were true might not a man thinke you tell as good a tale of some Protestants who in their pots have made so bold with Almighty God himselfe as to drinke a health to him and were not this a fine argument to prove that there is no God It is intollerable presiemption in the Knight to take upon him to censure so great a Councell as that of Trent Wherein the whole flower of the Catholique Church for learning and sanctity was gathered together the splendour of which Councell was so great that your night owle Heretiques durst not once appeare though they were invited to goe and come freely with all the security they could wish Whoreas the Knight saith that it is a senselesse and weake faith that giveth assent to doctrine as necessary to be believed which wanteth authority out of Scriptures and consent of Fathers I answer he knoweth not what he saith for all the Fathers agree that there are many things which men are bound to believe upon unwritten traditions whose authority you may see in great number in Bellarmine De verbo Dei l. 4. c 7. The consent of Doctours of the Catholique Church cannot more erre in one time then another the authority of the Church and assistance of the Holy Ghost being alwayes the same no lesse in one time then another Tertull. de prescript cap. 28. quod apud multos unum invenitur non est erratū sed traditum and Tertullians rule having still place as well in one age as another that which is the same amongst many is not errour but a tradition St. Paul thought he answered sufficiently for the defence of himselfe and offence of his contentious enemy when he said 1 Cor. 11. If any man seeme to be contentious we have no such custome nor the Churches of God It is false which the Knight againe repeateth that an article of faith cannot be warantable without authority of Scriptures for faith is more ancient then Scripture to say nothing of the times before Christ faith was taught by Christ himselfe without writing as also by the Apostles after him for many yeares without any word written As no lesse credite is to be given to the Apostolicall preaching then writing so no lesse credit is still to be given to their words delivered us by tradition then by their writings the credite and sense of the writings depending upon the same tradition St. Austine defendeth many points of faith De baptisme l. 2 c. 7. l. 5 c. 25. cont Maximin l. 3. c. 3. et Epist 174. de Genesi ad litteram l. 10. c. 23. l. de cura pro mortuis et Epist 118. de unit eccles c. 22. et tract 98. in Iohan. either onely or chiefely by tradition and the practise of the Catholique Church as single Baptisme against the Donatists consubstantiality of the Sonne the divinity of the Holy Ghost and even unbegottennesse of the Father against the Arrians and the Baptisme of children against the Pelagians to say nothing of prayer for the dead observation of the feasts of Easter Ascention Whitsontide and the like Nay this truth was so grounded with him that he accounted it most insolent madnesse to dispute against the common opinion and practise of the Catholique Church In his booke of the unity of the Church he saith that Christ beareth witnesse of his Church and in his Tractates upon John having occasion to handle those words of St. Paul If we or an Angell from Heaven c. wherewith the Knight almost concludeth every Section he thus commenteth upon them the Apostles did not say if any man preach more then yee have received but besides that which you have received for if he should say that he should prejudicate that is goe against himselfe who coveted to come to the Thessalonians that he might supply that which was wanting to their faith but he that supplieth addeth that which was lacking taketh not away that which was before these are the Saints very words in that place by which it is plaine that he taketh the word praeter besides not in that sense as to signifie more then is written as you would understand it but to signifie the same that contra St. Paul himselfe useth the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 para besides Rom. 16.17 for contra and you in your owne Bibles translate it so I beseech you brethren marke them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them The Hammer AS Erucius the accuser of Roscius Amerinus having little to say against him Cic. pro Rosc Amer. to fill up the time rehearsed a great part of an invective which he had penned in former time against another defendant so the Iesuit here failing in his proofes for indulgences for which little or nothing can be said to fill up the Section transcribeth a discourse of his which he had formerly penned concerning the necessity of unwritten traditions which hath no affinity at all with the title of this Chapter de Indulgentiis In other paragraphs we finde him distracted and raving but in this he turneth Vagrant and therefore I am to follow him with a whip as the law in this case provideth Touching the point it selfe of Indulgences which Rivet fitly termeth Emulgences but the Iesuit the Churches Treasury whosoever relieth upon the superabundant merits and satisfaction of Saints for his absolution for his temporall punishment of sinne after this life shall finde according to the Greeke proverbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of treasure Eras Adag Thesauri Carbones glowing coales heaped upon his head in hell For neither are there any merits or superabundant satisfactions of Saints Luk. 17.10 Christ saying when you have done all you are unprofitable servants nor were there any could they be applied or imputed to any other men 2 Cor. 5.10 the Apostle teaching that every man shall receive according to that which himselfe hath done in his body whether it be good or evill 2 Cor. 11.15 nor hath the Pope any more power to dispose of this treasury for the remission of sinnes our Saviour Matth. 18. v. 18. and Iohn 20.23 conferring the same power of remitting sinnes upon all the Apostles which he promised to S. Peter Matth. 16. Neither if the Pope had any speciall power of granting Indulgences could it extend to the soules in Purgatory quia non sunt de foro Papae because they are not subject to the Popes court Serm 2. de defunct 9 9. as Gerson rightly concludeth Neither lastly can it be proved that there is any Purgatory fire for soules after this life St. Iohn expresly affirming that the blood of Christ purgeth us from all our sinnes 1 Iohn 1.7 the fire therefore of Purgatory is rightly termed chymerica and chymica chymericall and chymicall chymericall because a meere fiction and chymicall because by meanes of this fire they extract much gold The Apostle saith there is
etiam patres Ambrosius Hilarius c. minime loquuntur de indulgentiis Prierias cont Luth. de Indul. Indulgentiae authoritate scripturae non intuere nobis sed authoritate ecclesiae Romanorum Pontificum Major in 4. sent dist 2. q. 2. Difficile est modum indulgentiarum fundare authenticè in scripturâ sacrâ Roffensis artic 18. cont Luther Quamdiù nulla fuerat de purgatoria cura nemo quesivit indulgentias nam ex illo pendet omnis indulgentiarum estimatio ceperunt igitur indulgentiae postquam ad purgatorii cruciatus aliquandiù trepidatum erat The Scriptures speak not expressely of Indulgences neither the Fathers Austine Hilarie Ambrose Jerome c. Sylvester Prierias affirmeth that Pardons have not beene knowne to us by the authority of Scriptures but by the authority of the Church of Rome and the Popes Fisher Bishop of Rochester confesseth that of Purgatorie there is little or no mention amongst the ancient Fathers and that as long as Purgatory was not cared for there was no man sought for Pardons sith Purgatorie therefore hath beene so lately knowne and received of the whole Church who can now wonder concerning Indulgences And here Master Flood is at a stand his Flumen is turned into Stagnum for having made offer to answer Durand and finding that his answer would not hold his heart failed him and hee durst not venture to shape any answer at all to the Authours last mentioned namely Alfonsus a Castro Alfon. de verbo Indulg Harum usus in ecclesiâ videtur serò receptus de Transubst antiatime rara in antiquis mentio de purgatorio fere nulla quid ergo mirum si ad hunc modum contigeret de indalgentiis ut apud priscos nulla sir mentio Antonin part 1. tit 10. de indulgentiis nihil expressè habemus in sacrâ scripturà aut etiam patrum scriptis Cajet opus 15. 1. Nulla scriptura sacra nulla priscorum doctorum grecorum aut latinorum authoritas indulgentiarum ortum ad nostram deduxit notitiam Bellor de indul l. 1. c. 17. Neque mirum videri debet si authores antiquiores non habemus qui harum mentiorum faciunt whose words are There is nothing in Scripture lesse opened or wherof the ancient Fathers have lesse written than of Indulgences and it seemeth the use of them came but lately into the Church there is seldome any mention of Transubstantiation among the Ancients almost none of Purgatorie What marvell then if it so fall out with Indulgences that there should be no mention of them by the Ancients Antoninus There is not any expresse testimonie for proofe of Indulgences either in Scriptures or in the writings of the ancient Fathers Cajetan There is no authoritie of Scriptures or ancient Fathers Greeke or Latin that bringeth the originall of Indulgences to our knowledge Bellarmine It is not to be wondered if wee have not many ancient Authours which make mention of Indulgences for many things are reâ—â—â—ned in the Church onely by use and custome without writing See how the Romanists second one the other Bellarmine saith That not many ancient Authours make mention of Indulgences Cajetan and Antoninus say Not any Durand saith that The Scriptures speake not expresly of them Prierias saith That they speake not at all of them To the tenth The Indulgences those Fathers and Councells speake of have no more affinitie with the Pardon 's the Pope selleth now adaies than the Rivers of Paradise have with Styx or Avernos or Simon Peter with Simon Magus or Phillip the Apostle with Phillip King of Macedon as I shewed before To the eleventh The Iesuit hath neither proved the practise of the Catholike Church nor of the Romane time out of mind for Indulgences but onely practises of later times since manifold abuses crept into the Roman Church As for his negative Argument to wit that It is a strong evidence of consent for Indulgences because none is found to have spoken against them unlesse hee otherwise qualifie it it will no more prove Purgatorie or the lawfull use of Indulgences than it will prove there is a Common-wealth in Eutopia or Cities or Countries in the Moone or many worlds because peradventure none is found to have spoken or written against them And for the Waldenses that they were the first impugners of Indulgences is said by the Iesuit but not proved much lesse that these Waldenses were known Heretikes For they were farre from heresie by the confession of their greatest adversarie the Inquisitor Rainerius Cont. Wald. cap. 4. They live saith hee justly before men and believe all things well concerning God and all the Articles contained in the Creed Solummodo Romanam Ecclesiam blasphemant Clerum onely they speake evill of the Romane Church and Clergie To the twelfth It was happy for Durand that hee lived before the Inquisition and Index Expurgatorius Durand in 4. sent dist 2. q. 3. Quod dictuÌ„ est Petro. Mat. 16. tibi dabo claves c. intelligitur de potestate ei data in foro poenitentiae de collatione autem indulgentiarum non est quomodò debeat intelligi sancti enim Ambrosius Hilarius Augustinus Hieronimus minime loquntur de indulgentiis For he argueth so strongly against Indulgences saying that Little can be spoken of any certainty concerning them because the Scripture speaketh not expressely of them for what is spoken Matthew the 16. to Peter I will give thee the Keyes and whatsoever thou bindest on earth shall be bound in heaven is understood of the power given him in the penitentiall Court and cannot be understood of the bestowing of Indulgences for the holy Fathers Ambrose Hilarie Augustine Jerome speake not at all of Indulgences that his writings if not his person would have beene purged by fire if hee had lived in these times yet true it is that having argued strongly against Indulgences and the Church Treasurie so farre as it consisteth of the merit of Saints hee bethought himselfe and pro formâ alleageth to the contrarie the Custome and Doctrine of the Church meaning the Romane Church whose lash hee feared if hee should not have given backe that by Whole-sale which hee had taken away from her by Re-tale It s true also that hee mentions Indulgences at the stations of Rome in the dayes of Saint Gregory but let it be noted that Gregory is without the compasse of the Primitive times and that hee was interested in the cause for Purgatorie fiers began to singe men in his time and thereupon Indulgences to be in request which afterwards proved a Staple commoditie to the See of Rome Lastly Mart. Epig. de Lab. Non es crede mihi bonus quid ergo ut verum loquar optimus malorum Pisones Senecasque Memmiosque et Crispos mihi redde sed priores fies protinus ultimus bonorum as Martial writeth of Labulla it may be truly said of this Gregory that hee was the worst of the good and best of
