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
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
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
〈◊〉 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
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
the Fathers fayle But for the Scriptures their confidence hath not beene so great therein as to make them alone a rule for the least article of their new faith And this Iesuite that even now would perswade others to beleive that we adhere to the Scriptures onely because we would not be subject to the sentence of any judge doth here detect himselfe what judge he will allow The Scriptures must be locked up Bibling is Babling and generall Councells must do the worke well why then doe they not confirme Constance and Basill If they dare not submit to them why do they vainly pretend their authority But it may be they are not confirmed by the Pope So that you may see by the Iesuit's wavering his aime is onely to have that Exlex who ought at this time principallie to be corrected for his heresies to be both the rule and the Iudge But we are as free saith the Iesuite from the imputation of Heresie as our Adversaries are farre from finding out any such generall Councell in which wee have beene condemned z Reply pag. 17 Have you no better Apologies then this to exempt you out of the Catalogue of Hereticks The Pelagians had as good and pleaded the same against S. Augustine who answered them with scorne Aut vero congregatione Synodi opus erat ut apertu pernicies damnaretur quasi nulla haeresis aliquando nisi Synodi congregatione damnata sit a Aug. con â— Epist Pelag 4 4 c. 12. What is it needfull to assemble a Synode that a manifest corruption should be condemned as if no Heresie hath at any time beene condemned without the calling of a Synode And they are as surely branded for Novelists and Sectaries saith this Loyolist as their opinions have beene certainely condemned by many the like generall Councells b Reply pag. 37 I wonder where the Iesuite will find them nay what have they besides the names of generall Councells that may honour the assembly of their so many Bishops Some of these you dare not confirme why then should they have generall faith and esteeme amongst us If you dare not subscribe to your Councels for what reason should they have power to condemne us Some against Faith given have martyred those which you acknowledge ours Your Trent Synode hath anathematized the Catholick Church Doctrine And I am perswaded if that faction had as much power as they give to their Head the Church Catholicke should not bee long from martyrdome also Besides whose opinions have Generall Councels condemned ours Surely then our pretended Heresies are ancienter then Luther he is not the first that taught our doctrine But where are your Councels Mr Malone that condemne the holy Scriptures the foure first Generall Councels the three Creeds These are ours to them wee subscribe If these are Noveltiâ—s we are Novelists if this be doctrine of Sectâ—ries the Hereticke hath justly stiled us But if the Iesuite cannot bring Councels that have condemned God in his Word the Primitive Church in her Decrees and the generall Confessions of Faith I hope hee will upon better thoughts except Noveltie from our Faith Schisme from our Persons Neither let the Iesuite runne about as in other-places he hath done to coyne us an other Faith when as he himselfe revileth us for adhering to the Scriptures c Reply Sect. â— when as our Lawes justifie our embracing the foure first Generall Councels and our Liturgie doth enclose the Creedes The Iesuite continueth his vaine discourse And as saith he they never yet assembled any Generall Councell of Catholick Preists and Prelates of that Church which is dispersed through many Nations neither by reason of their fatall discord amongst themselves will ever beâ— able to assemble the same so wee may for ever live secure d Reply pag. â—7 Every Iesuite is not a Prophet We may have a Coâ—â—â—â—ll such a one where your Papa shall not be Presidâ—nt â—or your Cloâ—ke-bagge carry the Spirit that shall direct iâ— when the Church of Rome it selfe shall be frâ—â—â— from that Factioâ— which now doth tyrannize over it and the true Bishops thereof shall enjoy that authoritie which most truely is their owne by divine institution and Fryars and Iesuites may turâ—e Turkes for any station that they shall have in the Hierarchiâ— of the Church of God e Censura â—â—â—positionum ad sacram Facultatem Theoâ—â—giae Parisiâ—â— sem allat c. Priâ—â—a Propositio Hierarchia Ecclesiastica constat ex Pontifice Cardinalibus Archiepiscopis Episcopis Regularibus Câ—â—sura In istâ primâ— proposâ—tiâ—â—◠〈◊〉 ratio memâ—â—â—rum Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae seu sacri Principatâ—â— divinâ ordinatione instituti est manca redundaâ—â— atque inducens in errorem Finally saith the Iesuite the reason of this his â—ergivâ—rsaâ—ion from the Fathers authority is vaine and idle when hee saith that we have coyned clipped and washed their monuments And why I pray you For though saith he he endeavour to proove this by severall instances yet not one doth he produce that will serve his turne and therefore tells the most learned Answerer that he is bound to bring forth â—â—und prooâ—â— of this his accusation under paine of incuâ—ring the brand of forgerie and spitefull calumnie himselfe f Reply pag. 38 We may perceive the Iesuite is unwilling to enter into dispute concerning these particulars and therefore â—â—sts them off as wanting proofe Yet indeed the matter is so notorious in many of the instances that your owne have espied the counterfeits and branded them with their Censures But the Iesuite might have forsaken his selfe flatterie and have taken notice that there is more proofe against the particulars then hee had answered unto For is it possible that there should bee little respect given to the Church of Rome before the Councell of Nice as their Cardinall and after-Pope urged by the most reverend the Lord Primate affirmeth when wee finde the first Bishops of that Church writing such controuling Epistles Councels before that of Nice giving such unlimited power and the Romane Emperour qualifying with such unmeasurable Principalitie their Romane Bishop But because the Iesuite desires a further manifestation of these Counterfeitâ— I will take them as they are layde downe in order by the most reverend the Lord Primate beginning with your Craftie Merchant Isidorus Mereator that is justly charged with counterfeiting Decretall Epistles c. Our Iesuite hath a minde to justifie these brattâ— and to make Isidorus his merchandize to passe for good wares yet Bellarmine confesseth that they are infected with Errour script into them g Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 14. Aliquos errores in eas irrepsisse non negaverim nec indubitatas esse affirmaâ—e audeam â— Cusanus de Concord cath l. 3. c. 2. Sunt meo judicio illa de Constantino apocrypha sicut fortassis etiam quaedam alia longa magna scripta Sanctiâ— Clementi Anacleto Papâ— attributa In quibus volentes Romanam
all Prelates d Reply pag. 51 Which of these words M. Malone prooves Rome to be above Hierusalem the Hils of Babylon to bee higher then the mountaines of the Lord Not the title of Cheife Bishop for this gives the Bishop no power but place no authoritie but precedency Is it the other that he sits in the Apostolicall eminencie Who doubts that the Apostleship is attributed to other Bishops aswell as Rome that dare not adventure to imagine the effect of this appellation to be a spirituall Monarchie As Sidonius to Lupus praeter officium quod incomparabiliter eminenti Apostolatui tuo sine fine debetur e 〈◊〉 l. 4. Epist 4. So likewise in the renunciation of the Metropoliticall Sea of Heraclea thus speakes Theodoret Chritâ—pulus Deprecor thronum principatum sacerdotium adhortorque eum qui vocatur quem Paracletus ad Apostolatum suum separabit And if we will give credit to Pacianus Episcopi Apostoli nominantur Bishops are called Apostles f 〈◊〉 Epist 1. so that it was no unusuall thing to give good Bishops titles that were indeed proper and peculiar to the Apostles of Christ as Prophets Apostles Evangelists and the like And therefore this can bee no rest for him to depend upon For the two places to prove Rome the head of all Churches cited out of Victor Vticensis Ennodius g Reply pag. 51 we have answered thereunto that this title is but an appellation that betokens honour and precedencie not power and superioritie Surely the Church of Rome got not this height by such arguments neither doe I thinke that it could bee maintained if it wanted other strength and defence So that any may see his capitall argument getteth no more then what we yeeld unto him in What his other endeavours will effect we may easily conjecture He bringeth in S. Ambrose next h Reply ibid. but with as little helpe for the Roman headship as the former from whom he expected assistance But here is no truth in this quotation all neither true Author true word true consequence For first how many can we finde that reject those commentaries upon Paules Epistles as being none of Ambroses some charging them as upon the Epistle to the Romans with Pelagianisme from which I thinke the Iesuite will defend this Father Secondly let the Author be who he will these words seeme to be inserted Cujus hodie rector est Damasuâ— for if it be he as by some of the learned of your side is supposed that wrot the booke of questions of the old and new testament i Bellarm de Script Eccles De Ambrosio M. credibile igitur est auctorem horum commentariorum esse Hilarium Diaconum Romanum qui Luciferi schisma propagavit he lived * Quaeâ—â— 43. 300 yeares after Christ and so could not speake these words of Damasus who was Bishop 367. Or if he were Remigias Lugdnnensis as Maldonat thinkes k Maldonat in Ioh. c. 12. v. 32. who lived about the yeare 870. I thinke you will say he spared the truth if he had said Hodie rector est Damasus And who doth not see the poore consequence that followeth hereupon Damasus is Rector of Gods house therefore the Roman Church is the head of all other Churches By this I dare say a man may prove any Church the Head of another for to what Bishop is not this style given Paul calleth himselfe and Timothie and others that were called to the regiment of the Church ministers of Christ stewards of the mysteries of God * 1 Cor. 4. v. 1 and himselfe a minister of the Church * Coloss 1â— 25. But let Gods word prevayle as the Iesuite is affected what hath heerein beene said of Damasus that hath not beene said and by Rome it selfe of Andrew the Apostle who I feare will not be admitted to enjoy the conclusion though the Roman Breviarie give him the premisses Majestatem tuam Domine suppliciter exoramus ut sicut Ecclesiae tuae beatus Andraeas Apostolus existit Praedicator Rector O Lord we humbly beseech thy Majestie that as blessed Andrew the Apostle is Preacher and Rector of thy Church l Cassander Prec Eccles De sancto Andreâ— I feare he would smell like Spalato that from hence should conclude that the Church which Andrew governed as a Bishop was the mother church of all others or that he were the universall Bishop from whom every man should receive his faith Nay Bellarmine will not exclude others from this title m Bellarm. de Rom. Pont l. c. 11. Omnes enim Apostoli fuerunt capita Rectores Pastores Ecclesiae universae and yet none shall have what the Iesuite infers thereupon but his owne Roman mistresse After Ambrose comes S. Hierome whom he bringeth in saying I following none as fiâ—st but Christ am united in one Communion to thy blessedneâ— that is to say to Petâ—rs Chaire Vpon this rocke I know the Church is builâ— Whosoever eateth the Lambe out of this house he is prophane He that gathereth not with thee doth scatter that is to say He that belongeth not to Christ standeth upon the side of Antichrist n Reply pag. 5â— What our Iesuite would have here is plaine that consent with the Roman Church makes a Catholicke and therefore it must be the Mother Church Is there no difference betwixt Rome now and then Who could then argue her of falshood or false beleife It were a poore reaâ—on to aâ—gue from her being pure to her corrupt defylings But wherein lyeth the strength of this Testimony Surely in side-â—â—king communion as if it were certaine that to commucate with Rome and her Bishop is suâ—ficient to declare a man catholicke and that non-union to that head were as much as not to be of the body of Christ Now what force hath this testimonie for confirmation hereof For we see Popish confession will not acknowledge Sergius a catholicke though he communicated with Honorius o Concil â— VI Oecum 〈◊〉 Act. 12. 1â— Neither doe the present Romanists embrace those Arrianâ— as Catholicke for Liberiâ—â— his familiarity nor condemne Athanasius though condemned by their Pope p Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4 c. 9. Nam ut colligitur ex Athanasij verbis ex Epistolis ipsius Liberij duo mala Liberius commisit Vnum quod subscripsit in damnationem Athanasij Altemâ—â— quod cum Haereticis communicavit Binnius Not. it Epist Liberij ad Episcopoâ— Orien extat tomo 1. Concil Quisquis innocentem Athanasium à Cathoâ—icorum communioâ—e arcet impioâ— verò Arianoâ— ad communionis vinculum admitti audeat 〈◊〉 non Catholicum sed Arianum esse oportet Will you accompt all for Hereticks that have not obeyed your Romane Bishop What say you to Irenaeus q Eusebius hist Eccles l. 5. c. 23. Extant autem verba illorum qâ—i Victorem acriter reprehenderunt Equibus Irenaeus To Cyprian r Bellarm. de Rom
