accompted an Head How the Popes pastorall office was extended How little reason the Church of God had to depend upon the Popes Monarchie before he had a Crowne How vainly our Replyer tearmes oâ—â—r dissipation of their pride and vanitie the destroying of all true faith and doctrine Leâ— others conceive res acta non transacta est But as if he had said too little for the grand Impostor taking breath he gets into the CASTLE-CHAMBER where in-truth a Iesuite should be rather then in his Cloyster and primâfacie makes the STATE simple the most reverend Primate a Deluder and his Countreymen poore and afflicted Å¿ Reply pag. â—â— Heere is no meane man Totus Proteus totus Aristarchus many times flattering great ones alwayes censuring good ones Shall I defend their Wisedome that then were IVDGES in that honourable Court It were to dishonour them It may suffise that not onely those PATRES CONSCRIPTI wise Senatours but their wisest MASTER which could not at any time beedeluded by all the Sophisticall practices of Rome approved applauded the speech But who knowes not Delusus quia non delusus Every one is deluded by others in the Iesuites conjecture that is not deceived by themselves Yet how will hee make this most learned Lord a Deluder Hee hath said all and nothing something hee hath spoken without the compasse of the Virga that his Countreymen are poore and afflicted For how can they bee but poore when they live in an Egyptian dearth And affliâ—ted they will still remaine whilst such heards of frogges losusts Egyptian blessings prey upon them But let us see how wisely the Iesuite hath behaved himselfe In clearing the second maine branch of the oath the Answerer saith hee grounded himselfe altogether upon these â—wo fickle foundations First that S. Peter was not head of â—hâ— Church universall more then any other Apostle Secondly that the Bishop of Rome did not inherite by succession this same headship or universall Bishopricke which S. Peter had t Reply pag 53. The Iesuite distasted the first as well as the second but the opposall of that he supposeth not fit doctrine for the present time the second onely must endure a censure as grounded upon those two sickle foundations And be they as they shall appeare in tryall the Iesuit yet might have conceived if his eares had not failed him that the most reverend Primate did not so much question whether Peter was head of the Church universal as whether he had power in this kingdome his speech having relation to Peters power not over the Church absolutly but over us And what he saith is for the honor of S. Peter not to disrobe him For if S. Peter himselfe saith the most reverend Primate were now alive I should freely confesse that he ought to have spirituall authoritie and superiority within this kingdome But so would I say also if S. Andrew S. Bartholomew S. Thomas or any other of the Apostles were now aliue For I know that their Commission was very large to goe into all the world and to Preach the Gospel unto every creature so that in what part of the world soever they lived they could not be said to be out of their charge their Apostleship being a kinde of an universall Bishopricke u See the most reverend the Lord Primate his speech in the Castle-Chamber But the Iesuite telleth us that these two assertions before mentioned are manifestly contrary even by the confession of learned Protestants to the doctrin of the primitive Church x Reply pag. â—â— And to make this good Iohn Brereley is in the margent But I wonder the Iesuit will utter so grosse so deceiveable falshood For we know that in the sence the Iesuite would have Peter to be head neither Calvin Whitgift nor Musculus ever dreamed of it and to shew his precedency in order calling gifts abilities age or otherwise this maketh nothing either to the Iesuites purpose for Peters monarchy or the succeeding monarks So that the Iesuite as Brereley hath brought but ill advocates to plead for a Papall Monarchy from the headship of S. Peter But let the matter be examined for every government presupposeth not a Monarchy He might as in the schooles be the first in the head classe to dispose and order in some kindes the rest but this is far from being in Popish sence the head of the Church A poore wiseman might deliver a Citie * Ecclesi 9. 15. and an inferiour Priest remove a schisme and this they may do by their wisedome and government not Monarchy and power Besides if we grant the Iesuite that Peter excelled the other Apostles as one Angell excelleth another in glory he cannot conclude Peter the Apostles Monarch nor the Pope the Churches head unlesse he will have another Monarch in heaven besides God and an head over some of the Apostles whilst they lived upon earth that was not Peter The most grave Counsellor brought therefore no new doctrine into the Castle-Chamber If then you will have Peter head of the Apostles we yeeld it but we say withall that he was such an head that was neither adorned with Coronet or triple Crowne to declare a Papall supremacy over his brethren But to state the question as it ought to be let us enquire whether the Iesuite hath from the Fathers proved as he ought if he speake to the purpose viz. that S. Peter was so head of the Apostles and Church Universall that all were bound to acknowledge him as their Monarch You have seene all that he hath urged from Calvin Whitgift and Musculus prove no such matter and I doubt not but the Fathers will faile the Iesuite also First he urgeth S. Basill who saith That blessed Peter who was preferred before the rest of the disciples to whom the keyes of the kingdome of heaven were coÌ„mitted y Reply pag. â—4 And what makes this for a Monarchy That Peter was blessed so were the Apostles that he was preferred before the rest of the Apostles in many particulars is not denyed but every preferment is not Monarchicall neither do the keyes worke any more in Peter then the rest of the Apostles to whoÌ„ they were equally giveÌ„ So that Basil speakes not full for this headship His second instance is out of Hierome Therefore one Peter is chosen amongst twelue that a Head being ordained all occasion of schisme might be taken away z Reply ibid But what have we here that might not be found amongst equals For Bishops of the same dignitie may have among them a President Besides his Ambrose speaking of this Primacie maketh Peter to be that of the Circumcision that Paul was among the Gentiles a Ambros in ◠〈◊〉 Ab his itaque probatum dicit donum quod accepita Deo ut dignus esset habere Primatum in praedicatione gentium sicut et habebat Petrus in praedicatione circumcisionis that is a Primate of Order of Eminencie of Gifts