the purpose that that Councell seemed to be an assembly not of Bishops but of Hobgoblins not of men but of Images moved like the statues of Daedalus by the sinewes of others What the Iesuit addeth of night owles not daring to appeare in the splendour of that Councell hath no colour of truth For it is no newes for owles to appeare at popish Councells At a Councell held at Rome by Pope Heldebrand Fascic rerum expetend sugiend Ortwhinus Gratius writeth there appeared an huge great Owle which could not be frayed away but scared all the Bishops As for Protestants whom this Blacke-bird of Antichrist termeth night Owles if they had flocked to that Councell they had shewed themselves not Owles by appearing in that twi-light at Trent but very Wood-cocks to trust any security offerd them by those who after publike faith given to Iohn Huz and Ierome of Prage notwithstanding the safe conduct of Sigismond the Emperour for their going to and comming from the Councell at Constance most cruelly burned them at a stake to ashes To the seventeenth Divine faith must be grounded upon divine authority and that cannot be the Catholike faith which wanteth consent of Fathers As for those Fathers whose authority Bellarmine draweth ob torto collo to testifie for unwritten traditions de verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 7. the Iesuit may see them fully answered in Iunius Whitaker Daniel Chamierus and Dr. Davenant Bishop of Sarum and a farre greater number of Fathers alleaged to the contrary by Robert Abbot in his answer to William Bishop cap. 7. Phillip Morney in his preface to his booke de sacrâ Eucharistiâ and Iacobus Laurentius in his singular tractate de Disputationibus and others To the eighteenth The assistance of the Holy ghost was more speciall in the times of the Apostles then in latter ages they could not erre in their writings others might yet we charge not the Catholike Church of Christ in any age with any fundamentall errour though we may the Roman Tertullian his rule may have still place and as well in one age as another if it be rightly taken and not misconstrued and misapplied for if it be taken generally that whatsoever is the same amongst many is no errour but tradition it is it selfe a great errour For the same opinion concerning the inequality of the Father and the Sonne is found amongst many to wit the Arrian Churches the same doctrine concerning the procession of the Sonne from the Father onely is found amongst many namely all the Greeke Churches at this day the same practise of administring the Eucharist to children was found amongst many namely all the Churches of Affrica in St. Austines time yea and in all Churches subject to the Bishop of Rome for many ages as Maldonat the Iesuit confesseth yet the above named Positions and this latter practise are confessed on all sides to be erroneous But Tertullian by many understandeth not the practise of some particular Churches Tertul. de prescrip Age nunc omnes ecclesiae erraverint verisimile est ut tot et tante in unam fidem erraverint much lesse of factious persons of one Sect but the generall and uniforme doctrine and practise of the whole Church as his words in the same Chapter quoted by the Iesuit declare Goe too now admit that all Churches have erred is it likely so many so great Churches should erringly conspire in one faith To the nineteenth We derogate nothing from any generall custome of the Catholike Church let the Iesuit produce out of good Authors any such custome for Indulgences to redeeme soules out of Purgatory flames by Papall Indulgences and this controversie will soone be at an end howsoever let me tell the Iesuit the way that this text of St. Paul is impertinently alleaged to prove this or any other article of the Trent faith For St. Paul in this place speaketh not of any Article of faith nor matter of manners necessary to salvation but of habits gestures fashions and indifferent rites in matter of which nature there is no question at all but that the custome of the Churches of God ought to sway as is abundantly proved by Dr. Andrewes late Bishop of Winchester in his printed Sermon upon that text To the twentieth Disputabamus de alliis respondet Iesuita de cepis we dispute of Indulgences the Iesuit answereth of Traditions in matter of Faith These are very distinct questions and so handled by all that deale Work-man-like in points of difference betweene the Reformed and the Romane Churches but the Jesuits common place of Indulgences was drawne drie and therefore hee setteth his cocke of Traditions on running which yeeldeth nothing but muddy water What though Faith be ancienter than Scriptures the Argument is inconsequent Ergo Scripture is not now the perfect rule of Faith Faith neither is nor can be more ancient than the Word of God upon which it is built this Word of God is now written and since the consigning and confirming the whole Canon of the written Word by Saint Iohn in the Apocalypse is become the perfect and as the Schooles speaketh the adequate rule of Faith It is true Christ and his Apostles first taught the Church by word of mouth Lib. 3. advers heres cap. 1. Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis nostrae cognovimus quam per eos per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos quod quidem tunc praeconiaverunt postea per dei voluntatem in scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futuram but afterwards that which they preached was by the commandment of God committed to writing to be the foundation and pillar of Faith as Irenaus testifieth in expresse words To the twentie one If the Iesuit could prove as undoubtedly any words of the Apostles that are not set downe in Scriptures to be their owne words as wee can prove the writings we have to be theirs wee would yeeld no lesse credit to them then to these but that neither can hee nor so much as undertaketh to doe And whereas he further faith that the credit of the Scripture depends upon Tradition unlesse hee qualifie the speech some way it is not onely erroneous but also blasphemous for it is all one as if hee should say that man gives credit and authority to God as Tertullian jeareth the Heathen In Apolloget not receiving Christ for God because the Romane Senate would not give their consent and approbation to make him one Iam homo deo propitius esse debet or that the credit and authority of Gods Word dependeth upon mans receiving it Whereas in truth Gods Word is not therefore of divine and infallible authoritie because the Church delivereth it to be so but on the contrary the Church delivereth it to be so because in it selfe it is so and the Church should erre damnably if shee should otherwise conceive of these inspired Writings then as of the undoubted Oracles of God
to which we owe absolute consent and beliefe Vid. August supr cit without any question or contradiction To the two and twentieth Saint Austine defends no point of Faith against Heretikes either onely or chiefly by the Tradition and practise of the Catholike Church but either onely or chiefly by the Scriptures For example in his booke of Baptisme against the Donatists after hee had debated the point by Scriptures hee mentioneth the custome of the Church and relateth Stephanus his proceeding against such as went about to overthrow the ancient custome of the Catholike Church in that point But hee no where grounds his Doctrine upon that custome though hee doth well approve of it as wee doe Againe in his booke against Maximinus and his 174 Epist to Pascentius hee confirmeth the faith of the Trinity by the written Word against those Heretikes his words Ep. 175 Haec siplacet audire quemadmodum è Scripturis sacris asserantur to the same Pascentius are Here thou maist heare if thou wilt how these points of our Faith are maintained by Scripture So farre is hee from founding those or any other points of faith only or chiefly upon unwritten Traditions What the Iesuit alleageth out of his tenth booke De Genes ad literam cap. 23. Consuetudo matris Ecclesiae in baptizandis parvulis nequaquam spernendus est neque ullo modo superflua deputanda no whit advantageth his cause for there Saint Austine saith no more but The custome of the Church in baptizing Infants is no way to be despised or to be accounted superfluous Wee all say the same and condemne the Pelagians of old and Anabaptists of late who deny Baptisme to be administred to children or any way derogate from the necessitie of that Sacrament The Iesuit saith hee will say nothing of Prayer for the dead yet hee quoteth Saint Austine de curâ pro mortuis as if in that booke hee taught Prayer for the dead and grounded it upon unwritten Tradition Whereas in that booke hee neither maintaineth Prayer for the dead nor maketh mention of any unwritten Tradition for it but on the contrarie solidly out of Scriptures proveth Esaias Propheta dicit Abraham nos nescivit et Israel non cognovit nos si tanti patriarchae quid erga populum ex his procreatur ageretur ignoraverunt quomodo mortui vivorum rebus atque actibus cog noscendis adjuvandisque miscentur et paulo post ibi ergo sunt spiritus defunctorum ubi non vident quecunque aguntur aut eveniunt in istâ vitâ hominibus Ep. 118. Si quid hocum sic faciendum divinae Scripturae praescribat authoritas non est dubitandum quin ita facere debeamus similiter si quid per orbem tota frequentat Ecclesia that the Saints departed have no knowledge of our affaires upon earth the Prophet Esay saith Abraham knoweth us not and Israel is ignorant of us If so great Patriarchs knew not what befell their posteritie after their death how can it be defended that the dead intermeddle with the actions or affaires of the living to helpe them onward or so much as to take notice of them A little after he concludes flat upon the Negative The Spirits therefore of the dead there remaine where they knowe not what befalleth to men in this life To what end therefore should wee call upon them in our troubles and distresse here Neither hath this Father any thing in his 118 Epistle for the Iesuit or against us for there hee speaketh of Ecclesiasticall Rites and Customes as appeares in the very title of that Epistle not of Doctrines of Faith and yet even in these hee giveth a preheminence to the Scriptures If saith hee the authoritie of divine Scripture prescribe any Rite or Custome to be kept there is no question to be made of such a Rite or Custome and in like manner if the whole Church throughout the world constantly useth such a Rite or Custome The Iesuites next allegation out of this Fathers booke De unitate Eccles cap. 22. falleth short of his marke hee saith there that Christ beareth witnesse to his Church that it should be Catholike that is spread over the face of the Earth and not to be confined to any certaine place as the Province of Affrica Wee say the same and adde that the bounds of it are no more the territories of the Bishop of Rome than the Provinces of Affrica Wee grant that Whosoever refuseth to follow the practise of the Church to wit the Catholike or universall Church resisteth or goeth against our Saviour who promised by his spirit to leade her into all truth and to be with her to the end of the World Which promise may yet stand good and firme though any particular Church erre in Faith or manners as did the Churches of Asia planted by the Apostles themselves and the Church of Rome doth at this day Cont. lit Petil. l. 3. c. 6. Now because that testimonie of Saint Austine wherewith the Knight concludes almost every Section If wee or an Angell from heaven preach unto you any thing whether it be of Christ or of his Church or any thing which concerneth Faith or manners besides that which you have received in the Legall and Evangelicall Scriptures let him be accursed is as a beame in all Papists eyes therefore they use all possible meanes to take it out but all in vaine for the words of the Apostle on which Saint Paul commenteth are not as the Iesuit would have them If any man preach unto you Contra against but if any preach unto you Praeter besides Ep. ad Galat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neque enim inquit si contraria solum predicaverint intulit anathema esto sed si evangelizaverint preter id quod ipsi evangelisavimus hoc est si plusculum quidpiam adjecerent as Saint Chrysostome and Theophylact accutely observe The Apostle saith not if Chrysostome rightly understand him if they should preach any thing contrary but if they shall in their preaching adde any thing be it never so little besides that which wee have preached unto you let him be accursed And Theophylact is altogether as plaine as Chrysostome in his Glosse upon the words The Apostle inferreth not if any man preach contrarie to that yee have received but if any preach besides that which wee have preached unto you that is if they shall presume to adde any thing though never so little let them be accursed Neither doth Saint Austine in his tractate upon Saint Iohn upon which Bellarmine and after him Flood so much beare themselves any whit contradict the former interpretations of Saint Chrysostome and Theophylact. For his words in that place carry this sense The Apostle saith not if any man preach more unto you than you have already received that is perfectly conceived and apprehended for then hee should goe against himselfe who saith that hee desired to come to the Thessalonians to supply
