who being not justified doe dye are appointed for euerlasting punishments By which it is evident that the fiction of Purgatory is not to be admitted but in the truth it is determined that every one ought to repent in this life to obtaine remission of his sinnes by our Lord Iesus Christ if he will be saved And let this be the end This compendious and briefe Confession of vs we conjecture wil be a contradiction to them who are pleased to slander maliciously accuse vs and vnjustly persecute vs But we trust in our Lord Iesus Christ and hope that he will not relinquish the cause of his faithfull ones nor let the rod of wickednes lye vpon the lot of the righteous Dated in Constantinople in the Moneth of March 1629. CYRILL Patriarch of Constantinople OVr Iesuite is charged by the most reverend Primate Some things are maintained by you which have not beene delivered for Catholicke Doctrine in the primitive times but brought in afterwards your selves know not when The Iesuite pumping for an answere herevnto talketh of ambiguity doubtfull phrases fighting in a cloud As if a man could deale more plainely with the Roman faction then to tell them that there are many points held now of faith by them which the first times never received for Catholicke doctrine and that they themselves know not when many of them were first broached in the Roman Church But the Iesuite fearing least he should be espied in opposing so manifest a truth would here raife a myst or fogge that he might the better steale out of danger for he indeavoureth to perswade That by those words the Answerer goeth about to make his simple Reader beleive that we maintaine doctrine contrary to that of primitive times because forsooth we maintaine now somethings which were not expresly declared nor delivered as necessary articles of Christian faith c Reply pag. 11 He were a simple reader indeed that would beleive this Iesuite either in his faith or doctrine if it have no better support then the declaration of some of their late Councels to confirme it But he were more then simple that can pick the Iesuite his collection from the learned Answerer his words Simple men interprete the Bels as they imagine and imagination hath directed the Iesuite heere and not the truth For what hath the words of the most reverend Primate to doe with the species of opposition where chargeth he you with maintaining doctrine contrarie to that of primitive times where doth he insinuate so much He that discovered your intrufions to have been brought in vnder the name of Piety was not so forgetfull to judge those points contrary to the received doctrine of faith You teach new faith this is the charge You deny not the old professedly in any point this were too grosse and fit for the fooles your brethren open Heretickes and not for the wisest sonne that can promote his fathers kingdome by a more secret and mysticall fraud So that let his words be softer then oyle or sharper then darts I am sure heerein the Iesuite fayles when hee thinketh them to be shot at the innocent The Iesuite would speake more to purpose to free himselfe and his faction and to this end he delivereth to us two propositions 1. We maintaine some things as Articles of faith which were not in primitive times expressely determined declared delivered for such And 2. Wee maintaine some things as articles of our faith which are contrary to that which hath beene declared for Catholick doctrine in primitive times would have vs know that there is a great difference betwixt these two sayings d Ibid. But as the Iesuite granteth the former to be true of themselves so the most learned Answerer in this place doth not charge them with this latter at all For I doubt not but that the most reverend Primate will yeeld so farre vnto you that in shew at least you holde the Apostles Creed and with the Pharisees give it the first place of honour as they Moses law yet notwithstanding your additions have cast contumely many times vpon the ancient faith as Pharisaicall traditions vpon Moses law * Mat. 25. â— 9. That which Roffensis sayth may be acknowledged in a right sence that there were many points universally held by the Primitive Church in beleife and practise the which with explanation were defended against contradicting Hereticks that arose in after-times But what is this to new doctrine never universally received nor anciently knowne or what argument is heere perswading you to declare that for ancient faith which was never delivered from the Apostâ—â—s c. or received by the Primitive Church But the Iesuite that he might gaine credit to his first proposition tels vs. Before the Nicen Councell some books of Canonicall Scripture were doubted of yea and rejected from the Canon by some of the Ancient without any blame at all which after the said Councel could not lawfully be called in quèstioÌ„ e Reply pag. 11 And all to very little purpose For first the Nicene Councell did not declare doubtfull books for Canonical Scripture nor point out the Canon which the Catholick Church did universally receive neither doth it make at all against their universall receipt of those bookes that some privat men or Church doubted of or rejected them For the Iesuite will have his doctrine generally received if affirmed by ten or eleven Fathers †Valentia if by the choysest Why shall f Reply pag. 94 not Gods booke have equall priviledge with a Papall Indulgence when the first is acknowledged in a manner by most this never taken notice of nor acknowledged at all Besides suppose that some private men or some few Churches did not receive some booke of the Canon yet this can no way hinder the universal receipt of the whole more then a mountaine or a wave the Globes roâ—undity Secondly although they were not blame worthy as the Iesuite would have it which should not receive some bookes of the New Testament which is false yet they were not without blemish for if it were an honour to the Iewes especially to the tribes of Iudah Benjamin that to them wholly intirely were commended the Oracles of God * Rom. 3 2. it must needes bee a dishonour to the ten tribes to have rejected all but the five bookes of Moses Thirdly although those bookes were doubted of yet they were doubtingly received for you cannot finde them by any Church canonically rejected Fourthly it had bin as foule an errour to have decreed any thing against the authority of those books before the Nicen Councel as afterwards For if the Iesuit will take it to bee such a tye that all are bound to stand vnto the declaration of a Councel why did not the Councel of Laodicea f Carran in sum Concilâ— can 59. performe their obligatioÌ„ but in the repetition of the Canon leave the book of Iudith to be placed amoÌ„gst the Apocrypha not