by miracle also as we may see in the Acts of the Apostles * Act. 8. 10. 11. where the dwellers in Phrygia and Pamphilia in Egypt and in the parts of Lybia about Cyrene and strangers of Rome Iewes and Proselites c. did heare the Apostles speaking in their tongues the wonderfull workes of God whereunto S. Chrysostome agreeth affirming more then once the Latine tongue to have beene imparted by miracle to the Apostles l Chrysost in Epist ad Cor. 1. cap. 14. homil 35. Idem Persarum ROMANORVM Indorum multorum praetereà linguis Spiritu susurrante loquebatur atque id munus munus tum vocabatur linguarum Eâ— paulo post Erant enim jam olim qui precandi donum linguae conjunctum haberent multi precabantur quidem linguâ sonabant vel Persarum vel ROMANA utentes Neither saith the Iesuite was it brought in by us but by our Answerer himselfe confessed to have beene from the beginning m Reply pag. 23. For this your second mistake the learned Primate saith that the Latine service was used from the beginning in those countries and who doubteth of it but was it not also understood if the Preists had then Latine tongues had not the people Latine eares n Azor. Ies Instit Mor. par 1. lib. 8. cap. 26. Nos tan en libeâ—ter fatemur tunc temporis laicos in Scripturarum lectione fuisse versatos quia sacra eloquia fueâ—unt Graeco vel Latino sermone conscripta quem sermonem vulgus quoque callebat nunc vero plebs fere rudis est imperita Latini sermonis at Laici qui Graecè vel Latinè noverunt Scripturaâ— jure optimo lectitant But this as the Iesuite pretendeth from the Answerers confession hath remained in the Church without alteration no such syllable in the Answerer when the people in their vulgar speech departed from it o Reply pag. 23. Imagine at the mistake the people departed from the vulgar speech who brought it after them or in amongst them that had departed from it but Popish Engineers For doth not the departing of the people make an alteration can this be denyed for although the Latine remaine the same yet is it not fit in these times for the same use purpose whereunto it was before appointed Is it not all one whether faith ranne from the people or the people from the faith Doth not both of these make infidels if the Candlesticke bee taken from the people or the people forsake the light will there not bee an operation of the same effect Wee confesse Latine service hath remained in some Churches like Saul in his Kingdome but the people have beene strucken with blindnesse as hee was possessed with the Divell ever since the spirit of truth and knowledge departed from them And heerein who cannot see that our great Logician in pleading for obscure Church-service deprives himselfe of reason for who will say because the Latine Church had their Latine Liturgie when that language was understood generally therefore they ought to have it so now or that there is no alteration among the people but that they are the same in knowledg devotioÌ„ now when they understand nothing as they were in the primitive times wheÌ„ they were well instructed or that because some churches within the Roman Empire had the continuance of a Latine Liturgie which at first they understood that therefore Popish Contrivers cannot as criminous bee charged with bringing in and continuing of a strange tongue amongst other Churches that were afterwards converted So that the Answerers charge is iust that that service which was lawfully practised when it was vulgarly understood hath by your carelesnes and negligence of the peoples instruction remained amongst you But for many other Churches as Ireland the Indies * The Iesuite argues that Latine was not commonly understood in France and Spaine because they had their proper languages c. who brought in those preparations to darkenesse amongst them but your Babâ—ll 〈◊〉 not indring light least your workes of darkenesse might bee detected or overthrowne And doth not your mistake lye in your way it being true that by your negligence it hath continued in some Churches where it ought to have beene changed and by your impudencyes it hath beene intruded upon others where it ought not to have beene admitted Thirdly saith the Iesuite the words following which hindred the edifying of Babell it selfe and scattered her builders are of the like nature for it was not one onely tongue that hindred the edifying of Babell as it is well knowne but many Finally â—e absurdely concludeth with manifest contradiction for if Babell was called Confusion and her builders scattered by a multiplicity of different tongues whilst we in one tongue and faith hold united together can any wiseman say that we build confused Babell p Reply pag. 24. But if one onely tongue confounded and not many hindred the edifying of Babell as it is well known or if Babell was called Confusion because that one only tongue was confounded will not the Iesuite bee ashamed to charge that pen with absurdities which he can no way resist but by such ignorant boldnes which here and in other places most freely and liberally he useth against it And that this is true St. Chrysostome affirmeth q Chrysost in epist ad Cor. 1. cap. 14. homil 35. Cum nâ—â—ris extrâ—â—retur una lingua in multas secabatur Iosephus doth fully declares where hee telleth us that the place of the towre was called Babel or Confusion not for the multitude of tongues which were then given but propter confusam linguaÌ„ quae priùs omnibus ex aequo clara fuerat because that tongue was confounded which before was indiffereÌ„tly understood of all the people r Iosephus l. 1. Antiq. cap. 5. Locu vero turris nunc Babylon vocatur propter confusam c nam Hebreâ— confusionem nominant Babel which your vulgar Biâ—le expresseth Venite igitur descendamus coÌ„fundamus ibi linguaÌ„ coruÌ„ ut non audiat unusquisque vocâ—â—◠〈◊〉 sui * Gen. 11. Gâ—â— to let â—â— goe downe and there confound 〈◊〉 language that they may not * Gen. 1â— 7. understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speâ—â—â—h and therefore in the 9. verse is the name of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord did there 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 all the earth which Torniâ—llus telleth us was done by 〈…〉 bringing upon them a soddaine and 〈◊〉 forgetfulnâ—s of their first speech 〈◊〉 Annal. sacr in an aâ— Orbe condâ—â—â— 1931. n. 10. 〈◊〉 dicimus quòd Deus inductâ mirabiliter in cunctis illis hominibus subitâ quâdam omnimodâ prioris idiomatis obliâ—ione illicò divinâ suâ dispensatione omnipotentâ—â— in corundem 〈◊〉 novoâ— direâ—â—â—sque indidit habitus juxta vanarum linguaâ—â—â— genera 〈◊〉 distributa ita ut statim 〈◊〉 ilâ—◠〈◊〉 promptum expeditumque ac 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illius sermonis qui 〈…〉 Quare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confusionis 〈◊〉