contradict Romish doctrines not out of disobedience to man but out of obedience to him who commandeth us to contend for the true faith and to reprove and convince all gainesayers What Papists intentions are we take not upon us to judge their doctrines we put to the test of Gods word and finde them false and adulterine and all be it some points of their beliefe considered in themselves might seeme indifferent yet as they hold them they are not because they are not of faith Rom. 14.23 and what soever is not of faith is sinne Now no point of the Romish Creed as they hold it is of that faith the Apostle speaketh of that is divine faith because they ground and finally resolve all their articles not upon Gods word but upon the authority of the Pope Resp ad Archiepis Spalaten c. 47. Firmitas fundamenti â—â— firma licet implicita in aureo hoc fundamento veritatis adhaesio valebit ut in Cypriano sic in nobis ad salutem faenum stipula imbecilitas caries in tecto contignatione explicitae erroris opinio non valebit nec in Cypriano nec in nobis ad perâ—â—tiem or Church of Rome which is but the authority of man whereas on the contrary as Doctor Crakent horpe demonstrateth If any Protestant build hay or stubble upon the true foundation he may he saved because be holdeth the true foundation which is that every doctrine of faith ought to be built upon Scripture If the Iesuit wonder at this conclusion let him weigh the Authors reasons and he will be forced to confesse that the errors if there be any in Protestants in regard they sticke close to the true foundation and implicitly deny them cannot in them be damnable whereas the very true doctrines of faith in Papists because they hold them upon a wrong ground and foundation very much derogatory to God and his truth are not so safe To the third With what face can the Iesuit avow this considering that Prieras before alleaged and other writers approved by the Church of Rome mainetaine this blasphemous assertion that the authority of the Church is greater then the anthority of Scripture and all Papists of note at this day hold that the Scripture is but an imperfect and partiall rule of faith all Protestants on the contrary teach that it is an entire and perfect rule of faith Papists believe the Scripture for the Churches sake Protestants the Church for the Scripture sake Papists resolve all points of faith generally into the Popes infalibility or Churches authority Protestants into the written word of God which as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth De verbo Dei non script l. 4. c. 11. containeth all things necessary for all men to beleeve and is a most certaine and safe rule of beleeveing Yea but saith the Iesuit out of Vincentius Lerinensis De verbo Dei l. 1. c. 2. he that will avoid the deceits and snares of Haeretikes and remaine soundin the faith must strengthen his faith two wayes to wit by the authority of the divine law and the tradition of the Catholike Church This advise of Vincentius is sound and good if it be rightly understood and not in the Iesuits sense Vincentius there by tradition of the Catholike Church understandeth not unwritten verities but the Catholike expositions of holy Scriptures extant in the writings of the Doctors of the Church in all ages and we grant that this Catholike exposition of the Doctors where it can be had is of great force to confirme faith and confound Heretikes Vt Scripturae ecclesiastice intelligentiae jungatur authoritas For the stopping of whose mouth that Father saith and we deny it not that there is great neede to add to the Scripture the Churches sense or interpretation albeit as he there addeth which cutteth the throat of the Iesuits cause The Canon of Scripture is perfect and sufficient of it selfe for all things nay rather as hee correcteth himselfe Over and above sufficient cum sit perfectus scripturae canon sibique adomnia satis superque sufficiat To the fourth Here the Iesuit would make his Reader study a little and his Adversarie to muse Vero nihil verius certo nihil certius but it is indeed whether hee be in his right wits or no. For first as Seneca well resolveth one thing cannot be said truer than another one truth in Divinitie may be more evident to us than another but in it selfe it cannot be truer or surer Secondly admitting there could be degrees of certainty at least quoad nos there can be yet no comparison in regard of such certaintie betweene an Article of the Creed assented unto by all Christians and a controverted conclusion maintained onely by a late faction in the Westerne Church But the sitting of Christ at the right hand of his Father is an Article of the Creed set downe in expresse words in holy Scripture Mark 16.19 Luke 24. consented unto by all Christians in the world whereas the carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament by Tranfubstantiation is no Article extant in any Creed save onely that of Pope Pius his coyning in the yeare of our Lord 1564. It is neither in words set downe in Scripture as the other Articles are neither can it be necssarily inforced or deduced by consequence as foure great Cardinals of the Roman Church confesse Cameracensis Cajetan Roffensis and Bellarmine Neither was this Doctrine of the Romane Church ever assented unto by the Greeke Church nor by the Latine anciently or generally as I shewed before Thirdly the Iesuit contradicteth himselfe within eight lines for having said in the eighteenth line Pag. 384. that Christ his corporall presence in the Sacrament was more sure than his presence in heaven at the right hand of his Father about seven lines after forgetting himselfe hee saith that Wee shall find as much to doe marke as much not more in expounding that Article of the Creed as they doe in expounding the words This is my Body Wherein it is well hee confesseth that Papists make much to doe in expounding the words This is my Body which is most true for by the demonstrative Hoc they understand they know not what Neither this Body nor this Bread but an Individum vagum something contained under the accidents of Bread which when the Priests saith Hoc it is Bread but when hee hath muttered out an Vm it is Christs Body Likewise by the Copula est is they understand they know not what either shall be as soone as the words are spoken or is converted unto or is by Transubstantiation Lastly by Body they understand such a body as indeed is no body without the extension of place without distinction of Organs without facultie of sense or motion and will hee make this figment so incredible so impossible as sure nay more sure than the Article of Christs ascension into heaven and his sitting at the right hand of his
All-sufficiencie or containing of all things expressely is a necessarie point of perfection hee is deceived for then would it follow that the Gospell of Saint Matthew Saint Marke and other particular Bookes should be imperfect and especially that of Saint John wherein hee saith expressely that all things are not written Were the Scripture perfect in the Knights sense yet would it not then be a sufficient rule of Faith of it selfe alone for it would still be a booke or writing the very nature whereof doth not suffer it to be the sole rule of Faith or judge of Controversies for a Iudge must be able to speake to heare and to answer whereas the nature of a Booke is as it were to leave it selfe to be read and expounded by men No Catholike declineth the triall of Scripture in regard of imperfection but onely in regard that it being a written Word no Heretike can be convinced by it as I shewed you even now out of Tertullian who saith It is lost labour to dispute with an Heretike out of Scripture Let any man by the effects judge who reverence the Scripture most Catholikes or Protestants let him compare the labours of the one in translating and expounding Scriptures with the labour of the other and hee shall find the truth of this matter In admitting any triall with Protestants by Scriptures De praescript c. 15. Non esse admittendos haereticos ad ineundam de scripturis provocationem quos sine scripturis probamus ad scripturas non pertinere Vos qui estis quando unde venistis quid in meo agitis non mei Quo denique Marcion jure sylvaâ—â— meas caedis wee condescend more to their infirmitie than wee need or they can of right challenge For wee acknowledge that saying of Tertullian most true that Heretikes are not to be admitted to the Scriptures to whom the Scripture in no wise belongeth who are you when and whence are you come What do you in my ground you that are not mine By what right ô Marcion dost thou fell my wood By what leave ô Valentine dost thou turne my fountaines By what authoritie ô Apelles dost thou remove my bounds c. This is Tertullians discourse and words where it is but changing the names of Marcion Valentine and Apelles into Luther Calvin and Beza and it will fit as well as if it were made for them You must first shew your selves owners of the Land before you can claime the writings and evidences belonging to it and which make good the Title The Hammer VVHereas many other things argue that our Adversaries maintaine a desperate cause so especially their excepting against the holy Scriptures of God and refusing to be tried by them in the points of difference betweene us and them For what was the reason why the Manichees called in question the authoritie of the Gospell of Saint Matthew Aug. l. 28. cont Faust cap. 2. and the Acts of the Apostles Desperation because by those writings they were convinced of blasphemous Errour What was the reason why the Ebionites rejected all Saint Pauls Epistles Desperation Irenaeus l. 8. cap. 26. because by them their heresie was most apparantly confuted Iren. l. 3. c. 2. Cum ex scriptur is arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum scripturarum quasi non recte habeant nec sint ex authoritate nec possit ex iis inveniri veritas ab his qui ignorunt traditionem Tertul. praesc advers haeret What was the reason why the Gnosticks and Valentinians disparage the Scriptures saying that They were not of authoritie and the truth could not be found out of them by those who were ignorant of Tradition Desperation What was the cause why Papias and the Millenaries preferred word of mouth before Scriptures and pretended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unwritten tradition for many of their fables Desperation What was the reason why the Heretikes in Tertullians daies refused to examine their Doctrines by the touchstone of the Scriptures saying More things were required than the Apostles had left in writing for that either the Apostles knew not all or delivered not all to all In like manner wee can impute it to nothing else but diffidence and distrust of their cause that Lyndan Turrian Lessius and Pighius speake so disgracefully of holy Scriptures as they doe terming them dead Characters a dead and killing Letter a shell without a kirnell a leaden rule a boot for any foot a nose of wax Sybils Prophesies Sphinx his riddles a wood of Thieves a shop of Heretikes imperfect doubtfull obscure full of perplexities If they should bestow the like scandalous Epithets upon the Kings Letters patents or the Popes Buls or Briefes they would bee soone put into the Inquisition or brought into some Court of Judicature and there have either their tongues or their eares cut or their fore-heads branded yet the Iesuit is so farre from condemning these blasphemous speeches in his fellow-Jesuits and Romanists that hee deviseth excuses for them and sowes fig-leaves together to cover these their Pudenda which I will plucke off one after another in my answer to his particular exceptions against the Knight To the first It is true that some Roman writers of late have made an assay to prove some of their Popish doctrines out of Scripture but with no better successe than Horantius had in undertaking to refute Calvin his Institutions as appeareth by Pilkington his Parallels If the Scriptures were so firme for our Adversaries why are not they as firm for them why doth the Iessuit in the fore-front of this Section bid as it were defiance to them professing in plaine termes that The Scripture is not the sole rule of Faith nor that out of it alone all Controversies can be decided Doubtlesse any indifferent Reader will conceive that the Scriptures make most for them who stand most for their authoritie and perfection as all the reformed Divines doe not onely affirming but also confirming that the Scripture is not only a most perfect but the only infallible rule of faith Ep. 112. Si divinarum Scripturarum earum scilicet quae in Ecclesiâ Cano. nicae nominantur perspicuâ firmatur authoritate siâ—e ullâ dubitatione credendum est aliis verò testibus vel testimoniis quibus aliquid credendum esse suadetur tibi credere vel non credere liceat quantum ei momenti ad faciendam fidem vel habere vel non habere perpenderis Ep. 97 Solis iis Scripturarum libris qui jam Canoniti appellantur didici hunc timorem honoremque deferre ut nullum earum authorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissimè credam lib. de Nat. Grat c. 61. Me in hujusmodi quorumlibet Scriptis hominum liberum quia solis Canonicis debeo sine recusatione consensum l. 11. c. 5. Ep. 48. every article of divine faith must be grounded upon a certaine and infallible ground to us but there is no certaine and infallible ground to