ut puâ—o ex piâ—tate devotione exscribentium qui devotissimas historias horrebant annumerare inter apocrypha and Iohannes Driedo f Dried l. 1. c. 4. Alterum difficultatis nodum qui est super libris Iudith Tobiae conatur dissolvere magister in historijs cuius sententiam seâ—uitur alius quidam expositor in prooemio Bibliae dicens in prologis illis duobus Hieronymi super Iudith Tobiam mendosum esse codicem in â—oloco ubi legimus hagiographa legendâ—m esse apâ—crypha Here is a solide truth for Iudith's virginitie no witnesse but an heare-say and we know not from whom So that our Iesuite ought to seeke an other answere for this is lame halting and of little strength But suppose the Nicene Councell in S. Hieromes opinion did receive Iudith into the Canon yet he will not say the same of Toby and the Maccabees how can our Adversaries then deny the change Why Gods owne are not so much bound to our compassionate Iesuite as these suspicious birthes but how will he array them with a canonicall coate The auncient Church saith he received them for canonicall g Reply pag. 28 S. Hierome his ignorance were then much to be wondred at but this testimony will not be rejected if the Iesuite can make good what so generally he affirmes By the auncient Church hee must exclude neither age nor iudgment unlesse some straglers wherefore then doth hee leave out the first 300. and almost 400. yeares affording us not one testimony but a pretence or two out of Cyprian to no purpose and in his proofes why doth hee afford us onely particular testimonyes private men when the Churches declaration is to be expected at his hands But let us examine his testimonies First he produceth the third councell of Carthage Can. 47. We say this is but a private testimony and at best but a declaration of a particular Church and a Councell that they allowe not themselves h Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. cap. 21. At objicit Calvinus Concilium Carthaginense tertium can 26. ubi vetatur ne quis princeps sacerdotum aut summus sacerdos dicatur sed solùm primae sedis Episcopus Respondeo Concilium statuisse solum de Episcopis Africae inter quos multi erant Primates a quales ne vllus corum summus Sacerdos aut Princeps aliorum diceretur Nec enim Concilium hoc provinciale Romanum Ponuficem aut aliarum provinciarum Episcopos obligare poterat Secondly Innocent ad Exuperium But if this be his Epistle what doth he declare therein but his private judgment what finde we there but an answer that he gave not ex cathedrâ but as he expresseth himselfe pro captu intelligentiae meae at the intreatie of a Brother Gelasius his decree hath not one word of Canonicall in it onely they are stiled of the old testament which is a phrase used many times by our selves because they are comprehended in one volume together and yet we esteeme them not within the Canon S. Augustine doth not take canonicall for those scriptures which were inspired by the Spirit of God and delivered by the Catholick Church for such as 〈◊〉 appeare by his words before the 〈◊〉 of those bookes i Aug. de 〈◊〉 Christi l. 2. c. â—â— In canonicis 〈◊〉 scripturis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostolicas 〈◊〉 For first he perswades those to be cheifly respected quae Apostolicas sides habere epistolas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that were received of those Churches in which the Apostles themselves did â—â—â— and 〈◊〉 they directed their Epistles Secondly amongst thâ—se which he 〈◊〉 Canonicall bookes he could have this 〈◊〉 Ibid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In scripturis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be observed ut â—as quae ab omnibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quas 〈◊〉 non 〈◊〉 that those which are received of all Churches should be 〈◊〉 before those which 〈◊〉 Churches did not receive Certainely by this we may see what St Augustine 〈◊〉 by his Canon not those which were generally received onely but those also which were 〈◊〉 of a few Churches and those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of lesse 〈◊〉 Ibid. which were the same that wee accompt 〈◊〉 So that Canonicall in Augustines sence is 〈◊〉 those which abound with lyes and 〈◊〉 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occupen◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denâ—â—s 〈◊〉 dicent 〈◊〉 contra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â— is 〈◊〉 by his words not to those which is godly bookes were premitted to be read by the people though because not divinely inspired they were not to confirme any point of Doctrine whereby the same Father interpreteth the meaning of that Councel of Carthage urged by the Iesuit in case he had subscribed therunto as our adversaries perswade And that this agreeth with S. Augustine mind it shineth forth in many places For although S. Augustin saith that the Church had them the Maccabees for canonical yet he tels you how not because they were divinely revealed but for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must needes interpret that the church 〈◊〉 them for canonical that is of that canon which was fit to be read only for the moving of the peoples affection by declaring the passions of the 〈◊〉 for he maketh them not of that 〈◊〉 which were 〈◊〉 inspired â— Aug. de 〈◊〉 Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 opposeth theÌ„ to it â— non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â— quibus 〈◊〉 Machobâ—â—rum â— Aug. con Epist Gâ—udâ—â— l. â—â— 31. â—â—â—â—pe quidem scripturam quae appellatut Mac 〈◊〉 non habent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 psalmes quibus Dom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 testibus tuis Sed recepta est 〈◊〉 Ecclesia non 〈◊〉 si sobriè legatur vel audiatur libri 〈◊〉 non Iudas sed 〈◊〉 canonicis 〈◊〉 propter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 passiones 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—rabiles This is found saith that Father not in the holy Scriptures which are called Canonicall but in others amongst which are also the bookes of the Macchabeas which not the Iâ—wes but the Church hath for Canonicall for the vehement and wonderfull sufferings of 〈◊〉 Martyrs And so in an other place â—â—â—aith that the Scriptures of the 〈◊〉 were not received of the Iewes as the Law the Prophets and Psalmes to which God gave testimony â—â— to his owne witnesses Yet he denyeth not but the Church received them not unprofitably But wherein lay their profit S. Augustine declareth s◠〈◊〉 in the sober reading and hearing of them read For Isiodorus Cassâ—dorus their testimonies make noâ— the received Doctrine of the auncient Church Neither can those tearmes of holy and divine wherewith â— Bellarm. de Verbo Dei lib. l. 〈◊〉 4 Po 〈◊〉 de ijs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vino 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae 〈◊〉 ab 〈◊〉 epist 3. ad â—â—per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 15. â—â—â—
