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
hath he thaâ—â—â— not concludent from the Scripture Not one unlesse you suppose that he keeps them as concealements yet he thinkes he doth something when he tels us from Hierome that the scriptures consist not in reading but in the true understanding of their sence meaning that by an evill interpretatioÌ„ the Gospell is no more the word of God but the word of man yea which is worse the word of the Divell i Reply ibid. As if this were not the matter that we complaine of that Popes will interpret as they please presume to say this shal be the sence of the Holy Ghost But to fit himselfe for performance of what he hath undertakes he saith that there be â—â—â— three meanes or wayes by which a Conclusion deduced from the scripture may be pretended to be infallible k Reply pag. 97 But what is this to the foundation of Faith I hope every infallible proposition is not of such necessary beleife that a maâ— must beleive it on paine of damnation You told us but 〈◊〉 that your new Creed was propounded onely to Scholleâ—s and cheifely unto such as are to receive promotions unto Scholasticall or Ecclosiasticall dignity l Reply pag. 98 what are all lay-men Clerks or is the nature of your faith changed Now the Iesuite nameth his three onely meanes the first humane discourse the second Private inspiration the third the authority of some externe meane ordained by GOD betwixt the Scripture and us c m Reply pag. 97 To avoyde the two first he makes a long discourse but he fights with his owne shadow for wee make not the Scripture of private interpretation as being against the Apostles rule * 2 Pet. 1. 20. neither doe we make our reason the onely Inquisitor to finde out the sence of Scripture knowing that the carnall man perceiveth noâ— the the things that are of GOD Yet this we say that reason being assisted by grace becomes a divine instrument whereby the scriptures may be used to saving knowledge and to finde out the mysteries of our Faith Now seeing that neither humane discourse saith the Iesuite 〈…〉 by God betwixt the Scripture and â—â— such as is the authority of the Magistrate 〈…〉 the Princes law and the people that it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and propound unto us all decisions and 〈◊〉 whatsoever Reply pag. 97 The Iesuite shall never finde that there is any such exterâ—â— infallible means 〈◊〉 by GOD betwixt the Scripture and â—â— to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and propound unto us all decisions and conclusions whatsoever that we are bound to beleive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 Neither when they come to point it out are they agreed who it is For sometime it is the generall and uniforme consent of auncient Fathers that is the assured Touch-stone to try all controversies betwixt us o See the Iesuites Epistle to the King and this generall consent may consist of 〈…〉 fathers p Reply pag. 94 â—â—â— sometimes of fewer as in 〈◊〉 of the Commandements and leaving out the Second they cannot find the one halfe to reckon them after that sortâ— sometime the practise of the Church sometime the rule of Faith sometime the Councels interpretations and sometime all must vanish and that which the Head determineth is a knowne truth that which the Head condemneth is a knowne error q Hart colloque cum Rainolds pag. 44. Now which of all these are infallible For Consent of fathers Cajetan will tell us that God hath not tyed the exposition of the Scriptures to the sence of the Fathers and therefore he resolves to follow a new sence agreeable to the Text. 〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alienus though it be repugnant to the streame of the sacred Doctors t Cajetan in Prooem comment in Genes In like manner Andradius Andradius Defens Triden Fid. l. 2. pag. â—â—â— Non 〈◊〉 debentur eorum explicationibus addicti alligarâ— quin sit 〈◊〉 omnibus illis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quid Dei praesidijs adjuti explicando valeamus sensum alium 〈◊〉 etiam dissimilem afferre atque noris explicationibus 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae sanctorum 〈◊〉 fidem atque pietatem illustraâ—â— For the practise of the Church if they meane the Roman it is no good direction in regard as we have shewed before it is very subject to varietie as in the point of Childrens receiving of the Eucharist t See before pag. 25. â— See before pag. 10â— and in the point of Iudges and the like all which are full of uncertainty For their rule of faith we see that this may be in the Roman Church enlarged extended yea we have wits in the Church of Rome that can censure it making it in some considerations standalous hereticall x Censura Symboli Apostolorum censur ar 3. Tota Haec propositio equivocatione laâ—orat quae inducere potest in haeresim propter ambiguas particulas de ex quia ordinaria de habitudinem importat principij componentis c. Ideo propositio in hoc sensu falsa est scandalosa haeretica 〈◊〉 y Censur ar 4. Haec propositio ambigua est aliquo sensu haeretica Periculosa est propositio 〈◊〉 obrium illum sensum intellectâ— quasâ— diviniâ—as aliquid passa aut â—â—â—tua fuctit non solum haeretica est sed etiam impis â— blasphema deceitfull z Censur ar 2. Tota haec propositio captiosa est â—â—llax blasphemous z See before lit erroneous See hereafter lit â— false c See before lit â— dangerous d See before lit 7. absurd Censura ar 9. Absurda ambiguous See before lit â— contrary to the word of GOD the common sence of the Fathers and of the universall Church g Censura ar 7. Propositio 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 falsa erronea nec non verbo Dei communi Patrum totiusque Ecclesia sensui contraria â— Wadding Legat. Phil. 3. Sect. 2. orat 9. § 9. Pro Petro in fide Petrâ— succedentibus non pjo Concilio oravit exoravit Adversus hoâ— adversus Ecclesiam in Petro in illisque fundatam non adversus Concilium dixit infernum non praevalituram 〈◊〉 â—oncilia errâsse viderimus quando à suo capitâ— Ã quo 〈◊〉 sanctius veritatis influentia recesserant vel dissenâ—â—râ—nt Non â—â—â—buit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—em Pontifici sed à Pontifice habet Concilitum ut sit ratum ac 〈◊〉 For Councels interpretations we shall have as much to doe for to finde out the sence of a Councell as of the Scripture it selfe Besides how many weake particulars may suspend a Councell from her pretended infallible authoritie as if not rightly called rightly headed c So that there remaines none but the Pope for whom Christ prayed It is he that gives authoritie to a Councell not the Councell to him But if this Lord that would be of our conferences prove a Lord of Mis-rule where then shall we
