesuite is that in the supreame act of divine adoration denyeth any thing but darkenesse to remaine Moreover saith the Iesuite when S. Paul in that Chapter speaketh â—â— a strange tongue certaine it is that hee meaneth an unknowne language miraculously imparted to the speaker by the gift of tongues but the Latine is none such c. p Reply pag. 23. This is false by the Iudgment of their owne Dionisyus Carthusianus upon the x. verse of this Chapter But suppose it were not yet in effect it is the same crossing the generall rules of the Apostle as those tongues which were given by miracle The Iesuite doth further from the Rhemists make the Coâ—tents of this Chapter to be this that men though they had strange tongues by miracle yet should not preferre the same before prophesie the speaker of languages being inhibited to vtter his inspiration unlesse there were an interpreter It were not much if this were in part granted the Iesuite but is there nothing else driven at by the holy Apostle surely if their practise durst indure tryall the Apostle speaketh to other endes also Bellarmine maketh the Apostles words to signifie prayer singing and giving of thankes and confesseth that Chrysâ—stâ—me and Theophilact Ambrose and Haymo understand this place of prayer q Bellarde verbo Dei lib. 2. cap. 16. Nam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quibus vocibus Apostolus utitur non significant concionari fed pre cari canere gratias agere Quncirca Chryso 〈◊〉 Theophilactur nec non Ambrosâ—â—â— Haymo Haymo hunc locum de precibus intestigâ—â—t Veâ—â—â—isp â—â—â—â— â— Que vis â—es mundi ex natura â—ei seâ—â—â—so periculo â—â—â—â— cum Deb sicut â—â—ago ipsiuâ— adorari potest The Iesuite also observeth that the Apostles doctrine in this Chapter runneth altogether uppon such a prayer as is directed to the edifying and instruction of the hearers and yet hath the face to deny that the Apostle either meaneth publicke or private in this Chapter Howsoeuer surely the drift of the Apostle here must be something else then that cited from the Rhemists For if the understanding of the party that either prayeth or assenteth to the prayer be not exercised why may not God be worshipped with any words as you confesse he may be adored 〈◊〉 Image or representation be it of beast or manâ— and then why may not the Church make use of one of Ariosto's Poems in a strange tongue or such sleight phantasies seeing the mindes might performe their â—eale where the wordes signifie nothing to the purpose at all But whatsoeuer Prayer is meant here in this chapter either publicke or private it is plaine that it ought not to be used but in such a manner that it might be understood for saith the Apostle ver 15. I will pray with the Spirit I will pray with understanding Neither hath this relation to him that prayeth but to all those that communicated with him in his prayer So ver 16. Else when thou shalt blesse with the Spirit how shall he which occupieth the roome of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thankes seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest And although this Iesuite thinketh he doth wisely when he telleth us that those tongues which the Apostle inhibites were not such as the Latine but such as the Apostle spake by miracle having the gift of tongues this maketh more against him for if God would not have those tongues which did principally give honour unto his name to be used in prophesying or praying without an interpreter where the people could not understand them much lesse other tongues which were onely obtained by industry and paines And the Apostle giveth the reason by expressing the inconvenience that thereby they shal be Barbarians to each other ver 11. and be like a Trumpeter that strikes amazement but stirreth up no Devotion unlesse a blind and a distracted one when the Trumpet giveth but an uncertaine sound * â— 8. Whereby it is apparant that all popish prayer whether private or publick is made in opposition of these grounds layed downe by the Apostle under these poore pretences that the efficacy of the prayer consisteth in the very vertue of the worke â—hum vpon the 13. verse of this chapter c. that the publicke Church Service is directed principally to the worship of Almighty God and not to instruct and edifie the hearers Reply pag. 23. that it perâ—â—neth much more to unity Rhem. vpon the 11. verse of this chapter that men should in their devotion pray like Parrates and the Preists read the Exhortation with an intent not to be understood And as this opposeth the Apostle his direction how to pray so doth it contradict the generall practise of the primitive Church founded upon this rule For Origen sayth that the Greekes truely doe call upon GOD in Greeke the Romans in Latine and euery one also doth pray unto him in their native and vulgar tongue x Origen Con Celsum lib 8. At Graeâ—i quidem graece hunc nominant latinè Romani singuli item nativâ vernaculâ linguâ Deum precantur And also the Councell of Lateran under Innocent the third by reason that in many parts people of diuers languages were mingled within the same cittie and diocesse having divers 〈◊〉 and manners under one faith did straitly commaund that the Prelates of such citties or diocesses should provide fit men which according to the diversityes of 〈◊〉 and languages should celebrate divine service minister the ecclesiasticall sacraments unto them instructing them aswell by word as by example y Concil Lateranen 4 tum Oecum sub In nocen 3o. cap. 9 Quoniam in plerisque partibus intra eandem civitatem atque diâ—â—ce sin permixti funt populi diversarum linguarum habentes sub una fide varios ritus mores districtè praecipimus ut pontifices huiusmodi civitatum sive diâ—â—cesium provi deant viros idoneos qui secundum diversitates rituum linguarum divina officia illis celebrent ecclesiastica sacramenta illis ministrent instruendo cos verbo pariter exemplo which Decree must needs crosse their subsequent practise Further although Aquinas doth justifie the service of the Roman Church which the vulgar understand not yet he aâ—â—irmeth this to have beene madnes in the Primitive times z Aquin in 1. Cor. 14. Dicendum est ad hoc quod ideo erat insania in primiâ—â—â—â— Ecclesiâ— quia erant rudes in ritu ecclesiastico And if understanding be not requisite in your Church service wherefore insert you in your missall the prayer of St. Ambrose Make me by thy grace alwayes to beleive and understand that of so great a mistery a Missaâ— Roman Orat sancti Ambro ante missam fac me per gratiam tuam semper illud de tanto mysterio credere
intelligere c. c if I say for his owne edification in spirit and affection there bee no difference whether the Speaker understand any thing he speaketh or not as the Rhemists b In ver â— cap. praed would interpret the Apostles words Besides if the People should learne nothing nor understand any thing that is there done wherefore doth the Priest turning himselfe unto them say Let us pray the Lord be with you why doth the People answere you and with thy spirit c Missal Roman Celebrans versa facie ad pâ—pulum cum dicturus est Orate fratres Dominus vobiscum Res Et cum spiritu tuo Or why did the Councell of Basill decree against those that say Masse in secret prayers with such a lowe voyce that it cannot be heard of the standers by d Basil Concil Sess 21. Abusum aliquarum Ecclesiarum in quibus-Missa etiam privata sine ministro aut per secretas orationes ita submissâ voâ—e dicitur quod à circumstantibus audiri non potest abolentes statuimus ut qui in his transgressor inventus fuerit à suo superiore debitè castigetur if some in that Councell had not thought it convenient that the People should understand the prayers that were read So that let our Iesuite contend as he pleaseth Chrysostome concludeth that the Common people cannot say Amen to a prayer which they doe not understand e Chrysost in Epist ad Corin. 1. cap. 14 homil 35. Si peregrinâ linguâ gratias agas quam nec intelligas ipse nec caeteris item interpreteris subjicere Amen plebeius non potest illud in secula seculorum quifinis precum est â—udiens Amen non dicet which dutie both the Apostle * 1 Cor. 14. 6 the ancient practise f Iustinus sub finem secunâ—ae Apâ—logiae pro Christianis disertis verbis dicit totum populum in Ecclesia reâ—pâ—ndere consuevisse Ameâ— cùm Sacerdos rerminabat orationem vel gratiarum actionem â—dem etiam pâ—stea lâ—ngo tempore serâ—aâ—um esse â—am in Oriente quám in Occidente â—aret ex liâ—urgiâ Chrysostomi quae habetur in fine operum ejus ubi apertissimè distingunatur quae Sacerdos quae Diaconus quae populus in divinâ—s officijs canebant Item ex Cypâ—ano serm dâ—oratione Dominicâ ubi d cit plebem respondere Habemus ad Dominum ex Hierony ni praefaâ— lib. 2. in Episto ad Galat qui scribit in Ecclesijs urbis Romae quasi coeleste â—omtru audiri populum reboantem Amen Bellarm. de verbo Dei lib. cap. 16. supposeth as necessary for the people to performe And therefore our Iesuite may leave to triumph unlesse it be in his scars to boast any further unlesse he be coÌ„fident of his impudency let the trophy rest where it should be upon the Victors head who hath shewed the ground to resolve a mans judgment hath further manifested that Papists being unable to justifie their practise thereby must confesse if ever they expect acquittall from their perverse and incrept innovations that things are not now kept in that order in which they were left at first by the Apostle Moreover whereas the learned Primate sheweth the practise of Popish contrivers in that the case is now so altered that the bringing in of a tongue not understood which hindered the edifying of Babell it selfe and scattered the builders thereof is accompted a good meanes to further the edifying of their Babell and to hold her followers together Our Iesuite would have us to espy How many absurdities are couched in these words unworthy truly of such a penne g Reply pag. 3. Indeed it ill befits â—o slender a braine-pan to charge that penne with absurdities but how perswadeth hâ— his fictions First saith he those words the case is now so altered as charging us to vary from S. Paules order are most vaine seeing that we finde no such order at all h Reply ibid. The Order * 1. Cor. 14. 37. 40. of S. Paul is evident to any that will not counterfeite blindnes for saith he let all things be done to edification †v. 26. that is to the coÌ„modity of many euen of the whole Church as S. Chrysostome observeth this saith that auncient Father is as it were a Canon to the Apostle in all things i Chrysost in epist ad Cor. 1. cap. 14. homil 35. Idem ubique viri institutum vides multorum ac totius ecclesiae scilicet commoditatem hic illi est in rebus omnibus veluti canon And accordingly the Apostle ordereth that no tongue shal have priviledge to be used among the faithfull that doth hinder knowledge * 1. Cor. 14. 28. by which the people are edified instructed †v. 22. the gift of tongues being a signe to theÌ„ that beleive not* And professeth that in the Church he had rather speake five words with his understanding that so he might teach others also then ten thousand words in an unknowne tongue * v. 5. Now the practise of these primitive times is not imitated by you but opposed by your practise howsoever accidentally and not by Papall decree it first got footing in your Church Secondly those others that the bringing in of a tongue not understood containe two grosse mistakes for neither is the Latine a tongue not understood k Reply pag. 23. †v. 19. That the latine is a tongue not understood We will bring two witnesses from Rome Roman Preists Roman People which wil be sufficient to vindicate the most learned Answerer from this mistake which the Iesuite layeth against him For wherefore did you accent the Masse-booke but because your Preists could not rightly read it and will you perswade that they could understand what they could not read 2ly For your People if you will not confesse that they are generally ignorant of the Latine observe how they mumble their Mattens and this will suffice But the Iesuite well knowing that the Latine is a tongue not understood doth restraine his speech that it was not such a one â—â— St. Paul speaketh of that is imparted by miracle But this is nothing to the purpose whether the Roman language were miraculously imparted or no For St. Paul maketh that language to be unknowne which needethan interpreter and I doubt not but you will confesse that your Latine hath neede hereof especially when the ignorant people are your auditours And further let us consider the Iesuite mistaken in making a language to bee knowne or unknowne in regard of it selfe whenas it is so reputed onely in regard of the hearers which doe not understand the same Balaams Asse spake by miracle and yet his language was not unknowne and many spend their lives in your Latine Masse and yet beget but ignorant hearers Moreover if the Iesuite had not mistaken himselfe he might have found the Latine to have beene a tongue unknowne and a tongue imparted
by miracle also as we may see in the Acts of the Apostles * Act. 8. 10. 11. where the dwellers in Phrygia and Pamphilia in Egypt and in the parts of Lybia about Cyrene and strangers of Rome Iewes and Proselites c. did heare the Apostles speaking in their tongues the wonderfull workes of God whereunto S. Chrysostome agreeth affirming more then once the Latine tongue to have beene imparted by miracle to the Apostles l Chrysost in Epist ad Cor. 1. cap. 14. homil 35. Idem Persarum ROMANORVM Indorum multorum praetereà linguis Spiritu susurrante loquebatur atque id munus munus tum vocabatur linguarum Eâ— paulo post Erant enim jam olim qui precandi donum linguae conjunctum haberent multi precabantur quidem linguâ sonabant vel Persarum vel ROMANA utentes Neither saith the Iesuite was it brought in by us but by our Answerer himselfe confessed to have beene from the beginning m Reply pag. 23. For this your second mistake the learned Primate saith that the Latine service was used from the beginning in those countries and who doubteth of it but was it not also understood if the Preists had then Latine tongues had not the people Latine eares n Azor. Ies Instit Mor. par 1. lib. 8. cap. 26. Nos tan en libeâ—ter fatemur tunc temporis laicos in Scripturarum lectione fuisse versatos quia sacra eloquia fueâ—unt Graeco vel Latino sermone conscripta quem sermonem vulgus quoque callebat nunc vero plebs fere rudis est imperita Latini sermonis at Laici qui Graecè vel Latinè noverunt Scripturaâ— jure optimo lectitant But this as the Iesuite pretendeth from the Answerers confession hath remained in the Church without alteration no such syllable in the Answerer when the people in their vulgar speech departed from it o Reply pag. 23. Imagine at the mistake the people departed from the vulgar speech who brought it after them or in amongst them that had departed from it but Popish Engineers For doth not the departing of the people make an alteration can this be denyed for although the Latine remaine the same yet is it not fit in these times for the same use purpose whereunto it was before appointed Is it not all one whether faith ranne from the people or the people from the faith Doth not both of these make infidels if the Candlesticke bee taken from the people or the people forsake the light will there not bee an operation of the same effect Wee confesse Latine service hath remained in some Churches like Saul in his Kingdome but the people have beene strucken with blindnesse as hee was possessed with the Divell ever since the spirit of truth and knowledge departed from them And heerein who cannot see that our great Logician in pleading for obscure Church-service deprives himselfe of reason for who will say because the Latine Church had their Latine Liturgie when that language was understood generally therefore they ought to have it so now or that there is no alteration among the people but that they are the same in knowledg devotioÌ„ now when they understand nothing as they were in the primitive times wheÌ„ they were well instructed or that because some churches within the Roman Empire had the continuance of a Latine Liturgie which at first they understood that therefore Popish Contrivers cannot as criminous bee charged with bringing in and continuing of a strange tongue amongst other Churches that were afterwards converted So that the Answerers charge is iust that that service which was lawfully practised when it was vulgarly understood hath by your carelesnes and negligence of the peoples instruction remained amongst you But for many other Churches as Ireland the Indies * The Iesuite argues that Latine was not commonly understood in France and Spaine because they had their proper languages c. who brought in those preparations to darkenesse amongst them but your Babâ—ll 〈◊〉 not indring light least your workes of darkenesse might bee detected or overthrowne And doth not your mistake lye in your way it being true that by your negligence it hath continued in some Churches where it ought to have beene changed and by your impudencyes it hath beene intruded upon others where it ought not to have beene admitted Thirdly saith the Iesuite the words following which hindred the edifying of Babell it selfe and scattered her builders are of the like nature for it was not one onely tongue that hindred the edifying of Babell as it is well knowne but many Finally â—e absurdely concludeth with manifest contradiction for if Babell was called Confusion and her builders scattered by a multiplicity of different tongues whilst we in one tongue and faith hold united together can any wiseman say that we build confused Babell p Reply pag. 24. But if one onely tongue confounded and not many hindred the edifying of Babell as it is well known or if Babell was called Confusion because that one only tongue was confounded will not the Iesuite bee ashamed to charge that pen with absurdities which he can no way resist but by such ignorant boldnes which here and in other places most freely and liberally he useth against it And that this is true St. Chrysostome affirmeth q Chrysost in epist ad Cor. 1. cap. 14. homil 35. Cum nâ—â—ris extrâ—â—retur una lingua in multas secabatur Iosephus doth fully declares where hee telleth us that the place of the towre was called Babel or Confusion not for the multitude of tongues which were then given but propter confusam linguaÌ„ quae priùs omnibus ex aequo clara fuerat because that tongue was confounded which before was indiffereÌ„tly understood of all the people r Iosephus l. 1. Antiq. cap. 5. Locu vero turris nunc Babylon vocatur propter confusam c nam Hebreâ— confusionem nominant Babel which your vulgar Biâ—le expresseth Venite igitur descendamus coÌ„fundamus ibi linguaÌ„ coruÌ„ ut non audiat unusquisque vocâ—â—◠〈◊〉 sui * Gen. 11. Gâ—â— to let â—â— goe downe and there confound 〈◊〉 language that they may not * Gen. 1â— 7. understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speâ—â—â—h and therefore in the 9. verse is the name of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord did there 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 all the earth which Torniâ—llus telleth us was done by 〈…〉 bringing upon them a soddaine and 〈◊〉 forgetfulnâ—s of their first speech 〈◊〉 Annal. sacr in an aâ— Orbe condâ—â—â— 1931. n. 10. 〈◊〉 dicimus quòd Deus inductâ mirabiliter in cunctis illis hominibus subitâ quâdam omnimodâ prioris idiomatis obliâ—ione illicò divinâ suâ dispensatione omnipotentâ—â— in corundem 〈◊〉 novoâ— direâ—â—â—sque indidit habitus juxta vanarum linguaâ—â—â— genera 〈◊〉 distributa ita ut statim 〈◊〉 ilâ—◠〈◊〉 promptum expeditumque ac 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illius sermonis qui 〈…〉 Quare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confusionis 〈◊〉
that first spoyled Gods people of this heavenly treasure yet it is most certaine that they are defrauded of their right which undenyablie demonstrates the Iesuites demaund to be frivolous and vaine that concludeth the Church of Rome doth remaine pure and undefiled still unlesse we can point out a Pope that brought in every corruption wherewith she is tainted Neither will it serve the Iesuites turne to exclaime against our translations for although wee should confesse that some of ours have as many faults as we know to be in the vulgar Latine or they charge the Originalls withall that some expresse it with more impatiencie then Clemens did the omissions of Sixtus t Praefatio ad Lectorem ult citat Non pauca in sacra Biblia praeli vitio irrepsisse quae iteratâ diligentiâ indigere viderentur yet this is not sufficient to to make our translations no Scriptures to excommunicate them out of the Church or to deprive the people of the true use thereof For is any ignorant that vulgar translations in primitive times were in many particulars faultie and more grosse then any translation which is allowed to bee read in the Church of Ireland u Ibid. S Hieronymus tempore suo accidisse testatus est tot scilicet fuisse exemplaria quotcodices cùm unusquisque pro arbitrio suo addeâ—et vel detraheret Did not Lucian and Hesychius at severall tymes correct the Septuagint x Hieron in libr. Paralip praefat Alexandria Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesyâ—â—ium laudat autorem Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat mediae inter has Provinciae Palaestinos codiceâ— legunt quoâ— ab Origine elaboratos Eusâ—bius Pamphilus vulgaverunt totusque Orbis hâc inter se triphariâ varietate compugnat Were all the translations out of Greeke into Latine without faults as they were without number y Augustin de Doctr. chr lib. 2. cap. 11. Qui enim Scripturas ex Hebraea lingua in Graecam verterunt linguam numerari possunt Latini autem interpretes nullo modo The vulgar Latine now in force by decree in the Church of Rome abounded with errors or els your Popes were full of impiety that kept all the learned traine of the Roman Church 22. yeares in worke to correct is before it could bee fitted for an impression then let it passe not without downright errors as by Clements altering adding detracting contradicting of it in thousands of places in his after-edition is most apparant and hath beene formerly declared z Vid. lit â— â— Further whereas the Iesuite urgeth St Hierome that the Gospell of Christ by pâ—rverse interpretation is made the Gospell of man or which is worse the Gospell of the Divell a Reply pag. 26. Our Iesuite hath forgot himselfe for what hath interpretation to doe with our translation we confesse Arius and Pelagius used the Scripture in this manner that your great Roman Interpreter hath so behaved himselfe that he needeth not to give place to any precedent Hereticks b See the right reverend and most learned the Lord Bishop of Kilmore his Epistle to M â— Wadsworth chap. 3. pag. 62. 63. ad pag. 69 But for which of our good workes would hee stone us Now you may see how great cause our Iesuite hath to complement it Hath not then our holy mother the Catholick Church good reason to barre her children from reading of such dangerous bookes as lead their Readers head long into perdition and doth shee not hâ—reby regard that Christian reverence and respect which is due unto the Majesty of Gods sacred Word more by keeping it from defiled hands then our Adversaries doe by casting that pricclesse pearle before such wyne c c Reply pag. 27. Here our Iesuite is out of his coule like a Fencer in his flourish For they are not corrupt translations which his faction detesteth for none are more corrupt â—â—e hath â—â— authentick but vulgar and even now our vulâ—mple h 〈…〉 were but poisoned grounds new faâ—gled d deservâ—â—d train 〈…〉 Reply pag. 26 name of holy Scripture yet here they shall haveger 〈◊〉 of pricelesse pearles which as the Iesuite saith â—n his â—â— before sâ—ynâ— Surely if our translation be no Scripâ—â—es where is the breach of reverence of Christian respect where is the Majestie of the sacred word prophaned if ours be the true word of God Let the Iesuite returne to his vomite which he hath disgorged against God and his Oracles I would know whether it is more honour to Gods Booke to bee reserved in close Libraries or in the hearts or hands of his Saints Whom he meaneth by Swyne every one may perceive even those that Christ prized at the high rate of his precious bloud the laytie and all others to whom this libertie by the Adversaries is denyed But our Iesuite must learne that the word of God is of that efficacie that it can make cleane wallowing swyne and those which are now dogges and without it will force to cast up their vomite and in time it will purge and consume Antichrist and that foule fabrick of iniquity your Aâ—gean Roman stable And further our Iesuite deales like the Iewes with the Inhabitants of the towre of Syloam * Luke 13. 4. pâ—â—ving quidlibet de quolibet particular doctrines by desperate events First he telleth us that since the most learned Answerer printed his booke there fell out an example among our selves which might sufficiently condemne this their perniâ—ious licensing of every giddie braine to reade their Bibles But I pray you what example is this why of one Gray who not long agâ—â— â—â—ving inhumanely murthered his owne sonne excused his bloody fact by the example of Abram whom God commanded to sacrifice his sonne Isaac c Reply pag. 27 Who will excuse the bloody fact of that distracted wretch But yet who can collect any such thing from the Iesuites fond premisses as he laboureth to conclude Nabal was his name and folly was with him ever◠〈◊〉 knoweth that it was coÌ„ceived discontent which 〈…〉 his soule in that speculative desperatnes that 〈…〉 Divels suggestion not the scriptures which 〈…〉 to that evill And I pray the Iesuite to tell me the 〈…〉 why amongst them images the Laye-mens bookes 〈…〉 not wrought the same effect seeing by them â—he historieâ— of the Bible are likewise represented Further will the Iesuite argue the Divell hath abused scriptures by suggestion therefore the scriptures should bee taken from the tempted for their ordinary use If this were good Logick the Iesuite might debarre Christ of his scriptum est * Mat. 4. 4. 7. because the Divell cited text Neither can the Iesuite shew such grosse abuses in the interpretation of scriptures by those which have beene indifferently learned as have beene committed by the learned themselves some of them prooving to be the greatest Architects of Villanie It may be the Anthropomorphites did embrace their opinion