ever beene pretended by such as not onely interpret the same to their owne lust but also reject what parcels or bookes they please and for this he cites the Marcionists rejecting the Old Testament the Manichees the New 〈◊〉 and Cerinthus the Acts of the Apostles the Ebionites the Epistles of S. Paul Luther that of S. Iames c. Yet would these men saith he be tryed by none but by the Scriptures when as they had discarded all such Sâ—riptures as were found any way to make against their Errors In like sort deale our Adversaries at this day l Reply pag. 32 But if we doe neither interpret the Scriptures after our own lusts neither deny any part of the sacred faith that was once delivered to the Saints if we adhere to that perfect rule which of it selfe is sufficient and more then sufficient ad omnia for all things m Vincen. Lyrin Cùm sit perfect â—â— Scripturarum canoâ— fibique ad omnia satiâ— superque suffielat Surely the Iesuite is a Calumniator and we are no Hereticks not so much as in similitude onely We know Hereticks both adde to the Scriptures and detract also This we see at Rome let the Iesuite espy it amongst us if he can in Ireland Further iâ—â—â—â— ignorant that Heretickes in discarding all that makes against them have rather forsaken Scriptures then pleaded tryall by them for what is this but the Preparer of an Index Expurgatorius so that we may see from whence Papists had their so profitable inventions And where can you finde a greater agreement in this kind then betwixt your selves and Heretickes for you admit no Scriptures but with your owne glosses which is as much in effect as to deny all And if the râ—â—e concerning God be as true concerning Scriptures Non est minus Deum fingere quam negare It is no losse error to feigne a God then to deny the Deitie what will your additions to the Scriptures merite You embrace not onely Apocryphall bookes but whatsoever superstitions your corrupt practice hath produced and these because God will not justifie them you will have to be Apostolicall Traditions His accusation that we admit what Scripture wee like of and cast out what displeaseth n Reply pag. 3â— us is the report of a Iesuite Italian newes a thing which he will never manifest as you may perceive by his proofe Ecclesiasticus with them is no true Scripture saith the Iesuite and why it approveth Free will too much o Reply ibid. The Iesuite argues but with his owne impudencie and no reason of ours Ecclesiasticus hath no authority to confirme points of Doctrine and therefore was justly cast off by Whitaker That it is so reputed by the Church of God is because it was never written by any of the Prophets 2. Peter 1. 19. never received by the Church of the â—ewes to whom were commended the Oracles of God Rom. 3. 2. Further it had never approbation by the Apostles in the Church of God and besides these generals there are many other particulars for which wee reject this booke as from his owne mouth who in the beginning thereof doth not assume to himselfe that honour which the Iesuite would conferre upon him for he acknowledgeth his owne weaknes and disability in translating it out of the Hebrew * In the Prologue which I thinke is not comely for that mind to doe which was assisted by the Spirit of God for when Moses said I am not eloquent God questions who made the tongue * Exod. 4. 10. 11 Besides this chap. 46. ver 23. it is not agreeable to the truth of sacred Scriptures which is there spoken of Samuels prophecying after his death and other things But I would know if your additions and traditions were not where would you finde that new Fabrick of the Roman Creed published by your infallible guide But saith our Iesuite Cyprian Ambrose August Clemens Alex. and other holy Fathers account Ecclesiasticus to be holy Scripture p Reply pag. 33 If this were proofe sufficient a small authority would suffice to prove the Canon for we may as well confirme the booke Pastor and divers others from Bellarmines q Bellarm. de script Ecclesâ— pag. 34. See this testimony cited before pag. 163. testimony as the booke of Ecclesiasticus c. for any thing he urgeth from these Fathers to determine it within the Canon in regard he acknowledgeth that it hath the same Epithites from many Fathers as he professeth this to have So that if this be the Iesuites best Apologie for Ecclesiasticus it is much beholding to his free will but nothing to his industry This manner of proceeding saith the Iesuite Tertullian doth discover in those Heretickes of his time and withall will teach us how we are to proceed with those of our dayes who tread so right the steppes of their forefathers The conflict saith he with the Scriptures is good for nothing but to turne either the stomacke or the brayne This heresie receiveth not certaine Scriptures and that which it receiveth it draweth to her owne purpose by additions and substractions and if it receive the whole Scriptures it depraveth them by divers expositions Where as the adulterous sence doth no lesse destroy the truth then doth the corrupted letter What wilt thou gaine that â—â—â— cunning in Scriptures when that which thou defendest is denyed and that which thou denyest is defended thou shalt indeed loose nothing but thy voyce with contending nor shalt thou gaine any thing but choler hearing blasphemies The Heretickes will say that â—◠〈◊〉 the Scripture and bring lyeing interpretations and that they defend the truth Therefore must not appeale be made to Scriptures nor must the conflict be in them by which the victory is either uncertaine or little certaine or none at all r Reply pag 3â— What Tertullian and other auncient Fathers thought of this rule hath beene formerly declared and this quotation doth not make Tertullian a despiser of the rule of Scriptures but proveth Hereticks to be shifters and forsakers of the same Whereby the Iesuite may espy the hereticke All that beareth any shew for the Iesuite is in the taile of his allegation Ergo non ad Scripturas as provocandum est therefore must not appeale be made to Scriptures but the Iesuite dare not put in the whole nec in ijs constituendum certamen in quibus nulla aut parum certu victoria which is as much as if I were to deale with a Papist in points of religion should urge the scripture to him it were in vain why because although they receive the Scriptures they accept them not as the rule of faith besides they adde detract and what they receive they must onely interpret They not onely corrupt the stile by a vulgar authenticke but the sence by a Papall violence and in this case what shall a man get from a Papist but cholerike blasphemie and licentious rayling Doth not the