published by Pope Pius the fourth were never anciently received pag 25. The 39 Articles of the Church of England justified pag. 30. Papists teach that the Pope hath power to create new Articles of Faith pag. 33. Many Doctrines of Poperie are new by the confession of Papists themselves pag. 38. Protestants have a certaine rule of Faith Papists have not pag. 45 The Roman translation of the Bible is most corrupt pag. 51. Three sorts of corruptions and abuses of ancient Fathers 1. By foysting bastard Treatises entitling them to the Fathers 2. By falsifying their undoubted Treatises by additions detractions or mutations 3. By alleaging passages and places out of them which are not extant in their Workes and of all these three kinds Romanists are proved guiltie pag 64. Corruptions and falsifications of ancient Writers by Papists In the first Age. pag. 65. In the 2. Age. pag. 67. In the 3. pag. 68. In the 4. pag. 73. In the 5. pag. 77. In the 6. pag. 89. In the 7. pag. 90. In the 8. pag. 92. In the 9. pag. 105. In the 10. pag. 109. In the 11. pag. 110. In the 12. pag. 111. In the 13. pag. 112. In the 14. pag. 114. In the 15. pag. 115. In the 16. pag. 122. Of implicit Faith and blind Obedience maintained by Papists pag. 143. CHAP. II. Papists their bitternesse against reformed Churches is causlesse pag. 148. The definition of Heretikes agreeth to Papists but no way to Protestants pag. 151. Rome confessed to be Babylon by learned Romanists pag. 157. CHAP. III. Cassander and Caesenus are justified pag 164. Corruption in Faith as well as manners are confessed to have been in the Roman Church by the learned of that partie pag. 165. The Councell of Trent intended a reformation of Faith as well as manners pag. 173. CHAP. IV. The Catholike Faith is not so indivisible but that a man may renounce it in part though not in all as many learned Romanists have renounced the Trent Faith in part pag. 178. Priests marriage is lawfull pag. 181. CHAP. V. Romanists prefer their own interpretations of Scriptures before the ancient Fathers pag. 188. CHAP. VI. Many errours have crept into the Church whose first Authors cannot be named pag. 191. The difference between Heresie and Apostacie pag 196. CHAP. VII The petty degree of the Romish Faith is drawne from the ancient Heretikes namely the Osseni Helcheseite the Capernaites the Manichees the Aâ—gelici the Collyridians the Tacians and the Cathorists pag. 219. CHAP. VIII The Antiquitie and Vniversalitie of the Protestant Faith in generall is proved by the testimonies of our learned Adversaries pag. 253. There are but 22 Canonicall books of the old Testament as is proved by the testimonies of the ancient Fathers both of the Greeke and Latine Church pag 276. Errata in the first Part. PAge 42. line 8. reade his lin 17. r. authority in marg l. 2 r. ad Dard. p. 57. lin 11. r. their foreseene p. 66. l. 4. r. the deepe p. 75. l. 20. r. Angles p 92 in mar l. 8. r. alius in text l. 29. r. rejected p. 93. l. 16. r. serve p. 109. l. 23. r. making him speake p. 131. in mar l. 12. r. veniali p. 138. l. 25. r. very corruptly p. 139. l. 25. in marg 1. repurgata p. 153. l. 22. r. homoousians p. 164 in marg l. 25. r. vicesimi terrii p. 173. l. 23. r. operierunt p. 189. in mar l. 17 sequuntur p. 218. l. 2. r. Vitalian p. 219. l. 18. in marg r. regnum p 224. in marg l. 10. r. minus p. 248. in marg l. 12. r. curvat l. 14. r. pronus l. 18. r. iudico p. 251. l. 6. r. argument p. 255. l. 3. r. ingenuously p 257. l. 12. r. true body l. 21. r. is l. 22. dele and. p. 270. l. 4. r. looke p. 271. l. 29. r. of the. p. 273. l. 3. dele to the p. 279. l. 22. r. when To J. R. AUTHOR OF THE BOOKE CALLED A paire of Spectacles I Received a Treatise from you Mr. J. R. not long since published against me by the title of A paire of Spectacles or An Answer to a booke called Via tuta The safe way wherein you say the booke is shewed to be a Labyrinth of Errours and the Author a blinde Guide To what end your Spectacles were made for a blinde man I cannot tell for sure I am if I were blinde a paire of your Spectacles could not make me see howsoever if the indifferent Reader will look but upon the Frontispice of your own book he shall easily discerne that your glasses are deceitfull and do justly occasion a Writ of Error to be brought against your selfe for making that to seem in S. Austin your first Author which is not Your words are these Qui autem praetergreditur regulam fidei non accedit in viâ sed recedit de viâ Aug. in Joh. Tract 98. Tom. 9. p. 487. He that goeth besides the rule of faith which is the Catholique Church doth not come in the way but goeth out of the way wherein you have added these words of your owne viz. which is the Catholique Church in the same character with S. Austin and in lieu of Scripture you pretend the Church to be the rule of Faith whereas that ancient Father assures us Civitas Dei credit Scripturis Undè fides ipsa concepta est ex quâ justus vivit Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 19. c. 18. Tom. 5. Sancta Scriptura nostrae doctrinae regulam figit Idem de bono Viduitatis Tom. 4. c. 1. that from the holy and canonicall Scriptures that faith is formed and bred by which the just doe live Nay more hee expressely professeth with us that the holy Scripture doth fix or settle the rule of our doctrine And thus in your first citation you falsifie S. Austin and go besides the rule of faith and good manners also and by stumbling at the threshold you shew your selfe to bee the blinde guide you speake of in the first page and the first place I proceed to your Dedicatorie Epistle first you begin to descant upon my name in paralelling the words Lyend and Lye howsoever say you The title of Sir will be left for you These bee the first flowers of your eloquence and they savour sweetly Now if I should repay you in your owne language and shew you what men are branded with the letter R which stands for your name if I should shoot backe I say your arrowes even bitter words into your owne bosome would it not shew rather want of matter than proofe of doctrine If you delight to sit in the seat of the scornefull it shall be my comfort to tread in the steps of my Saviour who when hee was reviled reviled not againe To let passe your bitter reproaches of my learning and breeding I will come to the matter You have not stated the question say you fully and truly for you were
to shew the visibilitie of the Church by persons in all ages Then you demand of me where the Church was which S. Paul called the house of God and pillar of truth and thus you prescribe mee my weapons and teach mee how to fight Touching the visibilitie of the Church it is not to be confined within the narrow compasse of an Epistle and therefore I will answer you and your Jesuites challenge at large in place convenient and as touching your demand where the Church was which is called the pillar of truth I answer in briefe not in Rome but in Ephesus for otherwise it might seeme incongruous that the Apostle should exhort Timothy to walke circumspectly in the Church of God because the Church of Rome was the pillar and firmament of truth And therefore the Turke may better alledge this place to prove Mah mets religion being now subject to his power than you to justifie the Romish religion because Ephesus was the pillar of truth You proceed and by way of prevention you tell me the controversie is not so much of the doctrine as of the persons and then you conclude simply in the very same page The question is not of the doctrine but of the persons Oportet esse memorem I will but let you see your contradiction I quarrell it not onely I pray you tell mee in the words of sobernesse and truth did ever any wise man except your selfe undertake to prove the true Church by the visibilitie of the persons May not Jewes and Heretiques by the same reason claime a true Church because they had visible persons in all ages But say you this hath beene the way which the holy Fathers have taken either in proving the Catholique faith or disproving of heresies and for your Assertion you cite Tertullian Irenaeus Cyprian Optatus and Augustine give me leave to examine your Authors for as yet you have produced but one ancient Father and him you have falsified in the Frontispice of your booke Touching your first Author Tertull. prescript c. 32. lib. 3. Car. advers Marcion Tertullian in the first place cited by you hee demonstrates two wayes how to discerne the Church first by shewing some Apostle or Apostolicall person to have founded it next by the conformity of the doctrine to the Apostles and in his third book against Marcion which is your second citation hee hath nothing at all for your purpose Touching your second Author Iren. l. 3. c. 1 2 3. l. 4. c. 43 45 46. Irenaeus hee is expressely against you for in the first chapter and third booke cited by you he saith By the will of God they have delivered the Gospel to bee the pillar and foundation of truth In the second hee saith that when Heretiques are convinced by the Scriptures they fall to accuse them as if they were not right or of authoritie and that they are ambiguous and doubtfull In the third hee proveth the truth of the Church by the conformitie of doctrine to the Apostles not by the visibilitie as you pretend In his fourth booke cited by you he shewes that bare succession is no note of the Church and in his 45. chapter which you quote there is nothing that maketh for your question And lastly in the 46. chapter he proveth that the New Testament is as severe against fornication as the Old or rather more and this may touch the free-hold of that Church which dispenseth with Stewes but of the point in question he speakes nothing at all Touching your third Author S. Cyprian Cypr. Ep. 52. 76. in the 52. Epistle cited by you he perswades Antonianus rather to adhere to Cornelius than Novatianus and in his 76. Epistle alledged by you hee shewes that Novatianus succeeding none in that See was ordained by himselfe and therefore could bee no true Bishop but as touching the controversie in question Ne gry quidem Touching your fourth Author Optatus Optat. advers Parmen lib. 2. he handleth not the question neither maketh any thing at all for you Lastly August Psal 2. part Don. Ep. 165. de Utilit credendi c. 7. touching S. Austin you cite the second Psalme and there is nothing handled of the question you cite likewise his 165. Epistle wherein hee declares a succession of Bishops from the Apostles time to Anastasius Si ordo Episcoporum succedentium considerandus est Ep. 165. p. 751. Preculdubio ab Ecclesiâ Catholicâ sumendum exordium De Utilit credendi c. 7. Idem contr Cresc l. 1. c. 33. If saith he an orderly succession of Bishops is to be considered Yea but S. Austin say you particularly proves the question where he tels his friend Honoratus he must begin his enquirie from the Catholique Church Hee that told the Manichees wee must take our Exordium from the Church told the Donatists likewise wee must resort to that Church for the resolution of our faith which the sacred Scriptures undoubtedly demonstrate to be the true Church for in them saith he we have knowne Christ Idem Ep. 166. in them wee have knowne the Church If you can derive your succession in person and doctrine from Christ and his Apostles we will answer you as sometimes S. Austin answered Petilian the Donatist Idem contr l. Petil. l. 2. c. 85. Whether of us be Schismatiques we or you aske you not mee I will not aske you let Christ bee asked that hee may shew us his owne Church After these severall passages you returne againe to your first Author Tertullian Tertull. prescript c. 19. and with him you conclude where it shall appeare that there is the truth of Christian discipline and faith there shall bee the truth of Scriptures and Expositions And from hence you inferre that we are first to seeke the persons that professe the faith that is the Church Whereas in truth his testimony doth rather prove the persons by the doctrine than the doctrine by the persons and this is most agreeable to his owne Assertion in the third chapter Idem c. 3. Ex personis probamus fidem an ex fide personas As if hee should say wee plainly prove the persons by the doctrine not the doctrine by the persons Now put on your Spectacles and take a review of your Authors The first maketh nothing for you the second is expressely against you the third speakes not to the point in question the fourth and fifth handle the question but not at all to your advantage or our prejudice and thus you have produced foureteene severall places out of the ancient Fathers in one page and all either impertinently or falsly or directly against your selfe by which the Reader may conjecture what is like to bee the issue of your whole worke who have so grossely falsified so many authorities in your Epistle and before the entrance into the body of your booke From your lame proofes of the Churches authoritie you proceed to the justification of your maimed commandements