simplicitate rusticâ yet we cannot deny but Origen besides divers Hereticks did abuse it more 〈◊〉 enquiring after Allegories never dreaming of the letter Now if the simple because they mistake the literall sence the learned because too much given to allegories be inhibited the use of scriptures How can St Iohns words be true These things are written that ye might beleive that Iesus is Christ the Son of God that beleiving yee might have life through his Name * Ioh 20. 31. But he proceedes in his storying In like sort doth Franciscus Costerus in the preface before his Dominical sermons produce examples of grosse enormities proceeding froÌ„ this liberty f Reply pag. 27. The Author is of such worth that we might easily cast off his testimony but give him leave to relate his observatioÌ„s First a certaine Painter in Prussia who having read how Lot lay with his daughters learned thereby to defile his owne daughters also g Reply ibid. Suppose we have one ignorant Prussian that imagineth every example in Scripture equivalent to a Rule must Gods word upon this ground be denyed the Laytie surely there is no bon sequitur heere What if a Iesuite hath conceived King Butchery lawfull by Ehud's example h Io. Mariana de Reg. instit lib. 1. cap. 7. Itaque apertâ vi armis posse occidi tyrannum sive impetu in regiam facto sive commissâ pugnâ in confesso est Sed dolo atque insidijs excep tum quod fecit Aiod c. must the Scripture therefore be denied your learned train the reason truly is the same the consequent stronger Secondly Iohn a taylor of Leyden found out in his Bible that he should be a King and that he might lawfully have two wives at once and that all temporall goods ought to bee common amongst men i Reply ibid. Who knoweth not that the Church hath had even as amongst the learned Hereticks and those which have raised Schisme so also amongst the Laytie Phantastickes even in her best ages and times Must the Church seale up her treasure from the people because they have fond and strange imaginations Every eye may perceive that those very bookes which you deliver for the peoples instruction are as subject to vaine imaginations as the Scriptures therfore why permit you them to the people if you condemne us when as Gods word is lesse subject to abuse then the frames of sinfull men And for your setting up images in Churches for Lay-mens bookes besides their occasioning idolatrie what error and blindnesse bring they among the People as that Moses hath hornes c. and yet which of these are separated from them Must Lay-people with us for ever loose the comfort of Gods truth for the errour of one seduced fancie must images by you be pressed upon the people which occasion in the Church such fearefull events of Idolatrie superstition and errour But I pray you tell me what hath the Taylor of Leyden done more then your Roman Bishops where have his mistakes beene more grosse Hee by his Bible found hee should be a king They by their wresting their Bibles that they are above Emperours k 〈◊〉 de Maior obed c. Vnam sanctam In hâc ejusque potestate duos esse gladios spiritualem videlicet â—emporalem evangclicis dictis instruâ—mur Nam dicentibus Apostolis Ecce gladij duo hîc in Ecclesia scilicet cum Apostoli loquerentur non respondit Dominus nimis esse sed â—atis Certè qui in potestate Petri temporalem gladium esse negat malè verbum attendit Domini proferentis Converte gladium â—â—um in vaginam Eâ— paulo post Nam veritate testante spiritualis potestaâ— terrenam potestatem instituere habet judicare si bona non fuerit si de ecclesiâ ecclesiasticâ potestate verificatur vaticinium Hieremiae â—cce constitui â—e hodie super gentes regna c. quae sequnntur Ergo si deviat â—erâ—â—â— potestas judicabitur â potestate spirituali vide plura He that hee might have two wives They for Catholicke ends can dispence with a brother to marry his brothers wife l Antiq. Britan. p. 307. Sed quia jure divino â—â—â—tris sui relictam viduam haud liceret ducere it ur ad Papam Iulium Is Theologis Cardinalibus etiam dissentientibus instante Ferdinando ad contrahendum inter Henricum â— Regem D. Catharinam matrimonium Iuris divini dispensationem produxit c. and permit many Stewes m Agrip. de van scien cap. 64. Sixtus Pontifex maximus Romae nobile admodum lupanar extruxit also Hee would have all things common They will have nothing so appropriated to others that some way at least in ordine ad spiritualia may not belong to them n Bernardus Mornalensis in 3 libro de contemptu mundi Heu sua propria deputat omnia REX BABYLONIS Now let any indifferent judgement determine whether there bee not as good reason to deprive the Romish Cleargie of the use of Scriptures in the originall for the Papall abuse of it as the Lay-people for the default of a poore crazed though an Academicall Taylor Hee tells us further of one David George that by the same reading was bolde to affirme that hee was the sonne of God of an other in Germanie that reading the manner of Baptisme prescribed Mat. 28. thought himselfe obliged in conscience to baptize such young dogges as his Canet had lately whelped and under the pretext of a commandement given in those wordes Crescite multiplicamini c. the Anabaptists exercise their abominations in darknesse o Reply pag. 27 I need not to examine the truth for the bare matter of fact of this learned Iesuites variae historiae for it being granted that all is true what can be concluded against the libertie of using the Scriptures But in regard this foule mouth imputeth all these mischeifes to the reading of Gods booke hee hath onely declared himselfe an enemie to that light which in time will obscure and consume him and his faction God stiles his Word to be a lanthorne to our feete and a light unto our pathes * Psalme 119. v. 105. And who they be that Tertullian calleth Lucifugae p Tertul. de resurrect carnis cap. 47. let the Iesuite enquire For opinions and practises of like nature with the Iesuites examples Iesuites such kind of enemies to God may impute them to the reading of the Scriptures but the Holy Ghost pleading for himselfe whose words they are giveth another reason Rom. 1. 21. Because that when they knew God they glorified him not as God neither were thankefull but became vaine in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened Professing themselves to be wise they became fooles and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man and to birds and fâ—are-footed beasts creeping things
ut puâ—o ex piâ—tate devotione exscribentium qui devotissimas historias horrebant annumerare inter apocrypha and Iohannes Driedo f Dried l. 1. c. 4. Alterum difficultatis nodum qui est super libris Iudith Tobiae conatur dissolvere magister in historijs cuius sententiam seâ—uitur alius quidam expositor in prooemio Bibliae dicens in prologis illis duobus Hieronymi super Iudith Tobiam mendosum esse codicem in â—oloco ubi legimus hagiographa legendâ—m esse apâ—crypha Here is a solide truth for Iudith's virginitie no witnesse but an heare-say and we know not from whom So that our Iesuite ought to seeke an other answere for this is lame halting and of little strength But suppose the Nicene Councell in S. Hieromes opinion did receive Iudith into the Canon yet he will not say the same of Toby and the Maccabees how can our Adversaries then deny the change Why Gods owne are not so much bound to our compassionate Iesuite as these suspicious birthes but how will he array them with a canonicall coate The auncient Church saith he received them for canonicall g Reply pag. 28 S. Hierome his ignorance were then much to be wondred at but this testimony will not be rejected if the Iesuite can make good what so generally he affirmes By the auncient Church hee must exclude neither age nor iudgment unlesse some straglers wherefore then doth hee leave out the first 300. and almost 400. yeares affording us not one testimony but a pretence or two out of Cyprian to no purpose and in his proofes why doth hee afford us onely particular testimonyes private men when the Churches declaration is to be expected at his hands But let us examine his testimonies First he produceth the third councell of Carthage Can. 47. We say this is but a private testimony and at best but a declaration of a particular Church and a Councell that they allowe not themselves h Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. cap. 21. At objicit Calvinus Concilium Carthaginense tertium can 26. ubi vetatur ne quis princeps sacerdotum aut summus sacerdos dicatur sed solùm primae sedis Episcopus Respondeo Concilium statuisse solum de Episcopis Africae inter quos multi erant Primates a quales ne vllus corum summus Sacerdos aut Princeps aliorum diceretur Nec enim Concilium hoc provinciale Romanum Ponuficem aut aliarum provinciarum Episcopos obligare poterat Secondly Innocent ad Exuperium But if this be his Epistle what doth he declare therein but his private judgment what finde we there but an answer that he gave not ex cathedrâ but as he expresseth himselfe pro captu intelligentiae meae at the intreatie of a Brother Gelasius his decree hath not one word of Canonicall in it onely they are stiled of the old testament which is a phrase used many times by our selves because they are comprehended in one volume together and yet we esteeme them not within the Canon S. Augustine doth not take canonicall for those scriptures which were inspired by the Spirit of God and delivered by the Catholick Church for such as 〈◊〉 appeare by his words before the 〈◊〉 of those bookes i Aug. de 〈◊〉 Christi l. 2. c. â—â— In canonicis 〈◊〉 scripturis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostolicas 〈◊〉 For first he perswades those to be cheifly respected quae Apostolicas sides habere epistolas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that were received of those Churches in which the Apostles themselves did â—â—â— and 〈◊〉 they directed their Epistles Secondly amongst thâ—se which he 〈◊〉 Canonicall bookes he could have this 〈◊〉 Ibid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In scripturis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be observed ut â—as quae ab omnibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quas 〈◊〉 non 〈◊〉 that those which are received of all Churches should be 〈◊〉 before those which 〈◊〉 Churches did not receive Certainely by this we may see what St Augustine 〈◊〉 by his Canon not those which were generally received onely but those also which were 〈◊〉 of a few Churches and those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of lesse 〈◊〉 Ibid. which were the same that wee accompt 〈◊〉 So that Canonicall in Augustines sence is 〈◊〉 those which abound with lyes and 〈◊〉 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occupen◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denâ—â—s 〈◊〉 dicent 〈◊〉 contra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â— is 〈◊〉 by his words not to those which is godly bookes were premitted to be read by the people though because not divinely inspired they were not to confirme any point of Doctrine whereby the same Father interpreteth the meaning of that Councel of Carthage urged by the Iesuit in case he had subscribed therunto as our adversaries perswade And that this agreeth with S. Augustine mind it shineth forth in many places For although S. Augustin saith that the Church had them the Maccabees for canonical yet he tels you how not because they were divinely revealed but for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must needes interpret that the church 〈◊〉 them for canonical that is of that canon which was fit to be read only for the moving of the peoples affection by declaring the passions of the 〈◊〉 for he maketh them not of that 〈◊〉 which were 〈◊〉 inspired â— Aug. de 〈◊〉 Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 opposeth theÌ„ to it â— non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â— quibus 〈◊〉 Machobâ—â—rum â— Aug. con Epist Gâ—udâ—â— l. â—â— 31. â—â—â—â—pe quidem scripturam quae appellatut Mac 〈◊〉 non habent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 psalmes quibus Dom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 testibus tuis Sed recepta est 〈◊〉 Ecclesia non 〈◊〉 si sobriè legatur vel audiatur libri 〈◊〉 non Iudas sed 〈◊〉 canonicis 〈◊〉 propter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 passiones 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—rabiles This is found saith that Father not in the holy Scriptures which are called Canonicall but in others amongst which are also the bookes of the Macchabeas which not the Iâ—wes but the Church hath for Canonicall for the vehement and wonderfull sufferings of 〈◊〉 Martyrs And so in an other place â—â—â—aith that the Scriptures of the 〈◊〉 were not received of the Iewes as the Law the Prophets and Psalmes to which God gave testimony â—â— to his owne witnesses Yet he denyeth not but the Church received them not unprofitably But wherein lay their profit S. Augustine declareth s◠〈◊〉 in the sober reading and hearing of them read For Isiodorus Cassâ—dorus their testimonies make noâ— the received Doctrine of the auncient Church Neither can those tearmes of holy and divine wherewith â— Bellarm. de Verbo Dei lib. l. 〈◊〉 4 Po 〈◊〉 de ijs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vino 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae 〈◊〉 ab 〈◊〉 epist 3. ad â—â—per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 15. â—â—â—
〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 â—all of the aâ—â—cient Fathers and the Councell of 〈◊〉 Canone 〈…〉 these bookes are omitted â—â—â—â— part of the 〈◊〉 Scripture Thirdly the reputed 47. Canon of the third Councell of Carthage which is their cheifest testimony by the indgemeÌ„t of their own was never determinâ—â—â—â— that Synode â—arclaij Paraenesis l. 1. c. â—1 Refertur â—ic canoâ— concil 3. Carthaginensi cui Augustinus interâ—â—it sed ex 〈◊〉 constat posterioris Concilij esse quod paulo post sub Boni â—â—cio convocaâ—â—m Fourthly in after ages they were by many rejected a never getting authority till the Trent decree Besides these bookes will by their owne light declare of what authority they are The 〈◊〉 I hope will grant that God is as true in his word as the Pope infallible in his decrees if upon this ground these bookes deserve credit let the Reader conclude first for Iudeth whether it were â—squam or ullâ—bi we cannot tell neither I thinke the Iesuite himselfe Again she honoureth that fact of Siâ—â—on * Caâ—â—s loco â—â—pra citat Constat auâ—em 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctisâ—imoâ— in contrariam sententiam 〈◊〉 qui tamen semper in Ecclesia Catholica sunt habiti Nich. Lyâ—an super 〈◊〉 â— 1. super Tobiâ—â— Abuleâ—â—â—s super Math. c. 1. D. Aâ—â—on 3. p. â— 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 loâ—â— tum maâ—ime in fine 〈◊〉 super 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etiam sex â—â—cros esse 〈◊〉 Gelaâ—â—â—â— Pâ—pa rejecit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Macha Diâ—â—â— autem Gregorius l. moral â—â— rejjoâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de Tâ—â—â—poribus Rich l. 2. Exceptioâ—â—â— c. 9. Ocham â—â— Diâ—◠〈◊〉 1. l. 3. 〈◊〉 Ac D. Aug docet aâ— Ecclesia esse quid em receptos seâ—â—â—â— certa side 〈◊〉 9. 2 and Levy which the Spirit of God abhorreth as appeares by Moses †Gen. 49. 5. And we may see that Iudeth fitting her selfe for lyes and deceit * 〈◊〉 9. 10 desireth God to give a blessing thereunto †Ver. 13. which action as it condemneth the person that doth the same so doth it disgrace this booke which speaketh â—â— directly opposite to the Apostolicall rule * Eph. 4. 25. And as Iudeth doth detect her selfe so doth Tâ—bit also by his vaine story of the Rivall Devill †Tob 6. 14. the driving away of a devill or an evill spirit which should trouble any with the smoke of the heart and the liver of a fish * Tâ—â— 6. 7 contrary to Christs doctrine that there are some devills which will not be cast out but by fasting and prayer †Mat. 17. 21. And wherefore should the Apostle Eph 6. 13. have left this out of his aâ—moury if it had bene of such forâ—â— eâ—â—icacy as is here expressed Further we have an Angell lyeing chap. 5. verse â—â— and a fish travailing on Land chap. 6. verse 2. The Maâ—chabees containe many things which declaâ—â— the author of them not to write with confidence of Godâ— Spirit asisting him as first that he was an Epitoâ—â—ist of â—â—son * 2. Maccà b 2. 23. Secondly he excuseth himselfe †2 Maccab. â—5 39. as if the holy Ghost might deserve a censure Thirdly it appeareth that his end is to delight his Reader * 2. Maccab. 2 25. 15. 40. and to get honour to himselfe †2. Maccab. 2 â—6 â—7 Lastly he justifieth Razis in killing himself * 2. Macâ—ab 14 41. 42. 43. a commendation fitter for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then the patient Marâ—â—rs of Christ as S. Augustine Aug. câ—n Gâ—ud l. c 31. Dictum est quod 〈◊〉 nobiliter merit meâ—us veller hâ—militer â—â—â— enim 〈◊〉 Illiâ—autem verbis historia gentium â—â—â—dare 〈◊〉 sed viros 〈◊〉 huius â—â—culi non martyrâ—â— Christi observeth To these many more may be added but this which hath bene spokeÌ„ will suffice to shew that they have dealt without all conscience in obtruding those bookes upon the church which were never as canonicall received from the Iewes unto whom were committed the oracles of God * Rom. 3. 2. never delivered to the primitive Church from the Apostles never aproved by any father of the church for almost 400 yeares never thought of when the Canon was repeated such which by their Physiognomy detect themselves Whence we may gather that the Church of Rome now hath varied in her judgment from the church of God then althogh we be not able to lay down the precise time when she thought her selfe wiser then her forefathers heerein Neither will his turning to the Epistles of Iames Iude the second of Peter c Reply pag. 2â— c any thing availe his cause in regard there is a great difference betwixt those Epistles these bookes of Iudeth Tâ—bit and the Macchabees for although some private men did doubt of the former yet the church in generall did receive and approve the fame * See before pag. â—5 whereas on the contrary the Iesuite after all his search cannot finde â—â—â— testimony either of Father or Councell that accounâ—â—â— the latter Canonicall for well-nigh 400 yeares after Christ And therefore most indiscreetly did the Iesuit vrge 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 to prove the like doubt to have bene held of these Epistles with those bookes which they absolutely call Apocrypha Secondly he abuseth his Reader when he would perswade that they were ouely particular Fathers that doubted of these bookes when the Iesuite cannot finde that they were received either of the Iewes or the Apostles or Primitive Fathers for certaine ages after Christ Thirdly to what thoughts of desperation is he and his fellowes driven to defend this adding to the Canon as first that doubtfull writings which have beene accompted Apocryphall for certaine hundred of yeares which our Iesuite calleth somtime may by the publick authority of the Church be declared Canonicall and secondly that particular Fathers which indeed are all the Fathers that lived in the first 300. almost 400. yeares the Iesuite citing none within that compasse but Cyprian and their bastard Calixtuâ— as hath beene formerly declared might doubt of the authority of those bookes without prejudice till the Church had declared them for Canonicall by publicke authority But if the Canon was not compleate in the first times I would know when it was made perfect and whether in those times tradition was enabled to declare the same or whether the Fathers were negligent to testifie this truth and also whether Canonicall and Apocryphall is a distinction lately invented All this the Iesuite must resolve or else acknowledge the Canon of the Church in the Primitive times to be certainely knowne and setled which will declare their vanity and change in these last times to adde unto the sacred Canon and rule of Faith upon pretence that the Church hath power to declare canonicall Scripture A Doctrine invented in after-ages by the Roman faction who as they looked for unlimited power so to defend their practises they desire an unrestrayned rule making Scriptures what
sed iâ— praescripto legis in prophetarum praedictis in psalmorum cantibus in ipsius pastoris vocibus in Evangeliâ—â—aâ—um praedicationâ—bus laboribus hoc est in omnibus Canonicis sanctâ—â—um librâ—â—â—m authoritatibus How fairely this Heretick Augustine opposeth this Catholicke Iesuite And further the same Father in a point of controversie openly professeth We ought not to depart from the authority of the divine Scriptures to which ALONE in this matter faith is to be given n Aug de Gen. ad liâ— l. 12. c. 33. Ab authoritate Divinarum Scripturarum quibus 〈◊〉 lis de hac râ— fides habenda est recedere non debemus And before this Heretick Irenaus a more auncient one in the same booke which the Iesuite directeth us to sâ—e agreeth with us We have by none others knowne saith he to obtaine salvation but by those that brought the Gospell to us for what first they preached that by the will of God they delivered to us in the Scripture that in aftertimes it might be the FOVNDATION and PILLAR of our FAITH o Irenaeus l. 3. â—â— Non per 〈◊〉 dispositionem nostrae salâ—tis cognovimus quam pereos per quos Evangelium perâ—â—nit ad â—oâ— quod quidem â—unâ— praeconiaveâ—â—nt postea 〈◊〉 per Dei 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 crunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By this which hath beene spoken we find our Appeale to Scriptures alone as the absolute rule of Faith not to bee the onely practice of Hereticks as the Iesuite would have it but of the most Catholick Fathers themselves indeed so uncontrouled a rule it was in points of faith to be judged by God in the Scriptures that never any Hereticke did deny the same till Papists tyrannizing over the truth brought in new faith which could not be justified by the old rule And as all acknowledged this rule most absolutes so Hereticks as well as Catholicks used to justifie their opinion by other meanes also It is probable that Eâ—nomius was more beholding to his Logick then Scriptures for he is painted out by Alphonsus de Castro as a most cunning Sophister p Alphons Castro adv Haer. l. 5. De Deo haer 10. Eunomius artis dialecticae callidissimus Besides the Montanists when they were overcome by force of argument fled for shift refuge unto Martyrs reporting themselves to have many q Eusebius Eccles hist l. 5. c. 14. Quando igitur in cunctis iftis redarguti argumentis destituuntâ—r admartyres confugere nituntur multos se martyres habere arque illud certum prophetici spiritus qui apud ipsos sit documentum esse dicentes Nay what practises have the Papists for the most part that Heretickes had not somtime they pleaded the Church r Opus imperf in Mat. hom 49. Nunc autem singulatim professores haeresium diversarum dicunt Ecce hic est Christus id est Ecclesia Et illic id est Ecclesia Quia jam non audiendo dogmatum verba sed videndo eorum Ecclesias Christiani scandalizantur infirmi somtime Fathers Å¿ See Dioscorus cited by the most reverend the Lord Primate pag. 24. Alanus Copus Dial. 6. c. 22. Veteres haeretici cum Patres ipsis apertissimè adversarentuâ— cos tamen à se stare magnâ contentione clamabâ—nt Baron Annal. an 431. num 170. Sed mirum dictu quam calumniose ad suam ipserum haeresim astruendam citare ijdem Nestoriani consueverint sanctos Patres quantâque mentiri jactantiâ universos fermè Orbis Episcopos secum sentire somtime Tradition t Euseb Eccl. â—ist l. 5. c. 25. Dicunt Samosateni Majores omnes etiam ipsos Apostolos â—a sensisse ac doâ—nisse quae ipsi nunc dicunt servatamque eam praedicationis veritatem usque ad tempora Victoris qui 13. â Petro Romanorum Episcopus fuit Irenaeus advers haer l 3. c. 2. Non enim per literas traditam illam sed per vivam vocem somtime Councels u Epiâ—tola quorundam 〈◊〉 ad Episcopum Rufuâ—â— apud Binnium inter Acta Conc. Ephesin O Ecumen Tom. 3. c. 13. Noâ— autem in sanctorum Patrum qui apud Nicaeam convenerant caeterorumque qui post illos in Ecclesia claruerunt Eustachij Antiocheni Basilij Caesariensis Gregorij Ioannis Athanaâ—â— Theophili Damasi Romani Ambrosij Mediclanensis reliquorumque qui cum memoraâ—is consentiunt doctrinâ perseveramus c. somtime Miracles x August in Iohan. tract 13. Pontius-fecit miraculum Donaâ—us oraâ—it respondit ei Deus decoelo somtime Visions y August ibid. de uniâ—at eccles c. 18. neither were they so naked but they had your great argument of succession z Aug. Epist 165. ad Generosum Synod Lateran apud Bin. Secretaâ—sive Consult 4. Haec piâ—tatis dogmata tradiderunt nobis qui ab initio praesentialiter viderunt ministri verbi facti sunt eorumque discipuli successores sequenter à Deo inspiraâ—i Ecclesiae Doctores id est sanctae universales quinque Synodi beaâ—orum à Dâ—â— inspiratorum Patrum qui in 〈◊〉 in hanc regiam civitatem nec non in Ephesium primùm in ChalcedonaÌ„ iterum in Constantinopolim in 5. congregati sunt concilioâ— also yet we must be Hereticks because we appeale to the Scriptures as â— most absolute rule of faith Vaenitas vaenitutuÌ„ I would have the Iesuit consider that although some of these blind wretches he nameth could not see God in the flesh yet none of them were so blind that they could not perceive light in the Sun the holy Ghost in the word in the sacred Scriptures they whose impudency durst deny any thing could not deny Gods rule to be the Scriptures For the heretick Maximus as he calleth him if he speake no worse then in defence of the sacred Scriptures we may give him the priviledge allowed to the Devill that sometime he may speake truth as the other acknowledged Christ to be the son of God And to agree with an hereticke in truth is not to be hereticall but as the Iesuite interpreteth his meaning not any whit to regard those sayings which are not Scripture and herein if the Iesuite did us right he would aâ—quit us for we give the auncient Church so much honour that we make her the greatest witnesse of Gods truth though we deny her to be the truth it selfe or rule of faith And whereas S. Hierome is brought answering the Lucifrians that they should not flatter themselves too much because they seemed to have Scripture for what they affirme for even the Devill hath alledged Scriptures which consist not in reading but in understanding * Reply pag. 3â— what is this to us nay with what corruption and falshood doth the Iesuite dragg this place of Hierome against the authors intent and meaning for the Iesuite urgeth it against the authoritie of the Scriptures and their determinative power when that Father presseth the same against a shew