ancient Doctrine Doe you thinke the Divell playeth â—ex onely in his owne Kingdome No assure your selves no more then the Pope Pontifex only at Rome for though hee swayes not universally yet many States â—eele his secret practices to worke division amongst those that are united to the truth Is not this the greatest part of your worke to make sedition to breake peace Divide impera is not a lesson that the Iesuites are now to learne seeing it hath beene their dayly practice l Dist Compeâ— Dâ— Iesuit 〈◊〉 â— 27. â— Watson Quodâ— 3. art 4. p. â—â— And although the Iesuite would now excuse it I cannot see but the Christian CoÌ„mon-wealth at this time is pestred by their Vrbanus or Turbanus as Cardinall Benno stiled an other of the like Condition of the same name m Benno in vita Hildebrand So that the Iesuites pretences to free his Supercilious Master from being that which he was justly stiled are too vaine and light there being no hope that we shall fee a generall peace for matters of Religion settled to the Christian world as long as he is suffered to keepe this rule in Gods house n The Iesuite might have taken notice of what was urged by the most reverend Primate immediately before those words whereas he carpeth in the Sermon preached before his Majesty pag. 13. 14. viz. That Nilus Arch bishop of Thessalonica entring into the consideration of the originall ground of that long continued schisme whereby the West standeth as yet divided from the East and the Latine Churches from the 〈◊〉 wrote a whole booke purposely of this Argument wherein he sheweth that there is no other cause to be assigned of this distraction but that the Pope will not permit the cognisance of the controversie unto a generall Councell but will needs sit himselfe as the alone Teacher of the point in question and have others hearken unto him as if they were his Schollars and that this is contrary both to the ordinances and the practise of the Apostles the Fathers thereunto we may adde the testimony of their owne Cassander consult Art 7. de Ecclesia vera Neque unquam credo controversia apud nos de externa Ecclesiae unitata extitisseâ— nisi Pontifices Romani hâc authoritate ad dominationis quandam speciem abusi fuissent eamque extra fines à Christo Ecelesia peaescriptos ambitionis et cupiditatis causâ â—utulissent But returning againe to the Answere he telleth us that Our Answerer alledgeth for himselfe the example of S. Cyprian who with the rest of the African Bishops dissented from the Pope and Church of Rome without being cut off from the Catholicke Communion To which the Iesuite replyes that this is easily answered forasmuch as the point wherein S. Cyprian did vary from the Pope was not declared by the Church untill after S. Cyprians death and therefore it might have beene maintained without any breach of Catholick Vnitie * Reply pag. 80 What he speakes concerning the Churches declaration will have a more fit place hereafter But to shew how little the Iesuite hath spoken for his cause wee may first consider That Cyprians opinion was condemned by your Pope his Councell the contrary defined o Bellar. l. 2. de Concil c. 5. Constat Cornelium Papam cum nationali Concilio omnium Episcoporum Italiae statuisse non debere haereticos rebaptiâ—â—ri et eundem sententiam postea approbasse Stephanum Papam et jussisse ut haeretici non rebaptizarentur yea S. Cyprian himselfe excommunicated and so severely dealt withall by Pope Stephen that he would not admit the African Legats to speake with him but styling Cyprian a Counterfeit said that CHRIST did deny any Communion to be held with him p Cassander Consult ar 7. Cùm Stephanus Episcopus Romae utbis Cyprianum quod in ipso erat repelleret Episcoposaâ— ipsum ex Africâ legatos nec ad sermonem communis colloquij admitteret praecip eret universae fraternitati ut venientibus non solum pax communio sed tectum hospitium negaretur insuper Cyprianum Pseudo Christum dolo sum operarium diceret Haec scribit Firmilianus Episcopus è Cappadociâ ad Cyprianum cujus Firmiliani meminit Eusebius Histor 6 l. c. 25. l 7. c. 13. Ad quem Stephanus scripsit non esse communicandum ijs qui ad Haereticos transcuntes rebaptizant All which did not make the declaration of the Church in Augustines opinion so that we may easily perceive that Augustine did not thinke the Pope to bee the Church or his declaration to be the Churches definition And indeed what toyle did Vincentius Lyrinensis q Advers prophan Novat take in vaine if the Pope could define alone if there were no true knowledge of Scriptures but where he gapes if for him CHRIST onely prayed Besides see what Church did define this Not the Roman out of which Cyprian was excommunicated and never reconciled but that for which Cyprian shed his blood r Augustin l. 2. cont Crescon c. 32. Non accipio quod de baptizandis haereticis et schismatics B. Cyprianus sensit quia hoc Ecclesia non accipit pro qua B. Cyprianus sanguinem fudit to wit the true Catholick which with Cyprian is every Maundy Thursday by their Bulla Coenae excommunicated at Rome And therefore the Iesuite hath unwisely urged S. Augustines wordes against the Donatists Put your selves into that Church which as it is manifest S. Cyprian defended and then may you alledge S. Cyprians authoritie for your Doctrine Å¿ Reply pag. 81. It being plaine that the Roman Schismatickes accuse and accurse that Church in which Cyprian dyed a blessed Martyr accompting it no further Catholicke then it is Roman All that followeth is chaffe Finally saith the Iesuite I would our Answerer did observe in this example how notwithstanding so many Bishops as in Africke joyned with S. Cyprian who in number were more then are in all his Majesties dominions yet was there found a superiour Church that did controule them all herein prescribing both to them others what they ought to follow and beleive by whose authority S. Augustine as we have heard and all the rest of the African Bishops did reject that opinioÌ„ of S. Cyprian embraced the contrary t Reply pag. 81. First wee may see that the Bishop of Rome had not so peaceable a dominion as the Iesuite pretends if so many Bishops did resist his controuling as the Iesuite acknowledgeth Secondly you may see his falshood in his cautelous conveighance labouring to perswade that the Roman Church was the superiour Church having authority to controule them all to prescribe to them and others what they ought to follow and believe whenas Augustine never dreamed of it when he and the African Bishops alwayes resisted and disdained it u See before pag. 301. That they did not adhere to Cyprians opinion the
excepta cogitari potest quo illa sedes turpiter ma culata non fuerit maxime ab an no â—00 and therefore it were better to acknowledge the miracle with Bellarmine Bellarm. in Chronolog an 970. Vide seculum infelix in quo nulli Scriptores illustres nulla Concilia Pontifices parum solliciti de republâ— Sed divina providentia fecit ut nullae surgerent haereses novae from thence perswade obedience then from leâ—â—ning piâ—tiâ— or holinesse at all which you neither acknowledg requisite †Papiâ—ius Massonius in vita Pauli 3. In Pontificibus nemo hodiè sanctitatem requirit optimi putantur si vel leviter mali sint vel minùs boni quam â—aeteri mortales esse solent or assistant to the guider of your Catholicke faith And thus you see distinctions of points of faith left indifferent determined cannot preserve the Iesuite from his unsound and unreasonable supposition the reason being alike for both So that there needs no consideration of the points nor satisfaction to the Persons mentioned the mistake presupposed by the Iesuite being a just charge But he proceeds and tels us that through the like mistake the Answerer chargeth him with boldnes when he offered to produce good and certaine grâ—â—nds out of the sacred Scriptures in confirmation of such points of Religion as he layde downe y Reply pag. 93 M. Malone this is bouldnes beleive it and such which the best of your owne notwithstanding your flourishes will not adventure to defend therefore it is justly so stiled by the most reverend Primate It is apparant that your confidence herein had no other prop at first but ignorance to conceipt your ability howsoever your shame hath now attracted impudency for your further assistance if your answere to this be not meere blockish you shall tryumph everlastingly In your challenge your promise for the confirmation of all the therein mentioned points of your religion to produce good and certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures if the Fathers authority will not suffice And further you desire any Protestant to alleage any one text out of the said Scripture which condemneth any of the above written points z See the Iesuites challenge This rash escape begets in the most learned Answerer a just derision of your boldnes ignorance who against the coÌ„sent of your learned councell will attempt to prove confession prayers to Saints image worship Limbus patrum Purgatory c. by good certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures whenas some of those points are coÌ„fessed neither expresse nor involutè to be coÌ„tained therein a â—annes 2. 2 q 1 â— 10 all of them referred to the tradition of the universall Church b Gloss in Gratian de Poeniâ—en d 5 c. 1. in poenitentia Canus loâ— thâ—olâ— â— c 4 Coster in compend orthodoâ—ae fidei Demonstr propos 5 c. 2 p. 162. Is not here cause sufficient to deride your boldnes hath not your evasive answer confessed your ignorance who sees not an amazed Iesuite He dares not deny the truth that this doctrine is not delivered in Scripture neither hath he the modesty to confesse his lapse and therefore frames such an answere that justly makes him ridiculous unto all When by by saith he we shal come to dispute of Traditions we will prove even by good grounds of Scripture that such divine traditioÌ„s are no lesse to be beleived of us then are those points of faith which be expresly mentioned in holy Writ and then it will appeare how it was a confidence of the truth which did beget this boldnes in me and nothing else but partialitiâ— which begot in him that sinister suspicion c Reply pag. 93 Is not here wisedome merus Logicus is a better rational then we finde here He will prove by Scriptures traditionâ— are no lesse to be beleived then points of faith expressed in holy Writ will it follow therefore confession image-worship c. may be proved by good certain grounds out of sacred scriptures Where were your Canonists schoolemen late Iesuites their eyes or wits that they could neither see nor find out this but rather reckoned these points amongst traditions not laid downe in Scripture d See before lit â— They saw what you pretended your Arguments are no newes they used them to the same purpose with as much wilynes as you either have or can doe yet they could never prove those points that are acknowledged to be received from tradition to have good certain grounds out of the sacred scriptures Besides the points specified either have good certain grouÌ„ds out of scriptures or they have none If they have none how can the Iesuit produce them if they have any why doth your church perswade their beleif froÌ„ the word not written the tradition of the universall Church Neither will this evasion deceive a purblind sight for if he prove traditions of as necessary beleif as points expressed in scriptures what gaines hath he for he doth it in grosse this proves there are traditioÌ„s but not confâ—rmes any of the points by good grouÌ„ds out of sacred scriptures or in particular that confession Prayers â—o Saints Image-Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Purgatâ—riâ— c. are divine traditions And thâ—n the Iesuitâ— hath not performed what he promised in handling â—raditions no not in his endeavours neither will he ever doe if â—is owne guesse aright The Iesuite tels us he will forbear to urge any more â—hâ—â— other injurie whereby he charged us with forging câ—yning and clipping the â—â—nâ—ments of antiquity e Reply pag. 93 And doe you not thinke it had bene better his forbearance had begun before But let us examine this injury and it will not be any great trouble to make the Iesuite impudent or a confessionary of such frauds And first to begin with the first of forging and coyning not to name all this were to much but some of most kindes First Dâ—â—ation as Constantiues for his temporall Patrimonie f See before â— â—05 â—06 Secondly Councels as Conciliuâ— Siâ—â—â—â—â—an 〈◊〉 suâ— Sylvestrâ— g See before p 203. 204. 20â— Thirdly Canons as those of Nice pretended to the Bishops of Africke and the Arabian to the whole world h See before p. â—73 Epistles as your Deâ—â—â—â—â—ls never heard of in antiquitie but invented by your Merchant when Rome had forgot to speake in her auncient â—legancy i See before p 202 Besides false titles have beene given to Bookes but by whom for whose benefit you can judge If this be not forging and â—â—yâ—ing charge â—s with falshood But if I should at large proseqâ—â—te this it would trouble patience it selfe to attend Besides is it not forging and câ—yning to cite from a father that which he never spâ—keâ— as your Aquinas hath doâ—e from S. Cyrillâ— Thesaurus in the point of Supremacy an evidence applauded beyond all other For saith Canus all other anthors never
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
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.