informed hee might have alledged But Luther tels us that Gods will which way soeuer it is made knowne unto us ought to be reverently embraced and therefore it is not lawfull to gainsay rashly the Bishop of Romes Supremacie And this reason is of such force that although there were no other it alone ought to bee sufficient to â—urbe the temeritie of all opposers n Reply pag â— The Argument is thus Whatsoever is permitted by God is reverently to bee embraced But the Papall altitude is permitted by God Therefore with all reverence to be embraced May not this argument serve for Pope Ioan the stewes the holy Ladie Maâ—ylda Iudas Iulian yea for all villany without exception or interruption For we must not thinke that any thing can come to passe without Gods voluntary permission God made the world shall we say that like Gallio he câ—reth for none of these things * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God hath permitted many evils many tyrannies among the Babyâ—nians Persians Grecians Romans yet this doth not justifie them in their impieties or make us reverently to embrace them therein Wee know God placed Peter in the sheepe-fould to â—eedâ— his Lambes as hee sent the the rest to the same worke but shew us that hee tooke him from the Ewes great with young to make him the King of Israell the Monarch of the Church and this is something to the purpose Yet this Argument is not the Charter by which Peter got his Primacie but those Popes that came in the last dayes For when Luther was in his best witts hee could not finde the Popes Primacie in Pasce â—ves or Oravi pro te Petre or in any other place of Scripture or from any other reason but from experience So that we perceive the Bishop of Rome hath as much right to his pretended greatnes as Nimrod to Babylon and all former Tyrants to their Usurpations Now the Iesuite addresseth himselfe to Antiquity and wherefore Because our Answerer will needes be a scholler of their maddest humours in this point wee present him heere saith he with the Doctrine of Antiquity utterly condemning the same o Reply pag. â—0 The most learned Answerer is no Scholler of Luther or of Bucer neither are their humours directories of his Faith or opinions One is his Doctor and that is Christ and as farre as Luther and Bucer follow him so farre they may have his company but no further It is your holy Brother-hood that are tyed to madde humours nay to such as a madde man would not embrace Who can presume that a Iesuite hath his wits that casting aside Gods Law in the place thereof embraceth the rule of Ignatius as if it were their Decalogue or Square for direction And for any thing we can see the Prescripts of their Generall are little lesse esteemed by them in their practise then what God himselfe appoints them p Hassenmuller Hist Ies c. 6 de voâ— Obedieniiae Impudentissimos istos homines non pudet haec sigmenta capiâ—is sui haâ— Loiolae nugaâ— ipsi Dei Deca â—â—go praeponeâ—â— quod Iacobus Crusius Novitiorum Landspergensium Rector facit Noster inquiens Decalogus eâ—â— Râ—gula voâ—orum ab Ignatio Lâ—â—â—â—â— traditâ— This goeth farre but yet all this is nothing to the requisites that they prescribe to themselves vizâ— that if the Church you know who they meane should determine white to be blacke it must not be opposed q Regulae Iesu it ad finem Histor interdict tenet regula 132. si quod oâ—ulis nostris apparet album nigrum illa esse definierit debemus itidem quod nigrâ—â— sit pronunciare Now seeing hee hath urged Bucer Luther disputing â—â— concessis he will make it cleare by Antiquity it selfe So that he will not accept that the Roman Church is the Head of all other Churches by a bare Concession or graunt of her enemies but will further make it apparant by her owne evidences and auncient Prerogatives And his first testimony is the Inscription of an Epistle of Ignatius the disciple of S. Iohn the Evangelist to the Romans where amongst other prerogatives he confesseth that it beareth sway ever all other Churches r Reply pag 10 The person cannot want authority and esteeme being an holy Bishop and Martyr Yet I am sure the Iesuite hath besmeared the face of this Epistle with falshood fraud for where will he finde this sway-bearing to be Oecumenicall and over all other Churches Bellarmine dare not be so bold but contractedly speakes in the Region of the Romans Å¿ Bellarm de Rom. Pont l. 2. c. 15. Primus igitur sit Beatus Ignatius qui Epistolam ad Romaâ—â—â— inscribiâ— Ignatius Ecclesiâ— sanctifiâ—aâ—ae quae praesideâ— in regione Romanorum and yet more largely then the truth of the Epistle will beare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in loco Regionis Romanorum and what Patriarch had not the like to beare sway in divine matters over all the Churches of the Province or Provinces that were subordinate unto him Nay further the Arch-Bishoppes of Yorke and Dublin are styled Primates the one of England the other of Ireland and yet this doth not make them Universall Swayers of the Church in those Kingdomes much lesse to obtaine headship for their Churches above all others therein So that I am perswaded if ever God had given the Roman Church such a capitall priviledge the Catholicke Church would have had plainer wordes to have declared CHRISTS favour and particular bountie unto it But you may remember who it was that tooke our Saviour to the pinacle of the Temple that offered him all the Kingdomes of the world that hee might neare sway over them and you cannot forget mitte te dâ—â—rsum If in these things you will not reject Saâ—â— with your Master take heed you fall not from the pinacle of the Temple with him that you embrace as your Lord. It is more glorious for a Bishop to bee a fatherly guide and governour then a sway-bearing President and it would more commend the Roman Bishop to attend those suburbane Churches and Provinces committed to his care by the Nicene Councell as Ruffinus â— expounds it and not to distend his holines with the vaste thoughts of universall Regiment The second Witnesse of Antiquity hee maketh Cypriâ—â— and two places he citeth out of him The first out of his third Epistle in his first booke where this Father calleth the Romane Church Cathedram Petri â—â—clesium principalem the Chaire of Peter and the cheâ—â—â— Church Ruffinus histâ—ccles l. 1. c. 6. â—t ut apud Alexandriam in urbe Roma vetusia conâ—uâ—â—â—do serâ—â—ur ut vel ille 〈◊〉 vel hic â—â—â—aroicariatum ecclesiarum solicitudinem gerat And might not the Church of Antioch have the first title or stile And yet this would not bee sufficient to give that Church such an universall headship and preheminence Reply pag. 50 For the other phrase of Ecclesiam principalem it makes it not the