take upon him to answere that treatise which our Answerer found in the librarie of S. Robert Cotton but by casting it of and disregarding it for that would quickely have casheered this foolish conceite that Berengarius was the first that denyed their carnall presence in the sacrament in regard it is manifest thereby that Rabanus and Ratrannus who is the same with Bertram the one in his Epistle to Abbot Egilo the other in a booke that he made to King Charles argued largely against Paschasius saying that it is another kinde of flesh and therefore hee is vaine when hee thinketh that in reason hee ought to be excused from regarding the said treaâ—ise untill such time as we have proved the antiquitie thereof seeing this is acknowledged already by Possevine his brother Iesuite and also that it is the same with that which is to be sene in the Iesuit's Colledge at Lovain which the Iesuite might have knowne by comparing them together if he had not conceived it an easier taske to cast off then to answere this testimonie Further the Iesuite would have proved that the said treatise at Lovain is blindly fathered upon Berengaerius whereof I â—row saith he he will give us leave to doubt seeing elsewhere he is bold to father it so himselfe for will he confesse that hee did it â—lindly also l Reply pag. â—5 Whether it is blindly by Possevine fathered upon Berengarius or no neither helps nor hurts the cause yet the Iesuite might have found it true had he not beene lazie if hee would have taken but a little paines to have sought the truth as hee did a long and dangerous journey to corrupt it especially when he was in Flanders not farre from the Coppie Neither doth it any thing at all reproach this most learned Answerer that hee following the Iesuite Possevine fathered it so himselfe for who knowes not that Iesuites will deceive all that beleive them But the Iesuite may observe that he is not blinde that hath a vaile cast before his eyes It is rather an argument that he hath eyes that can see to cast it off True then it is that he pointed in that place as directed by Possevine whom afterwards having gotten a transcript froÌ„ the Iesuit's colledge at Lovan he found to have bene blindly mistaken therfore rejected him So that all that the Iesuit hath obtained here is that this most reverend Lord did not see aright whilst hee viewed the Manuscript with a Iesuites eyes but putting off those false spectacles hee easily discerned the truth whilst he used his owne and viewed the transscript Now after all these notorious over-sights falshoods he draweth on to conclusion Seeing then we finde so little or no knowledge at all to have beene of this said booke attributed to Bertram untill Oecolampadius a prime Preacher of the sacramentarie error in these later times did publish the same at Basill why may it not be well thought that the said Oecolampadius was Author of the worke himselfe and that to cloke his fraud and to winne the credite of antiquity to his errour he framed a Dedicatorie to the Emperour Charles aâ— to him who had forspoken the same Reply pag. 45 Here the Iesuit would say something if he could mouthe it and first he would have us believe that this is the work of Oecolampadius but herein he suspects himselfe justly for this booke was printed at Cullen anno 1532. Now if the Iesuite cannot shew us an edition as here hee hath not before that printed at Basill wee may justly suspect that Oecolampadius did not so much as ever see that book in regard he died anno 1531. Secondly this booke is acknowledged by your Sanctesius to have beene written many ages before Oecolampadius saw the light and therefore it being a matter beyond all exception true your owne thinke it fit to extenuate and excuse Bertram as they have done the errors of other auncient Authors although some making no question that the booke was Bertrams would have it altogether remooved out of the way Ind. expurg Hispan Card. Quirogae edit Madâ—â—ti ann â—â—â—4 in fine â—â—terae â— Deleâ—tur tota Epistola Vdalâ—ci Episcopi Augustani de coelibatu Cleri Item totus liber Bertrami Presbyteri de corpore sanguine Domini penitùs ausâ—ratur Thirdly the Puteani fratres in Paris have there a Copie of Ratrannus or Bertram De corpore Domini which to have beene no Manuscript of Oecolampadius the Iesuite I hope will graâ—t us So that hee and his fellow-labourers that be the greatest intelligencers abroad and would be ashamed to bee ignorant of any of the particulars may blush if they have any modest colour left in them to runne as here they have done unto such desperate shifts But saith the Iesuite if any one had rather say that Bertram indeed at the Emperors motion wrote a booke concerning the blessed Sacrament why may he not also say that Bertram maintained our Catholicke doctrine in this point against Heribaldus and the rest of the Stercoranists o Reply pag. 45 This may assure us that the Iesuite cannot tell well what he hath to say the truth he pretends to enquire after and yet he would faine cast out any evasion to cloude the same Are not the Manuscript Copies witnesses sufficient to stop your mouthes If impudencie will not bee satisfied upon so convincing proofes the Iesuite may know that Bertram hath taught the same doctrin in other bookes also viz r De nativitate Christi which is to be sene in the libraries of the Cathedrall Church of Sarisbury and Benâ—et Colledge at Cambridge And therefore all his shifts are vanity while he endeavoureth to perswade that Bertram maintained their Catholicke Doctrine in this point against Heribaldus and the Stâ—rcoranists when as he opposed as hath beene formerly manifested the Doctrine which Paschasius taught and the Romane Church doth now adhere unto And it is a trifling inconsequent of the Iesuites to insinuate that because Bertram did not write against Paschasius which is false therefore he did not oppose the corrupt doctrine that hee in effect first published to the Church p Bellarm. de Script Ecclesâ— in Paschasâ— Ratâ—erto Hic auctor priâ—â—â—â—uit qui â—enâ— coâ—iosâ— scripâ—it de veriâ—â—â—â— corpâ—â—◠〈◊〉 Doâ—â—â—â— c. Reply pag 45. But the strength of the Iesuites conjecture consisteth in this that Bertram lived under the government of Paschasius in his Monasteriâ— of Corbey in Picardie q Which indeed the Iesuite may say but will never be able to prove how confideÌ„tly soever he publisheth the same For Paschasiâ—s died in the yeare 851. when as Charles to whom Bertram wrote was not made Emperour before the yeare 875. So that Bertram might well have beene a Monke at Corbey and yet not have lived under the Government of Paschasius By all which it appeareth that the Iesuite hath beslabered OEeolampadius with an untruth who for any thing the Iesuite hath