given them for godly men what is affirmed here but that the fathers looking alwayes to the advancement of Religion fought couragiously against all that openly crossed the same yet might which is not absolutely affirmed but peradventure sleepe whilst poysonous seeds that carried a semblance of Devotion were sowen or have some hand vnawares no way intending hurt but good to the Church of God to bring them in And that there is nothing spoken to the derogation of the Fathers pietie or godlines I thinke any man but Mr Malone will easily conceive For what offence hath this learned observation committed Is any ignorant that wicked wretches may bring good to the Church who never intended it as Iehu * â— King 10 18. 31. Iudas and all preachers for gaine c. and that good men might trouble the Church and broach errors in it and thinke thereby they have done God service as m Euseb eccli hist lib 3. Iraeneus n ibid. lib 7. Cyprian c. and yet some of them have beene by your selves acknowledged for Saints and Martyrs But while the true mens cause is pleading the Theife must not escape We acknowledge it an easie matter to excuse the Fathers of this Apostasie but how will Mr Malone free his owne For although he may dare and outface much yet it is manifest that their cloystered cattell and those of the like hiew are pointed out by the Apostle to be principall Engineres for bringing it in And this is so plainely descried that every simple lay-man by this place * 1. Tim. 4. 2. 3. can paint them out for how are those Hypocrites which speake lyes in Hypocrisie by whom this Apostasie shal be brought in discovered but by these two open and declaring notes of forbidding marriage and abstainning from meats Things which agree so fairely with the cloystered and Romish Cleargie that if we should plead any interest therein we should be cryed downe for sleepers whilst this Towre was in building And although we are charged with Apostasie by the Iesuite yet being examined by the Apostles notes wee shall escape very well For M. Malone knoweth that Delectus ciborum is no article of our Creed nor point of our practise And from the second marke he hath better reason to excuse vs for I cannot doubt but hee that knowes our wives haue kirtles o Reply pag. 206. hath surely observed that our Preists have wives But let the Apostle vse what notes he pleaseth the Iesuite will prove that we are guiltie of Apostasie how because wee have revolted and departed from the Roman Church for which he vrgeth Calvins p Absurdum est postquam discessionem à toto mundo facere coacti sumus inter ipsa principia alios ab a liis dissilire Cal ep 141. confession but if here be not lyes in Hypocrisie where are they to be found For that which he cites from Calvin acknowledgeth onely that they were forced to make a departure from the whole world when as the Iesuite would have him that died long before the most reverend Primate was borne voluntarily to acknowledge that the learned Answerer c. did depart from the Roman Church q Reply pag. 6. But pardon this escape Is there no difference to be forced to depart and voluntarily to make a schisme y Aug. de Bap. con Donat lib 5. Cap 1. Apertissimum enim sacrilegium omines schismatis si nulla 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seperatiâ—â—â— to be driven from you by your corrupt doctrines that you will not reforme and with pertinacy and wilfulnes to embrace heresies Wee have washed alone because you will not be cleane and because your Naaman Å¿ Dried de Ecâ—l dog lib â— cap 4. Neque tenentur oves subesse Pastori vlli qui iam sactus est aut ex pastore lupus aut saluti gregis contrarius will not wash in Iordan must we adhere to your Leprosy still He is the Schismaticke that causeth t Cassan consult Art 7. de Ecclesia vera Neque vnquam credo controversia apud nos de externa Ecclesiae vnitate extitisset nisi Pontifices Romani â— hâc authoritate ad dominationis quandam speciem abusi â— fuissent eamque extra fines a â— Christo Ecclesia praescriptos ambitionis et cupiditatis causâ extulissent the schisme and we are confident that it was no more revolting u Cypr. epist 63. Non debemus attendere quid alius ante nos faciendum putaverit sed quid qui ante omnes â—st Christus prior fecent neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet sed DEI veritatem for vs to leave your corruptions then for the Exorcists to fire their bookes * Act 19. 19. and to reject their impieties And although I will not deny but we were in this manner forced to forsake your corruptions yet our Iesuit proves it but vntowardly by Calvins confession for if the world and the Church of Rome be the same with the Iesuite why might not we conclude from his Baptisme and entring the Cloyster but by vowing to forsake the world in the one and departing from it in the other hee hath revolted and apostated from the Roman Church his Catholicke Brethren But is not the Iesuite pittifully distressed that would from a Schisme falsly pretended to be confessed by Calvin prove vs guiltie of the grand Apostasie mentioned by the Apostle Now the Iesuite thinking that wee would have swallowed his follie and answered him some other way laboureth to prevent vs by crossing that which his Conscience told him would make for our just defence for saith he Neither can it suffice them to say that they departed from the Church of Rome because she her selfe had gone out of the true Church vnlesse they declare vnto vs what true church that was out of which the said Roman Church departed x Reply pag. 7. As if this were hard to be done What is the Catholicke Church doe you know it not that pretended one contracted in a small compasse by Roman ligatures but that trulie Catholicke dispersed over the â—ace of the earth †Cassand consult art 7. Veteres potissimum Catholicam dictam volunt quod per vniversum orbem diffusa sit This is that you have falne from and like Donaâ—isâ—s y Alphons de Castro advers Haer lib 5. de Eccles Ab Ecclesia se divisit dicens in sola parte Donati esse veram Ecclesiam in alijs autem partibus quae Ceciliano favebant non esse Ecclesiá quia etsi ibi aliqui essent boni communione tamen malorum maculabantur ita Ecclesia peribat have condemned her in her particular members as if no salvation were to be had but with you z Extrav de maior obed cap vnam sanctam Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus dicimus definimus pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis Bellar de eccl
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
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
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
of Purgatory Bellarmine enquires Whether the soules therein are sure of eternall salvation and tells that Dionysius Carthusianus denyeth it in regard of certaine visions r Bellarm lib. 2. De Purgato cap. 4. Quidam Catholici existimant varias esse in Purgatorio poenas unam esse omnium maximam incertitudinem salutis qua dicunt quasdam solùm animas multari quae licet revera certò salvandae sint tamen ipsas hoc ignorare ita videtur â—entire Dionysius Carthusianus ob quasdam visiones quas ipse refert libro de 4. novissimis ar 47. and yet this crosseth the opinion of their Divines Å¿ Ibid. At communis Theologorum sententia est omnes animas quae in Purgatorio sunt habere certitudinem suae salutis so that either the Divell doth teach some of their Divines or else the troupe of their Divines resist the visions from God But what neede wee to runne about to finde who hath taught Papists so much of their new faith when they have Divells allowed Preachers and justified to bee the mouth and instrumentall oracles t Histor de tribus Energumenis supra citat pag. 935. Oraculum potest aâ—cipi instrumentaliter ut eraculum idem sit quod oâ— Spiritus sancti in hoc sensu sicut in creaturis insensibilibus c ita nihil absurdi sequitur ex hoc quod Deus facit Daemonem os suum of the spirit of God Yea so lively and zealous is Verine the Divell reported to be n Ibid. pag. 797 Constat Daemonem Verinum multas actiones fecisse in quibus Christo ministravit sanctos laudavit beatam Virginem multa disseruit de vitijs virâ—utibus de vitâ aeternâ inferno concilijs Evangelicis quae benè vivero docent In quibus duo admirâ—tione dig na concurrebant Primò quod sermo ipsius erat ardeâ—s vivens crediderim quod si Angelus de coelo aut Apostolorum quispiam descendisset non potuisset aliter loqui loquebatur enim ut potestatem habens erant verba illius ut faculae ardentes corda illorum â—epida inflammabant Vnde qui audiebant eum ubertini flebant obliviscebantur vitae praeâ—eritae alij â—undebâ—â—â— pectora alij extra se rapti altâ voâ—â— clâ—mabant â—iserere Domine Domine â—iserere alij vitam in melius mutaverunt alij saeculo reâ—â—â—tiârunt Possum dicere quod plures audiveram in Ecclesiâ Praedicatores viros sanctos valdè illuminatos hujus comparatione voces emortuas dixisses that neither Angell nor Apostle could speake otherwise praysing the saints the blessed Virgin disputing of vertues vices life eternall hell and Evangelicall Councells So that some of his hearers wept some did beate their brests some cryed Miserere some changed their lives some entered the Cloyster Yea so excellent is he in preaching that the Popish Preachers which were holy and illuminate were but like the white of an egge without relishe if compared with him But will you see what Doctrines these infernall oracles be approovers of They teach the great Doctrine of Popish Idolatry by their word and practise the adoration of the Hoâ—st x Ibid pag. 3 Compulsi fuerunt duo ex daemonibus dare gloriam honorem Domino Iesu christo adoraverunt cum sub sacra Hostia verbo gestu corporis Secondly they defend the Doctrine of the Papall extent and use of the will y Ibid. pag. 101 et 102. Vâ—us daemonum dixit non est qui possit hâ—mini adimere liberum arbitrium paula post Et dixit unus daemonum non vult ipsa uti suâ libertate et si vellet uti suâ libertate non incideret in mâ—la quâ— commitâ—â—t Thirdly their practise instructeth to sweare by the venerable Sacrament z Ibid. pag. 104. Daemon jurabat sâ—lenniter per venerabile Sacramentum quòd sic res se haberet postea juravâ—t juramentum so â—nne per venerabile â—acramentum Fourthly they confute the Protestants generally in the point of Antichrist 1. That his name is not as old Irenaeus intimated and we teach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Tu es Deus coeli atque terrae a Ibid. pag. 71. Be zebub et Leviathan dixeruat principi moderno et Lodoâ—co quod nominarent cum hoc nomine Tu es Dius coeli atque terrâ— 2. The two beasts Apoc. 13. and 17. are not the same but the first Lucifer the second Antichrist b Ibid. pag. 94 De duabus bestijs Apocalypsâ—oslocuta est in hunc modum Audiviâ— Diabâ—lo quod duarum bestiarum quae venire habent sub finem mundi alter est Lucifâ—â— alter Antichristuâ— In the generation of Antichrist see how Bellarmine and the Divell agree Antichrist is borne of the Divell c Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. 3. cap. 12. Non esset tamen error si quis diceret Antichristum nasciturum ex Diabolo muâ—ere c. Histor de tribus Energum pag. â—â— Nunc natus est non ex coiâ—â— viri sed per operationem diaboli His mother a Iew d Bellarm. ibid. Sententia est Antichristum nasciturum de tribu Dan. Histor de tribus energ pag. 59 Mater ejus Iudaea est The Iewes will receive him as a Messias e Bellarm ibid. Quòd Antichristus sit futurus Iudaeus circumcisus certum est deducitur primùm ex dictis Nam Iudâ—i nunquam reciperent hominem non Iudaeum aut incircumcisum pro suo Messià Histor de tribus energ pag. 61. Vocatur etiam Christus Rex Messias He shall not raigne at Rome but at Hierusalem f Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. â— cap. 13. Vera sententia est Antichristi sedem fore Hierusalem non Romam Histor de â—â—bus Energ pag. 59. Non habitabit Romae mater â—jus nutrit eum Hee shall not receive Baptisme in the Church but bee circumcised g Historia de tribus Energum pag. 59. Non in Ecclesia nomen impositum est eiâ— neque in Ecclesia baptismum accepit Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. 3. cap. 12. Antichristus sit futurus Iudaeus circumcifus He shal be Monarch of the whole world h Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. 3. cap. â—â— dicunt Antichristum omniâ—m Princiâ—â—◠〈◊〉 Histor de tribus energum pag. â—9 Dominabitur per universum 〈◊〉 ad omnes perveniet principatus ejus Now let the Reader behold who is most beholding to the Divell for their Doctrine Rome or the Catholicke Church Antichrist or the Protoplast of Protestancy And to shew us how confirmed they are to follow lyes the Iesuite doth margine his citation against Luther with a note The Divell alledgeth Scripture as if it were no better then a Divelish practise to be instructed from God his Word I will say nothing in answere to these blasphemies onely Increpet vos Deus * Iude 9. the
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
crutches For what are the Arguments hee contendeth with 1. That there was never any commandement given that the Cup should be given to the Laytie 2. That the use of celebration of the Cuppe was not sâ— generall in the Apostles time c. And for this hee cites a Iesuite and tells us that Cardinall Perâ—n in his Reply to the King of Great Brittaine hath undeâ—yabliâ— proved that uppon just cause the Church might change the Communion of both kindes into one that Cardinall Bellarmine hath most largely disputed heâ—reof and clearely prooveth That Christ in the Sacrament is wholly contained in one kinde and that under one kinde there is found the full substance and vertue of the Sacrament t Reply pag. 20. 21. c. Loe heere is the brave confirmation of his indifferent Chalice * If Christs Bloud how â—lightly is it valued when they fight to avoyde it which if allowable I wonder hee should take so much paines in his Reply but have referred all the Controversies to his Predecessors paines because nihil dictum est quod non â—â—it dictum priâ—â— But as hee prooves so shall his answere bee sutable His referments shall bee answered with referments For their Peron I referre him for answere to Mâ—â—lin And for Bellarmine I could name him an hoast But this sacriledge of theirs I will truely lay downe and breifly in a few wordes that the Reader may see the ground of our Churches practise and the base and simple shiftes that they are forced unto for their defending of the surreption of the Cuppe And although our Iesuite declareth himselfe to have beene borne in a full Moone or the Dogge-dayes by his folly and reviling calling our Cleargie the Cupping Ministery u Reply pag â—â— yet GOD bee thanked wee defire not the cuppe for our owne selves in that their appetite is seene but for the people also that all things may bee ordered in the Church according to Christs institution And heerein all may see that hee might as justly revile CHRIST and his Apostles as hee doth those whom hee styles the Câ—pping Ministery And I thinke a Papist and a Preist might best of all men let that scorne have passed seeing the Cuppe not of the New Testament might â—it them for their armes with a Poâ—uâ— non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their Motto For a man may be in the act of â—eriting with them that is none of the soberest x Less de Iustie â—uâ—e l. 4. cap. 2. dubitat â— nu 10 p. 718. 