de effectu Sacraâ—u l. 2. c. 10 Respondeo primo librum citatum non esse Augustini sed alicujus haeretici qui multa docet contra fidem contra Augustinum that taught many things both against faith against S. Augustine I doe not urge this as if his testimonies from hence were of any strength they being answered in substance before but because you may see that they will avoyde no witnesses though in other causes they reject them that will advantage their cause For the titles given to S. Peter by Chrysostome as Cheife Captaine Head of the Apostles t Reply pag. 54. they all have received answere before For we acknowledge Peter Head which is the same with cheife of the Apostles otherwise how could Paul compare himselfe to the very cheife if there had beene no cheife And if the Apostle had bene by divine institution Paules Soveraigne how could Paul compare himselfe with him he himselfe being divinely assisted But the Iesuite making a pause is willing for brevities sake to let passe manie other holy Fathers and Doctors of the auncient Church who are most copious in the confirmation of Peters primacy over the rest of the Apostles u Reply pag. 54. And you have seene for what kinde of Primacie it is that the Fathers speake not a Primacie of power to which all the members of the Church must stoop but of Order excellency gifts graces for the Fathers will expell from their mindes that will sincerely read them all conceite that Peter had a soveraigne Monarchy over the Apostles See Peters Primacie the same with that of Iames and Iohn for so saith Clemens Peter and Iames and Iohn after the assumption of our Saviour although they were preferred before others of our Lord himselfe yet did not challenge this glory to themselves x 〈◊〉 hist Eccles l. 2. c. 1. Clemens hoc asserit Petrus enim inquiâ— Iacobus Ioannes post 〈◊〉 Servatoris quamvis ab ipso quoque Domino alijs essent praelati gloriam tamen hanc sibiipsis non vendicaâ—â—â—â— â—â—â— Neither is Paul by Chrysostome made lesse then Peter himselfe and from S. Paul his owne testimony Gal. 2. 8. And now saith that ancient Father doth Paul shew himselfe to be equall to the rest of the Apostles in honour neither doth he compare himselfe to those others but unto the very Cheife declaring that every one of them had obtained alike dignity y Chrysost in Epist ad Gal. c. 2. Iamque se caeteris honore parem ostendit nec se reliquis illis sed ipsi summo comparat declarans quod horum unusquisqueâ— parem sortitus sit dignitatem Ambrose knowes not whether should bee preferred z Ambros serm 66. B. Petrus Paulus eminent inter universos Apostolos peculiari quâdam prerogativa praecellunt utrum inter ipsos quis cui praeponatur incertum est but Cyprian and Hierome make them all equall Christ after his resurrection saith Cyprian gave equall power to all the Apostles a Cyprian de Vnitate Ecclesiae Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat And the rest of the Apostles were even the same that Peter was being endued with the like fellowship both of honour and power b Ibid Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis Hierome also speaketh as much The Church is founded equally upon all the Apostles all received the kingdome of Heaven ex equo super eos Ecclesia fortitudo solidatur c Hierom. l. 1 cont Iâ—rin At dicis super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claves regni 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex â—â—â—â— c. So that the Iesuite had done well if he had taken up before if he had not troubled his Reader with proving that kinde of Primacy which is not denyed him and had forborne the attempting a proofe of that which the Fathers will never graunt But howsoever he resolves that Optatus Bishop of Milevetum must not be let passe in regard he will seeme to catechize our Answerer himselfe very handsomely in these words Thou canst not deny but that thou knowest full well that the Episcopall Chaire hath beene first given unto Peter in the cittie of Rome wherein Peter the head of the Apostles hath sitten whence also hee was called Cephas In the which one Chaire Vnitie might be kept of all men least the rest of the Apostles should maintaine every one their singular Chaires to themselves so that now he should be a schismaticke and an offender who would seeme to raise up another against this onely Chayre d Reply pag. 54. This place of Optatus if the Papists doe rightly interpret it must enclose a notorious falshood for can it be affirmed with truth by Optatus that in his time the Apostolicall Chayre was onely placed in the Citty of Rome when other Apostles had their severall seates and Chaires in other Citties also as Iames at Hierusalem aswell as Peter at Rome all which were visible and conspicuous to the Church before Optatus his time as we may see out of Tertullian Percurâ—e Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipse â—â—huc cathedra Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur c Tertul. praescrip con haereâ—â—â—â— And therefore Optutus his Chayre cannot be interpreted for the onely chayre of the Catholicke Church placed by Peter at Rome from which whosoever did separate himselfe upon what cause soever should be a Schismaticke But Optatus being rightly understood declareth thus much and no more That Peter having his seate placed at Rome and yet Eusebius maketh him not the first Bishop therâ— f Euseb hist Eccl. l. 3. c. â—â— 19. the Apostles did forbeare to place their seates in that Cittie and therefore judgeth the Donatists schismaticall that placed another Bishop of their Schisme in Rome contra singularem cathedram which this father sheweth was ever one in Rome in ea sedit primus Petrus succedit Linus Lino Clemens So that the Donatist Permenian with his fellowes were esteemed Schismaticks by Optatus not because they separated themselves from the Vnitie of the Roman Church as now they understand it but in regard by placing a Bishop of their faction in Rome they contemned the established policie of the Church that required in one Citty but one Episcopall Chayre Whereby we see that Optatus is so farre from catechizing the Answerer that hee doth checke the Iesuite and his faction that in like manner as the Donatists have done doe now intrude upon our Episcopall Chaires in Ireland titular Bishops of their faction of Schisme not forbearing the chayre of S. Patricke it selfe But drawing to conclusion of this point the Iesuite could wish that both the Answerer and all his Adherents would listen well unto S. Leo who saith that Peter onely in all the world is chosen