by a generall and joynt consent of the whole Catholike Church and Holy Fathers secondly by a Decree made in the late Councell holden at Trent and now lastly by that Apostolicall Authority and Power which God hath given us and therefore is to be received and accompted for a true lawfull authenticall and undoubted Copie to be read and no other in all publike and private Disputations Lectures Sermons or Expositions This Translation was published by Sixtus with great care and paines professing that he printed it in the Vatican at Rome Nostra nos ipsi manu correximus siqua prelo vitia obrepserunt Idem in Praefat. and corrected the Errours of it with his owne hands he professeth it was approved by the generall consent of the whole Catholike Church he professeth it was received for the best and most vulgar Latine Edition excluding all other Translations private or publike whatsoever and thereupon concludes Ibid. Let no man attempt to violate this our Decree our will and declaration herein or by rash boldnesse contradict it for if any shall presume so to doe let him know that he shall incurre the indignation of Almighty God and his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul From hence will arise a second Quere whether this Translation of Sixtus were that Hieromes Translation formerly confirmed and ratified by the Trent Councell If it were his and confirmed by a Generall Councell how came it to be corrected by Sixtus If it were not the same how could Sixtus Bible be allowed by a Decree made in the Councell of Trent for so are the words of his Bull whereas the Councell was called Anno 1545. and Sixtus published his Bible Anno 1592. which was above 40. yeares after the Councell was called But observe the sequell The Decree of Sixtus was kept inviolable for a short time and approved by Urban the 7th Gregory the 14th and Innocent the 9th his immediate Successors But Pope Clement the eight about seaven yeares after the death of Sixtus called in question that Translation and published another of his owne Ad perpetuam rei memoriam Clem. in praef Sixti Bibl. and corrects Sixtus Bible under this pretence that his Predecessor perceived not a few things to have crept into the Bible through default of the Presse and that it needed a second care and that certainly he himselfe had intended to bring the whole worke to the Presse againe had he not beene prevented by death These two Editions were published by two severall Popes and both commanded to be read and followed in their severall Breves Pope Sixtus disclaimes all Bibles whatsoever both Manuscripts and printed of the vulgar Edition which did not agree with his Edition Ad literam to a letter Pope Clement professeth that his Translation although it be not absolutely perfect in all points yet without doubt it is more pure and better corrected than any other that was published before it In conclusion Ne minima quidem particula mutata Sixt. in Praef. both agree that the Forme of each must be inviolably observed without the least particle of the Text added changed or detracted Now take your choyce of which Translation you please if you allow Sixtus it was corrected in many places by Pope Clement if Clements you must incurre the curse of his Predecessor Pope Sixtus if you will receive the vulgar Translation which you terme St. Hieromes your Cardinall tels you it is not of his purest Edition Lastly if you approve the vulgar Edition decreed by the Councell of Trent I say neither you nor all the Papists living can resolve which is that vulgar Edition For a Conclusion either your vulgar Translation before Clements time was corrupt or in vaine did Clement command a Correctorium to passe upon it and to be read according to that correction The worke of Lucas Brugensis who was living at that time hath sufficiently discovered your corruptions in the Bible of Sixtus which in his time was reputed for that onely Edition confirmed by the Trent Councell commanded to be read throughout all Churches and allowed by the consent of the whole Catholike Church this Bible I say which for many ages was reputed the onely authenticall Edition in your Church is purged and corrected I speake within compasse in above 3000 severall places And as it hath beene observed by a painfull labourer in that Vineyard Dr. Iames in his Bellum Papale your Translations in many places are flat contradictory each to other and he that beleeves contradictions beleeves nothing at all From the charge in generall I will descend into particulars And first I will give you an Instance in the Old Testament We reade in the 34. of Exodus and the last verse The Children of Israel saw the face that the skinne of Moses face shone Videbant faciem egredientis Moisi esse Cornutā Sixt. Bibl. Ibid. v. 29 and 35. your Sixtus Bible in the vulgar Translation twice renders it They saw his face horned but your Sixtus Senensis complaines of Hierome that contrary to the Originall he so translated it Thus one while you leave Hieromes Translation when it savours not to your Palate another while you excuse your owne by condemning of St. Hierome Now whether it were a part of that corrupt Translation which your men use and Hierome himselfe corrected Rident ita que nos execrantur Judaei quoties Mosen in noflris Tēplis cornutâ facie depictum espiciunt quasi nos eum Diabolum quendam ut ipsi stuliè interpretantur esse putemus Sixt. Senens l. 5. Annot 116. p. 368. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I dispute not but saith he therefore the Jewes doe scoffe and hate us Christians whensoever they happen to see the picture of Moses painted with hornes as though according to their Imagination we though him to have beene a Devill Looke upon the particulars in the new Testament In the third of Matthew for Repentance you translate Penance and by Penance you understand satisfaction for sinnes So that when the Evangelist saith according to the Greeke Originall Repent you follow the Latine Translation which hath an ambiguous construction and say Paenitentiam agite which your Rhemists translate Doe Penance And in the 9th of St. Matthew Math. 9.13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he saith I am not come to call the Righteous but sinners to repentance you translate I am not come to call the Just but sinners and leave out the word Repentance which is in the Originall And lastly as if you were guilty of a false Translation in both in the first of St. Marke Mark 1.15 you translate the words according to the Originall and in stead of Doe Penance you rightly interpret Be penitent and beleeve the Gospel In the 11 of St. Luke you have maymed and falsified the Lords Prayer you say in this manner Father sanctified be thy name thy Kingdome come our dayly bread give us this day and forgive us our sinnes for
of every censure or expurgation that is made which is most foolish But tell mee in good sooth if those places of Scriptures and Fathers did make for your Religion would you purge them Or must we beleeve that your Inquisitors would take such infinite care and paines to review all Authours for 1600. yeares and spunge them onely in the Index Without doubt that man who doth willingly deface the Kings picture stamped in his coyne would if he durst attempt it upon his person the Tables of Authors and Glosses were especially intended for the benefit of the Reader both for his better understanding and his more speedie searching of the truth They resemble the Phylacteries of the Jewes which had a Ribband of Blue upon the borders of their garments that by them they might the better remember the Commandements of God he that would have cut the fringes of those garments in those dayes to prevent the remembrance of Gods law would no doubt have offered violence to the Tables on which God himselfe had written if hee durst attempt it The truth is the words imprinted in the skirts and tables of your Bibles and Fathers are thornes in your eyes and goades in your sides and from hence we may easily discerne why you leave out the second Commandement and alter the fourth in your Psalters and Breviaries which you dare not alter in your Bibles And that your Assertion may more particularly appeare to bee most untrue viz. that you purge no Authours before the yeare 1515. I will begin from the ninth age where I last left and shew your owne Authours purged and forbidden in all the succeeding ages for this last 800. yeares First therefore the Reader shall understand that your Roman Inquisitors have published an Index of prohibited Bookes and in that Index they have divided the Authors into three severall Classes or orders Classis 1. In the first they ranke all those Bookes which are adjudged by your men for Heretikes as namely Berengarius Wickliffe Luther Cassander Erasmus Raynolds and divers others whose Bookes not onely now written but whatsoever shall be published in their names hereafter are prohibited as Hereticall Classis 2. In the second Classis they have ranked all those whose doctrine is not very sound but suspected and offensive although the Authors themselves never forsooke the Church and therefore not personally to bee noted and of this sort are Charles the great Agobardus Bertram Huldericus Cajetan and divers others whose Bookes are now purged and some of them lived 800. years since Classis 3. The third is of namelesse Authors which say they deliver pernitious doctrine and are condemned by the Roman Church and those onely which have beene published without a name since the yeare 1584. These three rankes of Classicall Authors according to our Adversaries doome may be destinated to these three severall places The first sort to Hell which containes the Heretikes and damned persons never to be redeemed The second sort to Purgatory which are suspended and restrained upon suspicion of false doctrine or veniall sinne and must not be freed till they be purged and have payd the utmost farthing to the Pope The third to Limbus Infantum and those are Anonymoi such as were unbaptized and have beene published without a name from the yeare 1584. Of these three sorts I will produce onely the Authors of the second Classis which lived and died members of your Church such as were never condemned for heresie but touse you own words have Suspectam Doctrinam that is to say in plaine English Protestant Doctrine whereof some you have purged in your new Editions others you have forbidden to be read till they be purged The ninth age An. 800. to 900 See Crakenthorp p. 56. Carolo magno falsò adscriptū de Imaginibus cujus Titulus est Opus illustrissimi c. Ind. l. prohib p. Mihi 18. and this as shall appeare was many ages before the time prefixed 1515. I proceed In the ninth age Charles the Great wrote foure Bookes concerning Images he professeth that hee began the worke in his owne Kingdome and your owne Ecchius and Luzenburgus both witnesse that this Emperour wrote all those Bookes yet your Index Expurgatorius layes hold on him and forbids the worke pretending that it is falsely ascribed to him when as the true reason is because he condemned Image-worship and forbids the 7th Councell to be called either agenerall or lawfull Councell for otherwise your owne Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes Hinckm Rhē contr Hinchm Jandun Episc c. 20. who was living when these things were fresh in memorie professeth that a generall Synod was kept in Germany by the convocation of the Emperour Charles and there by the Rules of Scripture and doctrine of the Fathers the false Councell of the Grecians was confuted and utterly rejected of whose confutation there was a good bigge Booke sent to Rome by certaine Bishops from Charles the Great which in my younger yeares I read in the Palace Now admit that Charles were not the Authour of those Bookes although your owne men witnesse he was yet the Authour you see was ancient and living in that age hee condemned your Image-worship hee confuted the reasons of the Nicene Councell and by this it appeares that your Church hath transgressed her limits above 700. yeares and therefore your Trent decree was made sutable to your Spectacles which makes that seeme to be which is not Agobardus Bishop of Lyons An. 840. is purged propter non sanam suspectam doctrinam because he delivers our Protestants doctrine which you account non sanam in these words If the workes of Gods hands be not to be adored and worshipped Sioperd manuum Dei c. Bibl. Pp. Tom. 9. p. mihi 590. no not in honour of God how much more the workes of mens hands are not to be adored and worshipped in honour of those whom they represent Titulo de Imaginibus expurgantur omnia quae sub hoc titulo continentur usque ad titulum 2. Classis Ind. lib. prohib pag. mihi 711. This passage is yet extant in your late Bibliotheque of Fathers under the title of Images but your Spanish Inquisitors have commanded all the things which are contained under that Title to bee blotted out usque ad Titulum to the very title Papirius Massonus the publisher of Agobardus workes delivered the argument touching Images and Pictures in this manner Detecting most manifestly the errours of the Grecians that is the Fathers of the second Nicene Councel touching Images and Pictures he denyeth that they ought to be worshipped which opinion all wee Catholikes doe allow and follow the testimony of Gregory the Great concerning them This passage together with more ample authorities are already purged according to command by the Divines of Cullen in their late corrupt Edition of the great Bibliotheque of the ancient Fathers Bibl. P P. Tom. 9. par 1. edit Colon. Anno 1618. p.