n Cap 21. hath published a Booke in French translated into English whereby hee hath prooved it to bee an vnjust proceeding to deny the change happened to the Church vnder pâ—â—tence that the authors time and place of it cannot be specified And also Doctor Fulke o In his answer to a counterfite Catholick ar 11. â— 24 hereto agreeth that when the Scripture telleth vs that the Mysterie of iniquitie preparing for the generall defection and revelation of Antichrist wrought even in Saint Paules time 2. Thess 2. it is folly to aske whether suddenly and in one yeare all Religion was corrupted and if Mr Malone will have more hee shall not want numbers of our owne to witnes our consent heerein May not this shamelesse Iesuite blush then to produce Fulke and Whitaker and the rest to have answered this question when they conclude it vaine and of no necessity and never dreamed of answering the same For all the Quotations of the Iesuite out of our Authors doe not expresse one word of answere to his question Fulke speaketh of the time that the Pope began to blind the world Napier of the beginning of the Popes Papisticall and Antichristian raigne Brokard of the Popes falling from Christ Leigh sheweth his opinion how long the Popes have beene Divells Winckelman relates the different opinions touching the beginning of the 42. monethâ— in the 11. of the Revelation Whitaker coniectures at the last true and godlie Bishop of the Roman Church and so in like manner the rest of the learned men mentioned by him but there is not one of them whose words he expressely layeth downe that answeres the question What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion which you commend in them of the first 400 yeares or In what Popes dayes was the true religion over-throwne in Rome To this question from his owne words wee may proove a consent that this observation of times seasons doth often fayle and that they are not so easie to be discerned as fooleâ— are borne in hand they are For heerein with the learned Answerer doth Powell and the learned Whitaker agree yea so consonant are they in their resolutions that the learned Answererin this Iesuites observation seemeth to be spit out of Whitaker his mouth and Mr Powell hee confesseth agreeth with them The difference is not in answering this question In what Popes dayes was the true religion over throwne but In what Popes dayes did the revelation of the Antichristian tyrannie beginne The Iesuite may know there is a distance betwixt the blading of Antichrist his tyrannie whereby it became visible and the power of it the blading was but a preparation for evill the power and authoritie it got afterwards was that which brought these frauds and corruptions in whereby it appeareth that there is great difference in these questions and that worthy Whitaker was no weather-cock as this Buzard tearmeth him Yet notwithstanding we doe not deny that as Hectick agues whose beginnings are obscure declare themselves to Physitians by divers symptomes of the bodies decay waste whereby one Physitian at one time by one signe another by an other in a different houre may judge of the disease though from divers symptomes yet all aright So have our Divines done some perceiving the symptomes of Apostacie in the Church at one time some at another have declared the appearing of this defection fore-told some from one Popes tyrannie some from another Some saw this Apostacie by symptomes of notorious pride as in Boniface the third Others by out-daring impieties when Dagon images and idols were put vp in the Church of God Others by open vilenes and prophâ—nesse visible to Parasites p Plat. in Iohan 13. Onuph annot in Plat Iohan. â— themselves when your monstra and pertenta opened heaven gates But what is this to the Iesuites demaund the question that he is to exempt from vanity concerneth the time of the alteration or overthrowe of the true or the so much commended Religion of the first 400. or 500. yeares The Apostacie or defection began indeed in the Apostles time and the seedes of Antichristianisme were layde for the sixe following ages q See the most reverend Lord Primate in his book de Christ Eccl. success statu pag. 16. 17 18. and yet no Papist to bee found no such visible alteration that thereby religion should bee overthrowne About the sixt Centurie some of these tares began to blade and yet all the good grayne not vtterly choaked whereby the Iesuites question appeareth more vaine For consider this Apostacie in its beginning or inchoation then it not apparantly altered much lesse overthrew the Catholick faith consider it in the encrease although it assaulted Religion yet neither wholly or in any fundamentall part did it alter the same consider it when it came to more perfect ripenes if there be any perfection in Apostacie as in the latter Centuries doe not thinke that we conclude the Church of God overthrowne because that Antichrist playeth the Tyrant therein So that Mr Covell sayth nothing of the alteration or overthrow of catholick faith when he speaketh of the beginning of Apostacie His last objection is taken from S. Augustine his rule that whatsoever the vniversall Church vseth if no time can be found when that vse began it must necessarily be derived from the very Apostles themselves r Reply pag 4. We need not to question this ground although S. Augustine gave this rule not to discerne points of faith by for he knew they were in the divine word plenarily contained but ceremonies and matters belonging to Ecclesiasticall practise For can we thinke the Fathers in S. Augustine his dayes were so ignorant of the catholicke rule of faith that they must leane vpon such a conjecture as this for points fundamentall of necessary beleife Shew me one Councell that decreed any point of faith by the bare strength of this rule if you can I can shew you a point of practise that had all that this rule could give it as Childrens necessary eating the Eucharist Å¿ Maldon in 6. Iohan. Aug. de peccator merit remiss lib. 1. c. 24. and yet is rejected both by the doctrine practise of your Traditiondefenders Yet may we iustly reproove this Iesuites assertion that dare affirme those points vniversally held and practised by the Church at the time as he cals it of Luthers revolt then which nothing is more grosse for if he meane the very waiters of the Roman Mistresse Sylvester Prierias his representative Church the Pope and his Cardinalls they will not be found to agree in the points mentioned but did differ amongst themselves And for the Catholicke Church let him proove it if hee bee able for bare words will not sway it Yet if this will serve their turne we shal be able to proove that in the Catholicke Church these points were never generally received take the Church for the vniversall body of the
