〈◊〉 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
〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 â—all of the aâ—â—cient Fathers and the Councell of 〈◊〉 Canone 〈…〉 these bookes are omitted â—â—â—â— part of the 〈◊〉 Scripture Thirdly the reputed 47. Canon of the third Councell of Carthage which is their cheifest testimony by the indgemeÌ„t of their own was never determinâ—â—â—â— that Synode â—arclaij Paraenesis l. 1. c. â—1 Refertur â—ic canoâ— concil 3. Carthaginensi cui Augustinus interâ—â—it sed ex 〈◊〉 constat posterioris Concilij esse quod paulo post sub Boni â—â—cio convocaâ—â—m Fourthly in after ages they were by many rejected a never getting authority till the Trent decree Besides these bookes will by their owne light declare of what authority they are The 〈◊〉 I hope will grant that God is as true in his word as the Pope infallible in his decrees if upon this ground these bookes deserve credit let the Reader conclude first for Iudeth whether it were â—squam or ullâ—bi we cannot tell neither I thinke the Iesuite himselfe Again she honoureth that fact of Siâ—â—on * Caâ—â—s loco â—â—pra citat Constat auâ—em 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctisâ—imoâ— in contrariam sententiam 〈◊〉 qui tamen semper in Ecclesia Catholica sunt habiti Nich. Lyâ—an super 〈◊〉 â— 1. super Tobiâ—â— Abuleâ—â—â—s super Math. c. 1. D. Aâ—â—on 3. p. â— 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 loâ—â— tum maâ—ime in fine 〈◊〉 super 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etiam sex â—â—cros esse 〈◊〉 Gelaâ—â—â—â— Pâ—pa rejecit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Macha Diâ—â—â— autem Gregorius l. moral â—â— rejjoâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de Tâ—â—â—poribus Rich l. 2. Exceptioâ—â—â— c. 9. Ocham â—â— Diâ—◠〈◊〉 1. l. 3. 〈◊〉 Ac D. Aug docet aâ— Ecclesia esse quid em receptos seâ—â—â—â— certa side 〈◊〉 9. 2 and Levy which the Spirit of God abhorreth as appeares by Moses †Gen. 49. 5. And we may see that Iudeth fitting her selfe for lyes and deceit * 〈◊〉 9. 10 desireth God to give a blessing thereunto †Ver. 13. which action as it condemneth the person that doth the same so doth it disgrace this booke which speaketh â—â— directly opposite to the Apostolicall rule * Eph. 4. 25. And as Iudeth doth detect her selfe so doth Tâ—bit also by his vaine story of the Rivall Devill †Tob 6. 14. the driving away of a devill or an evill spirit which should trouble any with the smoke of the heart and the liver of a fish * Tâ—â— 6. 7 contrary to Christs doctrine that there are some devills which will not be cast out but by fasting and prayer †Mat. 17. 21. And wherefore should the Apostle Eph 6. 13. have left this out of his aâ—moury if it had bene of such forâ—â— eâ—â—icacy as is here expressed Further we have an Angell lyeing chap. 5. verse â—â— and a fish travailing on Land chap. 6. verse 2. The Maâ—chabees containe many things which declaâ—â— the author of them not to write with confidence of Godâ— Spirit asisting him as first that he was an Epitoâ—â—ist of â—â—son * 2. Maccà b 2. 23. Secondly he excuseth himselfe †2 Maccab. â—5 39. as if the holy Ghost might deserve a censure Thirdly it appeareth that his end is to delight his Reader * 2. Maccab. 2 25. 15. 40. and to get honour to himselfe †2. Maccab. 2 â—6 â—7 Lastly he justifieth Razis in killing himself * 2. Macâ—ab 14 41. 42. 43. a commendation fitter for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then the patient Marâ—â—rs of Christ as S. Augustine Aug. câ—n Gâ—ud l. c 31. Dictum est quod 〈◊〉 nobiliter merit meâ—us veller hâ—militer â—â—â— enim 〈◊〉 Illiâ—autem verbis historia gentium â—â—â—dare 〈◊〉 sed viros 〈◊〉 huius â—â—culi non martyrâ—â— Christi observeth To these many more may be added but this which hath bene spokeÌ„ will suffice to shew that they have dealt without all conscience in obtruding those bookes upon the church which were never as canonicall received from the Iewes unto whom were committed the oracles of God * Rom. 3. 2. never delivered to the primitive Church from the Apostles never aproved by any father of the church for almost 400 yeares never thought of when the Canon was repeated such which by their Physiognomy detect themselves Whence we may gather that the Church of Rome now hath varied in her judgment from the church of God then althogh we be not able to lay down the precise time when she thought her selfe wiser then her forefathers heerein Neither will his turning to the Epistles of Iames Iude the second of Peter c Reply pag. 2â— c any thing availe his cause in regard there is a great difference betwixt those Epistles these bookes of Iudeth Tâ—bit and the Macchabees for although some private men did doubt of the former yet the church in generall did receive and approve the fame * See before pag. â—5 whereas on the contrary the Iesuite after all his search cannot finde â—â—â— testimony either of Father or Councell that accounâ—â—â— the latter Canonicall for well-nigh 400 yeares after Christ And therefore most indiscreetly did the Iesuit vrge 