the time of which the blessed Apostle prophesied when men will not suffer wholesome doctrine is altogether fulfilled in our eares For behold there are many that pervert the holy Scriptures deny the sayings of the holy Fathers reject the Canons of the Church and civill Constitutions of the Emperors Looke into the age before him Matth. Paris p. 843. Grosthead Bishop of Lincolne complaines that there was a defection a revolt an Apostasie from the true Faith Looke into Bernards time and there you shall finde by his owne confession Bernard in Cant. Serm. 33. p. mihi 673. The wound of the Church was inward and past recoverie These former complaints and grievances in the Church did sound aloud in the eares of the later ages and she made great mourning and lamentation for her children because they were not such as she first bred them and accordingly no doubt they wished for a reformation of errors in doctrine as well as Discipline in the Church Looke after Pope Alexanders time and before the Councell of Trent and your Bishop of Bitonto will shew you the state and miserable condition of your Church as it were in a Glasse In Ep. ad Roman c. 6. Alas saith he how were the Scriptures neglected in the later Ages to the detriment of all peple Rivet Sum. Controv. p. mihi 98. There was then in request a tedious and crabbed Divinitie about Relations about quiddities and formalities and all those things were handled and wrested with Syllogismes and humane Sophistrie which without doubt by the same authority as they were received might be refelled The whole Age was spent about the decrees of men which were contradictory amongst themselves and irreconcilable and nourished perpetuall contention He was accounted the best Divine that knew best how to devise the greatest wonders for his Traditions It was a part of their honour and vaine glory to speake bigge words with great lookes among women not to be understood when they disputed of the Scriptures The Preachers of the word were all sworne to the word of their Masters and from hence sprung sixe hundred Sects as namely Thomists Scotists Occhamists Alexandrians c. O heinous wickednesse The Gosspels and Epistles of the Apostles were laid aside true Divinitie lay hid and was handled of very few but coldly I will not say unfaithfully In what state the Church remained in those dayes when Papall Traditions and cunning Sophistry prevailed against the sacred Scriptures let the Reader judge Onus Ecclesiae c. 16. p. mihi 79 Your owne St. Francis foretold that the times were at hand wherein many differences should arise in the Church when charitie should waxe cold iniquity should abound and the Divell should be let loose and that the purity of his Roman Religion should be depraved and accordingly saith my Author the Image of the Crosse in the Church of St. Damian spake unto him Vade repara domum meam quae ut cernis tota labitur Goe and repaire my house which you see is altogether decayed Thus Bishops and Friers and Images stocks and stones cried out of the falling away of your Church if we may credit your owne Authors and yet by no meanes you will assent to a reformation of doctrine or manners At Luthers first rising which was almost 30. yeares before the Councell of Trent your Guicciardine tells us Guicciard Hist lib. 13. that there were that yeare many meetings at Rome to consult what was best to be done The more wise and moderate sort wished the Pope to reforme things apparently amisse and not to persecute Luther Hieronymus Savanarola told the French King Charles the 8. he should have great prosperitie in his voyage into Italie to the end hee should reforme the state of the Church which if he did not reforme he should returne with dishonour and so saith he it fell out I come to the Councell of Trent it selfe where you may reade many decrees for reformation and yet neither doctrine nor manners reformed But let us heare your owne confession It is true the Councell indeed complaineth with great reason of the avarice of such whom the Knight calleth the Popes Collectors though the Councell speaketh not of the Pope but false it is which he saith that the Councell complaineth of Indulgences an Article of faith as his words are The Councell likewise complaineth of many things crept into the celebration of the Masse and the words of the Councell are right cited by him in Latin in the Margent but in the English he foully corrupteth them For in stead of many things hee translated many errors which is a grosse errour and corruption in the Knight These be your grand exceptions to the grosse corruptions laid unto my charge but all this while you doe not discharge the accusations laid justly to your Church And in this I must needs say you play the Hypocrite who can discerne a mote in your Brothers eye and cannot see a beame in your owne First therfore cast the beame out of your own eye and then you shall easily disccrne without Spectacles that the Collectors of Indulgences are the Popes Collectors although the Pope is not mentioned in that place and Indulgences are an Article of Faith created by that Councell although the Councell proclaime it not an Article of Faith so that multa many things might well stand for many errors and corruptions since they were errors in practise Neither would I have set the Latin in the Margent if I had meant to corrupt them in English and withall if you had taken the last edition as you ought to have done you should have found them in another Character and then all your waste words of foule corruptions had beene needlesse But in this you resemble Palladius a lewd fellow who in like manner charged St. Hierome with falsifications and false translations He preacheth and publisheth abroad saith Hierome that I am a falsarie Hieron ad Pāmach de optimo genere interpret Tom. 2. that I have not precisely translated word for word that I in stead of the word Honourable have written these words Deerely beloved These things and such trifles saith he are laid unto my charge Now heare what Answer St. Hierome makes Whereas the Epistle it selfe declareth that there is no alteration made in the sense and that there is neither matter of substance added nor any doctrine devised by me verily by their great cunning they prove themselves fooles and seeking to reprove other mens unskilfulnesse they betray their owne Let us heare therefore the rest of your Things for so you will have me terme them which are crept into your Church and need a Reformation The Councell say you seemeth to acknowledge the avarice of Priests in saying Masse for mony was not farre from Symonie It speaketh of the use of Musicke wherewith some wantonnesse was mixed as also of certaine Masses or Candles used in certaine number proceeding rather from superstition than true
vpon S. Iohn that out of the side of Christ the Sacraments of the Churchissued he would seeme to answer something First he quarrelleth at the quotation saying I doe not thinke you will find in Chemnitius your good friend S. Ambrose and Bede cited Whereunto I answer that though the Knights good friend Chemnitius cite not Ambrose and Bede yet the Iesuits good friend Card. De Sacram. in gen l. 2. c. 27. Amb. l. 10. in Luc. Bed c. 19. Ioh. intelligunt per sanguinem qui è latere effluxit redemption is pretium per aquam baptismum Bellarmine citeth them both his words are Ambrose in his tenth booke upon S. Luke and Bede in his comment upon the 19. of S. Iohn understand by blood which issued out of our Saviours side the price of our redemption by water Baptisme Next the Iesuit endeavoureth to untwist this triple cord by saying that these three Fathers speake of Sacraments issuing out of Christs side but no way restraine the number to two Whereunto I reply that though the word Sacramenta for the number may bee as well said of seven as two Sacraments yet where S. Austine alludeth to the same text of Scripture and falleth upon the same conceite he restraineth the number to two saying there issued out of Christs side water and blood quae sunt Ecclesiae gemina Sacramenta Now I would faine know of the Iesuit where ever hee read gemina to signifie seven or more then two Were the Dioscuri which are commonly knowne by the name of gemini seven or two only to wit Castor and Pollax As for S. Ambrose and Bede though they say not totidem verbis that the two Sacraments of the Church issued out of Christs side as S. Austine doth yet they can bee understood of no more then two Sacraments for there were but two things which issued out of our Saviours side to wit water and blood whereby they understand Baptisme and the Lords Supper Had there issued out of our Saviours side together with water and blood Chrisme or balsamum or had a rib beene taken from thence the Iesuit might have some colour to draw more Sacraments out of it but now sith the Text saith there issued onely two things water and blood and the Fathers say the Sacraments of the Church are thereby meant it is most apparant that by Sacramenta they meant those two only which they there name in expresse words Baptisme and the price of our redemption that is Christs blood in the Eucharist To the seventh The authoritie of S. Ambrose is as a thorne in the Iesuits eye for it cannot but bee a great prejudice to their cause that so learned a Bishop as S. Ambrose writing six bookes professedly of the Sacraments omitteth the Romish five and spendeth his whole discourse upon our two If the Church in his time beleeved or administred seven Sacraments hee could no way be excused of supine negligence for making no mention at all of the greater part of them it were all one as if a man professing to treate of the elements or the parts of the world which are foure or of the Pleiades or the Septentriones or the Planets which are seven should handle but two of that number Bellarmine therefore and after him Flood pluck hard at this thorne but cannot get it out saying that S. Ambrose his intent was to instruct the Catechumeni only as the title of one of the books sheweth For first S. Ambrose hath no booke of that title viz. An instruction to them who are to bee catechized or are beginners in Christianitie The title of that booke is De ijs qui initiantur of those who are initiated or entred into holy mysteries Secondly this is not the title of any of the six bookes de sacramentis alledged by the Knight but of another tractate Thirdly admit that S. Ambrose as S. Austine and Cyrill wrote to the Catechumeni and intended a Catechisme yet they were to name all the Sacraments unto them as all Divines usually doe in their Catechismes because the Sacraments are alwayes handled among the grounds and principles of Christian religion And though the Catechumeni are not presently admitted unto all yet they are to learne what they are that they may bee the better prepared in due time to receive them Fourthly it is evidently untrue which the Iesuit saith that S. Ambrose writeth not to the beleevers of that age but only to some beginners The very front of his booke proves the Iesuit to bee frontlesse For S. Ambrose his first words are I will begin to speake of the Sacraments which wee have received c. In Christiano enim viro prima est fides for the first thing in a Christian man is faith And as hee writeth to all beleevers not beginners only so hee speaketh also of the chiefe Sacraments of the New Testament and not of those only which the catechumeni received as is apparant out of the fourth chapter of the first booke De sacramentis Wherein hee proveth according to the title of that Chapter Quôd sacramenta Christia norum diviniora sint priora quà m Indaeorum That the Sacraments of the Chrìstians are more ancient and more divine then those of the Iewes and hee instanceth especially in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Lastly the Iesuit in this answer apparantly contradicteth himselfe first saying that S. Ambrose intent in that Worke was only to instruct the catechumeni in those things that were to be done in the time of Baptisme p. 210. and within a few lines after he saith Bud. deasse Veritas nonnunquam invitis erumpit as fallens inter mendacia ab audientibus demuns agnoscitur cum interim loquentes adbuc se habere in potestate putent that he writeth of the Sacraments whereby they were so initiated which are three Baptisme Confirmation and the Eucharist So true is Budaeus his observation That lyes dash one with the other and truth breakes out of the mouth of the lyar ere hee is aware Who ever heard of the Eucharist to bee administred in the time of Baptisme or that the Eucharist was administred at all to the punies or catechumeni whilest they were such certainly if the catecumeni or younger beginners to whom hee saith S. Ambrose wrote were capable of the doctrine of the Eucharist containing in it the highest mysteries of Christianitie they were much more capable of Penance Matrimonie and Extreame Unction which are easie to bee understood by any novice in Christian religion To the eight That it may appeare what was the judgement of S. Austine in this maine point of difference betweene the Reformed and the Roman Church I will weigh what is brought on both sides first what the Iesuit alledgeth for seven and then what the Knight for two S. Austine having written divers Catechisticall treatises in which hee had occasion to name and handle the Sacraments yet no where defineth the number of them to bee seven