719. Si tantus â—it excessus ut peccet mortiserè amittit meritum â—â—junij sicut aliorum bonorum operum Si aâ—tem non peccet mortiferè non amittit absolutè sed solum ex parte Quia quâ parte voluntariè abstinet à cibâ—â— vetitis et à secundâ refectione propter Ecclesiae prâ—â—ceptum meretur quod meritum non eliditur etiamsi in usu cibi vel potus non seâ—â—â—â— dâ—â—iâ—am modeâ—â—tionem quâ â—amen parte excedit non â—eâ—eâ—â— nay a man may be drunke and yet fast truly y â—â—llarm lib. 2. de bonis operibus in partic cap. 1. Iejunium EcclesiasticuÌ„m est abâ—â—inâ—ntia cibi secundum Ecclesiae regulam assumpta paâ—le post Iejunium igitur Ecclesiasticum dicitur abstinentia cibi quoâ—iam hoc â—â—junium neque POTVS neque medicamentorum sed solius cibi absâ—â—â—â—nâ—iaâ— perâ—se râ—quiâ—iâ— if Bellarâ—ine his definition of a Fast be adequate to the thing that is defined But letting all this passe I will shew plainely that the Cuppe cannot be taken from the Sacrament but the perâ—eâ—tion and integritiâ— if not the substance thereof is utterly overthrowne And to deale with a Iesuite from Iesuiticall grounds we may observe that if it crosse the substance either of Christs institution or of his Sacrament â—r his precept or of the practise of the primitive Church a Reply to Iesuite Fisher by Dr Fran White pag. 466. 467 it can no lesse then vitiate the whole action That it crosseth these what tongue can deny which impudencie hath not appropriated to its selfe For did CHRIST exhibite a double thing to the Apostles faythes and memories and did hee not likewise for the effecting thereof consecrate two materiall elements bread and wine was it not the practise of the primitive Church b Lyranâ—â— in 1. cor 11 Fit hic 1. Cor. 11. mentio de duplici specie nam in primitiva Ecclesia sic da â—atur â—idelibuâ— Cassander consult ar 22. pag. 168. Satis conâ—â—at occidentalem seâ— Romanaâ— mille à Christo â—nnis in â—olenni et ordinaria hâ—â—jus Sacramenti dispensatione â—tramque paâ—â—â— et â—iâ—â— specâ—em omnibus Ecclesiâ— Christi members eâ—hibuiâ—â—e iâ— quod ex in nuâ—â—â—iâ— veâ—â—rum scriptorum taâ— Grâ—coâ—um quam Latinorum testimoâ—â—â—s manifesâ—â—â— est atq ut ita facerent inductoâ— fuisse 〈◊〉 instituâ—â— exemploque Christi and of the Latine for a thousand or more yeares to administer it in the same manner not onely to the Cleargy but to the people also by the institution example of Christ â—ellarâ— De Euchar. l. 4. c. 24. Ecclesia autem vetus ministrabaâ—â—â—b duplici specie quando Christiani â—rant pâ—â—â—â—i 〈◊〉 Crescente aâ—tâ—m multiâ—â—â—â—ne magis â—â— magis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—t sic paâ—latiâ— defâ—â—â—â—sâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the contrary ever received by the Church deliberatly upon concluding grounds or did it stealedas the rest of the tares into the Romish Church by Custome If the Iesuite can shew us better grounds to acquite it from intrusion let him declare it this was the cheife reason the Councell of Constance e Concil Constantien Seâ—â— 13. Licet Christus post â—â—â—nam instiâ—â—erit suis discipulis administraverit sâ—b 〈◊〉 que specie panis vini hoc venerabile â—â—cramentum tamen hoc non obstante sacrorum Caâ—oâ—â—â—â—â—thoriâ—aâ— laâ—dabilis approbata coÌ„â—etudo ecclesiae servavit servat c. Et sicut haec consâ—â—â—â—do ad evitâ—â—dum aliqua pericula et scandala est rationabiliter introducta quod licet in primitiva ecclesia hujuâ—â—odi sacramentum reciperetur à fidelibus sub utraque specie posâ—â—à à confiâ—â—entâ—bus sub utraque et à laicis tantuâ—â—odo sub specie panis sâ—cipiâ—â—ur c. Vnde cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia sanctis patribus rationabiliter introducta diâ—â—issimè observata sit habenda est pro lege had for its defence and what strength it hath against Christs institution and the Primitive practise any may conceive What hath mooved the Roman Church to this surreption of the Cuppe from the people no man can without doubting imagine for if those wife motives repeated by Gerson should bee the cause wee may see how weake arguments will moove the Apostolicall power against CHRISTS institutions For first he telâ—ethus of the danger in the effusion 2. The inconvenience of the portation of it from place to place 3. The vessell might bee as filthâ—â— as Iudas his trunke 4. There
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
efficitur of God increased his graces in the hearts of his children and in after ages this practise continued in the Church and the negligence of Christians in not teaching their children the scriptures was complained of by the auncient Fathers f Espencaeus Episcopus in 2. Tim. 3. in haec verba Et quia ab infantia literas nosti pag 116. Nequè enim haec mea aut nova sed est patrum orthodoxorum querimonia Eusebius Caesariensis also in commending of Pamphilus amongst other things saith that hee did not onely lend the scriptures to bee read but also gave them to men and weomen which hee sawe were addicted to reading g Scripturas quoque sanctas non ad legendum tantum sed habendum tribuebat promptissimè nec solum â—iris sed foeâ— nis quas vidisset lectioni deditas in viâ—a Pamphili 〈◊〉 per Hieron in Apolog. contra Ruffin ad Pamachium Marcell Chrysostome finding the opinion to beginne in the Church that the reading of the Divine scriptures belonged onely to the Monks because others had wives and children and care of families bitterly resistes and reprehendes this evill in the people affirming the reading of the scriptures to bee much more necessary for the laye people then the Monks in regard they having more open conversation and dayly receiving spirituall wounds doe stand in more neede of spirituall Physicke h Chrysost homil 2. in â— caput Matth. Sed est ne horum criminum tandem aliqua defensio Non sum inquit ego monachus uxorem habeo filios curam domus Hoc enim est quod omnia quasi unà quâ—dam pesse corrumpit quoniam lectionem divinarum scripturarum ad solos putatis monachos pertinere cum multo magis robis quam illis sit necessaria Qui enim versantur in medio vulnera quotidiè accipiunt magis indigent medicamine And S. Hierome commendeth the reading meditation of the holy scriptures to many holy persons of both sexes in divers Epistles to them as is confessed by the Rhemists themselves i In the Preface to the Reader before the new tâ—stament Yea Chrysostome accounteth it a greater absurdity for his auditors to receive his doctrine without examining it by the scriptures then for a man to receive money upon an others word and not to reckon it himselâ—e k Chrysostom Homil. 13. in epistol ad Corinth cap. 6. Quoâ—â—â—do autem non absurdum propter pecunias alijs non credere sed ipsas numerare supputare pro rebus autem amplioribus aliorum sententiam sequi simpliciter praesâ—râ—im cum habeamus omnium exactissimam tâ—utinam gnomonem ac regulam divinarum inquam legum asserti nem Ideo obsecro oro omnes vos ut relinquaâ—is quidnam huic vâ—lâ—lli vidâ—atur deque his à scripturis haec omnia inquirite Gregory likewise sayth of the scripture as if it had beene given to that purpose It is a river shallowe and deepe wherein the Lambe may wade and the Elephant swim l Gregor mag Epist ad Leand. in expositione â—ob Est fluvius planus altus in quo agnus ambulet Elephas nâ—tet But cheifly Chrysostome urgeth the practise of this holy duty Because the Spirit of God hath so disposed and tempered the sacred scriptures that Publicans Fishers Carpenters Pastors and Apostles idiots unlearned might bee saved by these bookes least any of the vulgar might fly to the excuse of difficulty that those things which are delivered might bee easie to bee seene of all that both the workâ—man and the servant and the widdowe-woman and the most unlearned of all men might carry away some gaine or profit by hearing of the word read m Chrysostom conc 3. de Lazaro Propterea siquidem spiritus gratia dispensavit illa tempetavitque quo publicani piscatores tabernaculorum opifices pastores Apostoli idiotae illiterati per hos libros â—aâ—vi fierent nequisâ—diotarum ad hanc difficultatis confugere possit excusationem ut omnibus facilia conspectu 〈◊〉 quae dicuntur ut opiâ—ex famulus vidua mulier et omnium hominum indâ—ctâ—ssimus ex aud ta lectione aliquid lucri utilitatisque reportaret And lastly to discover the Iesuites vanity in charging the most learned Answerers just assertion with untruth Azorius the Iesuite in the name of all doth willingly confesse that the lay-people were conversant in the reading of the Scriptures in the primitive times n Azorius Iesuit tom 1. Moral l. 8. cap. 26. Nos libenter fatemur tunc temporis laicos in Scripturarum lectione fuisse versatos For the second It is manifest that the Papists teach and practise the contrary This the Iesuite doth beleive as will be manifested by many passages in his Reply yet he will give us leave to prove it least confessing so great an alteration he might seeme to acknowledge the Roman Church to have fallen from the practise of the auncients to wit in making ignorant people wise to salvation by the reading of the Scriptures Now the first which I will produce to confirme this are your Preists at Rhemes who deny the holy scriptuees to be ordained by God to be read indifferently of all say that in the peace of the Church vulgar translations were neither muchrequisit nor perchance wholly tolerable that the Roman Church alloweth not the publishing or reading of any Catholicke translation absolutely and without exception but that such as read them must have expresse license thereunto of their lawfull ordinaries o In the Preface to the Reader before their testament And Azorius tells us that Clement the 8. hath prohibited the reading of any part of the sacred Scriptures or any comperdious historie thereof in any vulgar language whatsoever p Azor. inst moral l 8. c 26. Et in Indice novissimè edito jussu S. D. N. Clementis 8. in observatione circa quartam regulam prohibentur sacrae Scripturae partes tam novi quam veteris testamenti quâvis vulgari linguâ editae ac insuper summaria compendia etiam historica â—orundem Bi bliorum seu librorum sacrae scripturae quocunque vulgari idiomate conscripta quod quidem inviolatè praecipitur servandum Yea so farre they are from giving the people this libertie that Sanders maketh it Heresie to determine the necessary conversion of the Scriptures into vulgar tongues q Sander vis Monarch haer 191 Haeresin esse si quis dicit scripturas necessaâ—â—ò debeâ—e in vulgares linguas converti and Peresius accounteth it the Divels invention to permit the reading of the Bible to all sorts of people r Peresius de tra par 2 asser 3. Credo â—quidem institutum hoc sub pictatis quâdam umbrâ à Diabolo esse inventum And howsoever the Iesuite will not heere speake his minde yet his thoughts burst from him afterwards in this section for hee
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
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
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
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
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
must be the measure and square of our faith Further you shall see he is taken in the traine whereby he thought to intrappe for in answering S. Augustine alleadged by the most learned Answerer he telleth us that the pretence of Scripture onely in such a matter of fact as this is 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 â—â—â—iâ—king from the question in hand r Reply pag. â—â— Indeed if the question in â—â—â—d were whether the Fathers of the primitive Church held these points or not then who would deny but it were a sâ—â—inking from the question in hand to fly to the scriptures But if the controâ—ersie heere bee concerning the rule whether the Iesuit hath rightly framed an invention to finde out true religion by then the producing of the true rule the sacred scriptures that a defective one framed by the Iesuit may be deâ—ected is neither from the matter or question in hand And if the points proposed by the Iesuite bee points of Doctrine as I doubt not but hee would have them yea doctrines of Faith and fundamentall also why should not hee try them by the Scriptures in regard hee confesseth that S. Augustine omitting the Fathers provoked the Donatists and Pelagians to the try all of Scripture for as much as he then disputed of a point of Doctrine onely Å¿ 〈…〉 29 But saith our Iesuite if it be demaunded to what pâ—â—pose then doth he fill up whole volumes with the Fathers saying if nothing but onely Scripture may suffice he answereth that he doth it to the end we should not thinks he is any whiâ—â— afraid of all whatsoeuer we can produce against him out of the Fathers and no wonder he should be so confident heerâ—â—â— when as he layeth this ground for himselfe No Father but God doe wee know upon whose bare credite wee may ground our consciences in things that are to bee beleived Reply pag. â—0 c. If the Reader please to consider he shall finde the most reverend Primate in answering the Iesuites demand to detect 2 things first the vanity of his invention in assigning a rule that God never instituted to find out points of true Religion by Secondly his foolish considence in that rule that layeth them open to heresie and shame Now by this they may know to what purpose the most learned Answâ—rer doth fill up whole volumes with the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with that sword which they 〈◊〉 to be their 〈◊〉 to wit the anncient Fathers 〈◊〉 might 〈…〉 those rayling Heresies that revile the 〈◊〉 of the â—â—â—â—ving God For although your rule be not 〈◊〉 of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherupon to ground our 〈…〉 of 〈◊〉 yet it wil be 〈◊〉 to shew that you are but 〈…〉 traditions reall 〈◊〉 prayer 〈◊〉 ◠〈◊〉 â—â—â—roso◠〈◊〉 heâ— 4. Ne mihi ca â—â—bi proferenâ—â— SIMPLICITER sidem adhibeâ—â— nisi de diviâ—â—â— Scripturis eorum quae â—â—cam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yoâ—â— Roman â—â—nce to be allowed by the 〈◊〉 Fathers And the most learned Answerer will never oppose the generall 〈◊〉 of the anncient Fathers in points of Faith which they have generally received out of the word of God but the Iesuite may consider that this is not to depend upon any authority without Scripture The Iesuite further revileth us for leaving the Fathers and cleaving to God although we most firmely adhere to them where they joyne in a generall consent with the saâ—red Scripture which is as much as the Fathers â— professe to do telling us that in appealing to scripture the most learned Answerer disagreeth with those of his own profession c. And to manifest this he bâ—â—geth in as he 〈◊〉 him Dr Hooker saying Of all things necessary the vâ—ry 〈◊〉 iâ— â—â— know what 〈◊〉 we 〈…〉 holy which 〈…〉 the Scripture i◠〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if any 〈◊〉 of Scripture did give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet still that Scripture which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the rest could require another Scripture to give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto it neither would we â—ver 〈◊〉 to any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our â—ssurance this may 〈◊〉 that unlesse 〈…〉 somthing which 〈…〉 we could not 〈◊〉 we do 〈◊〉 〈…〉 Scripture iâ— a 〈◊〉 and holy rule of 〈◊〉 This place of the learned Hooker presupposeth but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that historicall and what 〈◊〉 this against the 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉 of the Church or being a 〈◊〉 Umpier and sufficien◠〈◊〉 to square our â—aith and actions by For who knowes not that the Heavens cover all things and yet cover not themselves and what may hinder the Scriptures in like 〈◊〉 to teach all 〈◊〉 doctrines of faith and manners and yet not to point out themselves S. Augustines words are in every Papists mouth viz. that he would not beleâ—ve the scriptures unlesse the authority of the catholicke Church had moved him thereunto and yet he 〈◊〉 all things 