efficitur of God increased his graces in the hearts of his children and in after ages this practise continued in the Church and the negligence of Christians in not teaching their children the scriptures was complained of by the auncient Fathers f Espencaeus Episcopus in 2. Tim. 3. in haec verba Et quia ab infantia literas nosti pag 116. Nequè enim haec mea aut nova sed est patrum orthodoxorum querimonia Eusebius Caesariensis also in commending of Pamphilus amongst other things saith that hee did not onely lend the scriptures to bee read but also gave them to men and weomen which hee sawe were addicted to reading g Scripturas quoque sanctas non ad legendum tantum sed habendum tribuebat promptissimè nec solum â—iris sed foeâ— nis quas vidisset lectioni deditas in viâ—a Pamphili 〈◊〉 per Hieron in Apolog. contra Ruffin ad Pamachium Marcell Chrysostome finding the opinion to beginne in the Church that the reading of the Divine scriptures belonged onely to the Monks because others had wives and children and care of families bitterly resistes and reprehendes this evill in the people affirming the reading of the scriptures to bee much more necessary for the laye people then the Monks in regard they having more open conversation and dayly receiving spirituall wounds doe stand in more neede of spirituall Physicke h Chrysost homil 2. in â— caput Matth. Sed est ne horum criminum tandem aliqua defensio Non sum inquit ego monachus uxorem habeo filios curam domus Hoc enim est quod omnia quasi unà quâ—dam pesse corrumpit quoniam lectionem divinarum scripturarum ad solos putatis monachos pertinere cum multo magis robis quam illis sit necessaria Qui enim versantur in medio vulnera quotidiè accipiunt magis indigent medicamine And S. Hierome commendeth the reading meditation of the holy scriptures to many holy persons of both sexes in divers Epistles to them as is confessed by the Rhemists themselves i In the Preface to the Reader before the new tâ—stament Yea Chrysostome accounteth it a greater absurdity for his auditors to receive his doctrine without examining it by the scriptures then for a man to receive money upon an others word and not to reckon it himselâ—e k Chrysostom Homil. 13. in epistol ad Corinth cap. 6. Quoâ—â—â—do autem non absurdum propter pecunias alijs non credere sed ipsas numerare supputare pro rebus autem amplioribus aliorum sententiam sequi simpliciter praesâ—râ—im cum habeamus omnium exactissimam tâ—utinam gnomonem ac regulam divinarum inquam legum asserti nem Ideo obsecro oro omnes vos ut relinquaâ—is quidnam huic vâ—lâ—lli vidâ—atur deque his à scripturis haec omnia inquirite Gregory likewise sayth of the scripture as if it had beene given to that purpose It is a river shallowe and deepe wherein the Lambe may wade and the Elephant swim l Gregor mag Epist ad Leand. in expositione â—ob Est fluvius planus altus in quo agnus ambulet Elephas nâ—tet But cheifly Chrysostome urgeth the practise of this holy duty Because the Spirit of God hath so disposed and tempered the sacred scriptures that Publicans Fishers Carpenters Pastors and Apostles idiots unlearned might bee saved by these bookes least any of the vulgar might fly to the excuse of difficulty that those things which are delivered might bee easie to bee seene of all that both the workâ—man and the servant and the widdowe-woman and the most unlearned of all men might carry away some gaine or profit by hearing of the word read m Chrysostom conc 3. de Lazaro Propterea siquidem spiritus gratia dispensavit illa tempetavitque quo publicani piscatores tabernaculorum opifices pastores Apostoli idiotae illiterati per hos libros â—aâ—vi fierent nequisâ—diotarum ad hanc difficultatis confugere possit excusationem ut omnibus facilia conspectu 〈◊〉 quae dicuntur ut opiâ—ex famulus vidua mulier et omnium hominum indâ—ctâ—ssimus ex aud ta lectione aliquid lucri utilitatisque reportaret And lastly to discover the Iesuites vanity in charging the most learned Answerers just assertion with untruth Azorius the Iesuite in the name of all doth willingly confesse that the lay-people were conversant in the reading of the Scriptures in the primitive times n Azorius Iesuit tom 1. Moral l. 8. cap. 26. Nos libenter fatemur tunc temporis laicos in Scripturarum lectione fuisse versatos For the second It is manifest that the Papists teach and practise the contrary This the Iesuite doth beleive as will be manifested by many passages in his Reply yet he will give us leave to prove it least confessing so great an alteration he might seeme to acknowledge the Roman Church to have fallen from the practise of the auncients to wit in making ignorant people wise to salvation by the reading of the Scriptures Now the first which I will produce to confirme this are your Preists at Rhemes who deny the holy scriptuees to be ordained by God to be read indifferently of all say that in the peace of the Church vulgar translations were neither muchrequisit nor perchance wholly tolerable that the Roman Church alloweth not the publishing or reading of any Catholicke translation absolutely and without exception but that such as read them must have expresse license thereunto of their lawfull ordinaries o In the Preface to the Reader before their testament And Azorius tells us that Clement the 8. hath prohibited the reading of any part of the sacred Scriptures or any comperdious historie thereof in any vulgar language whatsoever p Azor. inst moral l 8. c 26. Et in Indice novissimè edito jussu S. D. N. Clementis 8. in observatione circa quartam regulam prohibentur sacrae Scripturae partes tam novi quam veteris testamenti quâvis vulgari linguâ editae ac insuper summaria compendia etiam historica â—orundem Bi bliorum seu librorum sacrae scripturae quocunque vulgari idiomate conscripta quod quidem inviolatè praecipitur servandum Yea so farre they are from giving the people this libertie that Sanders maketh it Heresie to determine the necessary conversion of the Scriptures into vulgar tongues q Sander vis Monarch haer 191 Haeresin esse si quis dicit scripturas necessaâ—â—ò debeâ—e in vulgares linguas converti and Peresius accounteth it the Divels invention to permit the reading of the Bible to all sorts of people r Peresius de tra par 2 asser 3. Credo â—quidem institutum hoc sub pictatis quâdam umbrâ à Diabolo esse inventum And howsoever the Iesuite will not heere speake his minde yet his thoughts burst from him afterwards in this section for hee