Church which by the testimonie of venerable Antiquitie wee finde approved to remaine ever free from all errour to that rocke against which the power of hell shall never prevaile to that foundation which Christ hath setled by his promise and made for ever immoveable by his obtained Prayer Reply pag. 6â— How non-erring a Church your Roman hath beene in her head is already declared How infallible a rule of faith your Cheife Pastor hath proved in the primitive times venerable Antiquitie by severall examples hath detected What a rocke Peters pretended Successours have beene when the divell was let loose to split so farre as possible the ship of the Church hath not been left you untold And who can beleive that CHRIST his prayer for Peters faith was effectuall for the POPES when against faith they day he desire to usurpe his kingdome This we Catholickes saith the Iesuite are exhorted to doe by S. Cyrill sayinâ— Let us remaine as members in our head the Apostolicke Throne of the Roman Bishops from whence it is our part to seeke what wee ought to believe This also all Protestants are advised to doe by a Doctour of their owne who as we heard before telleth them that they ought diligently to search out the spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the pillar and ground of truth having found her then setting aside all other questions they ought to embrace her communion follow her direction and rest in her judgment y Reply pag. 6â— What Doctor Feild advised Protestants to doe hath beene formerly declared And for what Catholickes are exhorted to doe he urgeth S. Cyrill but from whence From Aquinâ—s z Cyril Alleâ— in Thesauro alleadged by S. Thomas in opusc cont Graecoâ— Reply pag. 6â— who forged it For Cyrill hath no such words His Thesaurus hath no such filth He neither consented unto nor approved this tyranny Hee was one of them that sent the Copy of the Councell of Nice to curbe these pretences before they got head I wonder why the Iesuite added not the like forgery of the Councel of Chalcedon to the same end from the same Author Here wee may see that the best grounds he hath to prove their holy Father to be infallible and the Romane Mother without spots are but authorities taken from deceit But leaving Doctor Feild formerly urged and answered he presents us with these sentences of the Auncient in which saith he as in a pure mirrour they may if they list espy their enorâ—ions disagreement from the truth Reply pag 63 And the first Ancient Father that he produceth is Ireneus All they that are in the Church of God ought to obey saith he unto those Preists who have their succession from the Apostles who together with the succession of their Bishoprick have received the assured grace of truth according to the good will of the heavenly Father And we ought to have for suspected such as withdraw themselves from the like principall succession and joyne themselves together in any other place I say wee ought to hold them as hereticks of a perverse judgment or as schismatickes selfe-liking presumptuous fellowes And elsewhere saith the Iesuite he declareth how such like hereticks are to be conâ—â—â—ed confounded according to the practice of his times to wit in the second age after Christ We confound saith he al those who gather otherwise then they ought how by that Church which is the cheifest the most auncient best knowne unto all men which was established grounded in Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul pointing forth that Tradition and faith which this Roman Church holdeth from the Apostles by the succession of Bishops even unto our dayes After this manner also saith the Iesuite did Tertullian troâ—â—ce wrest those Heretickes whom hee had to deale withal Let them shew unto us if they can the original of their Churches let them rip up the order of their Bishops in â—ueâ—â—ort that by a succession derived from the beginning they prove their cheife Bishop to have some one of the Apostles or Apostolicall men for his author and Predecessour for by this meanes the Apostolicall Churches doe make up their accounts And because the Heretickes then were destitute of all such proofe as Tertullian exacted of them for the maintenance of their cause even as our Adversaries saith the Iesuite are as this day He therefore bringeth in the Catholicke Church upbrayding them with them all Protestants in this manner Who â— God 's name are yeâ— When from whence came yoâ— hither What doe you amongst mine being none of mine By what right O Marcion doest thou cut my â—ood what leave hast â—hâ—â— O Valentine to turne my streames fountaines another way By what authority doest thou remove my bounds O Apelles O Luther O Calvin O Zuiâ—glius The possession is mine I have it of old I enjoyed it before you c Reply pag 69 and 70. All that the Iesuite hath produced from Irenâ—us Tertullian will make little for justifying his pretences if the point be truly considered For there is a bare personall succession which may accompany a false Church as it did the Iewish when the Pharisees saâ—e in Moses Chaire and the Churches of the East when Heretickes invaded the chaires of Catholicke Bishops Secondly there is a Successâ—â—â— not only personall of Bishops Preists but where the Catholick Apostoliâ—all doctrine is continued also The people wee say where this is plaine are bound to receive the Doctrin from Timothie every succeeding Bishop as Timothie â— Tim 1. 14. from the Apostle that established and first published the same Now whatsoever the Iesuite hath brought from these Fathers is no way advantageous for the Church of Rome For first we can shew and have done as good personall succession as the Roman Bishops can claime any Secondly to this our orderly Succession we can and have proved by comparison and consanguinity of Apostolicall doctrin that we are true and Apostolicall Churches Thirdly the Roman certaintie upon which their Profelyres must depend is no firmer by these Fathers testimonies then Ephesus Smyrna Corinth Philippi Germany Spaine France Egypt Lybia Thessalonica c Irenaeus pag. 140 142. Disci te ab Apostoli cis Ecclesijs Habetis Romae Linum Polycarpum Smyrnae ab Apostolis edoctum Tertull. Praeser p. c. 37. Proximè est tibi Achaâ— habes Corinthum Si non longè es â— Macedonia habes Philippos habes Thessalonicenses Si potes in Asiam tendere habes Ephesum si autem Italiae adjaces haqes Romam unde nobis quoque authoritas praest ò est Rhenanus Argum in Tert. de praescript alibi Impress Basil 1521. Tertullianus Ecclesiam unam Apostolicam nulla loco affigit Romanum Ec lesiam ornat magnificae laudis elogio non tamen tantam illam facit quantum hodiè fieri videmus nam Apostolicis Ecclesijs numerat non