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
denyall thereof and that his Monarchy 〈◊〉 consist not in matter of outward glory and precedency but of spirituall regency and power for els how could they deny what was never established or consented vnto by the Catholicke Church or any famous or glorious member of the same And further in manifesting the falshood of his supposition you may conceive it is impossible to 〈◊〉 the ancient testimonies i◠〈◊〉 that the fathers denyed this spirituall and divine regency of the Roman Bishops because they never assumed or exercised it yet all those steps whereby they laboured to ascend vnto this spirituall height were ever resisted in all times and ages For in the first place their attempt of divine derivation of this power is cast off by their owne Cusaâ—us t Cusanus de Concord cath lib 2. cap. 13. is so far from giving the Bishop of Rome this spirituall eminency by divine Canon that he denieth it to have beene granted vnto him by any Canon of the Church and proveth it to have beene onely brought in by coÌ„mon vse custome And surely what priviledges the Bishops of Rome enioyed above their brethren which were far from that oecumenicall spirituall regency u Turrecrem d. 2â— Constantino Consistebat hic honor in hoc videlicet quod ad locum in fedendo primo post Rom â—oat in responsionibus haberet secundam vocem in subscriptionibus or papall omnipotency the Councell of Chalcedon x Chalced concil act 16. Etâ—â—im 〈◊〉 â—â—nioris Romae propter imperium civitatis illius patres consequenter privilegia teddiderum atributed to the guift of their fathers which fathers we may coniecture Pius y Aeneas Sylv. epist 301. the second thought to be the fathers assembled in the Nicene Councell as Marsilius z Defens pa. 2. cap. 1â— Patavinus hath plainely declared Now all practises of insurrection to gaine this vniversall regency either before or after they received this limited honour of sitting and subscribing first were ever resisted by the Catholicke Bishops as by this one instance wil be sufficiently cleared The Bishops of Rome did many timesstrive that the finale judicium next to the determination of a â—â—â—â—cell for a Papa a Concil Constan sess 4. â— Consil Basil sess 2. Idem assent Cardinal Cameracensis Ioannes Gerson Iacobus Almainus Nicolaus Cusanus â—anoriâ—itan Cardinal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alii teste Bellarmin d concil 〈◊〉 lib. cap. 14. supra was never dreamed of in primitive times should depend vpon theÌ„ in matters not of faith which they never pretended authority to declare but of fact this Cyprian b Lib. 1. epist 3. Nam cùm statutuÌ„ sit omnibus nobis aequum sit pariter justum vt vniuscujusque causa illic audiatur vbi est crimen admissum singuliâ— pastoribus â—â—â—tio gregis sit adscripta quam regat vnusquisque guberâ—eâ— rationem sui actus Domino redditurus oporter vtique cos quibus prae suâ—â—s nâ—â— circumcurfare nec Episcoporum concordiam cohaereâ—â—â—â— suâ subdolâ fallaci temeritate collidere sed agere illic causam suam vbi accusatores habere testes sui criminis possuÌ„â— nisi si paucis desperatis perditis minor videtur esse auctoritas Episcoporum in Africa constiâ—utorum qui iam de illis judicaverunt et eorum câ—â—scientiam multiâ— delictorum laqueis vinctam judicij sui nuper gravitate damnârunt I am causâ— coâ—â—â—â— cognita est iam de eis dicta sententia est nec censurâ— congruit sacerdoâ—um mobilis atque in constantis animi levitate reprehendi cum Dominus doceat et dicat sit sermo vester est est non non resisteth as savouring of usurpation shewing vpon what poore grounds this practise dependeth even vpon the judgment of a few desperat graceless people who were of opinion that Bishops were vnequall in their authority wherevpon the Bishops laboured to restraine these busie-bodies by lawfull remedy in Councels afterwards as may be collected from the sixt Councell of Carthage c Epistol concil Aphricani ad Caelest vrbis Romae Episcopum the 8th generall Councell held at Constantinople d can 26. Secondly the Iesuite doth falsly point out the Patriarch to deny Papall height or their spirituall monarchy for the Popes at that time pretended nothing of that nature and therfore he could not dâ—ny that which was never affirmed It is true that Iohn could not be content to enjoy the priviledges of his predecessors given him by the Councels of Constantinople and Chalcedon but that he would be more the onely Bishop and vniversall Patriarch yet that he denyed the honour of the Bishop of Rome no more then the other Patâ—iarchs Gregory e Epistol 36. will cleare in regard he lamenteth their losse as much as his owne Neither is there any thing urged by this Iesuite that proveth the point of denyall of this Top-gallant of Papall vsurpation and therefore we may well reject it as to no purpose For why should Gregory by this thinke the Patriarchall Sees in their Priviledges violated if that Papal pride had only bin contradicted by Iohn of Constantinople Secondly he assumeth that their denâ—al of prayer for the dead was begun by Acrius contradicted by Augustine Epiphan 1. This is boldnes and impudency in the Iesuite to charge the Greek Church to follow that Hereticke whom they have do in their practise vtterly abdicate condemne 2. He speaketh not any thing to the purpose for Acrius did never crosse prayer for the dead in the sence that the Greeke Church doth at this time for they deny prayers for soules in Purgatory f Cocciâ—◠〈◊〉 2. lib. 7 art 5. pag. 846. Grâ—ci ac Musâ—â—vitae etsi funeâ—re sacrum 〈…〉 tamen Purgatorium Purgâ—â—oâ—ium 〈◊〉 art 1â— coâ— Lutheâ— Gâ—â—â—is ad â—unc usque diem non est creditum Purgatorium esse which the ancient Churchâ— never dreamed of nor Aerius ever opposed but that Hereticke denyed the Commemoration and prayer for the Saints departed vsed by the ancient Church which had no relation to Purgatory flames or soules pretended to be punished there as will be seen in handling of the point and for this and not the other was he condemned of hereticall rashnes So that the Iesuite is mistaken framing an answere to that which was not required at his hands and therefore we desire him to recâ—llect his thoughts tell vs what person among the Greekes did first deny prayer for soules out of Purgatory or els he saith nothing to the demaund In the third place he tells vs their defence of marriage of Preists was contradicted against Theodorus by Chrysostome g Roâ—â—enâ— ibid Legat qui velit Graecorum veterum commentarios nullum quantum opinâ—â— aut quam â—arissi mum de Purgatoriâ— seâ—â—oâ—em inveniet sed neque Laâ—iâ—i simâ—l omnes ac sensim hujus â—â—i veritatem conceperunt and against certaine other by Epiphanius hâ—r