〈◊〉 Romana Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hist cap. 〈…〉 S. 〈◊〉 Basil Augustine stile thâ—se writings â—â—ving his counterfeit Calixius at Rome make these bookes Canonicall it being plaine that they were so tearmed in respect of other corrupt writings which were read in the Church at that time which practice was excepted against by the Third Councell of Carthage 〈◊〉 as it is urged by the Iesuite wherein it was decreed that nothing should be read in the Church under the name of divine Scriptures and I thinke you will not conceive this inhibition had any relation to any of those bookes we call Apocryphall they being never condemned to be read by the Church Besides Bellarmine telleth us the title of divine â—â— given by most 〈◊〉 and most 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Prayer of 〈◊〉 the 3 and 4. of 〈◊〉 the 3. and 4. of 〈◊〉 and the booke of Pastor â— c. And the calling of 〈◊〉 Propheticall Scripture by S. Ambrose is to like effect it being given to the fourth booke of Eâ—â—ras which the Iesuite will not have Canonical Scripture though it be lifted up with as great a testimony from that Faâ—her q Sixtus seneâ— Bibl. sancta lib. 1. de Esdâ—â— lib. 3. 4. Divus Ambrosius etiam quartum librum putat editum ab ipso Esdra non sine divinâ revelatione as the booke of Tobie which hee is willing to justifie But leaving Tobie with his dog the Iesuite hath some further proofe for the Macehabees They are alledged saith he as other Canonicall bookes of Scriptures are without any difference And who are the alledgers Cyprian 〈◊〉 â—en and Ambrose r Reply pag. â—â— Two things are here to be examined First whether every booke cited by a Father be Canonicall Secondly how and in what manner they be urged and cited by the Fathers First it is evident that there is no ground that the citing of a booke by a Father should turne his nature when an Apostles pen hath not that virtue in it selfe unlesse he will conclude all those Poets cited in the Scriptures and the booke of Eâ—â—ch by Iude to be reckoned within the Canon Besides if this Argument have any life in it against us why 〈◊〉 it not have the same strength against Papists to prove the booke called Pastor to be Canonicall which as Bellarmine observeth 〈◊〉 by the Fathers Irenaeus who giveth it the name of Scriptures Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen For the Bellarm de scriptor ecclesâ— Hermen five Hermes librum scripsit apud veteres valde celebrem 〈◊〉 inscripsit Pastorem Is libâ—â— quamvis à sancto 〈◊〉 reâ—â—o lib. 4 caprino Origeâ—â— et divinorum title Divine given by Cyprian and his testimony out of Augustine there needeth no further illustration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answered in substance before Our Iesuite from these grounds the principall whereof iâ— S. Hieromes ignorance beginnes his 〈◊〉 What wonder then if the Church at Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them also for Canonicall 〈…〉 The slightest cause hath two or three witnesses those without exception that directly agree one with an other in giving testimony to the proposed articles The Iesuiâ—e that pretended the auncient Church hath not given us â—â—â— compleat proofe from the same and those which he â—â—th produced are but particular men with one Provinâ—â—â—ll Councell which they themselves generally approve â—oâ— and some of his private testimonies say little to the pâ—rpose So all that our Iesuite can expect is this that in some private judgements these bookes might be judged Canonicall but never so delivered by the auncient Church which defence the booke Pastâ—r hath from 〈◊〉 confession and the fourth of Esdras by the confession of your owne Sixtuâ— Senensis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 1. de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefoâ—e there is reason sufficient that our Iesuite should 〈◊〉 doâ—â—â— his 〈◊〉 whichupon so vaine a confidence heâ— hath â—rected and acknowledge their change although they have doâ—â— it upon so good a ground as the imbracing of some private judgments three or foure hâ—â—dreth yâ—â—es after Christ leaving the streame of the ancient Church â—he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Thus the charge appâ—â—â—â—th to be 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 as the Iesuit hoped to have proved it that the Church of Rome hath leâ—â— the gâ—â—â—rall practise of the â—â—â—cient Church and hath imbracâ—◠〈◊〉 private 〈◊〉 not for love of their persons but 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 themselves they finde some shelter 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sâ—â—ing he cannot declare them scriptures by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither by the testimony of the ancient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all is sure if we cannot manifest that 〈◊〉 bookes held now 〈◊〉 by the Church of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a contrary sentence by the â—â—cient church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all his skill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—◠〈◊〉 saith the 〈◊〉 â—◠〈◊〉 thâ—â— evâ—â— the Church of God did 〈…〉 〈…〉 before the Church declared them for Canonicall by 〈◊〉 authoritie * Reply pag 2â— The Iesuit must tell us what he meâ—â—â—th by the Churches declaring them by publicke authority For if he understand a generall Councell it is idle for they never came to be so yâ— Canus loc Theol. l. â— c. â—â— Cyprianus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in expositione symboli â—osdem sex libros patrum anctoritate a quibus se 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quod idâ—◠〈◊〉 ci◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—ordium Cuâ—â—que diligeâ—ter de omnibus exploraverat omni investigatione comperit hos libâ—â—â— esse a veteris instrumenti am in Psalmum â—â—â— Sed i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril 〈◊〉 â—◠〈◊〉 Caâ— â—â— audacious in the primitive times as to claime the priviledge to â—â—eepe into the Canon Besides he is as foâ—d in the consequent that they have made no change herein froÌ„ the practise of the 〈◊〉 Church unlesse we can shewe that the ancient Church of God did give judgment or sentenâ—â— contrary to their Trent declaration in a generall councell For if this were good reason the councell of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have 〈◊〉 the 3. 4. booke of Esdras Pastor their decretall epistles Gregory Siâ—tus yea what not plead in the same manner that they had made no change they never being in your judgment I think condemned by the publicke authoritie of any generall councell in the ancient catholicke Church that did give judgment or sentence conâ—â—ry thereunto But if the Church might be said to give â—â—â— judgment against the bookes of Iudith Toby and the 〈◊〉 by keeping them out of the canoâ— as no doubt â—â— may practise being the best declareâ— of mens judgements it shal be manifested sufficieÌ„tly that they have long 〈◊〉 received their doome For first they were alwaies difâ—â—â—â—med in regard of the canon rule of faith 〈◊〉 that the Iesuit hath not produced one privat 〈◊〉 that is plaine and convincing for almost â—â—â— yeares 〈◊〉 Christ Secondly In the 〈◊〉 Catalogue