speake without ground for the controversies betwixt the Lutherans and the Calvinists as they tearme us are but like a coale as Sr Edwin Sands well observeth which a wise man with a little moisture of his mouth might soone have quenched although their ministers with the winde of others have contrarywise enflamed the same Sr Edwin Sands his Relation 〈…〉 Neither doth it make against the peace of the Church in faith that some have rashly and passionatly urged our diffâ—rences against the judgment of their more moderate and well advised brethren who accompt no otherwise of the Calvinists then of erring brethren Ibid. And further the Iesuite cannot manifest that the points wherewith the Lutherans are offended be in their owne nature of the essence of faith which hee must doe before hee can proove us to bee no Church the quarrels mentioned by the Iesuite arising not from disunion of faith in the foundation but from some dislikes and jealousies which some indiscreet persons amongst them entertaine in points farre remote and therefore their rash censure can condemne us no more then the Popes Bulla câ—na unlesse wee condemne our selves by denying some part of the foundation of â—aith For the Brownists They condemne us with us the Catholick Church by their schisme and we also condemne them as the ancient Fathers did all the factious schismaticks in their ages But doth this make us no true members of the Catholicke Church Is our candlestick removed because an heard of schismaticks bark against us Did your Marrani baptized Iewes and Moores y S â— Edw. 〈◊〉 his Relat. 〈◊〉 44. make Spaine non-catholick Or did the Illuminati in Arragon the brood of your hypocriticall Preists by their pretences of Angelicall puritie z Ibid. banish that Church from the kingdome of grace This is neither Sophistrie nor Logicke For the words that he citeth froÌ„ the Puritans No man can deny but they are the fruit of distemper disobedience yet unable to drag with the Iesuite the conclusion which he aymeth at for their dissention is not in fundamentalls nay it is so far froÌ„ the foundation that it is no way doctrinall This youâ— Turne-about Spalato when he was in England perceived told it his brother Suares a Spal con Suar. c. ◠〈◊〉 30. 〈◊〉 qui vocantuâ— circa articuâ—â—s fidei non dissentiunt sed circa 〈◊〉 externam Ecclesiaâ—â—icam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though afterwards he fâ—amâ—d them a lying Catalogue b 〈◊〉 â—â— p. â—5 But it may be the Iesuite will bettet perceive the weaknes of his Argument If wee use the strength thereof against himselfe If I should bring before Sixtus the fourth his time the Franciscans and Dominicans bandying Heresie at each others Cloyster damning and condemning each other of heresie not by words alone but in writ also c will the Iesuite conclude that the Roman Church is o Sixt. IV. Decret de Concep Virg Matiae hereticall and keepes not Irenaus his harmony Surely if the Pillars be rotten the roofe is not safe Besides if the Franciscans and Dominicans did see those feirce gladiatâ—res the Iesuites and Seculars in England fight their late combate the Iesuites tearming the Seculars Calumniatorâ— factious turbulent seditious scandalous authors of schisme rebels betrayers of the Catholicke cause d Parson Apolog and the Seculars returning to them tearmes of Schismatickes Donatists Anabaptists Arians with detection of their Counsels Stratagems to be heathenisâ—â— tyrannicall Atheisticall Saâ—nicall to make them like Lucian and Machiavel and for impietie and Atheisme to overcome Lucifer himselfe Watson Quodâ— Would they use the Iesuites Logicke and confesse that the Catholicke Church is not Roman and that Irenaus his harmonie cannot be found there But let all the world veiw the Divell fighting with the Lambe anno 1255 or 56. when the Fryars published their eternall Ghospell and the Pope partaked with them If the Iesuite can finde amongst all the Heretickes that have ever troubled the Church such an essentiall and fundamentall dissention let him swell swagger and display Ignatius for ever for here we finde Fryars more perfect contemplatives then Christ and his Apostles f Henrie Exphurd Chron. c. 93. Eymeric Director Inquisitor part 2. quaest 9. §. 4. 〈◊〉 errores 4. libri 2. partis tractat 2. I Quod Christus Sancti Apostoli ejuse non fuerunt perfecti in vita contemplantium â— Quod activa viâ—a usquâ— ad tempus Abbatis Ioachim frâ—ctuosa fuit sed 〈◊〉 noâ— est contemplativâ— verò vita ab ipso Ioachim fructificarc coepit etamodò in perfect â— successoribusâ—psius perfectiâ—â— manebit of more dignitie and authoritie then the Apostles g Ibid. inter errores â— libri ejusdem partis in tractatu de Ioseph et 〈◊〉 cui somnium apparuit invenitur Quod prae diâ—a â—ores qui erant in ultimo statu mundi erunt dignitatis et auctoritatis majoris quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostoli the Ghospell of CHRIST disgraced as lesse excellent if compared to their eternall Gospell h Ibid. inter errores primae partis Primus est quod Evangelium aeternum quod idem est quod doctrina Abbatis Ioachim excellit doctrinam Christi that it must vanish i Ibid 3. Quod novum Testamentum est evacuandum and another in succession follow it k Ibid. 6. Quod Evangelio Christi aliud Evangelium succedet that it brings none to perfection l Ibid. inteâ— errores 2. libri partis 2. I. Quod Evangelium Christi â—eminem perducit ad perfectum that the Preisthood of CHRIST is not for ever after the order of Melchisedecke but must have an other Priesthood to succeede it m Ibid. intet errores 1. partis 6. Quod sacerdotio Christi aliud sacerdoâ—ium succedet These desperate blasphemies besides other impieties as opposite to the doctrine of CHRIST as the Turkish Alcoran being resisted by the Doctours of Paris What merited these Champions of CHRIST at his Vicars hand They were accompted malicious the Fryars innocent n Extravag Papae Alexandr ex speculo minorum tractat 1. fol. 10. b. edit Rothomagi anno 1509. Firmamento trium Ordiâ—um Francisci part 2. tractat 2. fol. 62. a. edit Paris an 1512. Cogitaverunt nuper malitiam magistri Paris contra innocentes rectos fcil. Fratres Praedicatores iniquitatem maximam sunt locuti they rebels the Fryars the beloved sonnes of the mother Church o Ibid. Surgentes adversus Fratres detraxerunt contra dilectos matris Ecclesiae filios scandalum posuere their defence of CHRIST and his Gospell a pernicious and detestable libell p Ibid. Prodiere inquam in prava commenâ—a ex nimio calore animi proruperunt libellum quendam valde perniciosum detestabilem temere componentes the Fryars excellent instruments working many spirituall proficienâ—es and fruite in the Church q Ibid. In ipso quaedam perversa reproba contra