image-worship which is so directly and expresly forbidden by God in the law That the Iewes are thus scandalized at the idolatrous practice of the Roman Church the Knight proveth by an eye-witnesse Sir Edwine Sands who in his description of the religion in the West parts observeth that the worship of images as it is at this day practised by the Roman Church is such a stumbling block to the Iewes and hinderance to their conversion that when they come to Christian Sermons as in Rome they are enjoyned at least once a yeare so long as they see the Preacher direct his speech to a little woodden crucifix that standeth on the Pulpit by him to call it his Lord and Saviour kneele to it embrace it and kisse it to weepe upon it as it is their fashion in Italie it is preaching sufficient for them and perswadeth them more with the very sight of it to hate Christian religion then any reason the world can alledge to love it To the seventh The argument drawne from the Cherubins is refelled professedly by Tertullian De idol c. 5. Apostolus affirmat omnia tunc figuratè populo accidisse addit benè quòd idem Deus quilege vetuit similitudinem fimilitudinem fieri extraordinario praecepto serpent is similitudinem fieri mandavit si eundem Deum observas habes logem ejus nefeceris similitudinem si praeceptum factae posteà similitudinis respicis tu imit are Mosen ne facias adversus legem simulacrum aliquod nisi tibi Deus jusserit the Apostle saith he affirmeth that all things happened to the Iewes in figures and hee addeth well the same God who in his generall law forbad any similitude to be made by an extraordinary precept commanded some similitude to bee made if thou dost serve the same God thou hast his law Make to thy selfe no graven image or similitude if thou regardest the Precept of making a similitude as of the Cherubins or brazen serpent e. imitate thou Moses make thou no image against the law unlesse God command thee by a Precept Whereunto wee may farther adde that the Cherubins were not made publikely to bee seene and gazed upon by the people but were kept in the holy place whither the Priests only resorted neither were they worshipped by the Priests as Lyra cited by the Iesuit who was himselfe a Iew at the first and well knew their practice professeth the Iewes saith he worshipped not the Arke nor the Cherubins nor the mercy seate but the true God which promised to helpe them neither were they set up in the Temple for adoration but for ornament L. 9. c. 6. q. 7. non ut adorarentur sed ob ornatum pulchritudinem Tabernaculi vel Templi ad majestatem Dei plenius ostendendam Lorin in Act Apost c. 17. de Cherubinis jussu Dei factis de alijs imaginibus â— Solomone dicendum fuisse duntaxat ut appendices additamenta ornatus alterius rei non verò per se propositas modo accommodato ad adorationem quam conslat quoque ab Haebreis ipsis non fuisse exhibitam quod utrumque docet Tertullianus eritque id magis verum si verumâ—est Cherubin ore manibus cruribus erectione corporis bumanam jubis à pectore cervice pendentibus Leoninam alis aquilinam ungulis pedum vitulinam figuram retulisse Vasq I de adorat 2. disp 4. c. 6. nunquam cherubinis honor aut adoratio adhibita fuit aut osculo aut genuflexione aut oblatione â—huris aut alio signo peculiari ad ipsos directo nec quisquam nisi ex suo cerebro absque ullo fundamento contrarium poterit affirmare as Azorius convinced by evidence of truth acknowledgeth saying the Cherubins were not painted or engraven on the Arke to the end they might bee adored but only to adorne and beautifie the Tabernacle and more fully to expresse the majestie of God with whom Lorinus and Vasquez accord concerning the Cherubins made by the command of God and other images in Solomons Temple wee must say that they were there as appendices and additions for the adorning of something else not set forth by themselves in a manner fit for adoration which it is manifest that the Iewes never exhibited to them both which Tertullian teacheth Vasquez commeth not behind Lorinus teaching a contrarie lesson to Flood here his words are That the Cherubins were never adored nor worshipped neither by kissing them nor with bowing of the knee or by offering Frankinsence or by any other meanes neither can any man affirm the contrarie except it be out of his owne braine without any foundation or ground at all To the eighth In this allegation the Iesuit sheweth from whence he and his fellowes are descended L. 3. cont haeres c. 2. cum ex scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum scripturarum quasi non rectè haheant neque sint ex auiboritate quia variè sint dictae juia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciunt traditionem non enim perliter as traditam illam sed pervivam vocem Aug. in 10. tract 49. Sanctus Evangelifia testatur multa Dominum Christum dixisse fecisse quae scripta non sunt electa sunt autem quae scriberentur quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur Cyr. in 10.12 c. 68. non omnia quae Dominus fecit conscripta sunt sed quae scribentes sufficere put ârunt tam admores quà m ad dogmata ut rect â fide operibus virtute rutilantes ad regnum caelorum perveniamus viz. from the ancient Gnosticks and Valentinians who as Irenaeus testifieth against them When they are convinced of their heresies out of Scripture they fall on accusing the Scriptures themselves impeaching their authoritie and charging them with ambiguity and saying that the truth cannot be found out of them by those who know not tradition for that it was not delivered by letters but by word of mouth But because I have beate the Iesuit heretofore out of this dodge and have proved abundantly the sufficiencie and perfection of Scriptures I will spare farther labour herein and only shew how shamefully he depraveth one text to the derogation of the whole Scripture S. Iohn in the place alledged by him speaketh not of points of faith or manners precepts or examples for our imitation but of miracles 10.20 30. Many things truly did Iesus in the presence of his Disciples which are not written in this booke Upon which words S. Austine and S. Cyrill thus glosse full in the Protestant language the holy Evangelist testifieth that Christ did and said many things that are not written but those things were chosen to bee written which seemed sufficient for the salvation of them that beleeve and S. Cyrill all things which Christ did are not written but what the writers thought to bee sufficient as well for our conversation as doctrine
fiery Serpent yet perinutile vitiabatur it was corrupted and made scandalous and unprofitable by the peoples abusing it to idolatrie and if that Image being a type of Christ and set up by Gods speciall command was yet broken in pieces by good King Ezekiah after the people began to worship it how much more ought those images to bee knocked downe and stamped to powder which are set up in popish Churches against GODS commandement and have beene abused to idolatrie above eight hundred yeares in such a grosse manner especially by the vulgar that as Polydore Virgill ingenuously confesseth many of the ruder sort of them magis ijs fidunt quà m Christo put more confidence in the image then Christ himselfe Concerning Indulgences Spectacles paragraph 8. a page 319. usque ad 345. THE Knight himselfe granteth the use of giving Indulgences to have been in the ancient Church and that Bishops had power to grant them Christs Merits lying in store for the need of all men may be fitly compared to a common Treasure and be called by that name So farre forth then as those Pardons were grounded on Christs merits or granted by application of them to the penitent there is no difference betweene theirs and ours Saint Paul forgave the incestuous Corinthian not onely in the person of Christ but for their sake also which importeth the prayer and deserts of Saints to have some place in the bestowing of that Indulgence and so likewise it was the practise of the Primitive Church and what was this but by applying the superabundant merits in the one to supply the want in the other That the merits of Martyrs were applied to others appeareth by Tertullian who being become now an Heretike did reprehend that custome saying that a Martyrs merits were little enough for himselfe without having any surplussage to helpe others withall Many a man continueth his great austerity of Fasting Watching Praying and other exercises of all vertues after hee hath obtained pardon for the fault it selfe by hearty contrition and by humble confession obtained also remission of the temporall punishment within the space of 1 2 3 7 10 or 12 yeares for example sake hee then leading the same life for 20 30 40 50 or 60 yeares as many have done what shall become of all that satisfaction which is over and above for that sinne or sinnes which hee committed before It doth not perish or passe without fruit though not of him yet of others and if they be not applied presently why may they not then be said to lye in deposito as money in a Treasurie Sith all grant Indulgences for the living why not for the dead so long as they pertaine to the Communion of Saints and have need thereof The authority which the Knight citeth to make Indulgences applyed to the soules in Purgatorie to be ridiculous out of the old Sarum booke of the houres of our Lady doth not mention Purgatorie but onely saith That whosoever shall say these and these prayers shall gaine so many thousand yeares of pardon which is no more for the dead than for the living It is false which the Knight averreth that wee give Pardons for thousands of yeares in Purgatory after death For wee doe not so neither doe wee understand those Pardons wherein are mentioned such number of yeares so as if men were without those Pardons to remaine so long in Purgatorie but wee understand those yeares according to the penitentiall Canons by which many yeares penance were due for one sinne and many mens sinnes being both very grievous and as a man may say without number according to the account of the ancient penitentiall Canons they may soone amount to thousands of yeares which though a man cannot live to performe here in this world nor even in Purgatory for the length of time yet hee may in Purgatorie in few yeares space nay few months or few weekes space suffer so much punishment as is answerable to all that penance of many thousand of yeares which a man should have performed here if hee could have lived so long The Authours alleaged by the Knight against Indulgences prove no more than wee grant that there is not so expresse mention in Scriptures or ancient Fathers of them as of many other points because there was not so much use of them in those dayes Though some Fathers mention them not wee prove the use of them out of others more ancient to wit out of Saint Cyprian and Tertullian as you may see in Bellarmine lib. de indul c. 3. and besides them the authority of certaine Councels as that of Nice Ancyra and Laodicea Though wee had not either the testimonie of these Fathers nor of those Councells yet would not that follow which the Knight groundeth thereon to wit that wee want antiquitie and consent of Fathers for them for it is a most strong argument of antiquitie that it is the practise of the Catholike Church time out of mind and of consent that no man is found to have spoken against them but onely knowne Heretikes In contrariuÌ„ est generalis consuetudo doctrina ecclesiae quae contineret falsitatem nisi per indulgentias dimitteretur aliquid de paenâ peccatori debitâ such as the Waldenses who were the first impugners of Indulgences Durand whom the Knight alleageth in the first place having propounded the question in 4. sent dis 20. q. 5. an aliquid valeant indulgentiae after the manner of the Schooles putteth two arguments against them in the first place and then commeth with his arguments Sed contra agreeing expresly with his conclusion On the contrarie saith he is the generall custome and doctrine of the Church which should containe falshood 13. De here sibus l. 8. tit indulg verum â—tsi pro indulgentiarum approbatione sacrae scripturae testimonium apertum de sit non tamen ideo contemnend e erunt quoniam ecclesiae catho licae usus a multis annoruÌ„ centuriis tantae est autboritatis ut qui illam contemnat haereticus merito cen seatur if something of the punishment due to a Sinner should not be forgiven by Indulgences and presently after hee nameth Saint Gregory and saith of him that hee did institute Indulgences at the stations in Rome Alfonsus a Castro though hee confesse the use of Indulgences not to have beene so much in those ancient times as since yet hee alloweth them so farre as to condemne any man for an Haeretike that shall deny them 14. The Knight prateth very freely of the Popes selling of Indulgences and bringing money to his owne coffers by them but to that I need to make no other answer but that it is such riff-raff-stuffe as their Ministers are wont to eeke out their bookes Sermons without being able to shew any Bull of Pope or testimony of good authour of any Indulgence so granted For the Knights prophane jeast out of Guicciardine of playing a game at Tables for an indulgence suppose that