deny this booke to be any of his Secondly the opinion against which Paschafius disputed was that onely of Heribaldus which our Protestants themselves confesse to be no other then a most grosse error g Reply pag 44. Here the Iesuite speakes whetstones For Paschasius doth not dispute against that opinion either 〈◊〉 or principally but toucheth it incidently Neither can 〈◊〉 Iesuite shew that Heribaldus himselfe ever held any such opinion Thirdly the said Paschafius doth testifie that in his time no man was found who did publickly maintaine any such error contrary to that Catholicke Doctrine which hee with the whole Church professea and defended which surely hee would not have said if any such booke had beene written by Bertram for that booke must needes have beene much talked of and the Author very publicke seeing that hee wrote it as the Emperors request and also dedicated the same unto his Majestie Reply ibid Here is a grosse mistake For if this booke of Bertram was written at the request of the Emperour Carolus Calvus who obtained not the Empire untill anno 875. Is it not dreaming to take it as a matter granted that we suppose the booke of Bertram to have been published when Paschafius wrote his who died in the yeare 851 Secondly here is a notorious untruth For Paschafius doth testifie no such thing but the contrary for in the beginning of his Epistle De corpore sanguine Domini ad Frudegardum he thus propoundeth the question Queris de re ex qua MVLTI dubitant You desire resolution in a matter whereof MANY doubt Besides the Iesuite as conscious of his deceipt doth not here tell us where Paschafius testifieth any such thing Fourthly it is well knowne that the Church of Rome with all Christian Churches adhering â—â—to her at that time did professe the same doctrine concerning the Reall presence which Paschasius then Layed downe and which to this day shee hath alwayes believed Is it likely then that such a booke being written even by the Emperors appointment not one man in all the world should be found to answere the same and to gaineâ—â—y that Author and his opinion so repugnant to that which was publiquely and generally maintained â— Reply pag 44. It is ill presumed for at this time this was no Doctrin of the Church of Rome neither received or decreed for such it being shewed before that the most learned men then living resisted and opposed the same And Bellarmine himselfe supposing as the Iesuite doth erroneously and without ground that Bertram wrote before Paschafius doth thereupon conceive Paschafius his booke to have beene purposely written against Bertram k Bellarm. de Sacram. Euchâ— l. 1 c. 1. Tertius suit Bertramus tempore Caroli Crassi circa annum Domini DCCCLXXXVI cujus liber adhuc exâ—at Is rursum in connoversiam vocare coepit an esset verè in Eucharistia illud ipsum cerpus Domini quod de Virgine natum erat Confutavit hunc errorem doctissimè Paschasius Abbas Corbâ—ienfis qui illo ipso tempore floruit Fiftly when Berengarius some 200. yeares after Bertram bred that uproare which is knowne by bringing in the same opinion with that which is fathered upon Bertram when there was so much writing and disputing against Berengarius his sentence and for it how came it to passe that there was not as much as mention once made of this supposed booke whose authoritie surely might have done good service unto the part of Berengarius and would doubtlesse have beene produced by them if then it had any being at all l Reply pag. 45 Here is an irresistable demaund this surely will cleare the point But the Iesuite must consider that he ought to lay before us all those bookes that they have extinguished concerning the cause of Berengarius before hee can expect our answer to his Demaund for otherwise how can he make it appeare unto us that there was not so much as mention once made of this supposed booke Further we may observe here that this point of carnall presence was but disputable no matter of faith in Berengarius his time when there was so much writing and disputing against Berengarius his sentence and FOR it although the Iesuite would have had it 200. yeares before to have beene well knowne that the Church of Rome with all Christian Churches adhering unto her at that time did professe the same doctrine concerning the reall presence which Paschasius then layed downe To this profound silence saith the Iesuite let us adde what Guilmundus writing against Berengarius doth testifie It is most notorious saith he that untill Berengarius at this time beganne to rage no such madnes was ever heard of any where Adde moreover that S. Thomas of Aquin and the rest of the Schoolemen doe agree all in laying downe Berengarius for the first Author of that heresie which denyeth the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament without as much as once dreaming of Bertram g Reply pag 45 The Iesuite here bringeth the grosse absurdities of their owne writers to approve him in those things which hee hath layde downe For who can justifie either Guitmundus Aquinas or the rest of the schoolemen in laying downe Berengarius for the first that denyed the carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament when that very Councell which condemned Berengarius condemned also the booke of Iohannes Scotus de Eucharistia h Concil Vercellense tom 3 apud Binnium In qua in audientia omnium qui de diversis â—uius mundi partibus illuc convenerant Iohannis Scoti liber de Eucharistia lectus est ac damnatus sententia â—ua exposita ac damnata which assisted him in the defence of his doctrine it being plaine that he ever extolled this booke and condemned the other of Paschafius i Concil Roman 2. ibid Intellecto quod Ioannem Scoturs extollercs Paschasium damnares communi de Eucharistia â—â—dei adversa sentires promulgata est in te damnationis sententia which maintained your Roman doctrine And this is so evident and apparant a truth that without extreame impudencie it cannot be denyed being acknowledged by Bellarmine himselfe k Bellarm. de Euch. l. 1. c. 1. Primi qui veritatem corporis Domini in Eucharistia in quaestionem vocarunt fuerunt Iconomachi post annum Domini DCC Hi enim dicebant unicam esse imaginem Christi ab ipso Christo institutam nimirum panem vinum in Eucharistia quae repraesentant Christi corpus sanguinem Secundus auctor hujus erroris fuit â—ohannis Scotus qui tempore Caroli magni circa annum Domini DCCC scripsit Is enim primus in Ecclesia Latina de hac re dubiè scribere â—oepit cujus librum de Eucharistia damnatum fuisse in Concilio Vercellensi testatur Lanfranâ—â— c. So that they are but Dreamers that agreeed in laying downe Berengarius for the first Author of that Heresie Neither dare the Iesuite
sacred Scripture did burst forth of those libraries wherein it was ecclipsed and the most lucide starres the auncient Fathers waited upon that originall light then many of these poore meteors and fained appearances were quickely obscured and despised of some of your owne So that your Dilemma proves but a childish florish For although it is most true that you have done as much as you durst to pretend Fathers make Fathers detract from Fathers adde to Fathers forging clipping washing cankering them yet these things being detected and casheered the Fathers are restored to their authoritie they formerly had although they are not thought fit to bee used as a rule against those Hereticks that have not spared in this manner to abuse their writings Againe saith the Iesuite you have given us flatlie once to understand that the Scripture was the rocke upon which alone you build your faith and from which no sleight that wee could devise should ever drawe you and therefore you bade us to our face alledge what authoritie we list without Scripture and it could not suffice How is the winde now changed how come you now to falsifie this your former resolution m Reply pag. 49 Did ever any Iesuite trifle in this manner and speake more inconsequent The Scripture is the rocke upon which alone he will build his faith no authoritie can suffice without Scripture therefore the winde is changed hee falsifies his former resolution Doth not this rationall deserve to censure others for false Logicke that pleads with such a shape of reason himselfe The Iesuite promised in his Challenge to produce good and certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures if the Fathers authoritie will not suffice Did he cast off their rock of Fathers because he promised Scriptures I thinke hee will not acknowledge it and why should he vainely heere dreame that the Scriptures are rejected by the most reverend the Lord Primate when to stoppe the Iesuites boasting out of a well grounded confidence in the goodnes of his cause he will not in this place stand upon his right Besides let the Iesuite shew me the generall consent of Fathers in a matter of faith without the Scriptures if hee be able If he cannot his thoughts are confused when hee dreamed of their authoritie without Scripture if hee say he will let him produce them for surely it is hard to bee beleived Furthermore when the Lawyers urge Constantines denation for Papall possession I aske the Iesuite upon what authoritie he would build his title whether upon the donation it selfe or the Lawyers interpreting it If the Donation be sufficient why not the Scriptures If the interpreters must be added yet this is not to take away the power of the Charter Nay if they be added 〈◊〉 necessary testimonie the Charter were nothing without the Lawyers What followeth in the Iesuite hath received Answere in the fift Section only here he will not be perswaded that he chooseth his owne weapons n Reply pag. 49 but let the Reader judge for bibling in his judgment is but babling it is no other then fencing to fight with Scriptures and to appeale to sole Scripture is but to agree with auncient Heretickes So that Scriptures are none of his armorie and if the Fathers bee rejected also what remaineth further but ipse dixit assisted with pretended miracles lying wonders But let them be whose weapons they will Hee telleth us that hee will use them and the first encounter shal be concerning the dignity and preheminencie of the Church of Rome o Reply ibid. Indeed this is that fruitfull article of Faith that hath got all the new articles of the new Romane Creed This is the breast that nourisheth them that gives them strength The occasion wherefore he beginnes here is for as much as our Answerer taketh his first exception against him for styling all the auncient Doctors and martyrs of the Church universall with the name of the Saints and Fathers of the Primitive Church of Rome though he alledgeth heerein no more against me saith the Iesuite but this one bare Interrogaterie out of Albertus Pighius Who did ever yet by the Roman Church understand the universall Church p Reply pag. 49 What needes further proofe If neither the whole Roman Church neither your whole Roman world in the judgment of Albertus Pighius did ever take the Romane Church for the Church Vniversall is not this enough to lash the Iesuite for confounding Vrbem Orbem and mingling Heaven and earth together But he will take of Pighius by a Distinction If saith he the Roman Church be taken as it comprehendeth onely that Cleargie which maketh but one particular Bishoprick Diaces in the citie of Rome abstracting from that relation which it hath unto all other Christian Churches as the head unto the members then I say with Pighius who speaketh of it onely in this sense that no man ever by the Church of Rome did understand the Vniversall Church But if it bee taken as it is the Mother Church begunne in S. Peter under Christ and miraculously continued those of each one of the rest of the Apostles fayling by due succession of lawfull Bishops having a relation to all other Christian Churches as the head to the members then doe I say that it may rightly bee stiled with the name of the Vniversall Church And that all other Churches are to be accounted Catholick no further then they be linked in a subordinate obeysance thereunto q Reâ—â—â— pâ—g â—â— Here are many prettie things By this meanes the Church of Rome the Mother must bee borne after the daughter for many particular Churches had birth before Rome was a Church or the Roman Inhabitants received the Faith of Christ Secondly that the Catholicke Church must be in a subordinate obeysance to the Church of Rome before there was any Church there Besides the Catholick Church was never enclosed in any other place but the world never restrained to any other habitation To chaine it â—o any head out of Heaven or to confine it to any particular place on Earth were to make it schismaticall This Church concludes all Saints Noah's Arke was heere a Temple Christ delighted with this Church as in the Canticles before Rome was Rome or a Pontifex governed therein Some are in Heaven that never yeelded obedience to this Church or heard of Rome And it is more then probable some are in hell that were tearmed Holinesse it selfe whilst they remained in this Catholick here But what the Iesuite hath to make this Roman Church the Catholicke and mother of all other Churches in the next Section we shall examine SECT VIII THis Iesuite after hee hath obtained from the most learned Primate ex gratiâ libertie in his owne challenge to chuse his owne weapon would first use it to prove that The Auncient Fathers of the first Ages acknowledged the Roman Church to bee the head of all other Churches a Reply pag 40 I had thought
informed hee might have alledged But Luther tels us that Gods will which way soeuer it is made knowne unto us ought to be reverently embraced and therefore it is not lawfull to gainsay rashly the Bishop of Romes Supremacie And this reason is of such force that although there were no other it alone ought to bee sufficient to â—urbe the temeritie of all opposers n Reply pag â— The Argument is thus Whatsoever is permitted by God is reverently to bee embraced But the Papall altitude is permitted by God Therefore with all reverence to be embraced May not this argument serve for Pope Ioan the stewes the holy Ladie Maâ—ylda Iudas Iulian yea for all villany without exception or interruption For we must not thinke that any thing can come to passe without Gods voluntary permission God made the world shall we say that like Gallio he câ—reth for none of these things * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God hath permitted many evils many tyrannies among the Babyâ—nians Persians Grecians Romans yet this doth not justifie them in their impieties or make us reverently to embrace them therein Wee know God placed Peter in the sheepe-fould to â—eedâ— his Lambes as hee sent the the rest to the same worke but shew us that hee tooke him from the Ewes great with young to make him the King of Israell the Monarch of the Church and this is something to the purpose Yet this Argument is not the Charter by which Peter got his Primacie but those Popes that came in the last dayes For when Luther was in his best witts hee could not finde the Popes Primacie in Pasce â—ves or Oravi pro te Petre or in any other place of Scripture or from any other reason but from experience So that we perceive the Bishop of Rome hath as much right to his pretended greatnes as Nimrod to Babylon and all former Tyrants to their Usurpations Now the Iesuite addresseth himselfe to Antiquity and wherefore Because our Answerer will needes be a scholler of their maddest humours in this point wee present him heere saith he with the Doctrine of Antiquity utterly condemning the same o Reply pag. â—0 The most learned Answerer is no Scholler of Luther or of Bucer neither are their humours directories of his Faith or opinions One is his Doctor and that is Christ and as farre as Luther and Bucer follow him so farre they may have his company but no further It is your holy Brother-hood that are tyed to madde humours nay to such as a madde man would not embrace Who can presume that a Iesuite hath his wits that casting aside Gods Law in the place thereof embraceth the rule of Ignatius as if it were their Decalogue or Square for direction And for any thing we can see the Prescripts of their Generall are little lesse esteemed by them in their practise then what God himselfe appoints them p Hassenmuller Hist Ies c. 6 de voâ— Obedieniiae Impudentissimos istos homines non pudet haec sigmenta capiâ—is sui haâ— Loiolae nugaâ— ipsi Dei Deca â—â—go praeponeâ—â— quod Iacobus Crusius Novitiorum Landspergensium Rector facit Noster inquiens Decalogus eâ—â— Râ—gula voâ—orum ab Ignatio Lâ—â—â—â—â— traditâ— This goeth farre but yet all this is nothing to the requisites that they prescribe to themselves vizâ— that if the Church you know who they meane should determine white to be blacke it must not be opposed q Regulae Iesu it ad finem Histor interdict tenet regula 132. si quod oâ—ulis nostris apparet album nigrum illa esse definierit debemus itidem quod nigrâ—â— sit pronunciare Now seeing hee hath urged Bucer Luther disputing â—â— concessis he will make it cleare by Antiquity it selfe So that he will not accept that the Roman Church is the Head of all other Churches by a bare Concession or graunt of her enemies but will further make it apparant by her owne evidences and auncient Prerogatives And his first testimony is the Inscription of an Epistle of Ignatius the disciple of S. Iohn the Evangelist to the Romans where amongst other prerogatives he confesseth that it beareth sway ever all other Churches r Reply pag 10 The person cannot want authority and esteeme being an holy Bishop and Martyr Yet I am sure the Iesuite hath besmeared the face of this Epistle with falshood fraud for where will he finde this sway-bearing to be Oecumenicall and over all other Churches Bellarmine dare not be so bold but contractedly speakes in the Region of the Romans Å¿ Bellarm de Rom. Pont l. 2. c. 15. Primus igitur sit Beatus Ignatius qui Epistolam ad Romaâ—â—â— inscribiâ— Ignatius Ecclesiâ— sanctifiâ—aâ—ae quae praesideâ— in regione Romanorum and yet more largely then the truth of the Epistle will beare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in loco Regionis Romanorum and what Patriarch had not the like to beare sway in divine matters over all the Churches of the Province or Provinces that were subordinate unto him Nay further the Arch-Bishoppes of Yorke and Dublin are styled Primates the one of England the other of Ireland and yet this doth not make them Universall Swayers of the Church in those Kingdomes much lesse to obtaine headship for their Churches above all others therein So that I am perswaded if ever God had given the Roman Church such a capitall priviledge the Catholicke Church would have had plainer wordes to have declared CHRISTS favour and particular bountie unto it But you may remember who it was that tooke our Saviour to the pinacle of the Temple that offered him all the Kingdomes of the world that hee might neare sway over them and you cannot forget mitte te dâ—â—rsum If in these things you will not reject Saâ—â— with your Master take heed you fall not from the pinacle of the Temple with him that you embrace as your Lord. It is more glorious for a Bishop to bee a fatherly guide and governour then a sway-bearing President and it would more commend the Roman Bishop to attend those suburbane Churches and Provinces committed to his care by the Nicene Councell as Ruffinus â— expounds it and not to distend his holines with the vaste thoughts of universall Regiment The second Witnesse of Antiquity hee maketh Cypriâ—â— and two places he citeth out of him The first out of his third Epistle in his first booke where this Father calleth the Romane Church Cathedram Petri â—â—clesium principalem the Chaire of Peter and the cheâ—â—â— Church Ruffinus histâ—ccles l. 1. c. 6. â—t ut apud Alexandriam in urbe Roma vetusia conâ—uâ—â—â—do serâ—â—ur ut vel ille 〈◊〉 vel hic â—â—â—aroicariatum ecclesiarum solicitudinem gerat And might not the Church of Antioch have the first title or stile And yet this would not bee sufficient to give that Church such an universall headship and preheminence Reply pag. 50 For the other phrase of Ecclesiam principalem it makes it not the
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
as cheife in the calling of all Nations g Reply pag â—5 c. And we tell him that Pope Leo did speake more for Peter to advance himselfe then it is probable he would otherwise have done if his Chayre had not met with some opposition in those times for Leo maketh Christ Marke the tenth to reprehend the desire of that power which in the Iesuites quotation he seemeth to give to S. Peter h Leo Epist 55. ad Pulcher. Augustam de ambitu Anatolij Et ille vere crit magnus qui fucrit totius ambitionis alicâ—â—â— dicente Domino Quicunque voluerit inter vos major sicri sit vester minister Et quicunque voluerit inter vos primus esse erit vester servus Sicut filius hominis non venit ministrari sed ministrare although Maldonate the Iesuite would not have the words of the Evangelist so to be understood i Maldonat com in Marc. 9. 35. Non hic agi de prjma in gubernanda Ecclesia dignitate etsi co etiam sensuhunc locum alicubi apud Leonem magnum legi memini We have seene then saith the Iesuite how undoubtedly the auncient Fathers maintained S. Peters primacie as well ever all the Church of Christ as over the rest of the Apostles also k Reply pag. 55 But any may perceive with how false eyes his owne witnesses but little favouring his cause as we shall further shew hereafter So that any may conceive how poorely he hath layed the foundation of the Roman Catholicke Church vizt Peter his Monarchichall power over the Apostles Neither saith he will it be hard to shew the like uniforme consent of antiquitie in attestation of that other point denyed also by our Answerer in the Star-chamber concerning the same headship and Primacie which the Bishops of Rome doe inherite by lawfull succession l Reply pag. 55 And to manifest this he beginnes his entrance with a repetition of what hath beene said and answered before and then fixeth first of all upon the strong pillar of Popish height the Arabicke Canons of the Nicene Councell from whom hee doubteth not to bring us most plaine testimony in this point m Reply pag. 56 and who beleiveth him not for if these Canons speake not plainely for the purpose whereunto they were framed what device can helpe them But the Iesuite knowing his coyne counterfeit tels us that the Answerer doth soone rid himselfe of this and the like decrees of that holy Synode by averring them to be forged by certaine well-willers of the Roman Church in the name of the good Fathers that never dreamed saith he of such a busines n Reply ibid. And is not this a truth that the Iesuite cannot resist though he playes the Baby in telling us that if you desire to heare him prove this his saying you must have 〈◊〉 â—â— other proofe you are like to get none of him besides his owne rash affirmation o Reply ibid. For the matter is so cleare from all antiquity that there were but twenty Canons in the Nicent Councell all which we have that it were but the mis-spending of time to prove that which all acknowledge q See them repeated in the sixt Councell of Carthage apud 〈◊〉 um Besides could the famous lights of the world at that time be ignorant of these Canons as S. Augustine r Concil Carthag 6. c. 7. Augustinus Ecclesiae Hiâ—ponis Regiensis Legatus Provinciae Numidiae with 〈◊〉 and more 〈◊〉 Bishops Å¿ Epistola Aphricani Concil ad Bonifacium Papam 1. Aurelius caeteri qui praesentes affuimus numero ducenti decem septem ex omni Concilio Aphricae Were they so little esteemed that they were clofetted at Rome or so unknowne in the East that the Patriarches of Constantinople and Alexandria could make no returne of them t Epistola Concil Aphric ad Coelestinum Quia illud quod pridem per cundem co episcopum nostrum Faustinum tanquam ex parte Nicaeni Concilij exinde transmiâ—â—â—â—is in Concilijs verioribus quae accipiuntur Ni aena à sancto Cyrillo coepiscopo nostro â—◠〈◊〉 Ecclesiae à venerabili Artico Constantino 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ac auther 〈◊〉 missis tale aliquid non poâ—uimus repeâ—â—e though the one sent them intirely as they were decreâ—d by the Fathers at Nice u Epistola Attici Episcopi Constantinopolitani ad Concilium Africanum Sicut staâ—â—ta suntin Nicaea civitam à Pauibus canoâ—â—â— in integro ut jussisus direx and the other â—â—nsm faithfull exemplars from the authenticke Coppie x escripta ad Conc. Aphrican Cyrilli Alexandrini Episcopi Necesse habus 〈◊〉 exemplaria ex authentica Synodo in Nâ—â—â—â— Bythiniae habito vestrae charitati dirigere quae in Ecclesiastica historia requirentes 〈◊〉 But if there were nothing else to disgrace them the Iesuite his endeavours to justifie them from farre-fetched and counterfeit grounds were alone sufficient to render them suspected of themselves For doe you thinke that a â—â—e from the 〈◊〉 of S. Thomas sent from some sleight Mercenarie of the Pope to his mancipated servants the Iesuites in a matter that concernes the Popes greatnes so neerely is to be received as an infallible Argument Neither if this Papall altitude could stand upon true grounds would it need â—uch counterfeit supporters as these two Epistles cited by the Iesuit in regard they declare theÌ„selves counterfeite and are acknowledged for no better by their owne For if this Epistle were written to Pope Marke after the Arians burnt their bookes at Alexandria surely it must be many yeares after Pope Marke was dead their burning being in the raigne of Constantius y Athanasius Epistol ad orthodoxos in persecut when â—â— Pope Marke died in the time of Constantines government z Hieron in Chron. Further how could this Epistle lye hid when the controversie was betwixt the African Church and the Roman Bishops Besides could Marke send to Athanasius in Egypt when it is apparant by Baronius that he was â—â— Exul in France a Baron â—om 3 ad anâ—um 336 â— 39 Exul ho 〈◊〉 agebat â—â— Galliâ—â— Could the Roman Coppie and that of Alexandria so farre differ as wee see they did if the Pope had sent a true Exemplar ex Romano scrinie And not to presse the Reader any further What trifling follies doe they impute to the Niceâ—â— Fathers as to publish these Canons halfe Latinâ— halfe Greeke perswading that fourtie were made by the Greeke Fathers fourtie by the Latine and to insert tenne Cannons amongst the rest in relation to the seaventie languages which they conceived to bee in the whole world or the seventie disciples and all this by the assistance of the Spirit of God b Epistola Athanasij Aegiptiorum Episcoporum ad Marcum Papam Saâ—e praesentibus nobis octoginta capitula in memorata tractaâ—â— sunt Synodo scilicet quadraginta à Latinis similiter Latinis