the Schismes in the Romane Church were contentions for Iustice That Symony was her purchaser Shall we deeme that Iustice enthroned Cardinals above Bishops Fryars before Preists Will Iustice judge GOD'S rule to be dangerous and that man 's is able to lead to perfection Will Iustice inhibite marriage and open the Stewes VRBANVS nihil equi cogitat if wee beleive the Proverbe VRBAN was never yet just how comes he now to be so upright And further as your Monarchie is farre from being either like to GOD or Iustice so shall wee appeare to be farre unlike either to your Malefactors on earth or the damned in Hell Wee are Malefactors Heretickes but by whose judgement save the Hereticks himselfe the most absolute Malefactor on earth Were not the Apostles so stiled What better appellation had Memnon or Cyrill from the Nestorians h Acta Concilial Ephes tom â— Acta Concil Ephes c. 1. p. 774. sequâ—â— But for the damned in Hell I am so farre perswaded of Papall charitie from their fierie Chariots that I doubt not but they would adventure an other Powder-plot to blow us up to Heaven upon condition that his Usurpations in darkenes bee not unlightned and so troubled with us on earth But the Iesuite is impatient and would scorne away this presage As though saith he there hath not beene a generall peace for many ages before the stirring of Luther and his rebellious rout notwithstanding that the Pope did alwayes keepe the same rule in GODS house i Reply pag. 80 The Iesuite to exempt the Bishop of 〈◊〉 from being a disturber of the peace of the Church would prove it from the experience of his peaceable government before Luthers time But he might know that there hath beene no peace at all that we might call the peace of GOD where he hath borne any controule For is it probable that Peace should proceede from him that was alwayes or the most part at warre How many Schismes were there in the Romane See k Stapleton Doctr. Princip l. 23. c. 15. Schismata Rom. Pontiâ—icum viginti numerantur If they could not agree upon their Peace-maker must they not be at warre themselves Had it not beene the best course in those times to bring peace to the Church for to have excluded them altogether from governement But if so great peace were in the Roman Church as you pretend why did the Pope condemne your representative Church of Basil l Epistola Synodalis contra invectivaâ— factam nomine Eugenij Papae qui Epistolae illius exordio dicere ausus est Patres in Conciliâ— congregatos jam fere septem annis ab ipse Christi Vicario aÌ„ supremâ— ApostolicaÌ„ Romanâ— sede Christianorum matre tre capite segregates esse when your Roman Church had censured him for a Schismaticke m Concil Basil Sess 34. If wee by a spirit of giddinesse be divided because there are as the Iesuite saith above a hundred severall sects and varying opinions amongst us n Reply pag. 24. what shal be concluded concerning them that in the hight of their tyrannie and leonine peace haue had six hundred and such as were begotten by posthabiting the Gospels Epistles and Christian wisdome o Cornel. Mus com Rom. 6. pag. 279. Vigebat Spinosa molesta nescio quae Theologia de instantibus de Relationibus de Quidditatibus c. Tota penè aetas in hominum decretis quae inter se pugnantia semper nullo tempore reconcilianda alunt perpetuum per secula litem centerebatur c. Is sublimis Theologus habebatur qui majora portenta pro suis Traditiunculis fingere sciat c. Minc SEXCENTAE Sectae Thomistae Scotistae Occhamistae Albertistae Egidiani Alexandrâ—i c. O secâ—â—â— posthabebantur Evangelia Epistolae Christiâ—â— sapientia delitescebat c. Neither can the Iesuite glory in their Romane peace when in Ferus his judgment In omnibus gentibus major est concordia quam inter Christianos at the time the Pope kept the greatest rule in the Church there was more concord in any nation then amongst the Christians p 〈◊〉 3. De 〈◊〉 Domini And from what fountaine came these quarrells He 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it will decâ—are Because their 〈◊〉 werâ— not as our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Peace Esay 9. but of Warre Alvar. de planct Eccles l. â— art 5. Nec sunt â—odie Prâ—lati principes pacis sicut Christus Esay 9. sed Guerrae And what made the Pope and his Prelates so Mâ—â—tiall Was not the quarrell doctrine and in their divinity the foundation of faith the Supremacie What peace had the Roman Church when Princes resisting their Usurpations their Kingdomes were filled with warre with bloud What Unity of faith could make the sonne breake the bond of nature to his Father the servant the bond of faith to his Lord What peace was there when your Pope denyed marriage to the Cleargie when they bearded your Tyrant charging him with heresie and franticke opinions r Lambertus Schafnaburgensis in histor ann 1074. Hildebrandinus Papa cum Epicopis Italiae conveniens jam frequentibus synodis decreverat ut secundùm instituta antiquorum canonum presbyteri uxores non habeant c. Adversus hoc decretum protinus vehementer interfremuit tota â—actio Clericorum hominem planè haerâ—ticum vesani dogmatis esse clamitans qui oblitus sermonis Domini quo ait Non omnes capiunt hoc verbuÌ„ qui potest capere capiat Et Apostolus Qui se non conâ—inet nubat melius est 〈◊〉 nâ—bere quam uâ—i 〈◊〉 exactione homines viâ—ere cogerat titu Angelorum dum consuetum curâ—â—n naturae negaret fornicationi immundiciae fraena laxaret You talke of Peace and will have the Tyrant the Peace-maker when like a cursed Ismael his hand hath beene against every man every mans against him * Gen. 16. 12. What Prince was not an Hereticke or Schismaticke that resisted his will What Preist or People were not condemned persecuted that would not stoope to this golden Calfe Peace you have had but it hath beene amongst your owne such as Grâ—gory speakes of that the ministers of Antichrist shall be knit together like the scales of 〈◊〉 Å¿ Greg. Moral l. 33. c 24. Quia membra Leviathan istius id est iniquos omnes quos Dei sermo squamarum compactionibus comparat ad defensionem suam par culpa coâ—cordat benè dicitur Vna alteri adhaerebunt tenentes se 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abunâ—ur and this Peace the Turkes have and how have they got it thinke you but as your Popes have obtained theirs by the strangling of their brethren Could not the Arians say that all peace was amongst Arians when they execrated the Catholicke world And who can speake against Roman Peace when by their Bulla coenae they excommunicate all the world but Heretickes This Peace may be found amongst the wicked Nay Hell it selfe cannot stand without it The
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