〈◊〉 â—aith and 〈◊〉 to be 〈…〉 in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this necessary point of â—aith is a 〈◊〉 o◠〈…〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly the Iesuite abuseth his 〈◊〉 for the Churches testimony harely and alone begotteth but opinion in Hookers judgementâ— For saith â—o the more we bâ—stow 〈…〉 reading and learning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the more we 〈…〉 thing it 〈◊〉 â—â—th answere 〈◊〉 received 〈…〉 that the 〈…〉 with â—â— before 〈◊〉 â—â—w much more 〈◊〉 when the very thing 〈◊〉 ministred further 〈◊〉 And therefore Hookers words make â—â—thing against the 〈…〉 for 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 of Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 the way by 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which convinceth to beleive the scriptures to be the word of â— Lib. ◠〈◊〉 â— God 〈…〉 And thus Gods 〈…〉 give witnesse to his word doth not take 〈…〉 sâ—â—â—â—ciency to declare whose words they are and from what 〈◊〉 they 〈◊〉 any more then it doth the suffiâ—â—â—â—cy of their rule which consisteth of scripture and tradition also Whereby the 〈◊〉 may see he hath produced this worthy Author to no advantage â—â— being plaine that although there be something else to preparâ— the way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sid form dispâ— 3. sect 12. n. â—â—â— Admitti potest ex humâ—na authoritate geâ—â—rari quandam fidem humanam praeviaâ—â— ad fidem 〈◊〉 non â—â—â—quam 〈…〉 vel rationem 〈◊〉 ejus 〈◊〉 tanquam â—â—â—ditionem applicatiâ—â—â—â— objecâ—â—â— yet the minde is altogether 〈◊〉 by the â—â—ght oâ— the scriptures themselves the Church pointing 〈◊〉 ouâ— and they themselves 〈◊〉 the Churches 〈◊〉 So that the scriptures remaine the onely 〈◊〉 upon which a man 〈◊〉 his faith for any thing the Iesuite hath pickâ—â— out of this learned Divine â— D. Field 〈◊〉 his Appendiâ— to the booke of the 〈◊〉 par 2. §. ◠〈…〉 will 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â— any way 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where 〈…〉 I have in my Epistle 〈◊〉 That all mâ—◠〈◊〉 carefully 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the true 〈◊〉 that so they may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follow her directions and rest in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chargeth â—â— that â—â— my fourth 〈◊〉 following I 〈◊〉 her of almost all such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aâ— I 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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
of Scriptures as the divell used them in his allegations against our Saviour or Popes in their 〈◊〉 corruptly and 〈◊〉 and not according to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and true meaning of the text Yet that Scriptures are the onely sufficient rule was so generally a received truth that never any Hereticke denyed the same for although many of them denyed some Scriptures yet they confessed those which they acknowledged divine to bee delivered to the Church to reveale Gods will and to determine all doctrines in the Church and controversies of Faith by And whereas this wisest of his Brethren would perswade that we to cloake our errours with a shew of Pietie will not be subject to the sentence of any Iudge whatsoever but the sacred Scriptures Reply pag. 32 The Iesuite is here in a mist and sees nothing for wee refuse not the judgment of any whether Fathers Councels or consent of the Catholicke Church to judge us by the doctrine of Faith the sacred Scriptures but to be tryed without the Scriptures were to be tryed in the darke Tertullian calling Heretickes Flyers from the light of the sacred Scriptures Tertullian de resurrect carnis c. 47. Qualiter accipiunt Lucifugae isti scripturarum in his prescription against Heretickes he telleth us that they have a faith without Scriptures that they may believe against Scriptures c Idem praescript con Haeret cap. 23. Credunt fine scripturis ut credant adversus scripturas And what the Iesuite would make the note of an Heretick the contrary thereof did point them out in old Ireâ—â—us his time Hereticks were then known by the path wherein our Iesuite treades in rayling accusing the Scriptures when they are convinced by them as if they were not upright nor of authority and because they are ambigâ—â—â—â— and cannot afford the 〈◊〉 to them that are ignorant of Tradition d Irâ—â—eus lib. 3. cap. 2. Haeretici cùm ex scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum scripturarum quasi non reâ—â—e habeant neque sunt ex authoritate quia variae sunt dictas quia non possit ex his invenire veritas ab his qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You see Hereticks and their practises they hate the Scriptures because they beare witnesse of them that both their workes and doctrine are unsound and evill Now as if he would make it appeare to every weake eye that we submitting to Scriptures as the onely rocke whereon we build our faith doe thereby anoyde all tryall he prosequutes this with a simile For we see saith he in the temporall Courts besides the Law there must 〈◊〉 be a Iudge who must declare the true meaning of the Law and pronounce his sentence in matters of controversie according to the same e Reply pag. â—â— So likewise the same forme must be observed in the spirituall regencie of the Conscience if credit may be given to this Iesuite concerning the written Law of God If all this were true what maketh it against the sole rule of Scriptures Iudges doe not Ius dare but dicere and if they doe attempt more they usurpe which your controuling Iudge doth for he will declare what he pleaseth for Scriptures and will prove what he pleaseth by them nay our Iesuite himself can prove doctrines by Scriptures that were never knowne but by tradition f Reply Sect. x If a temporall Iudge trench against the law of Man as your infallible Guide doth against the Law of God his sentence may be disanulled revoked and the Iudge himselfe is not free from reproofe And wee know that the makers of a law may interprete it or give power to others to performe the same But Gods law is not made by man neither hath man received power to be such an infallible Iudge g August Confess l. 13. c. 23. Non enim oportet de tam sublimi autoritate judicaâ— neque enim de ipso libro tuo etiamsi quod ibi non lucet quoniam submittimus ci nostrum intellectum certumque habemus etiam quod clausium est aspectiâ—â—â— nostris rectè veraciterque dictum esse Siceâ—â—â— homo licet jam spiritualis renovâ—â—â—â— in 〈◊〉 Dei secundùm imaginem ejus qui creavit eum FACTOR tamen legis debet esse non IVDEX De his enim judicare nunc dicitur in quibus et corrigendi potestaâ—â—m habet Clemens Alexandrinus strom l. 7 Non enim absolutè eâ—â—â—ciantibus hominibus fidem habucrimus quibus licet etiam câ—â—tiare contrarium Sed oporteâ—etiam probare quod dictum est non expectamus testimonium quod datur ab hominibus sed voce Domini probamus quod quaeritur quae est magis side digâ—â— quam quaevis Demonstrationes Ibid. Hâc ergo ratione non sunt pij ut qui divinis praeceptis non acquiescant hoc est Spiritui sancto Quia est ergo ex scipso fidelis Dominicâ scripturâ voce est fide dignus quae per Dominum 〈◊〉 ad hominum beneficium Ipsa autem Iudice utimur ad res inâ— niendas Wadding Lâ—gat Philippi 3. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 multa sunt hujusmodi quae reâ—â—agantibus aut circâ—ca 〈◊〉 Doctor 〈◊〉 sunt à Pontificibus nec enim parvum Doctorum aggerem sed Dei sapientiam et spiritum pro regula etrectore veritatis habet â—â—â—cta haec 〈◊〉 quae falli non potest Mater Ecclesia That which God hath left his Church is the blessed Spirit in his word â— which Christ hath promised shall direct his owne in all at least fundamentall truth And what if some desperat men follow deceitfull guides must this of necessity make the true guiding of his Spirit contemptible Or must the Scriptures be uncertaine in their direction because we have men that will not see that will interpret by their owne passion not yeeld to the truth or absolute demonstration Besides how vaine is it 〈◊〉 to expect the Romane Iudge for our Determiner who â—â—y make us a new rule of faith as large as the Decretals pretending the Scriptures or tradition for it and yet never be an Heretick For if he might be an Hereticke it must be for denying some truth before defined but he cannot be â—◠〈◊〉 for defining any new matters saith your Cardinall Bellarmine for then hee doth not believe against any thing defined by the Church k Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 7. Nam Pontifex si possit esse Haereticus solum erit ne gando aliquam veritatem antea definitam non autem potest esse haereticus dum ipse aliquid novi definit tunc enim non senâ—it contra aliquid deâ—â—nitum ab Ecclesia And suppose he could not erre in expounding the Scriptures may not they which receive his exposition miâ—interpret the same and the people upon report be carried out of the Romane faith Our Iesuite proceedes It will be worth the marking also to observe how this manner of tryall by onely Scripture hath
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
a manifest contradiction in his words against himselfe for above he more then once saith the Iesuite 〈◊〉 our opinions prophane novelties and hereticall novelties If Novelties how are they now become Heresies farre spred and of so long continuance that we are bold to make duration the marke of our Church c Reply ibid. The Iesuite imagineth here Contradiction and why because â—â— opinion of long continuance cannot be stiled a Noveltie So that if we can manifest that a Noveltie may bee of long continuance our Iesuite is deceived in his slippery hopes And what will he make novum in Religion but that which is not antiquissimum Our Saviour when hee would declare Pharisaicall traditions to be Novelties did not respect their long continuance in the corrupt estate of the Church but saith ab initia non fuit sic * Mat. 19â—8 that they were not from the beginning delivered by God or practised by the Church So that if the duration and antiquitie of your opinions be but humane that is not Apostolicall neither from Apostolicall grounds It â—â—inke and justly that they may be esteemed new and novelties d Terrullianâ— de praescripâ— panlo ante medium Si haec iâ—â— sint constat proâ—â— de omnem doctrinam quâ— cum illis Ecclesijs Apostolicis matricibus originalibus sidei conspiret veritati deputandam id sinc dubio tenantum quod Ecclesiae ab Apostoli Apostoâ—â— Ã Christo Christus à Dâ—â— suscepit reljquam vero omnem doctrinam de mendacio praejudicandam quae sapiaâ— contra veritatem Ecclesiarum Apostolorum Christi Dei. for a point is 〈◊〉 in religion that did not proceed from God and his blessed Spirit either in terminis or by deduction from his word that is the Ancient of dayes whatsoever pretences of duâ—â—tion and continuance may be supposed 〈◊〉 was never generally received by the Roman faction themselves before the Councell of Lateran â—corus in 4. d. 11. q. 3. apud Bellarm. de Euchil 3. c. 23. ditis ante Lateranense concilium non fuisse Dogma fidei transubstantiationem â— Rhem. An not upon the 1. of Tim. 6. â—â— and yet wee are condemned for calling this a Noveltie whereas it crept in many hundred yeares after those words which they themselves account Novelties both in the Arrians which had their Similis substantiâ— and Christ to bee ex non existentibus and also other Hereticks that had their Christiparam and such like â— new coyned tearmes agreable to their sects Wherefore it is not enough to free your doctrines from being Novelties because they are of long continuance seeing the words of ancient hereticks being of more long continuance and auncienter in birth even many hundred yeares before them might better claime that priviledge and are neverthelesse stiled Novelties by your selves And as the Rhemists acknowledg of words so we say concerning points of doctrine that wee are to esteeme their newnes or oldnes by the agreeablenes or disagreeablenes they have to the true sence of Scriptures the forme of catholick faith and doctrine â—hem ibid. c. and not because it is long since they had their birth in the world So that you see Novelties are new doctrines which are neither delivered in Scriptures openly and in expressetermes or lye couchant in the same but had their births in aftertimes being framed by the phantasticke illusions of Sathan the producer of falshoods and heresies which is conformable to the Apostles doctrine for what 1. Tim. 6. 20. he tearmeth prophane novelties Gal. 1. 8. he expresseth to be new doctrine 〈◊〉 ibid. which is not the same but besides as the Rhemists â— or against that which the Apostle did deliver to the Church And therefore our Iesuite and his contradiction contradict his imagined Vanity and not prove or confirme the same For his other Collectaneas that if they be prophant Novelties then by the Rule of Lyrinensis they ought to bee impugned by producing and confirring the agreeing sentences of auncient Doctours Secondly that the consent of auncient Father is called the rule of the auncient Faith by Lirinensis in the place alledged k Reply pag. 36 1. Wee have shewed before l See before Sect. 5. prope finem that we dissent not from Lyrinensis being rightly understood For all kind of heresies are prophane Novelties howsoever they differ in extent or age Yet all kind of Heresies are not to be impugned though prophane Novelties after this manner in Vincentius Lirinensis his judgement Besides Lirinensis maketh not the Fathers rules absolutely but because they assisted at that time the Scriptures to rule unruly hereticks that would wrest the same so that when the Fathers cannot do the worke for which they were used that is stop the Hereticks mouthes because that having corrupted antiquity they will also pretend it then he thinketh such heresies though prophane Novelties are not to be dealt withall this way And for his second observation although the Iesuit collecteth untruly yet who will deny consent of Fathers to be the rule of faith according to that Fathers meaning For in the immediate quotation following out of the same Father we finde that it hath beene the custome of Catholicks to try their faith two manner of wayes FIRST by the authoritie of the Divine Canon next by the tradition of the Catholicke Church m Vineâ—â— Lirinens adv Profanas Novationes Primò scilicet divine legis auctoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione not for that the Scripture is not sufficient in it selfe but because very many interpreting the divine word at their pleasures do conceive varying opinions and errours n Ibid Hic forsitan requirat aliquis cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat quid opus est ut eiecclesiasticae intelligentiae iungatur autoritas Quia videlicet Scripturam sacraâ—â— pro ibsa sui altitudine non uno codemque sensu universi accipiunt quod â—â— Confideratio temporis 〈◊〉 Now in these words who doth not see that Lyrinesis doth make consent of Fathers not to be an absolute or sufficient rule of Faith as he doth the Scriptures but a directive rule to the right understanding of the absolute and sufficient rule of faith which is the holy Scriptures Neither can we otherwise confecture but that Lirinensis giveth this directive Rule for his owne time Ibid. Ad and not to all succeeding ages for by many particulars it is apparant that the foundation and ground of his whole discourse received being from those wise experiences which the present age hee lived in and precedent had afforded him Besides wee have many Mathematicall instruments which are rules in their kinde as the Globe Quadrant c and there are many bookes written to assist us in their use now I hope you will not say the rule to use the instrument is the absolute rule it selfe to draw a Conclusion in the Mathematickes And why likewise may