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—
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
sacred Scripture did burst forth of those libraries wherein it was ecclipsed and the most lucide starres the auncient Fathers waited upon that originall light then many of these poore meteors and fained appearances were quickely obscured and despised of some of your owne So that your Dilemma proves but a childish florish For although it is most true that you have done as much as you durst to pretend Fathers make Fathers detract from Fathers adde to Fathers forging clipping washing cankering them yet these things being detected and casheered the Fathers are restored to their authoritie they formerly had although they are not thought fit to bee used as a rule against those Hereticks that have not spared in this manner to abuse their writings Againe saith the Iesuite you have given us flatlie once to understand that the Scripture was the rocke upon which alone you build your faith and from which no sleight that wee could devise should ever drawe you and therefore you bade us to our face alledge what authoritie we list without Scripture and it could not suffice How is the winde now changed how come you now to falsifie this your former resolution m Reply pag. 49 Did ever any Iesuite trifle in this manner and speake more inconsequent The Scripture is the rocke upon which alone he will build his faith no authoritie can suffice without Scripture therefore the winde is changed hee falsifies his former resolution Doth not this rationall deserve to censure others for false Logicke that pleads with such a shape of reason himselfe The Iesuite promised in his Challenge to produce good and certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures if the Fathers authoritie will not suffice Did he cast off their rock of Fathers because he promised Scriptures I thinke hee will not acknowledge it and why should he vainely heere dreame that the Scriptures are rejected by the most reverend the Lord Primate when to stoppe the Iesuites boasting out of a well grounded confidence in the goodnes of his cause he will not in this place stand upon his right Besides let the Iesuite shew me the generall consent of Fathers in a matter of faith without the Scriptures if hee be able If he cannot his thoughts are confused when hee dreamed of their authoritie without Scripture if hee say he will let him produce them for surely it is hard to bee beleived Furthermore when the Lawyers urge Constantines denation for Papall possession I aske the Iesuite upon what authoritie he would build his title whether upon the donation it selfe or the Lawyers interpreting it If the Donation be sufficient why not the Scriptures If the interpreters must be added yet this is not to take away the power of the Charter Nay if they be added 〈◊〉 necessary testimonie the Charter were nothing without the Lawyers What followeth in the Iesuite hath received Answere in the fift Section only here he will not be perswaded that he chooseth his owne weapons n Reply pag. 49 but let the Reader judge for bibling in his judgment is but babling it is no other then fencing to fight with Scriptures and to appeale to sole Scripture is but to agree with auncient Heretickes So that Scriptures are none of his armorie and if the Fathers bee rejected also what remaineth further but ipse dixit assisted with pretended miracles lying wonders But let them be whose weapons they will Hee telleth us that hee will use them and the first encounter shal be concerning the dignity and preheminencie of the Church of Rome o Reply ibid. Indeed this is that fruitfull article of Faith that hath got all the new articles of the new Romane Creed This is the breast that nourisheth them that gives them strength The occasion wherefore he beginnes here is for as much as our Answerer taketh his first exception against him for styling all the auncient Doctors and martyrs of the Church universall with the name of the Saints and Fathers of the Primitive Church of Rome though he alledgeth heerein no more against me saith the Iesuite but this one bare Interrogaterie out of Albertus Pighius Who did ever yet by the Roman Church understand the universall Church p Reply pag. 49 What needes further proofe If neither the whole Roman Church neither your whole Roman world in the judgment of Albertus Pighius did ever take the Romane Church for the Church Vniversall is not this enough to lash the Iesuite for confounding Vrbem Orbem and mingling Heaven and earth together But he will take of Pighius by a Distinction If saith he the Roman Church be taken as it comprehendeth onely that Cleargie which maketh but one particular Bishoprick Diaces in the citie of Rome abstracting from that relation which it hath unto all other Christian Churches as the head unto the members then I say with Pighius who speaketh of it onely in this sense that no man ever by the Church of Rome did understand the Vniversall Church But if it bee taken as it is the Mother Church begunne in S. Peter under Christ and miraculously continued those of each one of the rest of the Apostles fayling by due succession of lawfull Bishops having a relation to all other Christian Churches as the head to the members then doe I say that it may rightly bee stiled with the name of the Vniversall Church And that all other Churches are to be accounted Catholick no further then they be linked in a subordinate obeysance thereunto q Reâ—â—â— pâ—g â—â— Here are many prettie things By this meanes the Church of Rome the Mother must bee borne after the daughter for many particular Churches had birth before Rome was a Church or the Roman Inhabitants received the Faith of Christ Secondly that the Catholicke Church must be in a subordinate obeysance to the Church of Rome before there was any Church there Besides the Catholick Church was never enclosed in any other place but the world never restrained to any other habitation To chaine it â—o any head out of Heaven or to confine it to any particular place on Earth were to make it schismaticall This Church concludes all Saints Noah's Arke was heere a Temple Christ delighted with this Church as in the Canticles before Rome was Rome or a Pontifex governed therein Some are in Heaven that never yeelded obedience to this Church or heard of Rome And it is more then probable some are in hell that were tearmed Holinesse it selfe whilst they remained in this Catholick here But what the Iesuite hath to make this Roman Church the Catholicke and mother of all other Churches in the next Section we shall examine SECT VIII THis Iesuite after hee hath obtained from the most learned Primate ex gratiâ libertie in his owne challenge to chuse his owne weapon would first use it to prove that The Auncient Fathers of the first Ages acknowledged the Roman Church to bee the head of all other Churches a Reply pag 40 I had thought