of Bishops in the Roman See that invincible rock upon which Christ built his Church For who will dreame that Father to esteeme that present seate or succession to be the rocke for any other reason then because they held the rocke confessed by Peter And in this sence not only Peters successors at Rome but all other successors of Peter the rest of the Apostles might bestiled rocks p Origen in Math hom 1. Petra est 〈◊〉 omnis qui imitator est Christi ex quo bibebant qui bibebant de spiritali consequenti petra Et super omni hujusmodi petra aedificatur ecclesia Dei In singulis enim quibuscunque perfectis qui habent in se congregationem verborum oâ—erum sensuum omnium qui hujusmodi beatitudinem operantur 〈◊〉 Eccelesia Dei cui portae non praevalent inserorum Si autem â—per unum illum Petrum arbitraris Vniversam Ecclesiam aedificari à Deo quid dicis de Iacobo Iohanne filijs tonitrui vel de singulis Apostolis Vere ergo ad Petrum quidem dictum est â—u es Petrus c. tamen omnibus Apostolis omnibus quibuscunque perfectis fidelibus dictum viâ—â— retor For why may not those churches that cleave fast to the rock of faith be called rocks to stay and adheare unto q Iranaeus l. 4. c. 43. Ijs qui in Ecclesijs sure presbyteris oporter obaudire qui successionem habent ab Apostolis quicunque cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundùm beneplacitum patris acceperunt Idem c. 44. Adherere his qui Apostoloâ—um doctrinam oustodiunt cum presbyterij ordine sermonem sanum conversatio nem sine offen sa praestant as well as the Roman her Bishops in regard Augustine saith in that very Psalme that if any man come full of the Catholicke faith wee are wont to give eare unto him as unto these men r August in Psalm contra partem Donati Talis si quis ad te veniat plenus Catholica side Quales illoâ— sanctos viros omâ—es solemus audire But what makes the former words to the Iesuites conclusion Doth S. Augustine here declare Roman Preists Successors to Peter in a Monarchicall estate or such unmoveable grounded rocks that all the Churches in time to come must be grounded upon them Surely the sesuite will never finde this to bee S. Augustines meaning but from what the Roman Preists had beene and from what for the present they were alluding to our Saviors words he doth stile them a rock that the gates of Hell did not at that time prevaile against making them a good directory to truth whilst they adheared to the Apostles doctrine For by the course of that Psalme we cannot conceive S. Augustine to have thought otherwise in regard he doth not give the Bishop of Rome power to end and determine that controversie but maketh Donatus his request to have his cause heard at Rome to be unjust telling us what the Emperour had ordained that divers Bishops Preists should heare the matter not the Roman Bishop alone Å¿ August ibid Nam Donatus cùm volebat Africam totam obtiâ—ere Tunc Iudices transmarinos petijt ab Imperatore Sed haectam unjust petitio non erat de charitate Hoe ipsa veritas clamaâ— quam vclo modo refeâ—e Nam consensit Impeâ—â—â—or â—â—â—â—t quae soderenâ— Romae Sacerdotes qui tunc possent Caeciliano cuâ— illâ— audite which he would not have done I suppose if the Bishop of Rome had had that Monarchy by Apostolicall succession which now they pretend by that title to enjoy But there is not a word of Augustine that proveth the Roman Bishops Successors of Peter in any office power or Bishoprick or so much as maketh him Bishop of Rome That he had his seate there where the Roman Preists had their Succession he insinuateth but in this place he telleth us no more nor so much as Eusebius who beginneth the Roman Bishop with Linus t Eusebius hist Eccles l. 3. c. â— Linus verò primum post Petri Pauli Martyrium Romanae Ecclesiae Episco patum sorâ—iâ—ut est for the words of Eusebius after the martyrdome of Peter and Paul can no more make Peter Bishop of Rome then Paul and I thinke they will not admit two Bishops at once in one Citie Much more might be urged to shew that the Iesuite hath produced S. Augustine to testifie that which hee never thought of But I will come to Chrysostome whom the Iesuite produceth expecting much from him because hee nameth Peters Successours Why saith he did Christ shed his bloud but to regaine those sheepe the care of whom he committed both to Peter and to Peters Successours u Reply pag. 59 I aske the Iesuite whether he thought the Apostles had no commission from Christ to have a care of his sheepe whether Goe ye into all the world and preach the Gospell to every creature * Marke 16. 15 did commaund no care of CHRISTS flocke or whether there be no successors of Peter but the Bishops of Rome Cardinall Cusanus cannot deny that all Bishops are the successours of Peter x Nich. de Cusa Card. l. 2. De concord cath c. 13. Non possumus negare omnes Episeopos esse ejusdem successores Scilicet Petri And S. Chrysostome in the very place cited by the Iesuite expresseth himselfe to be free from the conceit that the Bishops of Rome are S. Peters onely Successours For why should he perswade Basil to be minde full of his dutie hee being a Bishop from this reason because CHRIST said to Peter Lovest thou me Feede my sheepe and because the care of his sheepe are committed to Peter and his successours y See Chrysostomes testimony produced before in the beginning of the Section if hee had not beene one of them This title I have shewed before doth belong to other Bishops as well as Romane neither is it denyed by Bellarmine himselfe z Bellarm de Rom. Pont. l. â— c. 23. Respondeo in Apostlatu continâ—â— Episcopatum Episcopes succedere Apostolis and therefore I may forbeare here further to presse it The next is Leo but I shall not neede to speake to that which is urged from hâ—m here in regard I shall have more occasion in the next Section He loved to be great and to make Peter greater then he should be for his owne sake as I have in some things before declared shall hereafter more fully shew Yet all that hee desired I suppose was not so great licentiousnesse as the Bishop of Rome desireth and would have all to attribute unto himselfe Now commeth the Bishop of Ravenna Peter Chrysologus in his Epistle to Eutyches You are not much beholding to that See that you should bring a Bishop from thence to give testimony for you but what saith hee Wee desire thee honorable brother that thou wilt listen dutifully unto those things which
in the Acts viz. a Bisâ—opricke n Rhem 〈◊〉 upon Luk â— â—â— And although the Iesuite now seeth that Peter can be no Monarch by his Apostleship such extraordinary power being given to others yet it hath beene that which they ever pretended to exalt him whom they would have to be Peters Successour and the Monarch of the Church and therefore they have had their mouthes and rescripts full of Apostle and Apostleship calling his office Apostleship saying that he heareth causes with his Apostleship why should he not determine with it All his instruments of government are Apostolical as Letters Decrees Mandates Buls Pardons Dispensations nay what hath he that is not Apostolicke Whether messenger or Legate Whether Palace Chamber Chancery Seale o Sacraâ— ceâ—am Rom. eccles l 1. Reg. Canc. Apostol Extra do jurejur c. Ego c. Besides how many of the Iesuites counterfeits urged for the Primacy are thought to speake effectually when they attribute to the Pope to sit in the Apostolicall height to have his See Apostolicke his office an Apostleship his priviledges his eminencies Apostolicall Fourthly he would have told them that the auncient Fathers declare in plaine tearmes how Christ grounding his Church upon Peter Mat. 16. committing his flocke to Peter Ioh. 21. wishing Peter to confirme his Brethren and praying for Peters faith that it should not faile Luc. 22. constituted Peter head of his Church upon earth and consequently thereby made him Prince Cheife Captaine Head Leader and Prelate over the rest of the Apostles p Reply pag. 60 But whosoever will weigh his quotations shall perceive that the Fathers have beene onely pretended by him they disdaining any such Monarchie as from those texts the Iesuite laboureth to collect And first for the 16. of Mat. Although the Fathers doe sometimes give Peter the name of the rocke or foundation upon which the Church is builded or grounded yet their meaning is not that the Church is builded upon Peter absolutely and personally but relativelie and from his faith or Christ that hee confessed And therefore Hillary that calleth Peter the foundation of the Church q Hilar. in Mat. 16 Faelix Ecclesiae fundamentum telleth us that not onely to say but also to beleive that CHRIST is the Sonne of GOD this faith is the foundation of the Church r Hillar l. 6. De Trinitat Christum Dei silium non solum nuncupare sed etiam credere Haec fides Ecclesiae fundamentum and in another place hee saith This is the alone happie rocke of faith confessed with the mouth of Peter Thou art the Sonne of the everliving GOD Å¿ Idem l. 2. De Trinitat Vna â—â—aec est faelix fidei Petra Petri ore confessa Tu es filius Dei vivi S. Basill also saith that CHRIST is truely a Rocke unmoveable but Peter is so from the Rockâ— Christ t Basil serm de Pâ—niten Christus verè Petra est inconcussa Petrus vero propter Petram And S. Ambrose concludeth u Ambros ser â— Recte igitur qui Petra Christus Simon nuncupaâ—â—s est Petrus â—â— qui cum Domino fidei societatem habebat cum Domino haberet nominis Dominici unitatem ut siqut à Christo Christianus dicitur ita à Petra Christo Petrus Apostolus vocaretur that rightly therefore because CHRIST is the rocke was Simon called Peter that so he that had a society of faith with his Lord might also have the unitie of his name that as a Christian taketh his denomination from CHRIST so Peter the Apostle might â—â—ke his name from the rocke CHRIST So also saith Gregory Nissen The LORD is the rock of faith even the foundation as the LORD himselfe saith to the Prince of the Apostles Then art Peter and upon this rocke I will build my Church x Gregor Nissenus cap. postremo testimoniorum con Iudaeos Dominus est Peâ—â—â— fidei â—â—â—quam fundamentum ut ipse Dominus ait ad principe◠〈◊〉 Tu es Petrus super â—anc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam 〈◊〉 And S. Augustine teacheth us that The Church is founded upon a rocke from whence even PETER took his name For the rocke tooke not its denomination from PETER but PETER from the rocke even as CHRIST taketh not his name from Christians but a Christian from CHRIST y August truâ—â— 124. in Iohan. Ecclesia fundata est super petram â—â— de Petrus nomen accepit Non enim à Petro petra siâ—â— Petrus à petra siâ—â— non Christus à Christianis sed Christianus à Christâ— vocatur Theodoret shall conclude for this particular who telleth us that Blessed PETER or rather the LORD himselfe layed the foundation for when PETER said thou art CHRIST the Sonne of the living GOD the LORD said upon this rocke I will build my Church Bee not you therefore denominated from man for CHRIST is the foundation z Theodoret. in 1. Cor. 3. Fundamenâ—â—â— jecit beatus Petrus vel pâ—tius ipse Dominus Cum enim dixisset Petrus Tu es Christuâ— filius Der viâ—â— dixir Domiâ—â— super hanc 〈◊〉 â—rarâ— aedificabo EcclesiammeaÌ„ Ne voâ—â—â— go denominaâ—â— ab hominibus Christus 〈◊〉 â—â—◠〈◊〉 So that the Iesuite may see how Peter was the rocke and foundation by confessing and preaching CHRIST the true rocke The latter of which duties to wit preaching CHRIST is so bitter â—nto their Popes that I thinke they had rather forsake their Rock-ship then be tyed thereunto And as the Church was no otherwise grounded upon Peter then you have heard from the Fathers so neither was the flocke of CHRIST Io. 21. committed to Peter in the Roman sence For feeding is not domineering that which before did point out a sheepheard must not now constitute a Prince or Monarch But not to descant upon this place in every particular the Iesuite may take notice that there want not Fathers that thinke the other Apostles had as much interest in feeding as Peter himselfe and that hee received no new power by his pasce oves this is cleare from the reasons that the Fathers give wherefore CHRIST spake onely to Peter As first not to give him a new power and Commission but to stirre him up to conâ—â—sse his LORD thrice as before hee denyed him So Augustine tract in Iohan 123. Cyrillus in Iohan. lib. 12. cap. 64. Secondly that hee might renewe the Apostle shippe for so saith Cyrill But CHRIST said fiede my Lambes renewing unto him the dignitie of his APOSTLESHIP least it might seeme to be lâ—st for his denyall which happened by humane informitie a Cyrillâ—â— in Io. l. 12. c 64. Dixit autem pasce agâ—â—◠〈◊〉 Apostolâ—â—â—s ei renovâ—â—â—â— dignitatem ne propter â—egatioâ—em quae human◠〈◊〉 accidit lâ—befactaâ—i videreâ—â—â— What new power is here given What ordinarie jurisdiction that ordinarily did not belong to the rest Here is the old Apostleship renewed to Peter which by denyall of his Master he
might feare he had lost This is all we finde by the Auncient in pasce oves And if the Iesuite will permit it with patience besides the places formerly cited their owne Counterfeit that hath a name of antiquity telleth us that the rest of the Apostles received honour power in equall fellowship with Peter b Anaâ—letus ad â—pisâ— Italiae Epist 2. dist 21. c. In â—oâ—o teâ—â—â—m â—â—eeti verò Apostoli â—â—m codem pâ—ri consortio honoâ—em potestatem acâ—â—â—erunt And Ambrose will not favour Rome so much though he ruled at Millaine but that he will acknowledge that Peter did not only receive the charge of them but himself and all Bishopâ— received it with Peter c Ambros de dignit sacerd â— â— Pasce oveâ—â—eat Quas oves quem â—â—â—gem noâ—â—â—lum tunc 〈◊〉 susceâ—it Petrâ—s fed et cum illo â—â—s noâ— susceâ—imus omnes And as they received the commission with Peter so likewise did they performe the worke for so say your Romane Cleargie CHRIST said thâ—â— unto Simon Lovest thou me hee answered I love thee hee saith unto him fâ—ede my lambes Wee know this word was performed by the very act of Peters obedience and the rest of the disciples did so likewise d Epist Cleri Rom. ad Clerum Carth. apud Cyprian epist 3. Sed et Simoni fie dicit Diligiâ— me â—â—spondit diligo â—â— ei Pasce oves hoâ— verbum factum ex actu ipso quo cessit cognoscimus eâ— eâ—teri discipuli similiter 〈◊〉 Yea this is acknowledged by Cyprian for a common dutie and no particular prerogative of Peter All the Apostles are Pasters but the flock is shewed to be one which is fed of all the Apostles with an unanimoâ—â— consent e Cyprian de Vnitate Eccles E◠〈◊〉 â—unt 〈◊〉 sed grex 〈◊〉 ostenditur qui ab Apostolis omnibus 〈◊〉 consensioâ—â— pascatur And therefore Gregory from this place doth argue that they faile of love to CHRIST that performe not this duty of feeding the flock Whosoever saith he being endued with gifts refuseth to â—eede the Lords flocke is convinced not to love the cheife Pastor f Gregor l. 1 de cura past c 5. Si diligis me paâ—ce oves meâ—â— Si ergo dilectionis est testimonium cura pastonis Quisque virâ—â—tibus pollâ—â— gregem Dei pascere 〈◊〉 it pastorem 〈◊〉 convincitur non aâ—â—râ— Neither doth the other place Luc. 22. in the â—â—dgment of the Ancient make S. Peter otherwise then the rest of the Apostles For saith Ignatius CHRIST prayed that the faith of the APOSTLES should not faile g Ignatius ad Smyrnen Epistola â— Dominus Iesus Châ—â—stus rogaviâ— ne deficâ—ret fidâ—â— a postolorum and Clemene telleth us that CHRIST euen now saith as in times â—ast when we were gathered together I have asked that TOVR faith should not faile h Clemens constitut l. 6. c. â— Hic dicet nunc sicut antea nobis in unum congregatis de nobis aiebat Rogavi ne deficiaâ—â—â—des vestra And Augustine readeth these words in that manner that it concludeth all the Apostles I have prayed for you that YOVR faith faile not i Augustin de verbis Domiâ—i in Luc. ser 36. Igo rogavi pâ—trem pro vobâ—â— ne deficiat â— des vestra Whereby the Iesuite may see that these texts in the judgment of the Ancient Fathers make not Peter to be as he would perswade constituted Head of the Church upon Earth and consequently neither Prince Cheife Captaine Head Leader and Prelate over the rest of the Apostles with such soveraigne power as is pretended What the Iesuite citeth out of Hierome and Leo have received answere before Nothing remaines in this Section but his more particular answere to the most reverend the Lord Primate his enquires and first saith he When our Answerer then made his first Inâ—uirie Whether the Apostleship was not ordained by our Saviour CHRIST as a speciall Commission which being personall onely was to determine with the death of the first Apostle Answere might soone have beene returned that the Apostleship indeed ended with the Apostles yet not that Apostolicall power of headship and Iurisdiction Reply pag. â—â— First here is poore forgetfulnes for but now Peter was Head of the Church not as he was an extraordinary Embassadour for therein the Apostles had equall iurisdiction with him over all Christian people but as the ordinary Pastor not onely over all nations but also over the very Apostles themselves and now in this place the Headship must bee Apostolicall power and not ordinarie Iurisdiction Secondly I desire the Iesuite to expound this riddle How the Apostleship ended with the Apostles yet not the Apostolicall Headship and Iurisdiction seeing the power Apostolicall iâ— whomsoever it be found doth make an Apostle they being so stiled for their Commission and power received and not for any other reason that the Iesuite can assigne Thirdly I would gladly know whether this Apostolicall Headship doth consist in infallibilitie of doctrine immediate calling extent of Iurisdiction in binding or loosing in punishing or pardoning teaching or ruling the Church of GOD See the Rhe mists annotations upon Luke 6. 13 for if it be found in these the Apostles enioyed it if out of these let the Iesuite seeke into what place this Saul is runne to hide it selfe But this Head of the Church that hath ever beene acconuted an Apostle hath now lost this title for the Iesuite tels us that the Apostleship ended with the Apostles yet not that Apostolicall power of Headship and Iurisdiction which CHRIST for the better government of his Church gave to S. Peter the which Apostolicall power although it doth not absolutely make the man upon whom it descendeth an Apostle yet it maketh him Apostolicall And this is all which is meant whensoever in the Lawyers yearsbookes or elsewhere the Pope is called by the name of Apostle m Reply pag. 60 What he assumes to bee given to Peter hath beene before plainely shewed to be a vapour and sume from a full stomacke That the Pope is no Apostle we easilie grant yet heereby we may learne that they have sometimes taken to themselves those titles that their evidence could not warrant for by the Iesuits confession the Pope hath been stiled what he is not to wit an Apostle Yet this will not satisfie them sometimes to be an Apostle barely in succession but Peter the Apostle himselfe for so Pope Stephen doth proclaime himselfe PETER saith he called an Apostle of IESVS CHRIST to you most excellent men Pipin Charles and Charlemaine three Kings and to all Bishops Abbots Preists Monks Dukes Earles and Generalls c PETER the Apostle called by CHRIST and ordained to be the enlightner of all the world to whom hee committed his 〈◊〉 saying 〈◊〉 my 〈◊〉 I the Apostle PETER whose adopted sinnes you are admonish you 〈◊〉 you presently come and define this 〈◊〉 from the hands of
rightly be tearmed unspotted or no a Reply pag. 6â— In discussing whereof hee durst not free this Church of his so much adored from all spots but onely those which are of misbeleife b Reply pag. 6â— and spots of misbeleife whose spots can they be Not the true Churches foâ— that company which beleiveth not aright cannot be esteemed the Church Vniversall or Particular so that every pure Church in this sense hath equall priviledge though he pretends it for the onely triumph of the Roman 〈◊〉 every man for â—e that is an Heretick truly 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 appelâ—ation 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 of CHRIST neither of the Church But the Iesuites preface is full of confidence As the Answerer provoked me to the former disputation though I weene to his smart so doth he give me the like occasion to buckle with him in this e Reply pag. 6â— Whom have we here Hercules with his distasse smart your Fathers and fellowes use not to make such worthies smart you had rather destroy then wound men of his quality But where or when was this smart given I am sure wound or scarre we see none Surely the Iesuite hath bene Chaplaine to the knight Errant that fights sleeping that conquers in his dreames otherwise he could not stand so fortified with imagination as he here appeares Nemo alieno sensu est miser he feeles nothing he complaines not it is not sufficient to prove that he smarts because you conceite that you have given him a wound this hath declared your desire but not manifested the event you presume of But the Iesuite seemeth to promise as much in this Section because in a twitting fashion the Answerer saith that he not onely confounded Urbem Orbem but also mingled heaven and earth together by giving the title of unspotted unto the Catholicke Church of Rome â— Reply pag 62 Hath not this just charge a just ground If unspotted be a property belonging to the triumphant Church can it without confusion be attributed to any Church upoÌ„ earth How this word unspotted is taken in antiquity S. Augustine hath determined and the Iesuite saith nothing materially in opposition why should it not then continue in it's strength still I would know whether the Church in generall or in her members can be without spots that is not defiled in manners though free from false beleife The Church that was free as much as humane imperfection would permit confesseth herselfe blacke though comely * Cant. 1. 5. And the Iesuites citation out of Paâ—â—anus acknowledgeth a freedome onely from heresies Paciâ—â— epist 3. Ecclesia est non habens â—aculam neque rugam hoc est haereses non 〈◊〉 which every true Church and true member hath But how will the Iesuite prove the Roman Church unspotted First hee must have two things graunted him according to his present understanding or â—lse a â—ople First by the Roman Church we must understand the Church universall as hath beene declared saith he in the former Section f Reply pag. â—â— Secondly Vnspotted must have relation to spots of misbeleife only And then I say saith the Iesuit that the Roman Church hath ever bene found and will alwayes remaine in that kind unspotted even unto the end of the world g Reply ibid. This is after-wit but if the Iesuit hath not proved the Roman Church to be the universall in the former Section if the universall hath beene without spots of misbeleife when the Roman in her prime-member hath bene infected with Leprosy this will declare that the Roman Church if their positions be true was not without spots or Catholick either For the first the Iesuite would get by Petition that by the Roman Church is understood the Church universall But let him know it is too great an almes to grant an Adversary Ioh. Sansour in Polycratic l. 6. c. 24. Romana Ecclesia quae materomnium ecclesiarum est se non tam matrem exhibet alijs quam novercam Sedentin eâ Scribas Phâ—risae ponentes onâ—â—a importabiliâ— in humeris hominum quae digito non coâ—â—ngunt and too great an imposture to be approved in them For I am sure no modest man will dreame that the Church of CHRIST could be so forsaken by CHRIST that it were not worthy to be governed but by reprobates as Aliace testifies of the Roman Church h Card de Aliaco lib. de Reform Eccl. cap. de Reform religionum In proverbium abierit Ad hunc statum venisse Romanâ—â— Ecclesium ut non fit digna regi nisi per reproboâ— The Catholicke Church were a poore mother to instruct Gods Saints if she did not shew her self so much a mother as a stepmother if in it fit the Scribes and Pharisees Hereticks long since condemned by Christ and yet Iohannes Sarisburiensis affirmes this of your Roman Church Besides those which have bewayled her corruptions have told us that prophesie is now quite extinct in the Church and it is accomplished that is written 3. Kings 22. I will goe forth and be a lyeing Spirit in the mouth of all the Prophets k Aâ—aâ— Pelagde planctu Ecclesiae l. x. act 5 Ad literam hoâ—â—â— in Ecclesia deficit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod scribitur 3. Regum 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this were harsh for any to affirme of the Catholicke Church of God Moreover it is crosse to reason it selfe to make the Roman the Catholicke Who will thinke that the whole is not greater then the part that Catholicke and Roman are ejusdem ambitus that the Churches Subsistency must depend upon that which will faile that must be utterly overthrowne l Ribeâ—â— Iescom in Apocal. 14. num 44. 48. Babylon significat Romam in fine mundi futuram Besides were there no Saints nor Martyrs before Rome was converted Nay were all the Roman Converts malefidians before Peter confirmed them in the Faith Poore Stephen thou art little behoulding to this Iesuite that Heaven must now be shut to thee which Christ opened * Acts 7. 36. at thy Matyredome But this Grand-imposture hath beene lately layed open by the reverend and learned the Lord Bishop of Leichfield and therefore I may heere forbeare it For the Second I will breifly declare the Iesuites Vanitie herein and first to take away all ambiguitie S. Augustine that useth this tearme of unspotted not of the Primitive Roman but of the auncient Catholicke Church expoundeth what he meant by the same Wheresoeuer in these bookes I have made mention of the Church not having spot or wrinckle it is not so to be taken as if she were so now but that she is prepared to be so when she shall appeare to be glorious For now by reason of certaine ignorances and infirmities of her members the whole Church hath cause to say every day Forgive us our Trespasses m August Retract l. 2. c. â—8 Vbi cunque iâ— his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 memorari Ecclesiam