The Author then of this Penitentiall written to Heâ—ibaldus was either some other Rabanus p Reply ibid. Heere we finde the Iesuite ignorant of that Author upon whose writings he taketh upon him to be so acute a critick for if he had read the Author himselfe he would have thought of those words which point out who he is Ego dum in Episcopatâ— Moguntiensis indignus constitutus sum q Cap. 〈◊〉 c. But how a Iesuite of his undertaking could be ignorant of their owne Gratian his citing of this booke under the name of Rabanus the Archbishop r Gratian. 〈◊〉 50. cap de his vero Rabanus Archiepiscopus wee can tell without surmise Secondly he saith that his supposed Rabanus fell with Heribaldus into the Error called by Paschasius and Algerus Stercoranistarum who held that Christ in the Sacrament being hypostatically united unto the bread and assuming it into one person with himselfe was therefore subject to disgestion and avoydance * Reply pag. 43 Callida mendacia He faineth in earnest and there is but need for Paschasius maketh no mention of the Stercoranistae Secondly Rabanus in his penitentiall holdeth the contrary Å¿ Cap. 33. Ista sententia contraria est sententijs Clementis Papae aliorum multorum sanctorum Patrum qui dicunt corpus Domini non cum caeâ—â—ris communibus cibis per aquatiâ—ulos in seâ—â—ssum mitti Thirdly it is an idle figment that either this Rabanus t Rabanus l. 1. de Instit Clericorum cap. 31. or Heribaldus or those you tearme Stercoranistae did hold that Christ was hypostatically united to the bread The Iesuite hath onely dreamed here he giveth us not an Author But all that hee hath yet said will not serve the turne and therefore hee would have us to believe him if no such other Rabanus there was at least that Penitecial together with the libel written to Abbot Egilo was made by some erring spirit or other and to get the more credit fathered upon Rabanus Maurus t Reply pag. 43 This we must believe upon the Iesuites teste or reject it for he bringeth us nothing to manifest the same and further whereas hee saith that Rabanus was farre enough from maintaining any such Error x Reply ibid. Indeed as the Iesuite hath invented an error and fathered the same upon the author of the Penitâ—ntiâ—ll we easily confesse For Rabanus was ever farre enough from maintaining that the Body of Christ was subject to disgestion and avoydance but that the Sacrament thereof was digested and turned into our substance as other meates are he taught indeed and was condemned for the same by Guliâ—lmus Malmesburiensâ—s y See Guil. Malmes before cited at the letter â— and Thomas Waldensis z Tho. Wald. tom 1. Doctrinal Prolog ad Martinum Vitem tom ◠〈◊〉 Sacramentis cap 19. 〈◊〉 Neither doth he with any truth prosecute his plea when that he tels us that Bertram and that supposed Rabanus were as farre different in their opinions concerning the presence of Christ in the Sacrament as Bertram and Paschasius himselfe for the author of that Penitentiall erring with Heribaldus held that Christ was so really present in the sacrament that there was no figure at all whereas Bertram made it but a sole figure without any reall presence of Christ his body Reply pag. 44 What doth the Iesuite bring here but heapes of untruthes some of which crosse and contradict himselfe for the Author of the Penitentiall and the booke written to Egile the Abbot of Fulda under whom Rabanus had his education held the flat contrary to Paschasius and maintained the very same thing that Bertrâ—â— did to wit that the consecrated hoast was not the very bodie and blood of our Lord which was borne of the Virgin Marie and in which our Lord suffered himselfe on the Crosse and rose againe from the graue This was taught the Iesuite before by the most learned Answerer neither is it long since that he upon that evidence confessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 42 that this being the doctrine of Paschasius was resisted as erroneous by Rabanus Besides where will you finde that Bertram made it as you report a sole figure That he made it a figure will not be denyed but that he said it a sole figure you give us no ground to beleive And now taking leave with Rabanus whom the Iesuite in the point of the Sacrament would make a Romanist against his will he commeth to Bertram and demaundeth Why may not Claudius Sanctesius and others moe be thought to guesse aright when they thinke that Bertram was truely a Roman Catholicke free from that error contained in the booke supposedly dedicated unto the Emperour Charles seeing that in proofe thereof there be not wanting many presumptions stronger farre then those are which are brought in by our Answerer to the contrary Reply pag. 44 What your presumptions will prove shal be examined but the Answerer hath this advantage that his evidences have already convinced the Divines of Doway to acknowledge this booke mentioned to be Bertrams indeede though by shifting distinctions they labour as you tearme it to free him from error d Indexâ—â—purg Belg. pag. 5. And first of all he beginnes that neither Paschasius Radbertus who defended our Catholicke Doctrine at that time nor yet any other Writer of those dayes maketh any mention either of Bertram or of any such erroneous opinion as is attributed unto him in 〈◊〉 booke e Reply pag. 44 Heere is a good beginning for to justifie Sanctesius his guesse hee directly contradicteth that which hee layeth downe for a certaine ground For first he saith that about the time of Charles the Great and Charles the Bald this booke came forth that was assigned to Bertram and whereunto Paschasius did answere He thinkes it indeede to be credible that the booke came then abroad without any name and that afterwards to gaine the more credite Bertrams name was added f Sanctei Repet 2. cap. 14. Cùm Paschasius Corbeiensis qui etiam illo seculo vixit suum scriptum opponat corruptelis libri qui Bertramâ— datur ut ex collatione notum fiet proculdâ—biò Bertrami uomini non pepercisset ne quis tanti viri authoritate falleretur Itaque 〈◊〉 est ortam tum disputationem de transubstantiatione ac corperis Christi in Eucharistia veritate verbis institutionis cirea secundum Caroli magni Caroli Calvi quemadmodum cerâ—itur ex Rabano Mauro Raschasio Corbiensi tum exijsse librum quem nune Bertramo assignant 〈◊〉 Paschasius respondent so that there is no question but the booke was at that time and the doctrine therein opposed by Paschasius that wrote against the same But whether any mention was made of Bertram it matters not for would you be so wise as to gather from thence that therefore there was no such man at that time when you confesse his person though you