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
of Bishops in the Roman See that invincible rock upon which Christ built his Church For who will dreame that Father to esteeme that present seate or succession to be the rocke for any other reason then because they held the rocke confessed by Peter And in this sence not only Peters successors at Rome but all other successors of Peter the rest of the Apostles might bestiled rocks p Origen in Math hom 1. Petra est 〈◊〉 omnis qui imitator est Christi ex quo bibebant qui bibebant de spiritali consequenti petra Et super omni hujusmodi petra aedificatur ecclesia Dei In singulis enim quibuscunque perfectis qui habent in se congregationem verborum oâ—erum sensuum omnium qui hujusmodi beatitudinem operantur 〈◊〉 Eccelesia Dei cui portae non praevalent inserorum Si autem â—per unum illum Petrum arbitraris Vniversam Ecclesiam aedificari à Deo quid dicis de Iacobo Iohanne filijs tonitrui vel de singulis Apostolis Vere ergo ad Petrum quidem dictum est â—u es Petrus c. tamen omnibus Apostolis omnibus quibuscunque perfectis fidelibus dictum viâ—â— retor For why may not those churches that cleave fast to the rock of faith be called rocks to stay and adheare unto q Iranaeus l. 4. c. 43. Ijs qui in Ecclesijs sure presbyteris oporter obaudire qui successionem habent ab Apostolis quicunque cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundùm beneplacitum patris acceperunt Idem c. 44. Adherere his qui Apostoloâ—um doctrinam oustodiunt cum presbyterij ordine sermonem sanum conversatio nem sine offen sa praestant as well as the Roman her Bishops in regard Augustine saith in that very Psalme that if any man come full of the Catholicke faith wee are wont to give eare unto him as unto these men r August in Psalm contra partem Donati Talis si quis ad te veniat plenus Catholica side Quales illoâ— sanctos viros omâ—es solemus audire But what makes the former words to the Iesuites conclusion Doth S. Augustine here declare Roman Preists Successors to Peter in a Monarchicall estate or such unmoveable grounded rocks that all the Churches in time to come must be grounded upon them Surely the sesuite will never finde this to bee S. Augustines meaning but from what the Roman Preists had beene and from what for the present they were alluding to our Saviors words he doth stile them a rock that the gates of Hell did not at that time prevaile against making them a good directory to truth whilst they adheared to the Apostles doctrine For by the course of that Psalme we cannot conceive S. Augustine to have thought otherwise in regard he doth not give the Bishop of Rome power to end and determine that controversie but maketh Donatus his request to have his cause heard at Rome to be unjust telling us what the Emperour had ordained that divers Bishops Preists should heare the matter not the Roman Bishop alone Å¿ August ibid Nam Donatus cùm volebat Africam totam obtiâ—ere Tunc Iudices transmarinos petijt ab Imperatore Sed haectam unjust petitio non erat de charitate Hoe ipsa veritas clamaâ— quam vclo modo refeâ—e Nam consensit Impeâ—â—â—or â—â—â—â—t quae soderenâ— Romae Sacerdotes qui tunc possent Caeciliano cuâ— illâ— audite which he would not have done I suppose if the Bishop of Rome had had that Monarchy by Apostolicall succession which now they pretend by that title to enjoy But there is not a word of Augustine that proveth the Roman Bishops Successors of Peter in any office power or Bishoprick or so much as maketh him Bishop of Rome That he had his seate there where the Roman Preists had their Succession he insinuateth but in this place he telleth us no more nor so much as Eusebius who beginneth the Roman Bishop with Linus t Eusebius hist Eccles l. 3. c. â— Linus verò primum post Petri Pauli Martyrium Romanae Ecclesiae Episco patum sorâ—iâ—ut est for the words of Eusebius after the martyrdome of Peter and Paul can no more make Peter Bishop of Rome then Paul and I thinke they will not admit two Bishops at once in one Citie Much more might be urged to shew that the Iesuite hath produced S. Augustine to testifie that which hee never thought of But I will come to Chrysostome whom the Iesuite produceth expecting much from him because hee nameth Peters Successours Why saith he did Christ shed his bloud but to regaine those sheepe the care of whom he committed both to Peter and to Peters Successours u Reply pag. 59 I aske the Iesuite whether he thought the Apostles had no commission from Christ to have a care of his sheepe whether Goe ye into all the world and preach the Gospell to every creature * Marke 16. 15 did commaund no care of CHRISTS flocke or whether there be no successors of Peter but the Bishops of Rome Cardinall Cusanus cannot deny that all Bishops are the successours of Peter x Nich. de Cusa Card. l. 2. De concord cath c. 13. Non possumus negare omnes Episeopos esse ejusdem successores Scilicet Petri And S. Chrysostome in the very place cited by the Iesuite expresseth himselfe to be free from the conceit that the Bishops of Rome are S. Peters onely Successours For why should he perswade Basil to be minde full of his dutie hee being a Bishop from this reason because CHRIST said to Peter Lovest thou me Feede my sheepe and because the care of his sheepe are committed to Peter and his successours y See Chrysostomes testimony produced before in the beginning of the Section if hee had not beene one of them This title I have shewed before doth belong to other Bishops as well as Romane neither is it denyed by Bellarmine himselfe z Bellarm de Rom. Pont. l. â— c. 23. Respondeo in Apostlatu continâ—â— Episcopatum Episcopes succedere Apostolis and therefore I may forbeare here further to presse it The next is Leo but I shall not neede to speake to that which is urged from hâ—m here in regard I shall have more occasion in the next Section He loved to be great and to make Peter greater then he should be for his owne sake as I have in some things before declared shall hereafter more fully shew Yet all that hee desired I suppose was not so great licentiousnesse as the Bishop of Rome desireth and would have all to attribute unto himselfe Now commeth the Bishop of Ravenna Peter Chrysologus in his Epistle to Eutyches You are not much beholding to that See that you should bring a Bishop from thence to give testimony for you but what saith hee Wee desire thee honorable brother that thou wilt listen dutifully unto those things which