Marcellini At 〈◊〉 Pontifex ad sacrificia gentium ductâ—â— cum 〈◊〉 instarent carnificeâ— ut thura dijs exhiberet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deos alienos adoravit others But it may be they will say a Pope may have spots of Paganisme yet not of Heresie but I thinke any man will conceive that if the Pope may practise against all the points of Christian Faith and turne Pagan he may well turne Hereticke and pleade against one and then farewell the blessed Prerogative of an invincible perpetuity of unspotted faith Not many yeares after Liberius was Pope and although some desire to mince it yet is it plaine that he was an Arian Hereticke subscribed to that heresie as Athanasius i Athanasius in Epistola ad solimariam vitam agentes Liberius deinde post exactum in exilio biennium inflexus est minisque mortis ad subscriptionem inductus est and S. Hierome k Hieronymus Catal Script Eccles â—ortunatianus Episcopus Liberium Romae urbis Episcopum ad subscriptionem Haereseos compulit Idem in Chronico Liberius taedio victus exilij in haeteticam pratitatem subscribenâ— testifie Yea so publicke was the report hereof even in our late ages that many eminent Papists as Cusâ—â—â—â— l Nich. de Cusa Candiâ—â—al l. 2 de Concord Cathol c 5. Et licet Liberius Papa tunc suit qui ut scribit Augustinus contra Crescentium Arianae sectae se subscripsit licet resisteret in principio propter hoc in exilium missus esset habetur elegans disputatio Constan â—ij Imperatoris Liberij rediit autem de exilio Victus consensit errori ut scribit S. Hieronymus in Chronicis Platina m Platina de vita Liberij I Constantius Liberium ab exilio terocat qui Imperatoris beneficio motus â—â—m haereticis in rebus omnibus ut quidam voâ—â—nt senticas Sabellicus n Anton. Sabellicus Ennead 7. l. 8. c. 36. Hiprecibus suis apud Constantinum in Felicis iâ— vidiam Liberio reditum ad urbem confecere quo ille beneficio 〈◊〉 ex consesso Arianus ut quidam scribunt est factus and others made no doubt from the testimony of antiquity to charge him with it Surely if an Arian Head be no spot to Roman infallibilitie what will besmeare it These may fuisse to shew their Popes in the â—est times not to have beene without spots And now if in the best times of rhe Roman Church when it was most pure this pretended head was bespotted with heresie how can we expect that he should be blessed with such a prerogative to be infallible to others And indeede Experience hath confirmed our judgments herein For in the seaventh age Honorius was a Monothelite condemned by the judgment of three Councels o Concil VI. Occumeâ—icum Act. 13. Concil VII Occumenicum Act. 7. Concil VIII Occumenicum Act. 7. his own Epistles witnessing against him p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epistolae Honoris ad Sergium una in VI. Synodo act 12. altera ibidem Act. 13. â—â—â—â—raque autem Honorius approbat doctrinam Sergij principis Monothelitarum jubet non debere dici Christum duas habere voluntates aut operationes Pope Leo the second execrating him q Leo II. ad 〈◊〉 Imperatorem Epist 2 Anathemaâ—izamus novi erroris Inventorâ—s id est Theodoâ—â—â— c necnon HONORIVM qui hanc Apostolicam Ecclesiam non Apostolicae traditionis doctrina lustravit sed prophanâ proditione immaculatam fidem 〈◊〉 conatus est In the XIIth age Alphonsus de Castro affirmes Celestine the III. no way to be excused of teaching Heresie to wit that Heresie so dissolves matrimonie that a partie may marrie againe r Alphons de Castro adv haer l. 1 c. 4. Coelestinum Papam etiam errâsse circa matrimonium fidelium quorum alter labitur in haeresim res est omnibus manifesta In the XIIIIth Age Iohn the XXIIth taught that the Saints departed saw not God before the Resurrection Å¿ Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c 14. Ioannes XXII Papa à multis reprehenditur ac praessertim à Galielmo Ocam in opere â—â— dierum ab Adriano in quaestione de confirmatione circa â—nem quid docucrit animas beato â—um non visuâ—as Deum ante resurrectionem Erasmus praefat one ad ad librum 5. Ireâ—aei idipsum cum additamento affirmat In the XVth Centurie Iohn the XXIIIth denyed the Resurrection and life eternall and was accused of pertinaciâ— therein t Concil Constâ—ntiâ— self â—â— See this at large before pag. 53 Bellarmine telleth us at that time there were three pretenders for the Papacie so that it could not easily bee discerned quis eorum verus ac legitimus esset Pontifex which of them was the true and lawfull Pope u Bellatâ—n de Rom Poâ—â— l 4. c 14. Erant enim co temporâ—tres qui Pontifices haberi volebant Gregorius XII Benedictus XIII et Ioannes XXIII nec poterat facilè indicaaâ—i quis eorum verâ—s ac legitimus esset Pontifeâ— cùm non decssent singulis doctissimi patroni So that it seemed the Councell of Constance did not adhere to the Pope nor the Pope to the faith Now let the Reader judge what great reason we have to be waile our selves that we want this pretended infallible rule of faith which cannot rule it selfe and free the adherents thereto from errour how farre these Puritans are from the Catholicke humilitie that defend their staines when the auncienâ— Fathers best men in their journeying towards heaven did bewaile their imperfect estate hungred for that righteousnes and perfection that was to come And what cause have we to blush that the particular Church of Ireland is lyable to errour when the best particular Churches in the world never assumed a better Condition But is the Iesuits inference concludent here because our Church is lyable to error therfore it cannot with reason challenge to it selfe the title of unspotted Here is not so much as silly Sophistry the Churches of Ephesus Thessalonica Philippi in the Apostles dayes were lyable to error therfore bespotted posse et esse are two distinct things A Iesuite may be a true subject but it doth not follow therefore in an instant he forsakes his order And a Pope may be a Saint but who will thinke it necessary that hee will without delay forsake his tyrannicall condition The Church of Ireland may erre in faith yet it doth not follow that it is now bespotted with heresie or hereafter will bee So that it may have alliance and affinitie with all true auncient Churches true members of the Catholicke for any thing the Iesuite hath yet produced Yet as if the Iesuite had dreamed all this while and did now awake he bolts out with a phantasticke flourish Let them take then saith the Iesuite if they will their erring Church unto themselves but let them not withall deny us leave to sticke unto that
amended which were scarse espyed in their times How doth every Councell disgrace the knowledge grace and courage of former Fathers and Bishops if the amending of things amisse might conclude the same m Augustin â— â—apt con Donat c. 3. Ipsaque plenaria saepè priora à posterioribâ—â— emeâ—dari sine 〈◊〉 typho sacrilegae superbiâ— sine â—lla inâ—â—â—tâ—cervice arrogantiae fine ulla coâ—â—entione lividae invidiâ— cum â—â—â—e catholick cum charitate 〈◊〉 Have not some of your bretâ—ren found out new thoughts concerning the blessed Virgins conception which will take away the harsh doctrine of the Fathers and Catholicks of former times Shall wee thinke that these tumultuoâ—â— upstarts have therefore more knowledge grace or courage then those ancient Fathers the whole Catholicke Church Litle honour was given to the Roman See before the Councell of Nice Aeneas Sylv. epist 301. must we conclude that your after Doctours had more knowledge grace or courage then the Apostles and Fathers before that Councell because they have washed and cured GODS Church of so notorious an errour I see the Iesuite is of the Cardinalis Matthee Langi Archbishop of Salzburg Hist con Triâ—en l. 1. minde that did thinke the Church should bee reformed but not by a Monke But they are Popish thoughts to have the reformation or government of the Church to depend upon men Wee have a Rule left by CHRIST which as it is the rule to governe so to reforme what by fraud or neglect hath crept into the Church amisse We acknowledge GOD hath many instruments in the Church but that which worketh reformation is the word of God and although the Instrument may have honour for the works sake yet it is the word not the instrument that effects the reformation Why the Iesuite should tearme those learned men tumultuous upstarts I cannot guesse for I am sure they were as auncient as there Order and for tumultuous practices who dare compare with Iesuites for grand supplanters Whereas the Iesuite thinkes to vilifie them by his heape of invectives they will appeare true friends to the Catholicke Church by grave and solide discourses pleading her cause and contesting for her right And I would know whether they have sinned in being impatient of the Churches sufferings any more then the Councels of Basill and ConÌ„stance who greived to see a Saracens head upon the Churches shoulders and therefore declared the Churches rights and the Popes usurpations condemning him with his foolish pretences p Concil Constane Sess 4. 10. Concil Basil sess 12. 33. Veritas de potestate concilij generalis universalem Ecclesiam repraesentantis supra Papam queâ—libet alterum declarata per constantiense hoc Basileense generalia Concilia est veritas fidei Catholicae veritatibus praedictis pertinaciter repugnans est confendus Haereticus Wherefore the Iesuite might have left this passion as being grounded upon distemper and fury and have taken his rabblement to himselfe and his to whom truely it belongs But this Iesuite will speake nothing without demonstration and therefore will shew ours to be a deforming rather then a reforming humour q Reply pag 73 and this he would prove because First of all the prime stirrer of this stone Martin Luther had the gift to see in his omne dayes such comfortable successe herein as was answerable to his labours r Reply 〈◊〉 What was that The shaking off the Roman Triple The emptying of the Fryars bellies The restrayning of the Cleargies luxurie No but from the time the pure Gospell was first restored and brought to light the world hath every day become worse and worse Å¿ Reply pag 73. Wee acknowledge that Luther and others complained of the disorders of men that communicated with them but will the Iesuite conclude that these were occasioned by bringing in the doctrine of CHRIST Were the Preachers of the Gospell filled with a deforming rather then a reforming humour because they could not tollerate stewes and prophanenesse where they preached but did inveigh with bitternesse against them If there were a Iesuite that had so much devotion as to reproach the sinnes of the Roman Court or Italie with Luthers courage and should upbrayde them with neglect of the Cleargies example the Popes holinesse and the lampe of divine light that proceedes from him and should crye out that Sodome and Gomorrha never abounded with sinne and Sodomie as Italy notwithstanding their helpes of devotion doth at this present or since Peter placed his seate there Should he therefore confesse that Peter planting his seat there should be the cause of those filthie sinnes and Sodomies or that the Cleargies lives Papall holinesse and determinations did bring prophanenesse into those states and countries Absit The Apostle saith of the Corinthians after they had received the Gospell that there was such fornication amongst them as was not once named amongst the Gentiles * 1. Cor. 〈◊〉 Must it follow that this is to be imputed to the Christian religion No this makes the offence the greater it doth no way cause it and this is the meaning of Luther and most of the others cited The word of God is compared to light in Scripture * II. Peter 1. 19 the light whereof might declare more to Luther a Preacher abroad then when hee remained darke and lazie in his Cloyster at home And we thinke that Luther might deceive himselfe in this particular for not distinguishing betwixt an evill and the detection thereof The Pharisees hypocrisies were not thought such before CHRISTS time His revealing of them brought them not in Luther espyed more mischeife abroad when he veiwed mens actions by the light of the word then he could before by a Roman Gloworme and this might make him thinke the world worse when his eyes had more light and his medium was more cleare When Grace entereth into a mans heart hee trembles at every thought of uncleanenesse that before the receipt thereof in regard of blindnesse could not see the odiousnesse of the filthiest crimes And man as he cannot esteeme vertue but by this light of grace so hee cannot apprehend the foulenesse of sinne So that Luther might get fruite by his preaching though he was bold to say of some that pretended to follow him They are and remaine swyne they beleive like swyne and like swyne they dye Reply pag. 73 But doth M. Malone urge this for the credite of the Swyneheard or the Swyne For the harlet or her lovers Poore Luther because the Swyne that Rome had bred in filthinesse would not leave their swynish condition for his preaching against their swynishnesse this is the thing hee bewayles And what great hurt comes thereby to Luthers cause or the cause of Religion whose complaints may be paralelled by the Prophets * 〈◊〉 49 4. and Apostles themselves And heere to satisfie the Reader I would have him to observe some things fit to bee taken notice of and it will over-throw all
speake without ground for the controversies betwixt the Lutherans and the Calvinists as they tearme us are but like a coale as Sr Edwin Sands well observeth which a wise man with a little moisture of his mouth might soone have quenched although their ministers with the winde of others have contrarywise enflamed the same Sr Edwin Sands his Relation 〈…〉 Neither doth it make against the peace of the Church in faith that some have rashly and passionatly urged our diffâ—rences against the judgment of their more moderate and well advised brethren who accompt no otherwise of the Calvinists then of erring brethren Ibid. And further the Iesuite cannot manifest that the points wherewith the Lutherans are offended be in their owne nature of the essence of faith which hee must doe before hee can proove us to bee no Church the quarrels mentioned by the Iesuite arising not from disunion of faith in the foundation but from some dislikes and jealousies which some indiscreet persons amongst them entertaine in points farre remote and therefore their rash censure can condemne us no more then the Popes Bulla câ—na unlesse wee condemne our selves by denying some part of the foundation of â—aith For the Brownists They condemne us with us the Catholick Church by their schisme and we also condemne them as the ancient Fathers did all the factious schismaticks in their ages But doth this make us no true members of the Catholicke Church Is our candlestick removed because an heard of schismaticks bark against us Did your Marrani baptized Iewes and Moores y S â— Edw. 〈◊〉 his Relat. 〈◊〉 44. make Spaine non-catholick Or did the Illuminati in Arragon the brood of your hypocriticall Preists by their pretences of Angelicall puritie z Ibid. banish that Church from the kingdome of grace This is neither Sophistrie nor Logicke For the words that he citeth froÌ„ the Puritans No man can deny but they are the fruit of distemper disobedience yet unable to drag with the Iesuite the conclusion which he aymeth at for their dissention is not in fundamentalls nay it is so far froÌ„ the foundation that it is no way doctrinall This youâ— Turne-about Spalato when he was in England perceived told it his brother Suares a Spal con Suar. c. ◠〈◊〉 30. 〈◊〉 qui vocantuâ— circa articuâ—â—s fidei non dissentiunt sed circa 〈◊〉 externam Ecclesiaâ—â—icam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though afterwards he fâ—amâ—d them a lying Catalogue b 〈◊〉 â—â— p. â—5 But it may be the Iesuite will bettet perceive the weaknes of his Argument If wee use the strength thereof against himselfe If I should bring before Sixtus the fourth his time the Franciscans and Dominicans bandying Heresie at each others Cloyster damning and condemning each other of heresie not by words alone but in writ also c will the Iesuite conclude that the Roman Church is o Sixt. IV. Decret de Concep Virg Matiae hereticall and keepes not Irenaus his harmony Surely if the Pillars be rotten the roofe is not safe Besides if the Franciscans and Dominicans did see those feirce gladiatâ—res the Iesuites and Seculars in England fight their late combate the Iesuites tearming the Seculars Calumniatorâ— factious turbulent seditious scandalous authors of schisme rebels betrayers of the Catholicke cause d Parson Apolog and the Seculars returning to them tearmes of Schismatickes Donatists Anabaptists Arians with detection of their Counsels Stratagems to be heathenisâ—â— tyrannicall Atheisticall Saâ—nicall to make them like Lucian and Machiavel and for impietie and Atheisme to overcome Lucifer himselfe Watson Quodâ— Would they use the Iesuites Logicke and confesse that the Catholicke Church is not Roman and that Irenaus his harmonie cannot be found there But let all the world veiw the Divell fighting with the Lambe anno 1255 or 56. when the Fryars published their eternall Ghospell and the Pope partaked with them If the Iesuite can finde amongst all the Heretickes that have ever troubled the Church such an essentiall and fundamentall dissention let him swell swagger and display Ignatius for ever for here we finde Fryars more perfect contemplatives then Christ and his Apostles f Henrie Exphurd Chron. c. 93. Eymeric Director Inquisitor part 2. quaest 9. §. 4. 〈◊〉 errores 4. libri 2. partis tractat 2. I Quod Christus Sancti Apostoli ejuse non fuerunt perfecti in vita contemplantium â— Quod activa viâ—a usquâ— ad tempus Abbatis Ioachim frâ—ctuosa fuit sed 〈◊〉 noâ— est contemplativâ— verò vita ab ipso Ioachim fructificarc coepit etamodò in perfect â— successoribusâ—psius perfectiâ—â— manebit of more dignitie and authoritie then the Apostles g Ibid. inter errores â— libri ejusdem partis in tractatu de Ioseph et 〈◊〉 cui somnium apparuit invenitur Quod prae diâ—a â—ores qui erant in ultimo statu mundi erunt dignitatis et auctoritatis majoris quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostoli the Ghospell of CHRIST disgraced as lesse excellent if compared to their eternall Gospell h Ibid. inter errores primae partis Primus est quod Evangelium aeternum quod idem est quod doctrina Abbatis Ioachim excellit doctrinam Christi that it must vanish i Ibid 3. Quod novum Testamentum est evacuandum and another in succession follow it k Ibid. 6. Quod Evangelio Christi aliud Evangelium succedet that it brings none to perfection l Ibid. inteâ— errores 2. libri partis 2. I. Quod Evangelium Christi â—eminem perducit ad perfectum that the Preisthood of CHRIST is not for ever after the order of Melchisedecke but must have an other Priesthood to succeede it m Ibid. intet errores 1. partis 6. Quod sacerdotio Christi aliud sacerdoâ—ium succedet These desperate blasphemies besides other impieties as opposite to the doctrine of CHRIST as the Turkish Alcoran being resisted by the Doctours of Paris What merited these Champions of CHRIST at his Vicars hand They were accompted malicious the Fryars innocent n Extravag Papae Alexandr ex speculo minorum tractat 1. fol. 10. b. edit Rothomagi anno 1509. Firmamento trium Ordiâ—um Francisci part 2. tractat 2. fol. 62. a. edit Paris an 1512. Cogitaverunt nuper malitiam magistri Paris contra innocentes rectos fcil. Fratres Praedicatores iniquitatem maximam sunt locuti they rebels the Fryars the beloved sonnes of the mother Church o Ibid. Surgentes adversus Fratres detraxerunt contra dilectos matris Ecclesiae filios scandalum posuere their defence of CHRIST and his Gospell a pernicious and detestable libell p Ibid. Prodiere inquam in prava commenâ—a ex nimio calore animi proruperunt libellum quendam valde perniciosum detestabilem temere componentes the Fryars excellent instruments working many spirituall proficienâ—es and fruite in the Church q Ibid. In ipso quaedam perversa reproba contra
the Schismes in the Romane Church were contentions for Iustice That Symony was her purchaser Shall we deeme that Iustice enthroned Cardinals above Bishops Fryars before Preists Will Iustice judge GOD'S rule to be dangerous and that man 's is able to lead to perfection Will Iustice inhibite marriage and open the Stewes VRBANVS nihil equi cogitat if wee beleive the Proverbe VRBAN was never yet just how comes he now to be so upright And further as your Monarchie is farre from being either like to GOD or Iustice so shall wee appeare to be farre unlike either to your Malefactors on earth or the damned in Hell Wee are Malefactors Heretickes but by whose judgement save the Hereticks himselfe the most absolute Malefactor on earth Were not the Apostles so stiled What better appellation had Memnon or Cyrill from the Nestorians h Acta Concilial Ephes tom â— Acta Concil Ephes c. 1. p. 774. sequâ—â— But for the damned in Hell I am so farre perswaded of Papall charitie from their fierie Chariots that I doubt not but they would adventure an other Powder-plot to blow us up to Heaven upon condition that his Usurpations in darkenes bee not unlightned and so troubled with us on earth But the Iesuite is impatient and would scorne away this presage As though saith he there hath not beene a generall peace for many ages before the stirring of Luther and his rebellious rout notwithstanding that the Pope did alwayes keepe the same rule in GODS house i Reply pag. 80 The Iesuite to exempt the Bishop of 〈◊〉 from being a disturber of the peace of the Church would prove it from the experience of his peaceable government before Luthers time But he might know that there hath beene no peace at all that we might call the peace of GOD where he hath borne any controule For is it probable that Peace should proceede from him that was alwayes or the most part at warre How many Schismes were there in the Romane See k Stapleton Doctr. Princip l. 23. c. 15. Schismata Rom. Pontiâ—icum viginti numerantur If they could not agree upon their Peace-maker must they not be at warre themselves Had it not beene the best course in those times to bring peace to the Church for to have excluded them altogether from governement But if so great peace were in the Roman Church as you pretend why did the Pope condemne your representative Church of Basil l Epistola Synodalis contra invectivaâ— factam nomine Eugenij Papae qui Epistolae illius exordio dicere ausus est Patres in Conciliâ— congregatos jam fere septem annis ab ipse Christi Vicario aÌ„ supremâ— ApostolicaÌ„ Romanâ— sede Christianorum matre tre capite segregates esse when your Roman Church had censured him for a Schismaticke m Concil Basil Sess 34. If wee by a spirit of giddinesse be divided because there are as the Iesuite saith above a hundred severall sects and varying opinions amongst us n Reply pag. 24. what shal be concluded concerning them that in the hight of their tyrannie and leonine peace haue had six hundred and such as were begotten by posthabiting the Gospels Epistles and Christian wisdome o Cornel. Mus com Rom. 6. pag. 279. Vigebat Spinosa molesta nescio quae Theologia de instantibus de Relationibus de Quidditatibus c. Tota penè aetas in hominum decretis quae inter se pugnantia semper nullo tempore reconcilianda alunt perpetuum per secula litem centerebatur c. Is sublimis Theologus habebatur qui majora portenta pro suis Traditiunculis fingere sciat c. Minc SEXCENTAE Sectae Thomistae Scotistae Occhamistae Albertistae Egidiani Alexandrâ—i c. O secâ—â—â— posthabebantur Evangelia Epistolae Christiâ—â— sapientia delitescebat c. Neither can the Iesuite glory in their Romane peace when in Ferus his judgment In omnibus gentibus major est concordia quam inter Christianos at the time the Pope kept the greatest rule in the Church there was more concord in any nation then amongst the Christians p 〈◊〉 3. De 〈◊〉 Domini And from what fountaine came these quarrells He 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it will decâ—are Because their 〈◊〉 werâ— not as our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Peace Esay 9. but of Warre Alvar. de planct Eccles l. â— art 5. Nec sunt â—odie Prâ—lati principes pacis sicut Christus Esay 9. sed Guerrae And what made the Pope and his Prelates so Mâ—â—tiall Was not the quarrell doctrine and in their divinity the foundation of faith the Supremacie What peace had the Roman Church when Princes resisting their Usurpations their Kingdomes were filled with warre with bloud What Unity of faith could make the sonne breake the bond of nature to his Father the servant the bond of faith to his Lord What peace was there when your Pope denyed marriage to the Cleargie when they bearded your Tyrant charging him with heresie and franticke opinions r Lambertus Schafnaburgensis in histor ann 1074. Hildebrandinus Papa cum Epicopis Italiae conveniens jam frequentibus synodis decreverat ut secundùm instituta antiquorum canonum presbyteri uxores non habeant c. Adversus hoc decretum protinus vehementer interfremuit tota â—actio Clericorum hominem planè haerâ—ticum vesani dogmatis esse clamitans qui oblitus sermonis Domini quo ait Non omnes capiunt hoc verbuÌ„ qui potest capere capiat Et Apostolus Qui se non conâ—inet nubat melius est 〈◊〉 nâ—bere quam uâ—i 〈◊〉 exactione homines viâ—ere cogerat titu Angelorum dum consuetum curâ—â—n naturae negaret fornicationi immundiciae fraena laxaret You talke of Peace and will have the Tyrant the Peace-maker when like a cursed Ismael his hand hath beene against every man every mans against him * Gen. 16. 12. What Prince was not an Hereticke or Schismaticke that resisted his will What Preist or People were not condemned persecuted that would not stoope to this golden Calfe Peace you have had but it hath beene amongst your owne such as Grâ—gory speakes of that the ministers of Antichrist shall be knit together like the scales of 〈◊〉 Å¿ Greg. Moral l. 33. c 24. Quia membra Leviathan istius id est iniquos omnes quos Dei sermo squamarum compactionibus comparat ad defensionem suam par culpa coâ—cordat benè dicitur Vna alteri adhaerebunt tenentes se 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abunâ—ur and this Peace the Turkes have and how have they got it thinke you but as your Popes have obtained theirs by the strangling of their brethren Could not the Arians say that all peace was amongst Arians when they execrated the Catholicke world And who can speake against Roman Peace when by their Bulla coenae they excommunicate all the world but Heretickes This Peace may be found amongst the wicked Nay Hell it selfe cannot stand without it The