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 to prove the like doubt to have bene held of these Epistles with those bookes which they absolutely call Apocrypha Secondly he abuseth his Reader when he would perswade that they were ouely particular Fathers that doubted of these bookes when the Iesuite cannot finde that they were received either of the Iewes or the Apostles or Primitive Fathers for certaine ages after Christ Thirdly to what thoughts of desperation is he and his fellowes driven to defend this adding to the Canon as first that doubtfull writings which have beene accompted Apocryphall for certaine hundred of yeares which our Iesuite calleth somtime may by the publick authority of the Church be declared Canonicall and secondly that particular Fathers which indeed are all the Fathers that lived in the first 300. almost 400. yeares the Iesuite citing none within that compasse but Cyprian and their bastard Calixtuâ— as hath beene formerly declared might doubt of the authority of those bookes without prejudice till the Church had declared them for Canonicall by publicke authority But if the Canon was not compleate in the first times I would know when it was made perfect and whether in those times tradition was enabled to declare the same or whether the Fathers were negligent to testifie this truth and also whether Canonicall and Apocryphall is a distinction lately invented All this the Iesuite must resolve or else acknowledge the Canon of the Church in the Primitive times to be certainely knowne and setled which will declare their vanity and change in these last times to adde unto the sacred Canon and rule of Faith upon pretence that the Church hath power to declare canonicall Scripture A Doctrine invented in after-ages by the Roman faction who as they looked for unlimited power so to defend their practises they desire an unrestrayned rule making Scriptures what
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
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
Churches under Popish government have beene for many hundred of yeares without vulgar Bibles approoved and appointed to be read of the people whereby they might be exercised in the like auncient Christian duty doth it not then follow that let our custome bee what it will they denying free libertie unto the people to reade them without dispensation disagree herein from the practise of the auncient Church although wee doe not point out the Pope that did first seale up this treasure from the people and consequently that the Iesuites demaund is vaine Yet the Iesuite continueth his pursuite and his Vanitie also By an other instance saith hee no lesse vaine then the former he endeavoureth to tell us againe how wee differ from the middle ages of the Church u Reply pag. 27 If no more vaine then the former the learned Answerer needeth not to feare well where is this enclosure of Vanity I heare S. Hierome say The Church doth read indeede the bookes of Iudith and Toby and the Mâ—chabees but doth not receive them for canonicall scripture x Hieronym Praesat in libros Salomon Epist 113. I see that at this day the Church of Rome receiveth them for such May not I then conclude saith the most learned Primate y In his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge pag 9. that betwixt S. Hierome's time and ours there hath beene a change and that the Church of Rome now is not of the same judgement with the Church of God then howsoever I cannot precisely lay downe the time wherein shee first thought her selfe to bee wiser herein then her fore-fathers What Vanity can the Iesuite espye heere why saith hee Our Answerer playeth Bopeepe with his Reader affecting ignorance to wrong the truth for well hee knoweth that the same S. Hierome not long after did testifie unto the world that the first Nicen Councell declared the booke of Iudith for Canonicall which hee had not heard of when hee wrote the former words alledged by our Answerer z Reply pag. 2â— Here the Iesuite had need to be active for his weapons are but reedes The place he urgeth is Hierome in the prologne to the booke of Iudith And surely there will bee small grounds to make Iudith reputed canonicall in Hierome's time Paula and Eustochium desired Hierom to translate this booke of Iudith into Latine where by the way you may see if you make it canonicall Scripture wee may conclude a woman might have and reade the same in the vulgar tongue to whom St Hierome answereth that among the Hebrewes tht booke of Iudith was taken amongst the holy writings but yet of no authoritie to resolve a controversie being written in the Chaldey reckoned among the Histories yet because it is read that the Nicene Councell did take this booke in the number of the sacred Scriptures hee did yeild to translate the same a Hiero in Prolog ad librum Iudith Apud Hebraeos liber Iudith inter Hagiographa legitur cujus autoritas ad roboranda illa quae ad contentionem veniunt minus idonea judicatur Chaldaeo tamen sermone conscriptus inter historias computatur Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicena in numero sanctarum Scripturarum legitur compu tâsse acquicri postulationi vestrae imo exactioni But where was it read non ex canone de sacris libris confecto not out of the Canon made up of the holy bookes b Baronius in appendice decimi tomi notatione ad annum 32 Haud affirmandum omnino existimarem Canonem de libris sacris statutum esse à Nicaeno Concilio à quo neminem ausum fuisse recedere jure debet existimari Sed non ex Canone de sacris libris consecto id asseruisse S. Hieronymum verum potius ex actis cjus in quibus obiter citatus idem liber inventus â—uit this Baronius affirmeth where then in some obscure pamphlet for any thing the Iesuit knoweth and so farre was St Hierome from testifying to the world what the Iesuite so confidently affirmeth that it cannot be manifested St Hierome gave any credite to what he saith was onely read Yea their owne Lindanus from St Hieromes uncertaine manner of Speech Legitur computâsse seemeth to conclude that St Hierome beleived it not though he might reade it c Lindan Panopl Evangel l. 3. c. 3. Vehementer ut dubitem facit quod apud Hieronymum Praefat in Iudith reperitut paulâ— cost Sed legitur computasse ait Hiero. quod mihi dubitantis suspicionem subindicate videtur and saith if the Nicene Councell did aunciently reckon the booke of Iudith in the Canon why did not the Councell of Laodicea reckon it why did not Nazianzene make mention of it What meant the same St Hierome to say the Church at that time did reade the bookes of Iudith Tobic and the Maccabees but did not receive them amongst the Canonicall Scriptures d Idem ibid. Si Niâ—aena Synodus olim hunc Iudith librum cum alijs in Canonem redegerat cur annis 80. post â—um non accenset Laodicaena cur Nazianzenus ejus non meminit paulo post Quid sibi vult quod idem Hieron in librorum Salomoniâ— praefatione scribit Ecclesiam libros Iudith Thobiae ac Machabeorum legere quidem sed inter canonicas scripturas non recipere And Erasmus in his Censure upon this Prologue saith that St Hierome doth not affirme the booke of Iudith to have beene approoved in the Nicene Synode †Censura Prologi ad librum Iudith Non affirmat approbatum hunc in Synodo Nicaena sed ait legitur computâsse So that it is most apparant who it is that playeth Bopeepe with his Reader that affecteth ignorance to wrong the truth Further what did St Hierome afterwards that might cause the Iesuite to conceive it in his subsequent esteeme Canonicall He translated it but did he not the like to others which he denyeth to be in the Canon and where then is his retractation which hee ought to have performed for abusing the Canonicall booke of Iulith if he had committed violence against Gods sacred truth Neither ought it to amaze the Reader that this booke should be said to be taken in the number of sacred writings for who knowes not that Bookes were esteemed Hagiographa holy and divine from their matter and in opposition to prophane writings and yet were farre from the authoritie of the Canon And if it be a true rule that one falshood makes the whole testimonie suspected what shall we say to the corruption of this prologue to the booke of Iudith wherein Hagiographa is put for Apocrypha as may bee prooved by Lyranus c Lyrs Prolog in Bibl. Neque al quemm veat quod in Iudith Thobiae prologis dicitur quod apud Hebraeos inter Hâ—giographa leguntur qui manifestus error est apocripha non hagiographa est legendum qui error in omnibus quos viderim codicibus invenitur inolâ—uit
produced did neither publish the worke nor promised as he faith to publish it sincerely in its owne colours And now he thinkes that he hath said sufficient to excuse the Censurers of Doway or any other that should endeavour to cleanse away such errours as have beene by the enemies of truth foisted either into that or into any other the like worke r. Reply pag. 4â— But the Censurers of Doway did not thinke these to bee such Errors as have beene foisted into that worke by the enemies of the truth Those errors which they endeavour to cleanse away are such as are found in the true olde Catholicke Writers Å¿ Iâ—d Expurg â—elg pag. 5. Quùm igitur in Catholicis veteribus alijs c. Nay how could it bee that Heretickes as these Antichristianaries call us should cry out that you burne and forbid such antiquity as maketh for you if Bertrams booke at the publishing thereof had beene beâ—â—abered by O Ecolampadius and they onely had cleansed it of these things The Iesuite must then confesse unlesse he haue better to pleade for himselfe then hee hath produced that neither Fathers nor Antiquity shall controule him or his whilst by extenuation excuse inventing devices denying or faigning they can avoyde the same But all his hope is though this be graunted that hee will stop our mouthes by recrimination I will take some paines saith he to try whether we may not finde more easily such like corruption and washing of antiquity amongst his fellowes as he would fasten upon us t Reply pag 46 Nescivit iniquus confusionâ—m * â—eph 3. 