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
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
produced did neither publish the worke nor promised as he faith to publish it sincerely in its owne colours And now he thinkes that he hath said sufficient to excuse the Censurers of Doway or any other that should endeavour to cleanse away such errours as have beene by the enemies of truth foisted either into that or into any other the like worke r. Reply pag. 4â— But the Censurers of Doway did not thinke these to bee such Errors as have beene foisted into that worke by the enemies of the truth Those errors which they endeavour to cleanse away are such as are found in the true olde Catholicke Writers Å¿ Iâ—d Expurg â—elg pag. 5. Quùm igitur in Catholicis veteribus alijs c. Nay how could it bee that Heretickes as these Antichristianaries call us should cry out that you burne and forbid such antiquity as maketh for you if Bertrams booke at the publishing thereof had beene beâ—â—abered by O Ecolampadius and they onely had cleansed it of these things The Iesuite must then confesse unlesse he haue better to pleade for himselfe then hee hath produced that neither Fathers nor Antiquity shall controule him or his whilst by extenuation excuse inventing devices denying or faigning they can avoyde the same But all his hope is though this be graunted that hee will stop our mouthes by recrimination I will take some paines saith he to try whether we may not finde more easily such like corruption and washing of antiquity amongst his fellowes as he would fasten upon us t Reply pag 46 Nescivit iniquus confusionâ—m * â—eph 3. 5 Whilst a wicked man can speake hee will not blush otherwise the Iesuit would not have instaÌ„ced so vainly as he here hath done For first â—â—o of his instances are nothing to the purpose in regard he cannot produce any Father that either Willet or the Apologists set forth therefore they could not fret wash or corrupt the monuments of the Auncients which they never published Yet Mr Malone cannot be ignorant that privat men in defending their opinions doe many times interpret the Scriptures and Fathers contrary to their Adversaries thoughts against whom they use them so that their Adversaries with passion are many times provoked to take notice of some things which they conceive to bee not clearely carried and thereupon take occasion to challenge them of misalledging corrupting abusing detracting c. This we finde is done amongst our selves as in the Controversies amongst your owne the like is not wanting t Wadding Legat Phil 3. sect 2. orat 9 tract 10. § 6. Quâ velurâ hâc diligentia exhibitâ experiretur vestra Sanctitas tam falsum esse quod dicunt Adversarij quam verum esse quod in citato Tractatâ— ego animadverti ex apparenti violenter congesta illâ congerie Patrum apud Bandellum Bandelloque similes reprobatos â—liosve authores paucissimos esse vel nullos qui expresse ferant sententiam contra Virginem caeterosque vel fermè omnes corruptos mutilatos esse in verbis quae ex eisdem proferunâ—ur Payva ciâ— ibid. Minimè verum est communi veteris Ecclesiae sententiae illam repugnare cum praesertim à multis videam Sanctorum Patrum testimonijs à quibusdam oppugâ—ari quae partiâ— sunt depravata partim nihil ad rem faciunt Onely here is the difference that we bewayle these passionat escapes could wish that men were more tempered with Charity You justifie your owne and tell us that your Church graunteth free liberty to all Catholicke Doctors to expound as well the Scriptures as the Fathers for the upholding of that part which themselves doe thinke to bee most probable u Reply Sect. XI For the objection from Mr Rogers true it is that he was deceived in taking that booke for Augustines when in all probability it was written by some Author of a Schoolemans age for Riming Meditations were not in date in St Augustines time as we may gather from Sixtus Senonsis x Sixtus Senen Bibl sanct l 3. Scholastici cûm desideraren thomines sui saeculi rythmes deditos ad studia sacrarum lirerarum allicere acceptâ hinc occasione excogitârunt ipsi novam Metricae artâ—â— rationem For could that practice if it had beene so auncient have beene contemned exploded by all learned men in the late learned ages as inept superstitious ridiculous y Ibid. Non me later Scholaâ—ocorum PoeÌ„ticem ab omnibus 〈◊〉 contemni prorfus explodi tanquam ineptam superstitioâ—â—m 〈◊〉 dignam I perswade my selfe Antiquity would have had a greater reverence and better esteeme Now in regard this Author was diligent in the reading of Augustine of whom he hath made good use in all probabilitie he gave it the name it beares and yet he mixed many corruptions of his owne therewith Secondly suppose the booke be Augustines yet consider that M. Rogers doth not put forth the same to deceive for the Iesuite acknowledgeth that he declares in his Epistle Dedicatory what is omitted in the booke so that what he hath done is no more in effect but a censure such as Sixtus Senensis hath used and others Thirdly the booke that hee published was fot popular use and therefore he thought it not requisite to suffer those things which he distasted should remaine in the text where conveniently he could not advertise the Reader but placed them in the Epistle Dedicatory where he hath shewed what he conceived of them Wherefore this as it is the last so it is the Iesmites worst defence whereby to excuse themselves hee would make Israell to sinne SECT VII HEre the Iesuite considers How vainely our Answerer accepteth of the Fathers judgement againe a Reply pag. 4â— and in the first place most unwisely playeth the Orator Notwithstanding all that our Answerer hath said hetherto playing as it were fast and loose and by a doubtfull tergiversation keeping off and on with the Fathers at last ashamed of his inconstancie herein he proclaimeth valoroustio his finall resolution in these words That you may see how confident we are in the goodnes of our cause we will not now stand upon our right nor refuse to enter with you into this field but give you leave for this time both to be Challenger and the appointer of your owne weapons b Reply pag. 4â— If the Iesuite had any modestie he would not play the childe so vainely as here he doth for where doth the most reverend the Lord Primate play fast and loose Out of which of his words will he finde his doubtfull tergiversation where is his inconstancy that maketh him ashamed These flashes at the best are but straynes of Vanity The most learned Answerer hath shewed the Iesuite out of Tertullian the meanes to finde out the truth Their very doctrine it selfe being compared with the Apostolicke by the diversitie and contrarietie thereof saith that auncient Father will pronounce that it had for
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
Head for that Church obtained this title by reason of the Cittie wherein the principall members of the Church remained and because it was an Apostolicall Church not for that all the other Apostolicall Churches were subordinate unto it in power The second hee urgeth is out of the Eight Epistle of his fourth booke where hee would have Cyprian to stile the Roman Church the roote and the mother of the Cathelicke Church x Reply pag 50 If this be true surely Cyprian had a conceipt that the branch might grow before the roote for who will say that Rome first received the Faith or the name of Christians or that there was no Catholicke Church before Peter preached there But Cyprian meant no such thing as this Iesuite would perswade him to affirme Hee findes a Schisme in Rome betwixt Novatianus and Cornelius Nevatianus being made Bishop the other living suspends his judgment in this matter untill hee had enquired the truth from the Romane Preists and Deacons y Cyprian Epistol 45. Omnia interim integra suspenderentur done end nos iidem collegae nostri rebus illic aut ad pacem aut pro veritate compertis redirent onely hee adviseth them that like good Navigators they should not separate themselves from the unity of the Catholicke Church z Ibid. Nos enim singulis navigantibus ne cum scandalo ullo navigarent rationem red sentes scimus nos hortatos cos esse ut Ecclesiae Catholiâ—â— radicem matricem pag 〈◊〉 at 〈◊〉 which he understandeth by this phrase taking the roote and mother of the Catholicke Church to bee the â—â—nitie of Faith and not as our Iesuâ—â— would collect that thereby is meant the Roman Congregation for wherefore then should he suspend his judgment till he heard the matter if his thoughts had concluded as this Iesuite would have it that Cornelius and his Adherents were the roote and mother of the Catholicke Church And that this is the meaning of S. Cyprian we may easily perceive in regard he taketh these wordes ad Catholicâ— Ecclesiae unitatem to the unity of the Catholicke Church and ad radicis matris sinum to the bosome of their roote and mother in his 42 Epistle to expresse the same thing Besides wee may further observe that the roote and mother of the Catholicke Church is not Cornelius and his Diocess in regard the Iesuite will not have the Pope and his Diocese to be the Catholicke Church a Reply pag. 49. which S. Cyprian Epist 43. makes to bee the Mother ad matrem suam id est Ecclesiam catholicam His third witnesse from Antiquity is Tertullian who even when hee was fallen otherwise â—nto heresi yet did he though he was an Hereticke acknowledge the Bishop of Rome to be Episcopus Episcoperum the Bishop of Bishops b Reply pag. 51. As if this were sufficient to make the Romane Church the head of all other Churches or the Pope the Father of all Bishops Well if it be not Rome hath lost one of her best Arguments for her triumphant Station over the Church of GOD. And who knoweth not that this title was given to all those that had Bishops under them as all Patriarches and Metropolitans had And what is more common then to give other Bishops the stile of Summus vel princeps Episcoporum Cheife or Prince of Bishops as Rabanus speakes of the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandria c Rabanus l. 1. de instit Cleric c. 5. Sicut Archiepiscopus Antiochenus Episcopus atque Alexandrinus Antistes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graeco â—ocabulo dicitur quod sit summus vel Princeps Episcoporum tenet enim vicem Apostolicam praesidet Episcopis caeteris Yea so common was this appellation that in the third Carthaginian Councell this title was inhibited to all the Metropolitans d Concilium Carthag 3. can 26. Vt primâ— sedis Episcopus non appeiletur princeps Sacerdotum aut summus sacerdos aut aliquid hujusmodi sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus But least the Iesuite should say that the stile of Prince of Bishops is not so concludent for an universall government as to be called Bishop of Bishops we shall finde Sidonius calling Lupus Pater Patrum Episcopus Episcoporum Father of Fathers and Bishop of Bishops Sidonius l. 6. Epist 1. Benedictus Spiritus sanctus Pater Dei omnipotentis quod tu Pater Patrum Episcopus Episcoporum and Athanasius was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arch-Preist of Preists f 〈◊〉 in orat â—â— de laudibus He ronis which is the same in effect whereby we may see upon how slender a foundation the Castle of S. Angelo is raised Yet if Tertullian be but observed by an eye that will not be blinde it will appeare that he speaketh onely in scorne and ironically when he cals your Roman Bishop cheife preist and Bishop of bishops Onely this Roman Fisher will forsake nothing that commeth to his hooke though it be but the scorne of an Hereticke He ceaseth not but brings in old Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. saying that with this Roman Church by reason of her more powerfull Principality or Supremacy it is necessary that all other Churches doe agree g Reply pag. 51. All this maketh little to give the Church of Rome the headship pretended For the question here is particular concerning the Canon of the Scriptures and the Church of Rome is commended for her truth as she then stood h Irenaeus l. â— c. 3. In qua semper ab his qui sunt undique consecratâ— est quae ab Apostolis traditio not for her infaâ—libilitie in ages after that she should remaine the same For were see Augustine forsakes the Roman Church in which some doubted of the Epistles to the Hebrewes and adhered unto the Greekes who received it into the Canoni Irenaeus also in another matter forall the powerfull principalitie that he gave unto the Roman Church reproved sharpely her Monarch and forsooke not in all probabilitie their Commuâ—ion whom hee had excommunicated k Eusebius hist Eccles l. 5. c. 23. Extant autem verba illorâ—â— qui Victorem acriter reprehenderunt equibus Irenae us Besides if all other Churches did agree with the Roman i Augustin l. â— de Peceat merit remissse 27. Ad Haebraeâ—â— quoque Epistola quan quam nonnullis incerta fit tamen magis me movet authoritas Ecclesiarum Orientalium quae hanc etiam in Canonicis habent propter potentiorem principalitatem by reason her more powerfull principalitie it were good our Iesuite would have interpreted what he had meant thereby for these are words that better fit an imperiall government then the rule of the Church And that people should come thither for this respect I thinke the Church of Rome hath little cause to triumph therein any more then other Patriarchall Seas because all men come up from all parts to the Metropoliticall
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
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
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