in the Acts viz. a Bisâ—opricke n Rhem 〈◊〉 upon Luk â— â—â— And although the Iesuite now seeth that Peter can be no Monarch by his Apostleship such extraordinary power being given to others yet it hath beene that which they ever pretended to exalt him whom they would have to be Peters Successour and the Monarch of the Church and therefore they have had their mouthes and rescripts full of Apostle and Apostleship calling his office Apostleship saying that he heareth causes with his Apostleship why should he not determine with it All his instruments of government are Apostolical as Letters Decrees Mandates Buls Pardons Dispensations nay what hath he that is not Apostolicke Whether messenger or Legate Whether Palace Chamber Chancery Seale o Sacraâ— ceâ—am Rom. eccles l 1. Reg. Canc. Apostol Extra do jurejur c. Ego c. Besides how many of the Iesuites counterfeits urged for the Primacy are thought to speake effectually when they attribute to the Pope to sit in the Apostolicall height to have his See Apostolicke his office an Apostleship his priviledges his eminencies Apostolicall Fourthly he would have told them that the auncient Fathers declare in plaine tearmes how Christ grounding his Church upon Peter Mat. 16. committing his flocke to Peter Ioh. 21. wishing Peter to confirme his Brethren and praying for Peters faith that it should not faile Luc. 22. constituted Peter head of his Church upon earth and consequently thereby made him Prince Cheife Captaine Head Leader and Prelate over the rest of the Apostles p Reply pag. 60 But whosoever will weigh his quotations shall perceive that the Fathers have beene onely pretended by him they disdaining any such Monarchie as from those texts the Iesuite laboureth to collect And first for the 16. of Mat. Although the Fathers doe sometimes give Peter the name of the rocke or foundation upon which the Church is builded or grounded yet their meaning is not that the Church is builded upon Peter absolutely and personally but relativelie and from his faith or Christ that hee confessed And therefore Hillary that calleth Peter the foundation of the Church q Hilar. in Mat. 16 Faelix Ecclesiae fundamentum telleth us that not onely to say but also to beleive that CHRIST is the Sonne of GOD this faith is the foundation of the Church r Hillar l. 6. De Trinitat Christum Dei silium non solum nuncupare sed etiam credere Haec fides Ecclesiae fundamentum and in another place hee saith This is the alone happie rocke of faith confessed with the mouth of Peter Thou art the Sonne of the everliving GOD Å¿ Idem l. 2. De Trinitat Vna â—â—aec est faelix fidei Petra Petri ore confessa Tu es filius Dei vivi S. Basill also saith that CHRIST is truely a Rocke unmoveable but Peter is so from the Rockâ— Christ t Basil serm de Pâ—niten Christus verè Petra est inconcussa Petrus vero propter Petram And S. Ambrose concludeth u Ambros ser â— Recte igitur qui Petra Christus Simon nuncupaâ—â—s est Petrus â—â— qui cum Domino fidei societatem habebat cum Domino haberet nominis Dominici unitatem ut siqut à Christo Christianus dicitur ita à Petra Christo Petrus Apostolus vocaretur that rightly therefore because CHRIST is the rocke was Simon called Peter that so he that had a society of faith with his Lord might also have the unitie of his name that as a Christian taketh his denomination from CHRIST so Peter the Apostle might â—â—ke his name from the rocke CHRIST So also saith Gregory Nissen The LORD is the rock of faith even the foundation as the LORD himselfe saith to the Prince of the Apostles Then art Peter and upon this rocke I will build my Church x Gregor Nissenus cap. postremo testimoniorum con Iudaeos Dominus est Peâ—â—â— fidei â—â—â—quam fundamentum ut ipse Dominus ait ad principe◠〈◊〉 Tu es Petrus super â—anc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam 〈◊〉 And S. Augustine teacheth us that The Church is founded upon a rocke from whence even PETER took his name For the rocke tooke not its denomination from PETER but PETER from the rocke even as CHRIST taketh not his name from Christians but a Christian from CHRIST y August truâ—â— 124. in Iohan. Ecclesia fundata est super petram â—â— de Petrus nomen accepit Non enim à Petro petra siâ—â— Petrus à petra siâ—â— non Christus à Christianis sed Christianus à Christâ— vocatur Theodoret shall conclude for this particular who telleth us that Blessed PETER or rather the LORD himselfe layed the foundation for when PETER said thou art CHRIST the Sonne of the living GOD the LORD said upon this rocke I will build my Church Bee not you therefore denominated from man for CHRIST is the foundation z Theodoret. in 1. Cor. 3. Fundamenâ—â—â— jecit beatus Petrus vel pâ—tius ipse Dominus Cum enim dixisset Petrus Tu es Christuâ— filius Der viâ—â— dixir Domiâ—â— super hanc 〈◊〉 â—rarâ— aedificabo EcclesiammeaÌ„ Ne voâ—â—â— go denominaâ—â— ab hominibus Christus 〈◊〉 â—â—◠〈◊〉 So that the Iesuite may see how Peter was the rocke and foundation by confessing and preaching CHRIST the true rocke The latter of which duties to wit preaching CHRIST is so bitter â—nto their Popes that I thinke they had rather forsake their Rock-ship then be tyed thereunto And as the Church was no otherwise grounded upon Peter then you have heard from the Fathers so neither was the flocke of CHRIST Io. 21. committed to Peter in the Roman sence For feeding is not domineering that which before did point out a sheepheard must not now constitute a Prince or Monarch But not to descant upon this place in every particular the Iesuite may take notice that there want not Fathers that thinke the other Apostles had as much interest in feeding as Peter himselfe and that hee received no new power by his pasce oves this is cleare from the reasons that the Fathers give wherefore CHRIST spake onely to Peter As first not to give him a new power and Commission but to stirre him up to conâ—â—sse his LORD thrice as before hee denyed him So Augustine tract in Iohan 123. Cyrillus in Iohan. lib. 12. cap. 64. Secondly that hee might renewe the Apostle shippe for so saith Cyrill But CHRIST said fiede my Lambes renewing unto him the dignitie of his APOSTLESHIP least it might seeme to be lâ—st for his denyall which happened by humane informitie a Cyrillâ—â— in Io. l. 12. c 64. Dixit autem pasce agâ—â—◠〈◊〉 Apostolâ—â—â—s ei renovâ—â—â—â— dignitatem ne propter â—egatioâ—em quae human◠〈◊〉 accidit lâ—befactaâ—i videreâ—â—â— What new power is here given What ordinarie jurisdiction that ordinarily did not belong to the rest Here is the old Apostleship renewed to Peter which by denyall of his Master he