subject unto in it selfe Lastly the Iesuit taketh himselfe by the nose in saying Heretikes in all Controversies run to the letter of the Scriptures leaving the true sense and spirituall meaning for so doe the Romanists apparantly namely in the Controversie of Supremacie Ecce duo gladii Loe here two swords therefore the Pope hath the temporall and spirituall Sword at command Peter rise up kill and eate therefore the Pope hath power to put Princes to death In the question about the number of Sacraments they alleage the letter of that text in the vulgar translation Hoc est magnum Sacramentum to prove marriage a Sacrament whereas the Apostle in the same place saith that hee speaketh not of corporall marriage of a man and his wife but of the spirituall marriage of Christ and his Church Likewise in the Controversie about the reall presence they run to the letter Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood though Christ in the same place expounding himselfe saith The words which I have spoken unto you are spirit and life the like may be observed in other Controversies For answer to all which texts wee tell him out of Saint Ierome whom himselfe quoteth in the next Paragraph That the Gospell consisteth not in the words of Scripture but in the sense not in the supersicies or barke but in the pith not in the leaves of speech but in the root of reason To the tenth How neere neighbours the Romanists are to Marcion who denied or by consequence overthrew the truth of Christs humaine nature as the Papists doe in the Sacrament vailing him under the outside or accidents of a round water and what affinitie the Iesuit hath with the rest of the ancient Heretikes the Knight shewed him before in his seventh Section and if hee desire to know more of his pedegree from them I referre him to an Appendix to Whitakers answer to Sanders his Demonstration page 801. As for the aspersion of old Heresies which hee casts upon us they are washed away by Bishop Morton and Doctor Field in their Treatises of the Church Ad notam sextam But why hee denies that wee have the Spirit arrogating it onely to himselfe I see no reason but the pride of his owne spirit together with the malice of the evill spirit who suggested unto him this uncharitable censure of us To the eleventh The Scripture is a Light Psal 119. and the nature of a light is first to discover it selfe and then all things else therefore Calvin to his fond question how know you Scripture to be Scripture answereth acutely by retortion how know you the Sun to be the Sun If hee say by his bright lustre and beames wee say the same of holy Scripture that it is discerned by its owne light Which if the Papists see hot the fault ought not to be laid upon the Sun-beames but upon their Owles eyes To the twelfth That rule which needeth any thing to be added to it is imperfect but all Papists teach that to the written Word unwritten Traditions must bee added to make a compleat and perfect rule of Faith all Papists therefore teach the Scripture alone to be an imperfect Rule We on the contrary stand for the perfection of Scripture and constantly and unanimously defend that not onely the whole Scripture is perfect but that every part also hath its owne perfection but not the perfection of the whole Because the eyes have not the perfection of the whole head or the head the perfection of the whole body a man cannot conclude that the eye or the head is imperfect no more can the Iesuit conclude that the Gospell of Saint Matthew Saint Marke or Saint Iohn are therefore imperfect because they containe not in them all doctrines in particular necessary to salvation It is sufficient that they together with the rest perfectly instruct us in all points of faith by themselves they perfectly informe us so farre as the Holy Ghost intendeth that we should be informed by each of them in particular and this is their perfection that they have no defect in matter or forme and that they concurre with the rest of the bookes of Scripture to the maine end of the Holy Ghost in committing the word of God in writing for the infallible and perfect instruction of the Church and every faithfull soule in all Doctrines needfull to salvation To the thirteenth Although many Protestants have written de Scripturâ judice and they have warrant our of Scripture so to stile it the words which I have spoken they shall judge you yet in propriety of speech which especially ought to be used in stating questions the Scripture is rather to be termed a rule and law or sentence of the judge then the judge himselfe the supreame and infallible judge of all controversies we teach to be the Holy Ghost speaking to us out of Scriptures and the subordinate or inferior Judge the consencient authority of the Catholique Church To the fourteenth The Iesuit shewed no such thing nor can shew out of Tertullian De praescrip advers haeret c. 17. who convinced the greater part of Haeretikes in his time by Scripture as appeareth in his writings In the place which the Iesuit quoteth he hath no such words as he alleageth out of him viz. that there is no good to be done with Haeretikes by Scriptures He saith indeede in that place that it was but in vaine to conferre with a certaine kinde of Haeretikes by Scriptures alone quia ista haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas et si recipit non recipit integras et si aliquatenus integras praestat c. That is This haeresie admits not of certaine Scriptures or not intire or if in some sort in ire it perverts them by divising divers interpretations In which words he no way disparageth the holy Scriptures or derogateth from their perfection but discovereth the wicked practise of Haeretikes and their evasions and tergiversations when they are most evidently convinced by Scriptures Will you say that if a Bedlam or willfull malefactor either by puffing out the Candle or shutting his eyes or looking another way will not reade or see the evidence that is brought against him that therfore the evidence is not able to convince him To the fifteenth Though it were granted the Iesuit that the Papists have written more upon the Scriptures then Protestants it will not from thence follow that they more reverence or honour the Scripture sithence in their very Commentaries upon Scripture they derrogate from the authority sufficiency and perfection of them by refusing to referre all points of faith in controversie to their decision by resolving their faith last of all not into them but into the Church by teaching that they are obscure even in points necessary to salvation and that unwritten Traditions are equally to be reverenced with them Secondly compare men with men and oportunities with oportunities it may easily be proved that
witnesses for proofe of the Catholike Faith beginneth with Martyrs those particularly who being Pastours of the Roman Church suffered Martyrdome successively one after another to the number of thirty three These saith Campian were ours and nameth some of them as Telesphorus Victor Sixtus Cornelius with the particular points which they held conformably with us against Protestants That these Martyrs are ours notwithstanding they died not for any of those points the Knight mentioneth is plaine because they professed the same Catholike Faith which wee doe which wee also prove by the Faith of their successour Vrban the eigth who as hee holdeth their seat so also their Faith for Peters Chaire and Faith goe together as the very Heretike Pelagius confessed to Pope Sozimus saying to him Tu qui Petri fidem sedem tenes Not to stand here upon the most effectuall and infallible Prayer of our Saviour himselfe Oravi pro te Petre ut non deficiat fides tua which proofe must stand firme till Sir Humphrey can tell us what Pope began to vary from his predecessors For adoration of Images whereas the Knight asketh whether any of these three and thirty were canonized for it though there be no speciall mention of any of these three and thirty their adoration of Images yet there is very pregnant presumption thereof by this that Pope Sylvester who was the very next after the three and thirtieth and was Pope in time of Constantines conversion had the pictures of Saint Peter and Saint Paul which it is most like he received from his Predecessors Moreover it is plaine that those three and thirty were ours by their owne decretall Epistles which are so full of those points which Father Campian citeth that the Heretikes have no other shift but to denie the authority of the same Epistles That the consecrated Bread depending upon the Priests intention is the reall Flesh of Christ or that this Priest Garnet by name hath power to consecrate is no matter of Faith but that in the Sacrament the matter forme intentton and all things requisite concurring the Bread and Wine is really and truely converted into the Body and Blood of Christ this is a matter of Faith and this a man is to die for Neither maketh it any matter whether any man have died for it or not for that is more in the persecutors power to appoint what point of a mans Faith hee will put him to death for than in the Martyrs owne who must be readie to die for all and every one as well for one as for another The Hammer IN this Chapter the Knight pulleth the garland of Red Roses off from the heads of all Papists I meane the Crowne of Martyrdome by three most forcible arguments which may thus be reduced into Syllogisticall forme 1. None of those who suffered death for the common Articles of the Christian Faith which we all professe are to be accounted Popish Martyrs But the 33. Popes and all the Martyrs in the Primitive Church suffered death for the common Articles of faith which we all professe Ergo none of them were Popish Martyrs neither can they lay any more or better claime to them then we if so good 2. All that may be tearmed truely Popish Martyrs must suffer death either for the profession of the Trent Faith in generall or some speciall point of it wherein they differ from the reformed Churches But none of the Primitive Martyrs suffered death for the profession of the Trent Faith in generall or any point thereof wherein they differ from the beliefe of the reformed Churches Ergo none of the Primitive Martyrs were Popish 3. If the Articles of the Romish Creed published by Pope Pius were either unknowne to the Primitive Church or not then declared to be de fide none in those dayes could suffer Martyrdome for them But the twelve new Articles of Pope Pius his Creed were altogether unknowne to the Primitive Church or not then declared and defined to be de fide as the Iesuit Page 490. in part acknowledgeth Ergo none in the Primitive Church could suffer Martyrdome for them What wards the Iesuit hath for these blowes we shall see in the examination of the particular exceptions before mentioned To the first It is as true that those 33. martyred Popes were Martyrs of the Romish Religion as that Campion the Iesuit who suffered death for Treason against Queene Elizabeth was a Martyr The truth is that although Campion in his tenth Reason search Heaven and rake Hell also for witnesses to prove the truth of the Romish Religion yet he findeth none as D. Whitaker clearely demonstrateth in his answer to that tenth reason and his defence thereof against Dureus To let others passe those 33. Bishops of Rome the Iesuit mentioneth who now weare Crownes of Martyrdome in Heaven never ware the Popes triple Crowne on Earth P. 486. l. 16. I answer that those Martyrs suffered death not for the points now in controversie with Haeretikes but for the profession of Christianity at the hands of the enemies of Christ They sate as Bishops of Rome they sate not as Lords over the whole Church neither was the cause of their death any contestation with Princes for Soveraignty nor the maintenance of any points now in controversie as the Iesuit himselfe confesseth but the profession of Christianity They were not therefore Martyrs of the Roman Church as she is at this present nor of their Trent Creed but of the Catholike Church and the common faith once given to Saints To the second The Iesuits argument drawne from these 33. Bishops of Rome to Pope Vrbane the eighth fall short at least by 1300. yeares If he should thus argue in the Schooles Pope Vrbane the eighth in the yeare of our Lord 1633. held the Trent faith and beleeved Pope Pius the fourth his Creed therefore the 33. Bishops that suffered Martyrdome under the Heathen Emperours within 300. yeares after Christ held the same faith and subscribed to the same Articles of Trent he would be stampt at and hissed out by all present for who knoweth not that George the Arian immediatly succeeded Athanasius the most Orthodox Bishop and that all the Arian Bishops in Constantius his time held the Sees of those Orthodox Bishops who in the first Councell at Nice condemned that blasphemous haeresie In our memory did not Cardinall Poole a Papist succeede Cranmer a Protestant Bishop and Martyr againe did not Parker in Q. Elizabeths daies a learned Protestant succeed Cardinall Poole an Arch-papist in his Arch-bishoprick of Canterbury What a wooden Argument then is this to inferre succession in Doctrine from succession in the same Chaire This wretched Argument the Iesuit proves as lewdly by the testimonie of Pelagius the Heretike This is indeed to Aske his brother if he be a thiefe or no to aske an Heretike whether your Romish Doctrine be not hereticall Yet so unfortunate is hee in his proofe that even this his onely witnesse how liable