adversaries because the 〈◊〉 Lamb andafflict and 〈◊〉 is c That I PETER the Apostle of GOD â—â— the 〈◊〉 day may yeeld you 〈◊〉 defence againe and prepare for you tubernacles in Heaven Baroniâ—â—â—â— annum 755. â— 17. PETRVS vâ—â—atus Apostolus à IESV CHRISTO c. Vobis vitis excellentissimis Pipino Carolo Carolomanno tribus Regibus atque sanctifimis Episcopis Abbatibus presbyterie vel cunctis religiosis monachis vernm â—â—iam Ducibus Comitibus cunctis generalibus c. Ego PETRVS Apostolus dum à Christo Dei vivi filio vocaâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clementâ—â—â— arbitâ—â—â—â— illuminator ab ejus potenâ—â—â— â—â—tius mundi â—um 〈◊〉 c. Ideoque ego Apostolus Dei PETRVS qui vos adoptivos habeo filios ad defendendum de manibus adversariorum hanc Romanam civitatem 〈◊〉 pro co quod maximas afflictiones oppressiones à pessima Longobâ—â—dorum gente patiuntur c. Vt â—â—â— PETRVS vocatus Dei Apostolus in hâ—c vitâ in die futuri exanimis vobis alterna impendens patrotiâ—â—â— in regno Dei 〈…〉 tabernacula 〈◊〉 parâ—n ad remp Venet. Paâ—â—â— igitur idemque Petrus vicem Christi agens in terâ—â—s And it is not long since Paul the 〈◊〉 was made PETER also by Cardinall Baronius â— So that we see it is not well agreed at Rome whether the POPE be PETER the Apostle or an Apostle by Succession or meerely Apostolicall But as the shining lampes of the Church of GOD have detected him to be farre from Peter and an Apostle So for all the Iesuites covers he will not appeare to be Apostolicall either Heere the Iesuite hath given us a riddleâ— no resolution to the first enquirie When he inquired secondly saith the Iesuite what sound evidence wee can produce to shew that one of the company was to hold the Apostlesius as it were in 〈◊〉 for him and his Successâ—ours for ever and that the other cleaven should have the same for 〈◊〉 of life onely Answere might soone have beene made out of what before hath beene declared that S. Peter had somewhat more then the rest of the Apostles to â—it his superiority and dignitie and this being given to him before the rest for the benefite of the Church must needes have continued after his death Reply pag. â—â— We see the Iesuite hath no more to say for S. Peter then he hath already uttered In the answere whereunto the Reader may see his pretences examined In 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he inquired thirdly saith the Iesuite how the state of perpetuîtie came to fall upon S. Peter rather then upon S. Iohn A child might have answered that it pleased CHRIST to make choyce of S. Peter rather then of S. Iohn and who is he thâ—â— will demaund of GOD why It seemes a Childe can doe more then a Iesuite for how will hee make it good that CHRIST made choyce of Peter rather then of S. Iohn to continue the state of perpetuitie in regard hee telleth us the Apostleship determined with him And wee demaund not of GOD why But wee aske the Iesuite why they will invent and establish a foundation for their Church that hath no better ground to depend uppon then 〈◊〉 tale-telling Finally saith the Iesuite when in the fourth place hee inquired why did not the inheritence rather descend upon the Church of Antioch whereof S. Peter was first Bishop then upon Rome Answere might hee made by 〈◊〉 pleasant demaund to the recreation of the whole Court to wit why should not our Answerers Childe be called 〈◊〉 her the Heire of a Parsin then of a Bishop seeing that his 〈◊〉 was the former before he came to be elected for the 〈◊〉 Truely I am sure that although the lad might happilie repine at either of both the names uet 〈…〉 of a Bishops sonne before that other of a Pâ—rson and with good reason too forasmuch as his Father did willingly forsake the Parsinage to get the title of a Bishop Reply pag. â—â— Heere the Iesuite would turne Arsby if he wanted 〈◊〉 wit For who sees not the Couse layed aside and the guarded Habite girded on that hee might recreate the whole Court So that Iesuites we may know want not their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many times 〈◊〉 I would 〈◊〉 the â—â—â—inde to explaine himselfe and to shew in what purpose hee hath brought forth this 〈◊〉 for as it thus stands his Comedie will not bee understood â—â—ither answere the inquiries for hee will confesse the Bishop of Antioch to differ from the Bishop of Rome more then 〈◊〉 Persons forme from himselfe whose father is a Bishop 〈◊〉 he must acknowledge them to have the same head members commands prerogatives And upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not say that Petâ—â—â— was the poore Pâ—â—sâ—â— of Antioch and left his 〈◊〉 to get his universall Bishoppricke of Rome for if you doe it will destroy all your arguments from Tu es Petrus 〈◊〉 pro te Petre pasâ—e eves for if the Bishoppricke 〈◊〉 Peter a Monarch how â—â— their Monarchie bee founded in S. Peter or that Church get any thing by Peter his plaâ—ing his seate there And from hence you see the force of his reason that maketh the inheritance to defâ—â—â—d upon Rome rather then upon the Church of Antioch because the Roman Church is the Here of Peter the Bishop Antioch onely of Peter the Parson So that wee may easily perceive that what hee hath produced was not to answere the inquirie but to stoâ—ne the Children of Bishops and Preists â— Parsons as hee cals them But hee may take notice that the Children of Preists were never of base â—â—eeme till the base and filthie carriage of the Romish Cleargie acquired it for among the Preists wee finde some married to the blood ROYALL as Iâ—hojaâ—â— * 2. Châ— 22. 11. 〈◊〉 why should God take such strict care for the choyce of their wives * Lev. 2â— â—â— 14 if he contemned their generation Since our Saviours time was it infamie to Philips 〈◊〉 that their father was an Evangelist * Acts 21. â— â— Naâ—ianâ— Monoâ— in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 20 Did the Iesuite ever read that S. 〈◊〉 repined at the Bishop his Father Was Gregorie the great made the lesse that his great 〈…〉 a Pope Or did it 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Châ—yre that the 〈…〉 〈◊〉 the same â— No the children of Preists and 〈◊〉 lawfully married never dishonoured their 〈◊〉 neither were the children 〈◊〉 by their 〈◊〉 from a Priest But when 〈…〉 and Mac a Nâ—â—buiâ— and 〈…〉 their Popes and Cleargie with their 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 ◠〈◊〉 notâ—â— vitam Greâ—â—â—ij Papae 1. Factus est Pontifex â— Gregoâ—ius qui natus ATAVO FELICE PAPA ejus nominis tertio last filled the world full of their unlawfull 〈◊〉 This invented the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 and made many holy birthâ—◠〈◊〉 because their â—â—thers did forbeare to challenge them Indeed the Children of Bishops and Preists among you may well â—epiâ—e to be stiled
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
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
it be yet it being cleare that it is the Popes will that that course of interpreting shall hold their mancipiall vow oath makes them perjured that violate the same The Iesuite esteemes these but â—hifts therfore he will justifie his Fathers an other way to that end proceedeth in this maner But let us put the ease that Maldonate did â—â—kâ— that â—ath if you doe without a dispensation he must be perjured yet shall not our Answerer be able ever to shew that either he or any other Iesuite did once violat the same i Reply pag. 9â— I feare you wil be deceived for if your excuse faile Maldonate must get a learneder advocate or plead guilty and it seemes you are to seek when you flye from the words of the oath seeke reliefe from the extension of the intent thereof For I suppose he is not so ignorant saith the Iesuite but that he knoweth how the intent of that oath extends it selfe no further then to bind the taken never to interpret the word of God in matters of faith contrary to the consent of ancient Fathers k Reply pag. 9â— He should be as blind as Mr Malone if he should take his shifts for a fit glosse for this text who shal measure the exteÌ„t of this oath but they that first occasioned it the councell of Trent and wil their decree patronize his conceipt It will tell you that ad câ—â—rcenda petulantia ingonia to restrain petulans wits l Conc. Trid. sess 4. Decret 3 the Synode doth decree that Doctors shal not interpret the Scriptures contra eum sensum quem tenuit tonet sancta mater ecclesia aut contra unanimem consensum patrum against that sense which the holy mother Church hath doth hold or against the unanimous consent of Fathers m Ibid. But is this all if it were the Iesuite would think himselfe secure but we shal find that in the first place it inhibites â—t nemo prudentiae innxus sacram scripturaÌ„ ad suos sâ—nsus contorqueat that no man leaâ—ing to his own wisdome doe wrest the Scriptures to his own sense Ibid. which Maldonat doth confesse he hath don non nego me hujus interpretationis authoreÌ„ nemineÌ„ habere I do not deny saith he that I have no author of this interpretation Besides the councel condeÌ„nes interpretations contrary to the unanimous consent of fathers but the Iesuit will not have the oath bind so it be not contradictory in that point which is expounded whether the councell wants faith or the Iesuit let the Iesuit resolve The words of the oath excludes the Iesuits gloss are stricter then the Councels decree The councell condemnes interpretations that are private from a mans owne wisedome or 〈◊〉 against the Consent of Fathers o Ibid. though it be with many assistants but the oath inhibites the receiving and interpreting of the Scriptures not onely with glosses that are contra against the Fathers this were too little but with such that are not juxta unanimem consensum according to the uniforme consent of Fathers p Bulla Pij 4. Nec eam unquam nisi juxta c. So that the place of Augustine is produced to small purpose it neither shadowing nor salving the Iesuites credite for the question is not whether a Divine free and at libertie may use S. Augustines practise in the interpretation of Scripture but whether a Iesuite tyed to the oath nec eam unquam never to interpret nisi juxta unanimum consensum Patrum but according to the uniforme consent of Fathers â—ay without breach of faith enjoy this libertie this is the question But their Iesuite Pererius hath interpreted quite contrary to the consent of Fathers and this Iesuite onely affords him a good word but sweats not at all for his releife or defence So that all may see the most judicious Answerer is freed from malice slander ignorance and of bold and desperate forehead which the blistered tongue of the Iesuite would have cast upon him He wrongeth me in like sort q Reply pag. 92 saith the Iesuite If his learned pen hath done you wrong it hath beene by detecting your frauds as before the perjuries of your Order For wherein is the wrong but in shewing forth the wisedome of your insinuations For the truth is he indeavoureth not to make his Reader beleive that you should be so unreasonable as to say that a man might not dissent from the auncient Doctors so much as in an exposition of a text of Scripture without making himselfe more learned more pious and more holy then they were r See the Reply pag. 92. but shewes that you have done it enforcing the same from your reason of the Fathers learning pietie and holynes which lookes upon all points with like authoritie And suppose that according to your owne principles an interpreter should dissent from the Doctors in exposition of one text the most remoâ—est from the foundations of Faith as Tâ—bies dogge his wagging of his tayle I hope you cannot deny but by that Act if they bee not more pious and holy then the Fathers from whom they vary yet they make themselves more learned in that particular if your reason be true or sound For if the learning pietie and holinesse of the Fathers be an argument of truth in deducing points of doctrine from the Scripture they that vary from them in doctrine drawne from thence must make themselves more learned 〈◊〉 and holy then they were But upon revisall what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to confesse he doth labour to excuse and to this intent he refines his character and tels us a long story of his thoughts that he who in such points of faith as those be which I layde downe in my demaund would prefette his owne private interpretation of Scripture before the generall and uniforme agreement of holy Fathers therein could not be excused from the guilt of such like arrogancie Å¿ Reply pag. 93 Is it but arrogancie to deny the Fathers in a point of faith such as those be which you have layde downe It seemes your faith is of your owne making otherwise it would be heresie especially being perversâ—y done against so great a light and conjoyned testimonie but why more in these points that are named by you and such like then in others learning pietie and holinesse direct in every point of religiou as well as in these and therefore if it conclude arrogancie to those that oppose in these you must shew us a reason why it doth not in others also And so farre as I can see the Iesuite hath no reason against the currant of their whole Church to make learning pietie and religion causes of true interpretation of Scripture no not in points of faith when by their owne confession these three Graces were suspended from guyding the Romane faith for whole ages together t Stapl. Relect. cont 1. q. 5. A. 3. Vixullum peccatum solâ Haeresi
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
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
finde this Iudge that represents the Magistrate betwixt the Scripture and us And surely if the Spirit of GOD doth interpret the Scriptures as he delivered them holy men speaking as the spirit gave them utterance I have said sufficient before to declare that your Popes are no such manner of men And many of your owne exclude the Pope from this soveraigne power of interpreting the Scriptures i Bellarm. de Concil â—â—câ— l. â— c. 14. Concilium esse supra Pontificâ—m asscrit candinalis Cameracensis Ioannes Gerson Iacobus Almainus Nicolaus Cusanus Panâ—â—mitaâ—us Cardinalis Florentinus Abulensis et alij Alij vero volâ—nâ— Papam esse in Ecclesia id quod est Dux Venetiarum in republ Veneta some reckoning up his Hereâ—iâ—s as Alphonsus de Castro k Advers Haer. l. 1. c. 4. Omnis enim home erraâ—e potest in â—ide etiam â—â— Papa sit Nam de Liberio c. Yet if the Iesuite will have another Iudge then the Spirit of GOD in his word let him be ruled by it He sâ—â—â—â—e none of our ruler we follow that rule which the Apostles have taught Acts XV. XXV III. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to â—â— c. Neither is this supreme Iudge without atongue dumbe and mure as they caluminate but speakes by the writings of the Prophets and the Apostles wherein every necessary point of Faith is determined and made knowne And who can be judge of these hid and secret matters but he that knowes them and makes them knowne even the Spirit of GOD 1. Cor. II. X. XI XIII Who should interprete the law but the maker of it l Vult com inâ—â— l. 1. tit 2. §. 9 n. 1. Iâ—s interpretandi leges est penes â—undem qui habet jus â—â—â—â—nâ—i leges Whose words are the Scriptures but the words of the Spirit of GOD Acts XXV III. XXV II. Pet. 1. XXI Neither is it to be omitted that the Scriptures speake as a Iudge for what is attributed to GOD in regard of his supreame power and justice Rom. XI XXXII GOD hath concluded them all in unbeleife that he might have mercy upon all is spoken of the Scriptures Gal. III. XXII The Scripture hath concluded all under â—iâ—â—â— that the promise by faith of IESVS CHRIST might be given to them that beleive Who is it that accuseth who is it that condemneth but this Iudge Io. V. XIV The law the word is the Iudge absolute and infallible a ministeriall duty onely is committed to the Pastors of the Church Io. XII XLVIII Neither are Papists able to cast of this blessed Samuel from judging Israel and to erect up their owne Saul but by blaspheming the word of truth charging it with imperâ—â—ction obscuritiâ— and what not that may deprive it of its power So that there is nothing but the wrangling of Heretickes to plead for the Papall Headship and this is as vaine as the rest for unlesse he may irresisteably enlighten not onely the understanding but also the will he can never compound and silence Controversies in regard his words let them make them divine or otherwise are as subject to misinterpretation as the Word of GOD and may with more facilitie be perverted But if we doe but observe we may perceive how they casting off the absolute direction of Truth are involved in errour and blindnes For by making their Church the only teacher determiner of an article of faith they tye themselves to receive no other light from the Scriptures then Lucifer their Pope for he is their Church will convey unto them And howsoever they boast of the Fathers of Councels of the Church yet when all comes to all their Iudge of Controversies is onely their Roman Bishop m Grâ—gor Valent tom 3. Commentar in Thomam disp 1. quaest 1. punct 1. Cùm dicimus propositionem Ecclesiae esse conditionem necessariam ad assensum fidei â— nomine Ecclesiae intelligimus ejus caput id est Romanum Pontificem perse vel unâ cum Concilio ex praedicta auctoritate propositiones fidei fidelibus declarantem either with or without a Councell n Ibid. punct 〈◊〉 Si quando oriantur controversiae de Fide Ecclesia non potest in ijs definiendis à veritaâ—â— aberrare Haec autem Ecclesiae infallibilis auctoritas ad definiendum non est