in resisting you making those articles of faith which were never of universall beleife in the Christian world But to whom doth hee tell these tales if to those of his owne profession it is idle and needlesse if to us it is most â—â—â—rue for saith hee it is well knowne that with us they bee cerâ—â—inely accounted cheife articles of faith being all of them declared for such by the sacred and infallible â—â—thâ—â—itie of the Church h Reply ibid. It is neither â—eedelesse for his owne nor untrue being delivered to your selves For the most reverend Father knowes it is his dutie dayly to perswade against faith-intrusions for the preservation of his owne neither can your Arguments make it untrue for are all things you accompt or the Trent Câ—â—ncell hath determined of so necessarie light that everie man must beleeve them You may perswade this in Peru or Mexico but your neighbours the Vâ—â—etians will not beleive you that dwell nearer home neither have all your Catholicke Children such opinion of that Councell as to receive it Now our Iesuite would have them of faith from our confession Neither can our Advâ—rsaries themselves saith hee deny that they appertaine to the substance of Faith and Religion sâ—â—ing that they condemne them for heresiâ— in us i Reply pag. 93. Heere the Iesuite will not have an Heresie to bee but in point of faith that the denyall thereof might exclude us from salvation if this be the rule by which the Iesuite will try Heresies I thinke these will not proove of that stampe in our opinions For first we deny not salvation to those which by ignorance communicate with them that imbrace these grosse follies Secondly we say not that they belong to any article of the Apostles faith but are additions that had nothing to glue them to the Creed but Babylonish Clement We take them for grosse corruptions but to make them errours in fundamentall points our Church hath not I thinke declared it Heresies of deeper errour and more elavated pride then are found in this Catalogue proclaime themselves among you those peâ—ces declare noâ— your greatest defection Who abhorres not your tyrannicall Hildebrandine insurrection whereby you trample upon Gods power the authority delegated to Kings and Bishops and the whole Preisthood of the Catholicke Church Secondly your Conscience Monarchy whereby you cast Christ out of his chaire and give the Pope Christs infallible office This Constance could not endure and k Sess 2 4 Basill l Sess â—3 thought Heresie never doubted of Who is ignorant that heresies have had their degrees which they could not have had in respect of faith if all did equally totter the foundation Augustine defines an hereticke otherwayes then from the foundation Hee is an Hereticke that for lâ—cre of any temporall commoditie aâ—d especially for his owne vaine-glory and preferments sake as your Courtiers doe doth beget or follow false or new opinions m August in libro de utilieredend caâ—s 2â— quest 3. c Haereticus 〈◊〉 qui alicujus teÌ„poralis commodi maâ—imae gloriae principatusque fui gratia falsos ac â—oâ—as opiniones vel gigniâ— vel sequitur and this may be done in points which are not fundamentall Besides how many are accounted Heretickes in this common course of appellation and yet free from denying the foundation of Faith For wee finde Leo the Xth. in his Bull against Luther * 4 Iâ—â—â—â— 1â—â—â— to style it Heresie for any man to say that the Church or himselfe hath not power statuere â—rticâ—lâ—s fidei to make new articles of faith as also that Luthers assertion was no lesse optima pâ—â—itâ—â—tia novâ— vita new lifâ— was the best repentance and yet I hope the Iesuite will reâ—oove these farre from the foundation And if the Pope may erre in his Buls to call that Heresie which is not fundamentall errour why may not you give leave to others to use the same Libertie seeing hee is the patterne of imitation unlesse you thinke the Pope above Angels and that hee may deliver what he pleaseth and make Heresie what hee list and the Anathema that thereby hee deserves himselfe by his verie pleasure should fall upon others Nay you have gone further De Consecrat dist 5. Cap. â—t jejun that hee will never bee a Christian qui confirmatione Episcopali non fuit Chrismatus Now if a man may bee counted an infidell and unbeleiver by you for omission of the Ceremonie of Confirmation why should you draw from the liberties of mens tongues an Argument that whosoever by you or our selves are styled Heretickes must needes in regard of those points erre in the foundation Doe you not know it often fals out as when you charge us that after the way which is called Heresie so doe many of the faithfull serve the Lord God of their Fathers Shall we condemne to eternall fire Irenaeus Iustine Martyr all the Millenaries and all those which consented to those points which Epiphanius Augustine or Alphâ—â—sus de Castro have styled Heresies it were too rigide a censure and more fit for the Iudges of Hell then the Preists of God So that this proves but a vaine ground to inferre these points to be of faith because they are accompted heresies and if we will observe it we may from his owne words finde that heresies have declared themselves not so much from the matter whether fundamentall or not as from the perverse manner of holding an opinion against any ones conscience being lawfully convicted of the same And therefore our Iesuite will not have them Hereticks that deny tradition Images c. simplie by a bare and naked negation but wilfully and perversly by obstinate denyall Yet will our Answerer say saith the Iesuite that by the Fathers they were held but onely as opinions and not as belonging to the substance of faith and this is but his owne opinion for wheresoever the Fathers doe professe them in their works they never tell him that they hold them for opinions rather then for points of faith Reply pag. 9â— The Iesuite speakes of the Answerers divining but here divines amisse himselfe indeed proves down-right a Deceiver for if the learned Answerer will say that the fathers held them as opinions why should he require the Iesuites proofe for their consent and therefore let him fasten this opinion upon whom he can the most reverend Primate knowes well enough that they neither held them generally as opinions or of faith neither is he so ignorant in antiquity but that he well understands those ancient Souldiers of the Catholicke Church were alwayes ignorant of the after invented marches under Roman Coloâ—â—s so that the Iesuit would perswade the reader by a trick of deceit that 〈◊〉 knowledge the Fathers generall consent in these points as opinions but not as of faith which was never dreamed of by the Church By this it will appeare that they care not by what meanes they establish their decrees nor