rightly be tearmed unspotted or no a Reply pag. 6â— In discussing whereof hee durst not free this Church of his so much adored from all spots but onely those which are of misbeleife b Reply pag. 6â— and spots of misbeleife whose spots can they be Not the true Churches foâ— that company which beleiveth not aright cannot be esteemed the Church Vniversall or Particular so that every pure Church in this sense hath equall priviledge though he pretends it for the onely triumph of the Roman 〈◊〉 every man for â—e that is an Heretick truly 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 appelâ—ation 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 of CHRIST neither of the Church But the Iesuites preface is full of confidence As the Answerer provoked me to the former disputation though I weene to his smart so doth he give me the like occasion to buckle with him in this e Reply pag. 6â— Whom have we here Hercules with his distasse smart your Fathers and fellowes use not to make such worthies smart you had rather destroy then wound men of his quality But where or when was this smart given I am sure wound or scarre we see none Surely the Iesuite hath bene Chaplaine to the knight Errant that fights sleeping that conquers in his dreames otherwise he could not stand so fortified with imagination as he here appeares Nemo alieno sensu est miser he feeles nothing he complaines not it is not sufficient to prove that he smarts because you conceite that you have given him a wound this hath declared your desire but not manifested the event you presume of But the Iesuite seemeth to promise as much in this Section because in a twitting fashion the Answerer saith that he not onely confounded Urbem Orbem but also mingled heaven and earth together by giving the title of unspotted unto the Catholicke Church of Rome â— Reply pag 62 Hath not this just charge a just ground If unspotted be a property belonging to the triumphant Church can it without confusion be attributed to any Church upoÌ„ earth How this word unspotted is taken in antiquity S. Augustine hath determined and the Iesuite saith nothing materially in opposition why should it not then continue in it's strength still I would know whether the Church in generall or in her members can be without spots that is not defiled in manners though free from false beleife The Church that was free as much as humane imperfection would permit confesseth herselfe blacke though comely * Cant. 1. 5. And the Iesuites citation out of Paâ—â—anus acknowledgeth a freedome onely from heresies Paciâ—â— epist 3. Ecclesia est non habens â—aculam neque rugam hoc est haereses non 〈◊〉 which every true Church and true member hath But how will the Iesuite prove the Roman Church unspotted First hee must have two things graunted him according to his present understanding or â—lse a â—ople First by the Roman Church we must understand the Church universall as hath beene declared saith he in the former Section f Reply pag. â—â— Secondly Vnspotted must have relation to spots of misbeleife only And then I say saith the Iesuit that the Roman Church hath ever bene found and will alwayes remaine in that kind unspotted even unto the end of the world g Reply ibid. This is after-wit but if the Iesuit hath not proved the Roman Church to be the universall in the former Section if the universall hath beene without spots of misbeleife when the Roman in her prime-member hath bene infected with Leprosy this will declare that the Roman Church if their positions be true was not without spots or Catholick either For the first the Iesuite would get by Petition that by the Roman Church is understood the Church universall But let him know it is too great an almes to grant an Adversary Ioh. Sansour in Polycratic l. 6. c. 24. Romana Ecclesia quae materomnium ecclesiarum est se non tam matrem exhibet alijs quam novercam Sedentin eâ Scribas Phâ—risae ponentes onâ—â—a importabiliâ— in humeris hominum quae digito non coâ—â—ngunt and too great an imposture to be approved in them For I am sure no modest man will dreame that the Church of CHRIST could be so forsaken by CHRIST that it were not worthy to be governed but by reprobates as Aliace testifies of the Roman Church h Card de Aliaco lib. de Reform Eccl. cap. de Reform religionum In proverbium abierit Ad hunc statum venisse Romanâ—â— Ecclesium ut non fit digna regi nisi per reproboâ— The Catholicke Church were a poore mother to instruct Gods Saints if she did not shew her self so much a mother as a stepmother if in it fit the Scribes and Pharisees Hereticks long since condemned by Christ and yet Iohannes Sarisburiensis affirmes this of your Roman Church Besides those which have bewayled her corruptions have told us that prophesie is now quite extinct in the Church and it is accomplished that is written 3. Kings 22. I will goe forth and be a lyeing Spirit in the mouth of all the Prophets k Aâ—aâ— Pelagde planctu Ecclesiae l. x. act 5 Ad literam hoâ—â—â— in Ecclesia deficit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod scribitur 3. Regum 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this were harsh for any to affirme of the Catholicke Church of God Moreover it is crosse to reason it selfe to make the Roman the Catholicke Who will thinke that the whole is not greater then the part that Catholicke and Roman are ejusdem ambitus that the Churches Subsistency must depend upon that which will faile that must be utterly overthrowne l Ribeâ—â— Iescom in Apocal. 14. num 44. 48. Babylon significat Romam in fine mundi futuram Besides were there no Saints nor Martyrs before Rome was converted Nay were all the Roman Converts malefidians before Peter confirmed them in the Faith Poore Stephen thou art little behoulding to this Iesuite that Heaven must now be shut to thee which Christ opened * Acts 7. 36. at thy Matyredome But this Grand-imposture hath beene lately layed open by the reverend and learned the Lord Bishop of Leichfield and therefore I may heere forbeare it For the Second I will breifly declare the Iesuites Vanitie herein and first to take away all ambiguitie S. Augustine that useth this tearme of unspotted not of the Primitive Roman but of the auncient Catholicke Church expoundeth what he meant by the same Wheresoeuer in these bookes I have made mention of the Church not having spot or wrinckle it is not so to be taken as if she were so now but that she is prepared to be so when she shall appeare to be glorious For now by reason of certaine ignorances and infirmities of her members the whole Church hath cause to say every day Forgive us our Trespasses m August Retract l. 2. c. â—8 Vbi cunque iâ— his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 memorari Ecclesiam