in singulis fidelibus quippe qui sine controversiâ possunt errare singuli Neque est etiam in omnibus omninò fidelibus Frustra enim data illis esset cùm â—ieri vix possit in fidei causis ut ab omnibus illis sigillatim sententia dicatur Sed residet summa illa Ecclesiae auctoritas in Christi Vicario sâ—â—â—â—o Pontifice sive unâ cum Episcoporum Concilio sive absque Concilio res fidei definiâ—e velit Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 3. Summus Pontifex cùm to tam Ecclesiam docet in his quae ad fidem pertinent nullo easu errare potest Constat generalia concilia saepè errasse quando caruâ—â—unt Summi Pontificis suffragio Ex quo apparet totam firmitatem Concilioâ—um legitimorum esse â Pontifice non partim à Pontifice partim à Concilio Staplâ—ton relect prinâ— doctr contr 6. quaest 3. in explicatar 5. Potestas infallibilitâ—s Papalis est potestas gratia personalis personae Petri successorum ejus à Christo data Majoritas discretionis maturitas judicij si de scientia rerum sacrarum intelligatur non solùm Concilium sed Theologoâ—â—m collegium imò unus aliquis Theologus Pontificem facilè superabit Si autem de judicio fidei determinationâ— sensus Scripturae quem credere oporteat intelligatur non est Concilium supra Papam sed unus Papa Petri successor cui uni Christus indeâ—ectibâ—hâ—atem fidei impetravit super omnes est it matters not So likewise they are deluded with the spirit of errour in giving the power they doe to this externall Iudge for our Iesuite will have the Iudge to be the rule whereby to discover which is a point of faith and which not the manner how I have told you before whatsoever he saith is faith must needes be so let it be with a Councell or without Others make the Popes authority equall to the Scriptures o Christophorus de Sacrobosâ—o Defens Decr. Triden part â— c. 6. Dico Ecclesiâ— authoritatem parem esse authoritad Scripturae ratio est quia unuâ— idem Deus qui regebat Apostolos Prophetas ne eâ—â—arent scribendo diright Ecclesiam ne labatur in interpretando to the vâ—yce of GOD. Neither will they have their Pope or Church onely equall to the Scriptures but also somewhat superiour thereunto p Albert. Pighius l. 1. Hierat Eccles c. 2. dicit non soâ—â—â— non inferâ—orem non solâ—m parem imo quodammodò â—â—periorem â—â—otiorem Ecclesiae autoritatem autoritaâ—â— Scripturaâ—um for the Church is a Prophet q Defensor Iohannis Pistorâ—â—
of our Faith be grounded some way or other in the Scripture yet the Rule to finde out which is a point of faith and which not must be taken from the Church Reply p. 100. Observe here what we gaine from the Iesuite and then we will attend his arguments First he that in the page before told us that there be many confessed points of Faith which are not in any sort expressed or as much as once touched by the Scriptures f Reply pag. â—â— in this place would perswade the gentle Reader that the articles of their Faith are some way or other grounded in the Scripture Secondly he makes the ground of Faith to be the Scripture yet the Rule to finde out which is a point of Faith and which not must be taken from the Church so that although hee make their Pope their Cater-Pillar yet Scripture is acknowledged the ground of Faith But to make this discourse an over-sight I would know how the Rule can measure without the ground or how Faith can remaine grounded in Scripture when their rule measures without it Now the Iesuite would make this knowne by the practise of the Primitive Church but before he begins he prepares his Reader Some points there are in which controversie arising 〈◊〉 the affirmative nor yet the negative part is by the Church declared to be true nor commanded to be so beleived professed by her followers in which saith S. Augustine that Faith whereby we are Christians remaining safe either we doe not know which part in true and â—â— suspend our definitive sentence or else by humane and weake suspicion we doe guesse otherwise then the truth is and consequently are deceived Reply p. 100 Wee know that Augustine in this place speaketh not of any matter of Faith that is or can be by declaration of the Church but telleth us that our beleife whereby wee are Christians remaining sure and setled our ignorance errour in other things which are far from being of faith will not be so dangerous And other sort of points there is saith the Iesuite wherein when controversie doth arise one part is already found declared for true and commaunded of necessity to be so beleived by all and in these if a man be advertised of the Churches declaration and notwithstanding will obstinately maintaine the contrary then is he said to hold against a point of Catholick faith and therefore accounted to be an hereticke Let us suppose saith S. Augustin that some man doth hold of CHRIST that errour which Photinus held which he thinketh to be the true Catholicke Faith I doe not yet account him for an Hereticke except when the doctrine of the Church is layde open unto him he yet maketh choise to continue in that errour which before he held Reply ibid. Was ever any man so mad to thinke that the Church could not point out an article of Faith This may be done by private Churches private Doctors but shew us if you can that Augustine made a point of Faith from the naked ground of the Churches declaration with Scriptures or without onely and for no other reason then because it is declared Augustine affordeth nothing here for this purpose he sheweth his charity that if some man by weaknes and infirmitie hold on hereticall opinion if it be not obstinately and pertinaciously he doth not accompt him an Heretick â—ut I aske you although 〈◊〉 with mercie the errant whether you are perswaded that he would doe so of the Heresie The point is whether S. Augustine would have accounted Photius his opinion denying CHRIST to be GOD an indifferent point of Religion as the Iesuite would perswade us before it was defined by the Church No the words of Augustine plainely declare that the doctrine of the Church taught from the Scriptures not defined by a Councel is sufficient to detect Heresie though he would have the obstinacie of the party appeare against the truth before he condemnes him for an Hereticke But this will appeare saith the Iesuite yet more manifest by the manner wherewith S. Augustine excused S. Cyprian c. for that his errour was not against any point as yet declared by the Church i Reply ibid. pag. 101. Surely S. Augustine doth not contest for that the Iesuite dreameth He excuseth Cyprian why Because the Roman Church had not condemned this opinion This is false for this opinion was condemned Cyprian excommunicated by the strength of Rome as is before shewed confessed by your own * See before Sect. 10. yet he adhered therunto But that which Augustine saith here may be interpreted by his words urged immediately before that though Cyprian held this opinion yet was it not with obstinacie as the 〈◊〉 maintained theirs but that he would have forsaken that errour if the falshood thereof had beene demonstrated unto him not by a Generall Councell onely as it was at Nice but as the Iesuite urgeth his words if any man had shewed the contrary unto him Now the Pope with his Councell did decree against it but this Augustine did not conceive as the Iesuite would collect to be a demonstration sufficient to convict S. Cyprian so that the Iesuit doth but trifle in urging this testimony Now saith the Iesuite although this point is made plaine 〈◊〉 by this holy Fathers authority k Reply p. 101. c. What hath the 〈◊〉 no more but one Fathers authoritie and as you perceive a poore one for his infallible Iudge Yes That I may leave it past all doubt saith hee or replication wee will give a glance to see how the practise of this Doctrine was performed and to this purpose hee telleth us that wee shall finde how 68. Bishops writing from Garthage to Pope Innocentius after having related unto his Holines what they had concluded themselves in the matter they say that they thought it convenient to intimate the same unto his Charitie to the end that unto the decrees of our mediacritie say they be annexed the authoritie of the See Apostolicke for the preservation of the health and good estate of many and also for the correction of the perversitie of some others And that the second Councell held at Milevitum sent an epistle to Pope Innocentius about the same matter beginning with these words Seeing our Lord God by the gift of his especiall grace hath placed you in the See Apostolicke c we beseech you to use your pastorall diligence in remedying the great dangers wherewith the weaker members of Christ are invironed l Reply p. 101. 102. Nowhere is nothing that may conclude the Roman Bishop to be this infallible rule it being manifest that other Bishops were sought unto and consulted as well as himselfe nay after hee had declared his judgement For in the point of Easter after the Bishops of Egypt had declared their mindes and the Church of Alexandria with the Bishop of the Roman Church had defined the matter yet They
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
observed if the Truth were not before knowne The declaration doth not make it Faith but sheweth that the faithfull doe adhere unto it as revealed by God for if the truth were not there the declaration of it were an Hersie or error at least Neither doth hee produce any thing afterwards to make the Church the rule of faith Whereas he tels us that S. Augustine writing to S. Hierome requesteth him that setting downe the Catalogue of Heretickes he would joyntly expresse in what points they had beene condemned by Catholicke authoritie and againe in his Preface to the above mentioned Catalogue of Heresies hee mentioneth himselfe what the Church holdeth against such Heresies without making any mention of the authority of Scripture z Reply p. 10. I thinke the Iesuite would have a Church embracing heresie What doth the Churches adherence to truth make her the Iudge or rule of it and because Catholicke authority condemneth Herefie must therefore the contrary truth have its life from the declaration thereof Faith must then follow the Church not leade it The Iesuit may conceive that this Father meanes not by the Churches authority a power inherent in their Roman Apollo excluding all other assistance but a lawfull determination according to the Scriptures by the Bishops Preists of the Catholick Church For otherwise he must acknowledge in the Church such a domination as was amongst the Gentiles Luke 22. But sure it is that S. Augustine dreamed no more of your Iudge then the blessed Apostle S. Paul who in the enumeration of the divers degrees of the ministery Ephes 1111. v. 11. left him out Besides the Iesuite by Apostolicall directions in matters that concerne faith may see a Rule not a Iudge pointed out as having authority to guide us Phil. 3. 16. Gal. 6. 16. by which rule as the Church receiveth strength so limitation Finally saith the Iesuite observe how all the points layde down by me in my demand being declared by the Catholicke Church for articles of faith are of necessity to be beleived and held for such the contrary for dâ—â—â—able Heresie Reply p. 104 What the Iesuite doth say for the expresse declaration of all his points of Faith wil be examined in their severall places here an induction he brings us a conclusion whereby he would prove that the onely Rule to know a point of faith from an indifferent opinion in Religion is the declared determined judgment of the Church by which all the points laid down in his demand being propounded unto them for such must of necessity be accounted cheife articles of Catholick beleife b Reply p. 105. 106. But from whence the Iesuite draweth this conclusion I cannot see for if the Church command by the expresse Scripture and sense agreed on in all ages the Church then doth judge at least with undependant authority but direct calling for obedience to a former judgment if it decree in points doubtfull the Churches declaration can bind us to peace and externall obedience but here no infallible judge is allowed to make matters that were doubtfull to be of faith or to create from uncertainties a new Creed That the Church by her particular ministers and body representative hath applied the Scriptures to severall heresies thereby detected condemned them we deny not but will this make every point decreed by a Councell wilfully from their owne ends without direction or limitation to be a cheife article of Faith Your Quartadecimani were convinced of heresie by the Scripture as Alphonsus de Castro telleth us c Alphons de Castro advers Haeâ— l. 12. de Pascha Istorum ergo sententia inde convincitur haerescos quòd supra in titulo de lege oâ—tendimus esse hâ—resim asserere caeremonias judicia legis veteris obligare tempore legis evangelicae Nam Paulus reprehendens Galats co quod caeremonias legis observandas putaâ—ent inter alia dicit Dies observatis menses tempora annos but where by the naked declaratioÌ„ of Pope Victor without this rule Neither did he excommunicate all the Bishops of Asia in this cause if Alphonsus speake truth but they escaped it by Irenâ—us his chyding of your Pope d Idem ibid. Fâ—cisset nisi illum Iraeneus ob hoc redarguisset Here you see that these hereticks of the East after the Pope had condemned them had one Catholick Bishop pleading for them In like manner the Novatians e Alphons de Castro adver haer l. 12. de â—â—â—n haeâ— 3 Cum non sit alia res pluries apertius in sacris condicibus pâ—odita quà m misâ—ricordia quam Deus erga peccatorâ—s maxime poenitentes exercet illis peccatorum suorum indulgentiam tribuens might be condeÌ„ned as the Arians f Socrates Hist Eccles l. 1. c. 7. Evangelici enim Apostolici libri nâ—â—non antiquorum Prophetarum ora cula planè instruunt nos inquit Constantinus Imperator in Nicaea Synodo sensu numinis Proinde hostili politâ discordiâ sumaâ—â—us ex dictis divini Spiritus explicationes quaestionum Haec his similia memorabat ille velut amans paterni nominis filius sacerdoâ—ibus tanquam patribuâ— cupions confiteri Apostolicorum dogmatum unitatem Quibus assensus maximae conventus partis acceâ—â—it Macedonians g Theodoret. Hist Eccles l. 5. c. 9. Iam enim semel formam protulimus ut qui se Christianum profiteatur server â—a quae ab Apostolis tradita sunt quum dicat Sanctus Paâ—lus Si quis vobis annunciat aliud quam accepistis anathema esto Nestorians h Epistola Cyrilli Synodi ad Nestorium tom 1. Act. Concil Ephes Occum c. 14 Haec tenere haec sapere cum à sanctis Apostolis Evangelistis tum ab universa quoque sacra divina Scriptura tum ex veraci denique sanctorum patrum confessione edocti sumus Eâ—tich i Euagrius Histor Eccles l. 2. c. 4. Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum confitemur c. siâ—ut antiquitùs Prophetae de â—o postille ipse Christus nos docâ—â—t idem ipsum nobis Patrum Symbolum tradidit Pelagians k Concil Milevit c. 2. the Monothelites l Concil Constant Vniversale VI. Act. 1. 2. Propositis in medio Sanctis intemeratis Evangelijs but was this done by the judgement of the Church onely and absolutely surely no but by the Scriptures And it is more then cleare that the reason why you distast the Scriptures is as Clemens Alexandrinus observeth because you hold not the rule of faith Clemens Alexandr Stromat l. 7. Necesse est enim labi in maximis cos qui res maximas aggrediuâ—tur nisâ— regâ—lam veritatis ab ipsa veritate acceptam tenuâ—rint Qui autem sâ—nt ejâ—smoâ—i ut qui à recta via excideâ—int meritò etiam falluntur in pluâ—imis singularibus propterea quòd non habeant verorum â—alsoâ—um judicium planâ— exercitatum
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
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