strength of his confutation Now as this of Dioscorus hath not beene received by him with any good relish so what the most reverend Primate saith further in this particular is displeasant also I will put them downe at large that the Reader may observe this Astmaticall Iesuite in this particular to pant for breath Neither neede we wonder saith the most learned Answerer that he should beare us downe that the Church of Rome at this day doth not disagree from the Primitive Church in any point of Religion who sticketh not so confidently to affirme that we agree with it but in very few and disagree in almost all Å¿ See the most reverend the L. Primate his answere to the Iesuites challenge pag. 24. To the first the Iesuite saith it is his constant assertion that the Church of Rome at this day doth not disagree from the primitive Church in any point of Religion t Reply pag. 89. Secondly that neither the learned Answerer nor any of ours have ever yet beene able to disproove the same to this day how eagerlie soever they have set themselves against it u Reply pag. 89 Thirdly having no more to say then what his foremen have said before him he referres the Reader to his sound and pregnant evidences throughout the whole volume in the particular points propounded x Reply ibid. To the Iesuites first Assertion I answere that the Iesuite is neither Pope nor inspired and therefore may erre To the second the Iesuite must deny what Protestants have learnedly performed or else betray his God on earth and so breake his mancipiall obligation but as they use to deny any unjust thing whereof they are convicted so of necessitie must they not confesse that evidence whereby they are overthrowne It is as bad as heresie for them to give our writers their merit y Possevin Bibliothee select p. â—30 Vniversa igitur hac â—tactatione haeresim sapit quod Lutherum Calvinum Melancthonem caeterosque nominet honorifice they deny them the honour of their morall partes and therefore have their quidam doctus and tearmes of that cut z Index Hispaâ— fol 148. Bucerus Theologus Deleatur verbum Theologus Ibid Hulderico Zuinglio Theologo Delcatur Theologo Ibid. p. 204 Supprimatâ—â— nomen Calvini ponatut studiosâ—s quidam Now for your last your reforment to your evidences we accept your motion and if in them be found any thing else but corruption and confidence we will confesse you hold with antiquity But the question is so farre from being resolved that your indeavours have made your cause more full of jealousie in regard you have stuffed your volume not as you pretend with multitudes of convincing evidences but with counterfeit authors impertinent allegations as hath bene already discovered and will be further made apparant in the examination of your reply Yea you have cast behinde you all modestie in handling the testimonies brought against you by the most learned Answerer some passing by altogether as unanswerable as in the point of Free-will and others slightly passing over as in many points of your Reply Another of his Assertions is that we agree with the Primitive Church but in verie fewe points of Religion and disagree in almost all z Reply pag. â—9 The most reverend Primate in his answere would know where he should find those few points in which we agree with the ancient Church whether in the points controverted betwixt them and us or else in the whole body of that religion which we professe dare the Iesuite acknowledge our agreement with the Primitive Church in the first Then he must confesse themselves to varie from us where wee agree with Antiquitie and so leaveth small credite unto himselfe who with the same breath hath given out that the present Church of Rome doth not disagree with that holy Church in any point Doth he by those few points wherein he confesseth we do agree with the ancient Church meane the whole body of Religion professed by us Who sees not then the height of impudency Can those points be esteemed few which in truth containe the Apostles Nicene and Athanasian Creeds Do we not adhere to this Religion see our Liturgy doe we not judge heresies by this rule viz. Scripture Creeds and foure first generall Councells See the Statute * Anno 2. â—â—â—zab inter statut Hiberâ— pag 267. if we approved equivocating as they learned of Arius they might suspect us that we speake not as we beleive as they usually practise but our words being plaine our profession loathing your practises especially in points of faith and religion what ground had the Iesuite for these outdaring and outfacing calumnies See the Iesuites defence at large I doubt not but if your cause were good you are of abilitie and learning enough to frame an Argument more soundly and to divide more judiciously then heere you have done For every schooleboy may discerne that by those few points wherein I confesse you agree with the ancient Church I could not 〈◊〉 either of these your two sorts of articles at all b Reply pag. 89 The Iesuite hath bestirred himselfe heere to goe from this Dilemma for first he rayles and revyles the whip the division that afflicts him as if it might more judiciously have bin done and indeed with a schoole-boyes reason because it smarts For how proves he it not judicious but because it cannot cohere with his former words A wise reason The division detects the incongruity of the Iesuits assertions therefore it might more judiciously have bin done proh sapientiâ— But the Iesuite by his confession acknowledgeth that he could not meane these words of our agreeing with the Primitive Church in very few points of Religion to have relation either to the points in controversie betwixt them and us or to the whole body of our Religion and that this is so plaine that a schoole-boy may discerne it And now I would gladly know of the Iesuite a third member that doth not lye under the whole body of our Religion or our negative refutes as they tearme them of their Positions additionall viz t the points controverted betwixt us The Iesuite promiseth something If you urge me saith he to declare what points of Religion thâ—se are wherein I confesse you do agree with the ancient Church c Reply pag. 90 Indeed this is the thing we would know but instead of their enumeration he giveth us a repetition I say again they are but very fâ—w e Reply ibid. an addition yea sâ— few that we may boldly say they are just none at all f Reply ibid. If this be not a meere Bull carry me to your Cloister make a Iesuite of me we agree in few and yet in none at all Christs little flocke might be no flocke if this were sence If here the Iesuite be not amazed let the Reader applaud him For if we agree in none with the ancient Church why doe you
agree with us in any why dâ—â— you beleive one God three 〈◊〉 Christs incarnation crucifixion resurrection and his last comming to Iudgment c. Such as accord therewith in none at all are not heretickes or schismatickes but 〈◊〉 Atheists and Infidels and who 〈◊〉 not but every gâ—pe of the Iesuite is ad oppositum and crosse to himselfe And here wee shall see to what shifts this Iesuite flyes for shelter the question is whether wee agree with the ancient Fathers in points of Religion the Iesuite answeres sometimes in very few an other time in none at all here to justifie this lashing Hyperâ—ole he tells us That howsoever some few points might be assigned in the outward profession whereof you will say you doe not vary from the common faith of Primitive times yet whilst we can shew that in very many points you beleive contrary thereunto and that with all you hold not with the Church Vniversall but have departed from the same we may not yeeld unto you that your inward faith can bee true and sound in any one article whatsoever notwithstanding that from the teeth outward you make professioÌ„ of this your imaginary agreemeÌ„t never somuch g Reply pag. 9â— All which is sliding and beside the point for we speake here of doctrine as in truth of position it doth agree with the ancient Church and not as it respects the act of beleife in the sincere receiving and imbracing of it Suppose we have with us as great a dearth of Saints as you at Rome that Protestants were as bad as 〈◊〉 Popes h Geneb 〈◊〉 in ann Christi 901. Pontificâ—â— circiter â—0 à virtute majorum prorsus defecâ—runt Apotactici Apostaticive potius quà m Apostolici yet notwithstanding this will not make the Apostles Creed to be no ancient faith neither the ancient doctrin which we hold to be hereticall Who doubts that the denyall of one point of the foundation perversly or expresly atleast makes the beleife of all the rest uneffectuall but what will the Iesuite inferre from hence that therefore we have not in the confession of our Church one point of Religion that agreeth with antiquitie We might as well argue that Arius Nestorius a Iesuite had no true and sound inward faith therefore they agreed in no particular doctrines with the ancient Church Or would this consequent found well Many of your Popes have had no true inward faith being such monsters as you have painted them therfore they agreed in no point of faith with the Primitive Church if this conclude well what will become of Papists who are only Catholickes by dependance whose faithes are judged by their adherence to their Head The Iesuit now runs to another shift that of calumnie charging us that we make profession of the ancient faith with an imaginary agreement from the teeth outward i Reply pag. 90 I must confesse we are not so zealous for that doctrin the ancient Church hath taught us the rooting out of your innovations as we ought to be pardon us this but whether you or we embrace the faith of Christ practised and taught in the ancient Church with more sincerity it is not here to be judged but must be left to him that knoweth the secrets of hearts And now we may see how impertinent the Iesuites allegations are Augustin saith that Schismaticks separated from the body of the Church are not in the Church that hereticks schismaticks cannot be profâ—â—â— by the truth they hold with the Church being in their heresie schismâ— that those that keep not communion with the Church are hereticall antichristian according to Prosper k Reply pag. 90 Who denyes this wherin makes it against us If we acknowledge things in controversie that Rome were the Church our selves schismaticks heretiks it were somthing yet nothing to this purpose neither of strength sufficient to prove that we agree not with the ancient Church in any doctrin of faith or point of religion as he should here manifest so that we see his ouâ—facing cannot protect his impudency but that he speakes vainely in charging us that we agree with the primitive Church in very few articles of Religion and just none at all And here Augustine and Prospers wordes are their cut-throats who not only reject coÌ„munion with the Catholick Church but judge that Catholick body to be a schisme and hereticall because it will not joyne in communion with themselves if Augustines and Prospers words may convict a Pope they have force in them sufficient to performe it for though he hold all the doctrine of the primitive church in shew yet fayling in the point of the Church denying the authority thereof and preferring his simple power before the 〈◊〉 authoritie of all the preists of God against the streame of antiquity and the two 〈◊〉 generall Councels of Constance Basill Is it not sufficient to bring him within your capitall letters that his holines and others of like sanctity ARE NOT IN THE CATHOLICKE CHVRCH AT ALL. And thus you see that the Iesuite doth both deceive himselfe others when he would perswade that upon paine of eternall overthrow all mustadhere to the Pope who indeed is taken by them for the ancient Roman Catholick Church And also that the doctrine of the Church of Ireland is sincere and agreeable to the foundation neither by heresie forsaking the doctrine delivered by Christ his Apostles imbraced by the ancieÌ„t Church neither by schisme departing from the body of Christ making their faith uneffectuall But that rule of faith saith the most reverend Primate so much coÌ„mended by Irenaeus Tertullian the rest of the Fathers all the articles of the severall Cteedes that were ever received in the ancient Church as badges of the catholick profession to which we willingly subscribe is with this man almost nothing at all none must now be counted a catholick but he that can conforme his beleife unto the Creed of the new fashion compiled by Pope Pius the 4. some foure fifty yeares agoe l See the moâ—â— reverend the Lord Primate his Answere 〈◊〉 the Iesuitâ— challenge pag. 25. The Iesuit tels us that he hath already made it knowne how far we have strayed from that rule of faith m Reply pag. 91 and we tell him againe that he is deceived in the wanderer and that we have manifested it also and that we doe willinglie subscribe unto all the articles of the severall Creedes that were ever received in the auncient Church although the Iugler †Iesuita est omnis home is jealous we intend nothing lesse then what we say n Reply pag. 91 But it is Iesuitisme to remoove the tongue from the heart equivocating you defend we abhorre it why doe you suspect us but upon a sudden the Iesuite flying from this calumnie without one word to justifie it but his detraction or Iealousie is rapt up with admiration shall
he say of the ignorance or the folly of the Answerer when he upbraides him with a Creed of the new fashion compised by Pope 〈◊〉 the fourth o Reply pag. 91 Nullus sapienâ— admiratur M â— Malone and therfore take the foole with you And howsoever you thinke to defend Pins the fourth by the Practice of the Nicene Councell it will give you no shelter they did you say expresse and declare the ancient faith in a new fashion and forme of words p Reply ibid. So did Athanasius so others but this is not the thingâ— for which you are accused but it is for an Appendix of twelve new points many of which were never accounted of faith till Pius the fourth his time and therefore your ground from which you perswade us to embrace it is unsound viz â— that it was compiled after the like manner without any alteration or innovation of the auncient faith aâ— all q Reply pag. 92 The ancient faith was so necessary to be believed that Athanafius tells us Whosoever wil bee saved it is necessary that he hold the Catholicke faith but your Creed is propounded onely to schollars and cheifely to such as are to receive promotions unto Scholasticall or Ecclesiasticall dignities r Reply pag. 91. Secondly the Apostle S. Iude tells us that the Faith Catholicke was once delivered but all your Trent articles are not so but brought in in after-times by the authority and definition of your Church as Transubstantiation Å¿ 〈◊〉 4. disâ— 11. q. 3. 〈◊〉 in Can. 〈◊〉 â—ect 41. Thirdly in the unitie of the Catholicke faith layde downe t Irenaeus â— 1. â— 3. 3â— by Irenaeus all the founded Churches in Germany Spaine France the East Egypt Lybia and all the world did sweetly agree but upon many of the new articles in your Creed there have been continuall warres controversies betwixt those that you will acknowledge Catholickes as communicating in one kinde Purgatory Indulgences the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches So that these points must be additions or else the Church lost the unity of Faith for a long time together Fourthly 〈◊〉 Lirinensis u Vincen. Lirinen advers prophan novat Cùm sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat and other Fathers x S. Basil l. de vera pia fid Manifesta defectio fidei est importare quicquam â—orum quae scripta non sunt S. Hilar l. 2. ad Const Aug. fidem tandem secundum ea quae scripta sunt defiderantem hoc qui repudiat Antichristuâ— est qui simulaâ— Anathem a eâ—â— S. August l. 2. de doct Christ c. 9. In ijs quae apertè in scriptura posita sunt inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi and some Schoolemen y Scotuâ— Prolog in Sent. q. 2 Scriptura sufficienter continet doctrinaÌ„ necessariaÌ„ viatori Thom. 2. 2. q. 1. a 10. ad 1. In Doctrina Christi Apostolorum veritas fidei est sufficienter explicita make the Scripture sufficient to â—each all points of faith but many articles of this Creed are confessed by you to be delivered by tradition onely not by Scripture z Coster in compend orthodoxae fidei demonstr 〈◊〉 5. c. 2p 162. so that you see you have vainely sought your defence from the practise of the Nicene Fathers It had been better I thinke Mr Malone that you had taken another kind of defence that you had justified the Pope your Church that they make new Creedes defining verities by the infolded still revelation of GOD which determinations have the force of a certaine divine revelation in respect of us as one of the learnedst of your Fraternity hath said a Suaâ—es â—om 2. p. 93. or with Stapleton that the church may define a point of faith Etiamsi nullo scripturarum aut evidenti aut probabili testimonis confirmaretur although it bee not confirmed with any evident or probable testimony of the Scriptures b Stapleton Râ—lect Cont. 4. q. 1 ar â— or with Lâ—â— the X. in his Bull against Luther that it is heresie to say immanu Ecclesia aut prorsus non esse statuere articles fidei that it is not in the hand of the Church or Pope to make articles of faith c Art 27. not to have run to expressing declaring which the Councell Pope never intended but be it as it will the Iesuite tells us that the Laytie may bee well counted Catholickes though they never so much as heard of it therefore we need not to trouble our selves about so triviall a matter especially they accounting us of the Lay number But after charges of ignorance folly and wrangling the Iesuite accuseth the most milde modest nature of the most â—overend Primate that he sticketh not maliciously to slander Maldonate and others with the crime of Perjurie d Reply pag. 92. c. He that would answere this snarling Iesuite with equall currishnes must speake with his teeth and not with his tongue But passingby his language I will consider how impudently he chargeth that with slander the truth wherof he cannot cast off with all his shifts Their Trent Creede is Neither will I ever receive or expound it vizâ— the Scripture but according to the uniforme consent of Fathers e Bulla Pij IV. p. 478. Nec eam unquam nisi juxta unanimem consensum Patrum accipiam interpretabor Now to defend Maldonate and Pererius two of his brotherhood for not practising according to faith he first reviles after his accustomed manner the most reverend Primate Secondly he denyes that Maldonatâ— ever tooke his â—ath Thirdly he expounds the article of faith for the saving of the Iesuites credite f See the Iesuites Reply pag. 9â— First for his reviling let Rabshekah rayle for Maldonats oath he tels us that the most reverend Primate cannot tell whether Maldonate tooke the oath or not gives two reasons one in the Text because he supposeth he never did the other in the margent For he lived wrote in Paris where the Tridentine Councell is not received g Reply pag. 92 A Iesuite must beleive for the Popes advantage why should wee thinke his suppositions should prejudge his cause he that must beleive white blacke if the Church injoyne it h 〈◊〉 p. 247. can suppose any thing The other reason is as vaine might as well have been spared in the margent as in the text for though the Church of France receive not the Councell of Trent yet is there any Iesuite in France that doth not subscribe unto it to submit in any other maner then the Pope prescribes is not obedience but rebellion Besides this being made a part of the Papall Creed he cannot deny his Baptisme in that faith if their faith be as auncient as the Iesuite which is not done without a vow or oath But if
is 〈…〉 Fathers 〈…〉 and saying of all and 〈…〉 time 〈◊〉 Religion and therefore it will be much more 〈◊〉 to find out their generall consent that aâ—â— so lâ—ng deâ—â— And there he would â—â—ve the Reader 〈◊〉 that the agreâ—ment thou 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one 〈◊〉 which iâ— not otherwise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—â—led the generall conâ—ent of aâ—â—cient Fathers and to prove this he hath urged S. Augustine That when he dispâ—ting 〈◊〉 the Pelagâ—â—â—s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fathers he thougâ—â—â—â— had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby the common â—aith of the whâ—â—e Church And the 〈◊〉 of Ephesâ—â— having produced â—â—t â—en Fathers made no 〈◊〉 but thaâ— by theâ—â— agreeiâ—g aâ—thority the consent of the whole Church wâ—â— fâ—lly 〈◊〉 against Nestâ—riâ—â— for â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doubt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but thâ—s◠〈◊〉 did iâ— jâ—dgement agree with all the rest of their 〈◊〉 Reply pag. 94 95. But all the whâ—â—e he doth little consider that his owne doe not agree with him what makes the consent of Fathers For 〈◊〉 would haâ—e those to bee counâ—â—â— all the Doctors that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be justly 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 and the rest neglected Greg. de Valen loco supra citat Omnes esse censentur iâ— quorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnibus consideratis â—ruditionis piâ—tatis 〈◊〉 c. ut à prudentibus certè â—â—â—um solummodò ratio habeâ—i debâ—â—t câ—â—â—ris neglectis quasi nihil 〈◊〉 si cum illis 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 â—â— was of 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—llect by hiâ— practiâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he concâ—â—â—ing Augustiâ—â— who 〈◊〉 Maâ—â—chiâ—s dayâ—â—â— sacrifice of 〈◊〉 and pâ—â—yers of 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— Aâ—or inst Mor part 1. lib 10 cap. â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there be on◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doâ—â—ors â—â—â—ing thâ—â— is 〈◊〉 the rest Now if 〈◊〉 take consent of Fathers according to 〈◊〉 then wee â—inde a conseâ—t of Fathers in a point of 〈◊〉 against 〈◊〉 Catholicke Church â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aâ—brose â— Stapleton deâ—ens Ecclesiastic 〈…〉 quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ante 〈◊〉 〈…〉 non sunt â—â—sensâ— sed sententiam contrariam tradiderunt Clemâ—ns 〈◊〉 and Berâ—ard did not assent unto the 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 saith he in the 〈◊〉 of Flâ—rence 〈…〉 if you desire more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iustinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈…〉 obligandi For your coâ—sent whether it would prove better for you thâ—◠〈◊〉 hath done I cannot tell but I am sure that the Answerer who durst try the 〈◊〉 by the Fathers which hee is â—ot â—ounâ— unto their consent being not by 〈◊〉 coâ—fession the 〈◊〉 of faith â—â— conâ—ident that by them you will not finde two witnesses much lesseâ—enne that will justifie your cause without a personall or at least materiall opposition And therefore howsoever this be not their generall consent if we speake properly yet we will presume iâ— to be so for the present to see whether you bee able to performâ— any thing that so gloriously boast of so much which we are confident you cannot in regard some of your points mentioned are confessed by your owne neither to be in Fathers oâ— Scriptures at all as Adâ—â—â—tion of Images for so Massâ—â—â—â— in libelliâ— de Picturiâ— Imaginibâ—â— doth seeme to acknowledge and Roffensâ—s your Martyr hath the same opinion or but a very little better of the scorching Article of your Purgatory faith c See before pag. â—4 so that the Iesuite hath little cause to thinke that we â—eaâ—e the testimonies of Fatherâ— for the points in coâ—â—â—overâ—ie when as wise as himselfe know that they are not thâ—â—â— to be found But though wâ—â—ermit this for the preseâ—â— to see whether the Iesuite can prove any thing by his owne â—ouâ—hstone yet it will not be amisse to consider that his collection out of S. Augustine is rejected by that Fathers testimony for whereas the Iesuite insinâ—â—teth that S. Augustine was of opinion that the common faith of the whole Church may sufficiently be prâ—â—â—d by the unifâ—rme doctrine â—f 1â— cheife Fathers Yet when S. Hierome brought a â—umber of Fathers S. Augustine sticketh not to answer him in this manner I might as I beleive easily findâ— some Fathers to be of the contrary opinion if I did reade much but the very Apostle S. Paul â—ffereth himselfâ—â—â—tâ—â—eâ— for all these yâ—â— above all these To him I â—lye to him I appealâ— from all other interpreters and seeke unto him in that which he writes to the Galathians d Aâ—gust epist 1â— â—oâ—â—eâ— quâ—dem ut arbitroâ— facilè repeâ—â—râ— â—i 〈…〉 ipse 〈◊〉 â—ro his 〈◊〉 â—â—ò supra â—os omnes Apostolâ—â— Paulus â—ccuâ—â—â—â— Ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad ipsum aâ— omnibâ— qui aliud senâ—iâ—nt liteâ—â—â—â—â— ejus 〈…〉 provoâ—â—◠〈◊〉 iâ—â—â—ogaâ—◠〈◊〉 â—â— quâ—â—o in â—â— quod 〈…〉 And by this which hath beene said wee perceive that the Iesuite in a manner is urged to confesse that this Rule wants perfection and that the Fathers consent cannot bee absolutely produced but presumed onely Neither doth it please the Iesuite the other caution layde downe thâ—â— hee must prâ—â—ve that the Fathers held thâ—se points not onely generally but as appâ—rtâ—ining to the substance of faith and Religion and from hence hee would collect that the most learned Answerer feareth that they shall bee able to proove that the Fathers hâ—lde them generally indeede and therefore provideth this revye â—rgeing them to prove further that they held them as appertâ—ining to the substance of Faith and Religion e Reply p â—â— A fit collection for a wise apprehension before he tells us that in points noâ— determined shee the Church graâ—nteth free libertie unto all Catholicke Doctours to expound â—swell the Scriptures as the Fathers for the upholding of that part which themselves doe thinke to bee most probable f Reply pag 9â— In which he meanes that the Scriptures in points not determined as in the cause of Predestination and conception of the blessed Virgin might bee interpreted against the generall consent of Fathers as the two Iesuites Pererius and Maldonate have done and the Fathers themselves expounded with such a glosse as makes best for the upholding of that part Now if the generall consent of Fathers be able to determine a point that is not de fide why are they rejected by the Iesuites and the Iesuites justified by Mr Malone if the Fathers consent hath strength onely in points of Faith why doth he quarrell at this caution which he must acknowledge necessary not proceeding from feare but from a wise and prudent consideration And to prevent us herein saith the Iesuite he affirmeth before hand that the said points bee not all cheife articles of faith g Reply pag. 93. what doth he labour to prevent you in unlesse it be