non habentem maculam aut rugam non sie accipiendum est quasi jam sit sed quae prâ—paratur ut sit quando apparebit etiam gloriosa Nunc enim propter quasdam ignoranties in firmitates membrorum fuorum habet unde quotidie tota dicat Dimitte nobis debita nostra Neither was it the question in those times whether the Catholicke Church could bee spotted with Heresie but with sinne which was affirmed by the Catholicke Church against the Pelagians and this the Iesuite seemeth now to conceive and therefore telleth us that by reason of ignorant and infirmities of her members in other matters the Church hath dayly occasion to pray for the forgivenesse of sinnes n Reply pag. 43. Now the Iesuite giving the title â—â—spotted unto the Primitive Church of Rome which he accounteth the Catholicke how could the most learned Answerer understand the Iesuites tearme but according to the sence of the word as it was vulgarly taken in the primitive times Secondly it were not amisse to conceive that the Iesuite in his Challenge calleth the Primitive Church of Rome 〈◊〉 o In his Challenge in his enquirie in this section hee layeth downe the Roman Church without reâ—â—raynt of Primitive and lastly in his proofe hee thinketh hee hath got the day if from antiquitie he can prove that the Catholicke Church cannot faile So that you may easily â—spy who is guiltie of mingling one question with another But let us examine this new question as the Iesuite hath proposed it Whether the Church of Rome may rightly be tearmed Vnspotted or no p Reply pag â—â— That the auncient Roman Church was invincible never fundamentally erring in the foundation of faith in all her members for the first 400. or 500. yeares after Christ The Iesuite telleth us our Doctors and Masters grannt q In his Challenge So that the Controversie is not what the Primitive Church of Rome was in regard of Heresie but what the Roman Church is lyable unto in her succession which the Iesuite resolves and as he would make us beleive from Augustine and other anncient Fathers saying that in the truth and soundnes of her faith and doctrine shee is evermore invincible and not lyable to any spot or stayne r Reply pag. 43 But neither doth Augustine Origen Eusebius Alexander B. of Alexandria Athanasius Cyrill B. of Hierusalem or Philo Carpathius c. whom he urgeth Å¿ Reply pag 64 pag 650 say any thing for the Roman but for the Catholicke Church to which they beare testimony that it cannot faile So that our Iesuite falleth under Bellarmines Censure who affirmeth that they doe but trifle away the time who contend to prove that the Church cannot absolutely faile because it is graunted by the Protestants themselves t Bellarm. de Ecclesia mil l. 3. c. 13. Notandum autem est muluâ— ex nostris tempus 〈◊〉 dum probant absolute Ecclesiam non posse dâ—ficere 〈◊〉 Calâ—â—â—â— eâ—teri 〈◊〉 â—i id concedunt which the Iesuite knowing though dissembling after he hath produced S. Chrysostome for the perpetuitie of the Catholicke Church argueth fâ—r her But what Church doth this holy Father meane thinke you Surely none other then Peters Church u Reply pag. â—â— c. Peters Churchâ— proâ— nefâ—â— was the Church espoused to Peter purchased by Peter redeemed by Peter At Antioth the Church was first called Christian * Acts 1. v. 26. which name it hath retained and shall it loose its title and 〈◊〉 now and bee denominated from Peter The Spouse of Christ the mysticall body of Christ the house of God the Lords granary and 〈◊〉 Stapleâ— Relect cont 1. q. â— art 1. not 5 Vt est corpus Christi in uno sensu propter internam gratiam ita est domus magna Cheisti â—st area ager dominicus in alio sensu propter externam collectionem c. but Peters Church is somewhat harsh Chrysostome neere giveth the Church no such title onely their poore forged Cyrill hath Ecclesia Apostolica Petri an evidence answerable to the cause yet not convincing for the same title might be given to the Church of Antioch But can the wordes of Chrysostome stretch to the Roman Church â—et the Iesuite shew it if he be able That Church whereof Chrysostome speaketh is the Church of Christ not of Peter that Church whereof he is a Pastor y Chrys in Mat homâ—â—â— Ecclesiae futurae pastorem constituit not a Monarch the rock upon which it is builded is not Peter but Christ beleived confessed by Peter Ibid. Et super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam id est fidem atque confessionem Peter had no gift given him to preserve this Church from amidst â—â—erce assaults and raging flouds in this Fathers opinion though the Iesuite would perswade it but Peter was confirmed in his faith confessed by this promise made that the gates of hel should not prevaile against the Churchâ— Neither had Peter power given him to make the Church invincible but to declare it Ibid Petrus Ecclesiam per universum orbem amplificatam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 validiâ—â—â—â— monstravit And as the Fathers ground this priviledge of the unspotted â— Non enim turbari te con venâ—â— cùm audicris quia traâ—ar crucifiâ—â—â— integritie of the Roman Church upon the promise of Christ to Peter Matt 16. so also they oftentimes deduce the same from the vertue of that prayer which Christ made to his Father for Peters faith that it should never faile Luc 22. wherin doubtlesse he was heard for his reverence Heb. 5. 7. Reply pag. â—â— There is no ground why the Roman should enjoy this priviledge either from Christs promise or his prayer as the Iesuite hath failed in deducing any thing from the former so doth he shew his abilities in this latter at his first entrance For first he brings in forged Epistles under the name of Lucius d Bellarm. l. 2 de Rom. Pont. c. â— dare not affirme this Epistle to be undoubted it is dared Gallo Volusâ— ano Cosâ— when as they were not Consule at that time as appeareth by Baron Annal. to â— an â— and Felix e The Epistle is dated Claudio Paterno Coss when as there were none such in his time Baron ad aâ— 273. good Bishops who would have 〈◊〉 the pride that they are urged heere to 〈…〉 the rest he cites 〈◊〉 good Bishop we will not deny yet his goodnes did not declare itselfe at all times when he spake of S. Peter or the Roman Church but his infirmity For as the Bishops of Rome both before and after him desired more then was fit so it will be no difficulty to shew that they contended to justifie their desires by unfit meanes and especially by swelling wordâ—â— in the honour of S. Peter and their owne Seâ— and practises sutable thereunto Insomuch that they were esteemed smoâ—â—â— by some