in resisting you making those articles of faith which were never of universall beleife in the Christian world But to whom doth hee tell these tales if to those of his owne profession it is idle and needlesse if to us it is most â—â—â—rue for saith hee it is well knowne that with us they bee cerâ—â—inely accounted cheife articles of faith being all of them declared for such by the sacred and infallible â—â—thâ—â—itie of the Church h Reply ibid. It is neither â—eedelesse for his owne nor untrue being delivered to your selves For the most reverend Father knowes it is his dutie dayly to perswade against faith-intrusions for the preservation of his owne neither can your Arguments make it untrue for are all things you accompt or the Trent Câ—â—ncell hath determined of so necessarie light that everie man must beleeve them You may perswade this in Peru or Mexico but your neighbours the Vâ—â—etians will not beleive you that dwell nearer home neither have all your Catholicke Children such opinion of that Councell as to receive it Now our Iesuite would have them of faith from our confession Neither can our Advâ—rsaries themselves saith hee deny that they appertaine to the substance of Faith and Religion sâ—â—ing that they condemne them for heresiâ— in us i Reply pag. 93. Heere the Iesuite will not have an Heresie to bee but in point of faith that the denyall thereof might exclude us from salvation if this be the rule by which the Iesuite will try Heresies I thinke these will not proove of that stampe in our opinions For first we deny not salvation to those which by ignorance communicate with them that imbrace these grosse follies Secondly we say not that they belong to any article of the Apostles faith but are additions that had nothing to glue them to the Creed but Babylonish Clement We take them for grosse corruptions but to make them errours in fundamentall points our Church hath not I thinke declared it Heresies of deeper errour and more elavated pride then are found in this Catalogue proclaime themselves among you those peâ—ces declare noâ— your greatest defection Who abhorres not your tyrannicall Hildebrandine insurrection whereby you trample upon Gods power the authority delegated to Kings and Bishops and the whole Preisthood of the Catholicke Church Secondly your Conscience Monarchy whereby you cast Christ out of his chaire and give the Pope Christs infallible office This Constance could not endure and k Sess 2 4 Basill l Sess â—3 thought Heresie never doubted of Who is ignorant that heresies have had their degrees which they could not have had in respect of faith if all did equally totter the foundation Augustine defines an hereticke otherwayes then from the foundation Hee is an Hereticke that for lâ—cre of any temporall commoditie aâ—d especially for his owne vaine-glory and preferments sake as your Courtiers doe doth beget or follow false or new opinions m August in libro de utilieredend caâ—s 2â— quest 3. c Haereticus 〈◊〉 qui alicujus teÌ„poralis commodi maâ—imae gloriae principatusque fui gratia falsos ac â—oâ—as opiniones vel gigniâ— vel sequitur and this may be done in points which are not fundamentall Besides how many are accounted Heretickes in this common course of appellation and yet free from denying the foundation of Faith For wee finde Leo the Xth. in his Bull against Luther * 4 Iâ—â—â—â— 1â—â—â— to style it Heresie for any man to say that the Church or himselfe hath not power statuere â—rticâ—lâ—s fidei to make new articles of faith as also that Luthers assertion was no lesse optima pâ—â—itâ—â—tia novâ— vita new lifâ— was the best repentance and yet I hope the Iesuite will reâ—oove these farre from the foundation And if the Pope may erre in his Buls to call that Heresie which is not fundamentall errour why may not you give leave to others to use the same Libertie seeing hee is the patterne of imitation unlesse you thinke the Pope above Angels and that hee may deliver what he pleaseth and make Heresie what hee list and the Anathema that thereby hee deserves himselfe by his verie pleasure should fall upon others Nay you have gone further De Consecrat dist 5. Cap. â—t jejun that hee will never bee a Christian qui confirmatione Episcopali non fuit Chrismatus Now if a man may bee counted an infidell and unbeleiver by you for omission of the Ceremonie of Confirmation why should you draw from the liberties of mens tongues an Argument that whosoever by you or our selves are styled Heretickes must needes in regard of those points erre in the foundation Doe you not know it often fals out as when you charge us that after the way which is called Heresie so doe many of the faithfull serve the Lord God of their Fathers Shall we condemne to eternall fire Irenaeus Iustine Martyr all the Millenaries and all those which consented to those points which Epiphanius Augustine or Alphâ—â—sus de Castro have styled Heresies it were too rigide a censure and more fit for the Iudges of Hell then the Preists of God So that this proves but a vaine ground to inferre these points to be of faith because they are accompted heresies and if we will observe it we may from his owne words finde that heresies have declared themselves not so much from the matter whether fundamentall or not as from the perverse manner of holding an opinion against any ones conscience being lawfully convicted of the same And therefore our Iesuite will not have them Hereticks that deny tradition Images c. simplie by a bare and naked negation but wilfully and perversly by obstinate denyall Yet will our Answerer say saith the Iesuite that by the Fathers they were held but onely as opinions and not as belonging to the substance of faith and this is but his owne opinion for wheresoever the Fathers doe professe them in their works they never tell him that they hold them for opinions rather then for points of faith Reply pag. 9â— The Iesuite speakes of the Answerers divining but here divines amisse himselfe indeed proves down-right a Deceiver for if the learned Answerer will say that the fathers held them as opinions why should he require the Iesuites proofe for their consent and therefore let him fasten this opinion upon whom he can the most reverend Primate knowes well enough that they neither held them generally as opinions or of faith neither is he so ignorant in antiquity but that he well understands those ancient Souldiers of the Catholicke Church were alwayes ignorant of the after invented marches under Roman Coloâ—â—s so that the Iesuit would perswade the reader by a trick of deceit that 〈◊〉 knowledge the Fathers generall consent in these points as opinions but not as of faith which was never dreamed of by the Church By this it will appeare that they care not by what meanes they establish their decrees nor
in ijs quae opoâ—â—et eligere Si â—â—im haberent paâ—erent Scripturis divinis But the Iesuite that will have the Church to have this absolute judgment that what is decreed must be a point of faith hath in his Catalogue left out the fift Generall Councell where he might have found the Pope confirming TRIA CAPITVLA the three Chapters n Baron an 553. nu 218. which are fraught with Heresie and the Councell detesting him and accursing his act n Ibid. nu 219. yet never was this Councell reputed Hereticall but with reverence received in all Succession o Ibid. nu 229. An. 869 nu 58. And let the Pope their Church declare what he pleased and let what he declares be faith yet no man is bound in Conscience to it unlesse that which he declares be agreeable to the law of God the sacred Scriptures for seeing the sentence hath not strength further then it is declarative of the law when he is not an interpreter of the right law his sentence is voyde in conscience p Sotus l. 3. de Iust Iure Quia cum sententia nullum habeat robur nisi quia est juris declarativa ubi non est recti â—uris interpres â—ulla est in Conâ—â—ienâ—ia and therefore your Iudge of Controversies was in the sixt Generall Councell and others also adjudged for declaring Monotholisme contrary to the Scriptures an Hereticke * See before pag. â—07 For those other that follow in your Catalogue most of them were condemned for the Truth and therefore the Popes sentence was no sentence when he declared his owne bloody disposition and not the Truth from the law of God against them And as at all times so especiallie ought we in the height of Antichristian tyranny to fly to the Scriptures The reason you may finde in the author of the imperfect worke upon Matthew amongst the workes of Chrysostome Then when you shall see the abomination of desitation standing in the holy place That is when you shall see wâ—â—ked Heresie which is the hast of Antichrist standing in the holy places of the Church in that time those which are in Iudea shall fly unto the mountaines that is those that are in Christianity shall betake themselves to the Scriptures q â—omil xlix Tunc cum videritis abominationeâ— desolationis stâ—â—tem in loco sancto Id est cum videritis haeresim impiam quae est exercitus Antichristi stanteâ— in locis sanctis Ecclesiae in illo tempore qui in Iudaea sunt fugiant ad montes id est qui sunt in Christianitatâ— conferant se ad Scripturas And wherefore doth Christ command all Christians at that time to betake themselves to the Scriptures Because at that time when heresie shall have prevailed over those Churches there can be no tryall of true Christianity nor other refuge of Christians willing to know the vâ—rity of faith but the divine Scriptures For before it was sundry wayes apparant which was the Church of Christ and which Gentilisâ—â— but now it is no way made knowne to those who desire to understand which is the true Church of Christ save onely by the Scriptures r Ibid Et quare juber in hoâ— tempore omnes Christianoâ— conferre se ad Scripturas Quia in tempore hoc ex quo obtiâ—uiâ— haeresis illas ecclesias nulla probatio poâ—est esse verae Christianitatis neque refugium potest esse Christianorum aliud volentium cognoscere fidei veritatem nisi Scripturae divinae Autea enim multis modis oâ—â—endebatur quâ— esset Ecclesia Christi et quae gentilitas nunc autem nullo modo cognoscitur volentibuâ— cognoscere quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi nisi tantummodo per Scripturas and Who therefore would know which is the true Church of Christ whence shall he know it but onely by the Scriptures For the Lord knowing that there would bee so great a confusion of things in the last dayes did therefore commaund that Christians who are in Christianitie willing to be confirmed in the true Faith should fly unto nothing but the Scriptures Otherwise if they shall have respect unto other things they shal bee scandalized and perisâ— not understanding which is the true Church Å¿ Ibid Qui ergo vult cognoscere quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi unde cognoscat nisi tanâ—â—mmodo per Scripturas Sciens ergo Dominus tantam confusionem rerum in novissimis diebus esse futuram ideo mandat ut Christiani qui sunt in Christianitate volentes firmitatem accipere fidei verae ad nullam rem fugiant nisi ad Scripturas Alâ—â—qui si ad alia respexâ—rint scandalizabuntur et peribunt non intelligentes quae sit veâ—a Ecclesia So that the Iesuite hath made a long transcription to little purpose it being plaine that Scriptures as I have shewed both here and elsewhere were ever the resolvers of all doubts and controversies Yet before this Section passe I pray the Iesuite that tearmes all these his points cheife Articles of Catholicke beleife to tell us what articles of their Faith ought not to be called Cheife Whereby I thinke we shall find that all are not cheife articles of faith which are declared by their Church or that something is of Faith with them that the Church never declared For his Coleworts that conclude this Section they have beene answered before * pag. 199. and the most learned Primate doth not thinke that Heresie can escape the judgement of God where men hold their peace Their owne thinke it inconvenient to stay for the determination of a Councell to make the denying of the immaculate conception an Heresie May not the breath of Gods mouth doe as much as the Popes Herefie is condemned when it is revealed what light shineth clearer then the lampe of divine truth If it shall destroy the whole glory and kingdome of Antichrist shall we thinke that the traine of his iniquity these points will escape as fugitives Ebion and Cerinthus were condemned by the Scripture to wit the Gospell according to S. Iohn t Alphons de castro advers Haer. tit de lege haer 1. B. Hieronimus in libro illustrium virotum dicit beatum Iohannem rogatum ab Asiae Episcopis scrip sisse Evangelium contra Ebionis dogma without a declarative sentence of the Church and so is Popery though the execution be suspended till the appointed time SECT XIII THe Iesuite telleth us that he must for a conclusion enquire How vainely our Answerer chargeth us with Noveltie a Reply p 106. and in his inquisition he proceedeth in this manner Notwithstanding that our Answerer sometimes affirmeth our opinions to hee farre spred Heresies and of so long continuance that the defenders of them are bold to make universalitie and duration the speciall markes of their Church yet forgetting himselfe in other places hee is not ashamed to tearme them prophane novelties and hereticall novelties b Reply
ibid. I have made it good before that Heresie is more ancient then the Papacy and that duration doth not exclude their opinions from being prophane and hereticall novelties c Before p. 193. 194. in which place as also hereafter the Inquisitor may receive satisfaction But hee telleth us that the most learned Answerer consequently will have us to beleive that his Religion is of more antiquity d Reply p. 106. Now as the Iesuite distasted the terme of Noveltie deservedly cast at himselfe and his so he is impatient that antiquity might any way belong to us and therefore in a disgracefull manner saith that the most learned Answerer endeavoureth to make good the antiquity of his profession first by jumping at once over a Thousand sixe hundred yeares and squaring his faith by that of the Apostles e Reply ibid. But this is not vanity if it were done unlesse the Iesuite will condemne himselfe as vaine also For in severall particulars he is forced to jumpe to the Apostolical times himselfe as hath beene before observed f Pag 86. 87 Neither dare he adhere to his touchstone the fathers but where his holy Father hath approved him g Reply p. 98. And for GODS Pen although he doth distast it yet he is willing to pretend from thence some safety though imaginarily when otherwise hee can finde no protection at all h See the direction at the letter But let the Iesuite know that he leapes short that reacheth not the Scriptures And to bee taught by any other without CHRIST and his Apostles in divine mysteries is to be deceived Give GOD and his Word the first place the Fathers will never bee denyed to be great helpes to truth and devotion and this is all that the most learned Answerer doth desire Secondly saith the Iesuite by adventuring though faintly to justifie it by that which the holy Fathers in middle ages did professe i Reply p. 106. Here the Iesuite detects himselfe that what he hath uttered before is untrue for there he chargeth the Answerer with jumping at once over a Thousand sixe hundred yeares and yet in this place he acknowledgeth him to justifie our profession by that which the holy Fathers in middle ages did professe Here we may see the reason why Mr Malone pleads the Fathers for his touchstone and accuseth us for rejecting them not because he accompts them the Rule or is confident in their tryall but because the people whom they dayly deceive are not so well able to make use of them whereby to convict their errours These are they that cry the Fathers the Fathers and yet despise them Wee keepe them under the commaund of their MASTER yet deny them not their just reverence their deserved honour We haue seene saith the Iesuite how he hath failed in the first producing no more for himselfe then all Heretickes have ever done k Reply p. 106. If the most learned Answerer had onely pretended Scripture without the truth or true sense of it he had done no more then the Devill Papists and other Heretickes have done but how will the Iesuite prove this to have beene practised by his learned Answerer The Scriptures he desires not as Papists and heretickes have abused them but in their true sence This light because you cannot endure must you therefore be a conquerour Poore fugitive How doth he dreame when he flyes from that power that prosequutes and would condemne him For the sword of the Spirit would not onely as the sword of the Angell make the Asse bruise the legge * â—â—â— â—â— â—â— but even breake the heart of the false Prophet if his eyes did behold the brightnesse of it And as vainely doth he charge the most learned Answerer with feare and shamefull tergiversation from the Fathers testimonies l Reply p. 106. when as whatsoever he hath said concerning them is the same that some Papists nay the Iesuite himselfe notwithstanding hee calls them the touchstone hath affirmed Was it not Mr Malone that rejected the Fathers generally consenting and defended them that did likewise m Reply p. 92. Who declared it lawful for every one in points that the Pope hath not made faith to presse urge the Fathers or reject them as they please n Reply p. 93. Doth not a troop of their owne exclude them from that authority in the Church which the Iesuite would seeme to give them neither affording theÌ„ the honor of a rule or touchstone either o Bellarm. â— de Concil author l. 2. c. 12. Scripta Patrum non sunt Regulae neque habent auctoritatem obligandi Wadding legat de concep Virg. Mariae sect 2. Orat. ◠§. 6. Nec enim parvum Doctorum aggerem sed Dei sapientiam spiritum pro regula rectore veritatis habet sancta haec nostra quae fallâ— non potest mater Ecclesia The Iesuite further telleth us that the Answerer in demonstration of his forwardnes taketh upon him to give the first onset himselfe But it is easie to espy saith he how this pretended hardines is nothing else but a meere cover and cloake to hyde the weaknes of his cause and to boulster out his booke with a shew of antiquitie more then with a substance of verity being flush alwayes in words and refined periods yet still failing in sound reason and judgment p Reply p. 106. What the Iesuite hath espied I presume he hath not kept secret therefore whether this conceit be not one of his selfe flatteries will be espied in the proper place where he hath declared what hee hath beene able to performe But though we should grant him saith the Iesuite whatsoever be alleadgeth out of the Fathers and that wee should confesse their sayings to make altogether for him hath not his owne mouth pronounced that all this will not be any way sufficient forasmuch as no authority but that of the Scripture can suffice And if he had reason to cry out with S. Augustine and say let humane writings bee remooved let Gods voyce sound with what sense now may he be thought to have stuffed such a deale of Paper with humane authorities It wil be answered that it is done onely to shew the confidence hee hath in his cause and that the Fathers howsoever hee esteemeth them little make wholly for him and against us q Reply p. 107. To this wee answere that iâ— his cause did not gaine by it yet the Catholicke Church is no looser when the grand deceivers of the Romane Faction are detected and their pretences of antiquity made knowne for delusions Secondly is the cause of Religion no way assisted by the writings of the auncient Fathers unlesse wee acknowledge them with the Iesuite the assured touchstone Navigators as are all that saile in the Sâ—ippe of the Church have much comfort and direction by the other Starres although the North alone infallibly direct their course and assists them to the
haven Thirdly if the most learned Answerer said no more then S. Augustine Let humane writings bâ— removed let Gods voyce sound I would know of the Iesuite why hee might not urge antiquity as well as that Father did and to as good effect But how vaine he is hâ—reâ—in his owne Masters and Grandsirs doe sufficiently declare saith the Iesuite whilst they themselves confesse that the holy Fathers doe altogether stand for us and therefore with one consent they doe utterly disclaime from their opinions and doctrine as heere in part shall breifely be made knowne to the end that our dogg Bagg even by the Câ—rrs of his owne towâ—e may be made cry and runne away after being shaken in the myre before his owne doore Reply p. 107. Vocis horrendae fragâ—r per ora missus terno Will no tone affect the Iesuite but that of open-mouthed Cerberus Will no march please him that is not under Rabsâ—ekaâ—'s colours Doth he thinke the day is wonne if hee can revile the hoast of the living GOD Beleive it this was Goliaâ—s heresie though it were never condemned by Papists who most constantly practise in this kinde But pardon me M. Malone that I barke not for company but passe by your furies with contempt and silence Yet it may be observed how the Printer amending the coppie and for Bragg impressing Bagg is so distasted by the Iesuite that though hee let passe many of his owne oâ— the Printers errours yet this is put amongst his Erraâ—â— as indignely taking it that the Dogg-letter should forsake his discourse or the Dâ—gg-starre bee left out of his Kalender But leaving this two things we finde here insisted upon by the Iesuit first that the most learned Answerer his owne Masters and Grandsyrs as he styles them doe confesse that the holy Fathers altogether stand for them Secondly that we utterly disclaime from their opinions and doctrine Both which are so notorious untruthes that no modest man would ever affirme it For the place in Cartwright is his only evidence to prove the first and I suppose he never saw iâ— for he hath cited him falsly the booke being The defence of the Answere to the Admonition against the Reply of T. C. where we find that M. Cartwright favoured not S. Augustines rule but this was so far from being approved by the confession of the Church of England and other learned Protestants that the rule by the Iesuites own confession is avâ—â—ched by the most reverend Father Archbishop Whiâ—gâ—ift to have beene of credit with the writers of his time namely with M. Zuingliâ—â— M. Calvin and M. Gâ—alter yea as the Iesuite Å¿ Reply pag â— liâ— â— iâ— mâ—rgiâ— tels us he was perswaded that no learned man dissented from them And that the Rule was true good and so farre from establishing any pâ—ice of Popery that it quite overthroweth the same it was then published by that most reverend Father In that defence of the Answere pag. 10â— and so received of all other for any thing the Iesuite hath said Now the rest of his particular witnesses tend nothing at all to his advantage for either they point out only particular Fathers which will not conclude with the Iesuite that the holy FATHERS doe ALTOGETHER stand for them or els particular points as Freewill Mâ—rite Invocation of Saints Limbus Patrum concerning which the Papists are no more beholding to them then we our selves For in the points of Merite and Fâ—â—ewill Maldonate telleth us that the Prodigall by loosing his substance is interpreted to loose his freewill by Many Fathers u Maldonat les com in â—â—nâ— 15. ver 13. Solent plâ—â—ique substantiam quam prâ—â—igâ—s dâ—citur pâ—râ—â—disse Luc. 15 Liberum arbitriâ—m â— interpretaâ—i Sic August â—â—da Euthym. Bernard And Augustine gave lesse to the will then the Schoolemen did in the judgment of Erasâ—us x Erasmus epist dedicat ante libros Hilarij Divus Augustinu adversuâ— Pelagium diâ—iâ—ans minus tribâ—it libeâ—o hominis arbitrio quam nunâ—â—â—ibueâ—â—dum putant qui nuâ—c in scholâ—s regnant scâ—olastiâ—is possem â—ujus generis exemplâ— multa commâ—â—oâ—are As for Merite the Fathers are also charged with errour by our Adversaries y Peâ—eâ— Ies comm in Rom. â— disâ— â—â— num 106. disp 23. num 111. Grâ—ci Patres neâ— panci Laâ—inorum Doctorum arbitraâ—â— sunt Praedestinatioâ—â— causam fuisse praevisa hominum opera â—uâ— fidem non meâ—â—â— Dei gratiam Sed hoc Scripturae adversatur Further whosoever will reade the Answer to the Iesuites Challenge shall see how little advantage they get by the Fathers words concerning some of those points although in some sense they are not received by us Yet I could wish the Iesuite to consider how grosly he hath abused the most learned and reverend Bishop Bilson by urging his objection for his solution when as if he will but see the Author himselfe he shall find that he concludeth no such thing For the second that we utterly disclaime from the Fathers opinions and doctrine I have shewed before with what truth this is affirmed yet I will lay downe his argument whereby he seemeth to inforce this that by the repetition of it all may take notice of the Iesuites vanity For is there any consequence in this that because Cartwright Luther c. have excepted against the Fathers and it may be with tearmes not altogether so decent therefore all the reformed Churches doe utterly disclaime froâ— their opinions and doctrine This is so weake that it falls of it selfe But if better Arguments then this will serve wee have manifested that the Fathers have forsaken their corruptions though they seeme to follow after with a corrupt pursuit by clipping and cankering forging and fretting when they could not perswade them otherwise to pleade their cause z See before sec â— And if to argue after the Iesuites manner wil be received by himself we can tell him that Ludovicus Vives being wel acquainted how the Fathers were accounted of in the Roman Church spared not to say that those which served not to their purpose were of no better esteeme then a company of lewd women in a weavers shop or the baths y Lud. Vives coâ— in Aug. de civit Dâ—â— l. 20. c. 26. Itaque illa demùm â—is videntur â—dicta coÌ„cilia quae in rem sâ—aâ— faciunt reliqua non pluris a stiâ—anda quaÌ„ conventum muliâ—rcularum in textrina vel thermis And let the Iesuit resolve whether we may coÌ„clude that they have utterly disclaimed from the doctrin of the Fathers because Sixtus Senensis hath mentioned eleven of those Auncients that held prescience of Merites were therefore censured by him for condemned Pelagians a Sixtus Senâ—â—s Bibliotâ— sanâ—â— l. 6. Annot. 251. Haec igitur sunt Patrum dictâ— scil Chrysostom Origeâ— Am â— brâ—s Hiâ—roniâ— Augustin Theâ—dâ—â—â—t Sâ—dâ—l Thâ—â—phylact Oâ—â—â—mâ—n Thâ—â—dul c. ex quibus colligâ— videtur Praescientiam meâ—itorum esse causam divinae