Heresies did arise and with different names did end avour to teare in peices and devide Christ his dove and his queene or spouse was it not reason that the true Apostolicall Church should be called by her syrname of Catholicke thereby to discerne and distinguish her incorrupted unitie least that Vnspotted Virgin by other mens errors and mistaking might be devided u Reply pag. 6â— c. What have we here for the unspotted Roman Church Here is nothing to exempt her from present staines or after pollutions That there was a Catholicke Church and not â—espotted with the impurities of the auncient Herâ—ticks who doth deny yet this doth not prove Augustine over-shot in his retractation or the Iesuite justified in â—â—â— tearme Now as if hee had performed what he made us expect â—e swels Might not a man now bee bold to bee tryed by the judgment of our Answerers owne conscience whether hee had any reason to except against me for tearming the 〈◊〉 Catholicke Roman Church unspotted x Reply pag. â—â— And indiscreet man may be bould in an arme of flesh a â—eed of Egypt a broken tooth but vainely and to his losse The most learned Answerers Conscience may for any thing you have said commiserate your confidence not justifie it unlesse you would have him to be convicted with forged words and bare names When as I have saith the Iesuite this generall warrant from the holy Fathers and Doctours of this Primitive times for the same y Reply pag. 67 The most learned Answerer by excepting at your unspotted Church did not charge the â—niversall built upon the rocke confessed by Peter with desperate Heresie Particular members and Churches which have outwardly professed Christ have fallen into Heresie so may Rome z Frauciscus Picus Theo. 13 Iuxta Theoso gorumquotuâ—dam Iuris Interpretum aliquorum dogmata fieri possetut Romana Ecclesia quae particularis Ecclesia est contra universalem distincta infide aberraret but that the Catholick Church should forsake the foundation of faith this he well knew would crosse Christs promise and make the gates of Hell prevaile against his Church It would then be no rock upon which the Church was builded but the sand subject to wind weather The Iesuite in his Challenge did not stile the auncient Catholick Church which he here tearmeth Roman but the primitive Church of Rome unspotted in this sense it is there acknowledged by himselfe that the ancient Roman is by us confessed to be unspotted so that what he hath produced for their Catholick exemption from Heresie is nothing to his purpose But he proceedes in his Oratory The which being maturely pondered of thee Christian Reader thou mayest easily perceive how farre unlike our Answeters Church is unto that of the primitive confessed best times notwithstanding that he seemeth to claime so great affinitie therewith But wherein is this dissimilitude unliâ—enes In regard the Roman Church being head of all other Churches in earth c. thereupon rightly called the Vniversall or Catholick Church c is blessed with the prerogative of an inâ—incible perpetuity of an unspotted faith c. But our Adversaries Church saith the Iesuit forasmuch as by them it is confessed to want this infallible rule of faith to be lyable to error cannot with reason challenge unto it self the name of an unspotted Church therefore is rightly concluded to have no affiâ—ity or aliance with the true ancient catholick Church at al a Reply pag. 67 and 68. In answer to this we have told the Iesuit truly that the Roman Church is so far from being the head over all other churches that for all the Iesuits proofs if it were utterly destroyed the Catholick Church would not faile 2ly that in no sense the Roman Church can be truly called Catholick or Vniversall And here Godwilling I will shew that no Church in the world hath beene more besmeared with spots staines even of misbeliefe then the Roman in her successioÌ„ And if an heretical Pope can bespot the primitive church of Rome with heresy which indeed we beleive not though Papists must not deny the same it will appeare that the Primitive Church of Rome was not blessed with the Prerogative of an invincible perpetuity of unspotted faith And first if we believe their owne Rhenanus Pope Zephsrinus was defiled with spots of misbeleife Montanizing which is warranted by Tertullians testimony that was well acquainted with the Favourers of Montanus b Bellarm. de Rom Pont. l. 4. c. 8. Zepherinus Victoris successor videtur haeresim Montani approbasse Scribit enim Tertullianus in libro contra Praxeam Romanum Pontificem agnoscentem prophetias Montani ex eâ agnitione pacem Ecclesijs Asiae Phrygiae inferentem à Praxea fuisse persuasum literas pacis revocare quas jam emiserat Constat autem ex historijâ— to tempore Zepherinum fuisse Romae Pontificem Quare Rhenanus in annotationibus ad Tertâ—llianum ponit hoc loco in margine Episcopus Romanus Montanizat Neque dici potest eo tempore nondum fuisse damnatam ab Ecclesia haeresim Montani Nam ut ibidem Tertullianus dicit Praâ—eas persuasit Pontifici revocare literas pacis eâ praecipâ—rè ratione quia praedecessores ejus haeresim illam antea damnavissent neither hath Bellarmine any better shift to excuse this Pope then by telling us as if a Montanist knew not a Montanist that faith is not to be given to Tertullian c Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 8. Respondeo non esse omnino fidem habendam Tertulliano in hac parte quandoquidem ipse Montanista erat Some hundred yeares after we finde an other bespotted Pope Marcellinus acknowledged for an Idolater by Câ—sterus d Costerus Enchirid. c. 3. p. 137. Fatemur siquidem 〈◊〉 posse ut Petri successor Idola eolat quod beatum Marcellinum fecisse aiunt Bellarmine e Bellarm recognit l. de 〈◊〉 Pont. p. 20. Concessimus S. Marcellinum Idolâ—â— sacriâ—â—casse and reported by a Councell of their friends making Sinâ—essa f Concil Sinuessanum Ecce introierunt testes 14. qui dicebant se Marcellinum vidisse in temple Veâ—ta 〈◊〉 thuâ—ificantem Ibid. In sinu autem trecenrorum Episcoporum caputeinere convolutum Marcellinus Episcopus urbis Romae voce clarâ 〈◊〉 dicebat Peccavi coram vobis non possum in ordine sacerdotum esse quoniam 〈◊〉 me corrupit auro Subscripserunt autem in ejus damnationem damnaverunt â—â—â— exâ—â—â— civitatem by Pope Nicholas the first g Nicholaus â— ad Michael Imperator Epist â— Tempore Dioclesiam Maximiani Augustorum Marcellinus Episcopus urbiâ— Romae adeo 〈◊〉 est à Paganis ut in tempâ—â—â— eorum ingressus grana thuris super 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cujus nei gratia collecto numerosorum Concilio Episcoporum inquisitione facta hoc se idem Pontifex egisse confessus est Platina h Platina de vita