praedestinatioâ—is quae quidem sententia in Pelagio damnata est Moreover Baronius hath slandred all the Historiographers of the fourth age with words as uncomely as any the Iesuite hath produced from any of ours charging some with obscuritie others with defect of â—rder diligence pietie truth and some with writing lyes for private affection b Baron Ann 395. n. 43. Licet tot historicis haec aeâ—as abundâsse videatur tamen adhuc iâ—opâ— harum facultâ—â—um remansit in noâ—nullis obscura quod ex his alij res multas brevitate nimia contra â—eâ—int alij intactas penitus reliquerâ—â—t desideretur auâ—â— in alijs ordo in alijs veâ—ò teâ—poâ—â— exactioâ— indagatio pericliâ—enturque alij veritatâ— aâ— pariter â—iâ—tate affectuque privato ducti pro arbâ—triâ— mendacia veris aâ—texuerint And in the point of the immaculatâ— conception although the affirmative point brought more Doctours then will make a consent in the Iesuites judgment yet the negative â—ast them off tell us that they are not tyed to so poore a number of the Fathers c Wadding Legat. de conâ—â—â—â— Virg Mâ—riâ— sect 2 orat 9 §. 6. Totidem scil 15. plures Doctores non ita potestatem Ecclesiâ— coarctent ligent ut si consultum rectum duxerit non possit contra â—os cum alijs dâ—fiâ—â—â—â— neither hath the Church the Fathers but the wisdome of GOD his Spirit for a rule and governour which cannot be deceived d Ibid Neâ— enim parvum Doctoâ—â—m aggâ—rem sed Dei sapientiam spiritum pro regula et rectore veritatis habet sancta haec nostra quae falli non poâ—â—â— Mâ—tâ—â— Ecclesia Further Alphonsus de Castre will beleive Anacletus a Merchant better then either Augustine or Hiâ—româ— Alfons de Castro adver haerverbo Episcop â—uic Anacle to â—oli magis credidâ—riâ— quam â—ille Wicleâ—itis imâ—o magis quam Hiâ—â—â—nymo aut Augustine Yet although they thus censure sometimes justly oft-times unjustly those Auncients I will not conclude against them that they utterly discard their opinions and doctrines Now as their owne affirme that although the writings of the Doctors are to be received with reverence yet they binde us not to beleive them in all their opinions but that we may justly contradict them when they speake against Scripture or truth g Turrecâ—em in cap. sanct Rom dist 15. n. 12. so the Fathers themselves professe the same as I have at large shewed in many places before h See before Sâ—ct 5. And S. Augustine as he could not please himselfe without the Scriptures so he feared to offend others and therefore presupposing as the most learned Answerer hath affirmed that without Scripture no certainty no satisfaction can be had he thus declareth himselfe That which I say brethren if I cannot avouch it as certaine you must not be offended I am but a man and what I am assured by the Scriptures that I dare affirme and of my selfe nothing Hell neither I have yet experience of neither you and perchance there shal be an other way and by heâ—â— it shall not be For these things are altogether uncertaine August in psal 85. Quod diciâ—â—â— fraâ—res hoc si non vobis tanquam certâ—â— exposuero â—e â—uccenseatis â—omo enim sum quaâ—tum conceditur de Scripturis â—anctis tantum aâ—deo dicâ—â—e nihil ex â—e Inâ—eâ—â—â—neâ— ego exper â—us â—um â—dhâ—c nec vos 〈◊〉 alia via erit non per inâ—erâ—um 〈◊〉 Iâ—cerâ—a â—â—nt enim haec So that we see the most learned Answerer his lesson Alledge what authority you list without Scripture and it shall not suffice is both Orthodoxe and ancient also But letting this passe as sufficiently urged already will our Answerer have the Forehead now saith the Iesuite to charge us any more with Novelty k Reply p. 10â— Truth needes not a brasen Forehead but where it is persecuted and then it hath defence little enough to have not onely her Forehead but face of brasse also For how doth the Iesuite out-face brow-beate triumph and tell every Passenger that hee hath beaten her against her nature into a Corner when there is no thing but a raging Sea and watery foame But the great ones of his owne profession teach him saith the Iesuite that the auncient Fathers did maintaine those points we now defend against him and therefore one of them calleth our Religion A patched Coverlet of the Fathers errors sowed together Although then our Religion did consist of errours as Whitaker doth affirme yet may our Answerer blush to call them novelties seeing they be confessedly as olde as the aâ—â—ncient Fathers themselves l Reply p. â—â—â— All this will not suffice to exempt the Iesuite and his party from Novelty For it being admitted by him that their Religion doth consist of errours notwithstanding that we in courtesie should graunt that they lay long lurking among those that were auncient they will yet deserve I doubt not obtaine of all men the title of Nâ—veltie For as I have before declared that is new in Religion which is not most aâ—â—cient Pag. 19â— 194 yet I will wayte upon his repetition a little and shew that if the Iesuite cannot derive his Religion further then from the Fathers the tradition whereupon it is builded is then but humane so a new thing even Novelty it selfe And therefore Tâ—rtullian telleth us That is most true which is most auncient that most auncient which was from the beginning that from the beginning which from the Apostles Teâ—â—â—l l. 4 aâ— Mâ—rc Id veriâ—â— quod â—râ—â—s id priâ—â— quod est ab initio ab initio quod ab Apostoliâ— How convincing an Argument then hath the Iesuite produced for his purpose Will he find a truth in Faith that was not from the beginning If CHRIST was alwayes and before all Truth is a thing equally auncient and from all eternitie saith the same Father Idem de Veland Virgin c. 1. Si â—emper Christus prior omnibuâ—â—què veritas sempiteâ—â—â— antiquâ— res And therefore whatsoever savoureth against the Truth this saith he is heresie though it be of long continâ—ance Ibid. Quodcunque adversâ—â— veâ—itatem sapiâ— hoâ— erit hâ—resis etiâ—â— veâ—us coâ—suâ—â—â—eâ— And although errours which are as auncient as some of the Fathers be not Novelties in the Iesuites judgment yet they are new and herefies also to him that hath received his Commission doctrine from CHRIST for which cause Tertullian adviseth those that measure Novelties as the Iesuite doth Viderint quibus novum est quod sibi vetus est Let them beholde to whome that is new which they apprehâ—nd as auncient q Tertul. loco vlt. cit supposing that present Hereticks many times conclude that for auncient which CHRIST and his Apostles distaste as Novelty Besides if the Iesuite collect aright the Church of Rome hath in many things defined for Noveltie against
of the Greekes hee mixeth Papists and Protestants and yet both put together they are not able to shew the distinct time without a circum circa and turne about for so hee expresseth it The denyall of vnleavened bread in celebration of the Sacrament was begunne about anno Domini 1053. as appeareth by Leo the 9. in his Epistle to Michael Bishop of Constantinople y Reply pag. 10 The Iesuite hath produced nothing but vanity for the finding the beginning of this notorious heresie For Leo the 9. saith no such thing viz that Michael was the first that broached this errour neither doth he cite the first author of it For it cannot follow because Michael did oppose the Azymes used in the Latin Church about the yeare 1053. therefore about that age it did beginne For that Patriarch charged the Church of Rome with other practises quod Sabbat a quadrageâ—â—mâ— observâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 quod suffocata comederunt gentiliter quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantùm in Paschate nunquam vero in quadragesimali tempore decantarent Brovius in anno 1653. All which I thinke you will not say were first distasted by Michael at that time The Iesuitè runneth from his path and vainely without any relation to the thing in controversie telleth vs that the Greeke Church doth vehemently professe to detest the Protestants Religion a Reply pag 10 c. Wherein we have no reason to beleive him in regard he bringeth not any particular out of the Authors cited by himselfe to convince the same which I make no question but hee would have done if they had fairely offered it vnto his hands Secondly there would not be that freindly entercourse betwixt some of the Patriarchs of the Greeke Church and our Bishops as there is neither would they have sent their Preists to our Vniversities for instruction omitting yours which are nearer to them neither would the Grecians that are amongst vs frequent our Chappels Churches when they avoyd yours if they conceived them equally polluted or held vs in equall detestation b Concil Lateran 4. sub Inno 3. apud Bin. c. 4. In tantum Graeci coeperunt abominari Latinos quod inter alia quae in derogationem 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 committeâ—â—â—â— si quando sacerdotes Latini super corum celebrâssent altarianon prius ipsi sacrificare vo lebant in illis quam ea tanquam per hoc inquinata lavissent Baptiâ—atos etiam à Latinis ipsi Graeci rebaptizare ausu remerario praesumebant adhuc sicut accepimus quidam agere hoc non verentum with â—â—â—â—selves Neither doe they differ from vs in the fundamentall points of Doctrine we giving them as we ought a charitable interpretation although in some of the points in the Iesuites Catalogue taken from the Divines of Wittemberge they may be censured somewhat to savour of superstition and errour And that it may appeare whether the Greeke Church doth most favour Papists or Protestants I will insert here a Confession of faith of Cyrill Patriarch of Constantinople translated into English and published at London 1629. An other translation whereof I have seene vnder which is written This Copy hath beene translated out of the originall made * * done by the hands of the most reverend Patriarch Cyrill which I know well The writing it selfe being in my hands and having examined it my owne selfe I doe testifie that it doth agree with it word for word Corneille Hague Embassadour of the vnited Provinces of the Low-Countreyes at the gate of the Grand Seignour IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SONNE AND OF THE HOLY GHOST VEE beleive one God Almightie and infinite three in Persons the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost the Father vnbegotten the Sonne begotten of the Father before the World consubstantial with the Father the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father by the Sonne having the same ofsence with the Father and the Sonne wee call these three Persons in one essence the Holy Trinity ever to bee blessed glorified and to bee worshipped of every creature Wee beleive the Holy Scripture to bee given by God to have no other Authour but the Holy Ghost which wee ought vndoubtedly to beleive for it is written Wee have a mere sure word of Prophecy to the which â—ee doe well to take â—eede as to a light shining in a darke place Besides we beleive the authority thereof to be aboue the authority of the Church It is a farre different thing for the Holy Ghost to speake and the tongue of man for the tongue of man may through ignorance erre deceiue and bee deceiued but the Word of GOD neither deceiueth nor is deceiued nor can erre but is alwayes infallible and sure Wee beleiue that the best and greatest GOD hath predestinated his Elect vnto glorie before the beginning of the World without any respect vnto their workes and that there was no other impulsiue cause to this election but onely the good will and mercy of God In like manner before the world was made hee hath rejected whom hee would of which act of reprobation if you consider the absolute dealing of God his will is the cause but if you looke vpon Gods orderly proceeding his justice is the cause for God is mercifull and Iust Wee beleive that one GOD in Trinity the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost to bee the Creator of all things visible and invisible Inuisible things wee call the Angels visible things the Heauens and all things vnder them And because the Creator is good by nature hee hath created all things good and cannot doe any evill and if there bee any euill it proceedes from the Diuell and man for it ought to bee a certaine rule to vs that GOD is not the Author of evill neither can sinne by any just reason bee imputed to him Wee beleiue that all things are governed by GODS Prouidence which wee ought rather to adore then search into sith it is beyond our capacity neither can wee truely vnderstand the reason of it from the things themselves in which matter wee suppose it better to embrace silence in humilitie then to speake many things which doe not edifie Wee beleive that the first man created by God fell in Paradise because neglecting the Commaundement of God hee yeelded to the deceitfull counsell of the Serpent from thence sprung vp originall sinne to his posterity so that no man is borne according to the flesh who doeth not beare this burthen and feele the fruits of it in his life Wee beleive that IESVS CHRIST our Lord hath made himselfe of no accompt that is hath assumed mans nature into his owne Subsistence that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost that hee was made Man in the Wombe of Mary alwayes a Virgin was borne and suffered death was buryed and glorified by his resurrection that hee brought salvation and glory to all beleivers whom wee looke for to come to judge both quicke and dead Wee beleive that our Lord IESVS CHRIST sitteth
primitive times unlesse hee can make it as generally to be vnderstood in France and Spaine at this day as it was sometime in Spaine before the Latine ceased to bee the vulgar language in that Countrie m Bellarm. de vâ—â—bo Dei lib 2. cap. 15. A multis jam seculis desâ—â—t in Hispaniâlingua latina esse vâ—â—garis But our Iesuite confident in his variety resolveth not to trouble the most learned Answerer with any more demands untill such time as he shall have thought upon some better Answerer to my challenge for as we have seene saith he hitherto he hath well plaied the answerlesse Answerer indeed concluding at last out of Arnobius thus If I be not able to declare unto you by what Bishop of Rome and in what Popes dayes the simplicity of the auncient faith was first Corrupted it will not presently follow that what was done must needs be undone n Reply pag. 18 and 19. Can there be a better Answere then what hath been given him For the Demaund is not onely prooved vaine by the most learned Answerer but he hath moreover answered the foole in his folly and satisfied the vaine Demaundant not confessing his disability therein as the Iesuite would perswade but pointing out the originall of those bastard birthes which he doth struggle to legittimize Yet the Iesuite being hard pressed with Arnobius who directly affirmeth that the truth of a matter of fact doth not depend vpon any mans knowledge or detection replyeth Indeed I grant that if wee had agreed that it was done wee ought not to pose you about the time when it was done but wee denying that it is done and having already proved that vnlesse it be shewen when it was done it must needs follow that it was never done without doubt when you confesse that you are not able to shewe when it was done you declare plainly that it is not â—â— yet done Reply pag. 19 But is here any syllable that answereth Arnobius is not the answere answerlesse indeed For first Arnobius is produced to prove that a thing may be don though it cannot be shewen how it was done and the Iesuite for answere thereof telleth us that he hath proved the contrary but we are not tyed to beleive him vntill he pointeth out the time when and the place where it was done this being necessary by his own rule Besides the Iesuite doth not consider how hee shakes the foundation of their Roman faith Peters seat and Peters successor by this his assertion For the first Have the Protestants agreed that Peter placed his seat at Rome The Iesuit knoweth they altogether oppose the same yet if we argue froÌ„ the vncertainty of time when Peter did that greaâ— worke that it was never done Bellarmine answeres us that though their Divines disagree when it was done yet it doth not at all weaken the matter of fact but that it was done p De Rom. Pont. lib. 2. cap. â— Respondeo discordiam de tempore si qua esset quo Petrus Romam venit non infirmare sententiam nostram quòd Petrus Romam venerit Nam saepissimè accidit ut constet de re non constet de modo vel alia circumstantia Further it is the great foundation of your Roman faith that S. Peter left the Bishops of Rome his successors which we beleive was not done shall this article together with the RomaÌ„ church fall to the ground unlesse you can certainely lay us downe his immediate successor to whom he delivered this Commission Bellarmin is a greater friend to the Papacy then so Etiamsi plane ignoraremus quis Petro proximè successerit non tamen proptereà in dubium revocari debere an aliquiâ— successerit q Bellarm. de Râ—m Pont. lib. 2. cap. 5. Although we be ignorant saith hee of the person that immediatly succeded Peter yet doth it not breed any scruple that he had no successor at all Now compare these harpers together and you shall perceive that either our Iesuite wanteth skill or else his instrument is out of tune for otherwise he would not jangle thus against their Master-Musitian that unlesse we can shew him the time when a thing is done it must needs follow that it was never done Whereby also it appeareth how farre that parable of the good and bad seede saith the Iesuite by you alledged is from furthering of your cause r Reply pag. 19. Here is a discourse laced with wise observations First because the demaunders acknowledged the bad seede Å¿ Ibid. But how knew they that seede to be bad which they never saw was it not by the blade as evill trees by their fruite or was it by comparing it with the blade of the good seed as we examine heresies by Apostolicke doctrine Secondly saith the Iesuite the Master â—old them the party by whom it was sâ—wen t 〈◊〉 Yet the Servants told the Master that they were tares before the Master told them who was the seedesman and why in like manner may not we discover heresies before the hereticks that brought them in Thirdly by the text saith he wee 〈◊〉 when it was sowen to wit when men were asleepe u 〈◊〉 But will such a time satisfie the Iesuite if it be layed downe by us will this answere the Iesuites demands What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion which you commend in them of the first 400. yeares In what Pope his dayes was the true Religion overthrowne in Rome x See the Iesuites preface to the Reader if it do not he abuseth the parable if it doe let him receive his answere in the second page of the Answere to his Challenge where this most reverend Lord telleth him that they who kept continuall watch and ward against heresies which openly oppose the foundations of our faith might sleepe while the seeds of the Roman Apostasie were a sowing And now let the Reader consider how slightly and shiftingly the Iesuite hath cast off this parable of the seed Well then our Answerer telleth us saith the Iesuite that in the tenth age men not onely slumbred but snorted also by the testimonies of our owne Authors Genebrard Baronius and Bellarmine and what then must this sayth hee inforce mee to yeeld that the Divell brought in no tares all that while but let slip the oportunity of so darke a night and slept himselfe for company No Sr the case is cleare hee did not sleepe but bestirred himselfe most busily in soweing then his tares abundantly Then brought hee in all those vices which at that time raigned both in Princes and Prelates and made that age so unhappy yet Gods divine providence saith Bellarmine in the very place alledged by you did so worke that no new heresies did then arise y Reply pag. 19. Here we have many things seemingly confessed by this Iesuite First that the visibility of the Roman Church hath passed through an obscure age Secondly that the light of
quo non semel Scripâ—â—ra 〈…〉 est ac si denotare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in sâ— ipsis 〈…〉 for who is so wilfull to affirme this confution to consist in the gift of new tongues but in making the former unâ—ntelligible as your Latine is now to the people 〈◊〉 formerly they vulgarly understood And yet uppon this confused foundation hee seeketh not onely to justifie their owne blindnes but hee would make us scattered wights and Babelists also May not Protestants saith hee bee rather tearmed Babelists whose diversity of languages and daylie jaâ—â—es amongst themselves give good testimony that their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 built against the true Church the Saints and Sacraments the tâ—ppe thereof ayming at heaven it selfe will 〈◊〉 bee dissipated and left â—â—â—â—lated t Reply pag. 24. May not Mr Malone bee rather tearmed a Babelist that so confusedly falleth upon us without any ground whence to force this conclusion For first our divers languages make no more confusion amongst us then the extraordinary gift of tongues did in the Apostles dayes in regard wee retaine your Latine unconfused and have many other languages which are 〈◊〉 acquainted with the faith of CHRIST Secondly our jarres are not equall to yours although they many times are passionately exprest neither are they of any other nature then those which have beene among the members of the Church of CHRIST neither destroying faith nor the foundation thereof Thirdly the Iesuite is vaine in his fâ—aunting tearmes 〈◊〉 towre of Protestancie the toppe whereof ayming against heaven it selfe when all the world is but gleabe-land sufficient for their towre of S. Angelo built against the true Church the Saints and Sacraments u Reply pag. 24 As if there were a true Church where CHRIST is not Monarch or that their Universal Master could make Saints as he hath done Sacraments But if wee consider all aright the ambitious towre of Protestancie will not be a mole-hill iâ— compared to your mountaines for the whole world cannot containe Popish ambition although the greatest honour uppon earth must stoope before it x Extra de Major Obed. cap. Vnam Sanctam Porrâ— subesse Romano Pontifici omni humaâ—â— creaturae declaramus dicimus diâ—â—â—imimus et 〈◊〉 omniâ—â—â—sse de necessitate 〈◊〉 No tearmes will suâ—â—ice the Papacie but those which wee expresse God withall as wee may see variously out of 〈◊〉 y De Patriarch Primat orig lâ—b 1. Exercitâ— 1. Vâ— quemaâ—modum Diâ—â—cesani iâ— Episcopâ— Episcopi in Metropolita Metropolitâ— in Patriarcha unum 〈◊〉 itâ— Triâ—â—taa Patriarcharum in Vnitate Pontificis coalesceret sicq sedis Principis Apostolonum esset in Trinitate VNITAS in Vnitate TRINITAS But this is little to that which followeth for you have made your Monarch after the manner of serpents to cast off his slough yea his nature it selfe z Alvae 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 Eccles lib. â— cap. 37. Papa igitur participatutraâ—â—que naturam cum Christo hee must not be barely man either you must take him for God and man or compounded of â—â—th a Clemens 〈◊〉 in gloss Papa 〈◊〉 mundi Qui maxima 〈◊〉 nec Deus â—â— nec homo quasi Neuter es inter Vtrumque Where will you finde his Preisthood when his Majestie is stiled divine b Ludou Luisius ab Alcaâ—ar in Apoc. in carmine ad 〈◊〉 Apost D◠〈◊〉 5. Quem numinis instar vera colit pietas which cannot stand with a miâ—â—steriall dutie Did he affect divinitie as the Emperour thought c Aventin lib. 7. The Pope will tell you that Peter and you may conceive for whose sake is assumed into the society of the individuall Vnitie d Nicol. 3. de Election cap. Fundamenta in 〈◊〉 Hunc enim in 〈◊〉 individuâ— unitatis 〈◊〉 c. and the Glâ—sse will give his succeâ—â—or the tittle of our Lord God the Pope e Extravag Ioan. 1â— de verb rum sign cap. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in gloss Credere auâ—â—m 〈◊〉 DEVM 〈◊〉 Papam c. and as if this were too little a Cardinall of their owne hath told us that Popes have been perswaded that they might doe unlawfull tâ—â—â—gs and so plus quam Deus more then God himselfe f Francisc Zabarel deschism Innoc. 7. Benedicti p. â—0 Now let the Iesuite consider what reason hee had to stile true Religion an ambitionâ—towre when as if he cast an eye upon themselves the towre of Papacie hath a foundation as low as Hell and an height more loftie then the towre of Babell it selfe For the Iesuites invectives of spirit of giddines severall sects varying opinions g Reply pag. â—4 c. His testimonies are not his freinds First he urgeth Lavatherus but as it seemeth from Genebrard and Staphylus h See the Margine ibid. men of excellent credite and repute no doubt suâ—ficient by their bare testimonie to divide all Protestancie but the Iesuites text is moderate if his margine truth it for the one divides Protestancie but into above 100. sects and varying opinions when the other maketh the sects 180. and both differ from Genebrard the author that he citeth who saith there are more then 200 but we see the Iesuite lest hee should be taken lisping placeth sects and varying opinions together Now in this sence who is there that is acquainted any thing in Popish writings but can point out many thousand varying opinions amongst the Papistes themselves which they condemne not as wee doe those follies mentioned by Genebrard and not goe out of the compasse of the Papall Creed And to give them a taste in their Hierarchie there hath beene eleven points of Popish Irish divinitie i Censura propositionum ad sacrae Theologiae facultatem allatae per Patricium Cahil Rectorem S. Michaelis Dublinensis c. condemned by above 60. Doctors of Sorbon lately k Actum apud Sorbonam in congregationibus publicis sacrae facultatis Theologiae Parisiensis habitis diebus secunda septima â—aâ—arij 1632. Et confirmatum in Coâ—itiis extraordinariis deciâ—â—â— quinti ejusdem mensis anni praesentibus sexaginta Doctoribus amplâ—â—â— with such tearmes as these lame l Censura In ista â— propositioneâ—numeratio membrorum Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae est manca false m â— Falsa contrary to common right n 4. Iuri communi contraria ambiguous o 2. Ambigua injurious p 7. Injuâ—iosa inept ridiculous against the sence and use of the Church q 6 Inepta ridicula contra communem Ecclesiâ— sensum â—sum contrary to divine naturall and positive law r 10. Iuri divino naturali positivo contraria seditious Å¿ 1â— Sediosa scandalous t 9. Scandalâ—sa schismaticall u â— Scâ—isâ—atica Hereticall c. x â— Haereticâ— But suppose there were as many sects as the Iesuite pretends to disturbe the peace of the Protestant Churches what concludeth he in reproach of us when he acknowledgeth that before