5 Whilst a wicked man can speake hee will not blush otherwise the Iesuit would not have instaÌ„ced so vainly as he here hath done For first â—â—o of his instances are nothing to the purpose in regard he cannot produce any Father that either Willet or the Apologists set forth therefore they could not fret wash or corrupt the monuments of the Auncients which they never published Yet Mr Malone cannot be ignorant that privat men in defending their opinions doe many times interpret the Scriptures and Fathers contrary to their Adversaries thoughts against whom they use them so that their Adversaries with passion are many times provoked to take notice of some things which they conceive to bee not clearely carried and thereupon take occasion to challenge them of misalledging corrupting abusing detracting c. This we finde is done amongst our selves as in the Controversies amongst your owne the like is not wanting t Wadding Legat Phil 3. sect 2. orat 9 tract 10. § 6. Quâ velurâ hâc diligentia exhibitâ experiretur vestra Sanctitas tam falsum esse quod dicunt Adversarij quam verum esse quod in citato Tractatâ— ego animadverti ex apparenti violenter congesta illâ congerie Patrum apud Bandellum Bandelloque similes reprobatos â—liosve authores paucissimos esse vel nullos qui expresse ferant sententiam contra Virginem caeterosque vel fermè omnes corruptos mutilatos esse in verbis quae ex eisdem proferunâ—ur Payva ciâ— ibid. Minimè verum est communi veteris Ecclesiae sententiae illam repugnare cum praesertim à multis videam Sanctorum Patrum testimonijs à quibusdam oppugâ—ari quae partiâ— sunt depravata partim nihil ad rem faciunt Onely here is the difference that we bewayle these passionat escapes could wish that men were more tempered with Charity You justifie your owne and tell us that your Church graunteth free liberty to all Catholicke Doctors to expound as well the Scriptures as the Fathers for the upholding of that part which themselves doe thinke to bee most probable u Reply Sect. XI For the objection from Mr Rogers true it is that he was deceived in taking that booke for Augustines when in all probability it was written by some Author of a Schoolemans age for Riming Meditations were not in date in St Augustines time as we may gather from Sixtus Senonsis x Sixtus Senen Bibl sanct l 3. Scholastici cûm desideraren thomines sui saeculi rythmes deditos ad studia sacrarum lirerarum allicere acceptâ hinc occasione excogitârunt ipsi novam Metricae artâ—â— rationem For could that practice if it had beene so auncient have beene contemned exploded by all learned men in the late learned ages as inept superstitious ridiculous y Ibid. Non me later Scholaâ—ocorum PoeÌ„ticem ab omnibus 〈◊〉 contemni prorfus explodi tanquam ineptam superstitioâ—â—m 〈◊〉 dignam I perswade my selfe Antiquity would have had a greater reverence and better esteeme Now in regard this Author was diligent in the reading of Augustine of whom he hath made good use in all probabilitie he gave it the name it beares and yet he mixed many corruptions of his owne therewith Secondly suppose the booke be Augustines yet consider that M. Rogers doth not put forth the same to deceive for the Iesuite acknowledgeth that he declares in his Epistle Dedicatory what is omitted in the booke so that what he hath done is no more in effect but a censure such as Sixtus Senensis hath used and others Thirdly the booke that hee published was fot popular use and therefore he thought it not requisite to suffer those things which he distasted should remaine in the text where conveniently he could not advertise the Reader but placed them in the Epistle Dedicatory where he hath shewed what he conceived of them Wherefore this as it is the last so it is the Iesmites worst defence whereby to excuse themselves hee would make Israell to sinne SECT VII HEre the Iesuite considers How vainely our Answerer accepteth of the Fathers judgement againe a Reply pag. 4â— and in the first place most unwisely playeth the Orator Notwithstanding all that our Answerer hath said hetherto playing as it were fast and loose and by a doubtfull tergiversation keeping off and on with the Fathers at last ashamed of his inconstancie herein he proclaimeth valoroustio his finall resolution in these words That you may see how confident we are in the goodnes of our cause we will not now stand upon our right nor refuse to enter with you into this field but give you leave for this time both to be Challenger and the appointer of your owne weapons b Reply pag. 4â— If the Iesuite had any modestie he would not play the childe so vainely as here he doth for where doth the most reverend the Lord Primate play fast and loose Out of which of his words will he finde his doubtfull tergiversation where is his inconstancy that maketh him ashamed These flashes at the best are but straynes of Vanity The most learned Answerer hath shewed the Iesuite out of Tertullian the meanes to finde out the truth Their very doctrine it selfe being compared with the Apostolicke by the diversitie and contrarietie thereof saith that auncient Father will pronounce that it had for
simplicitate rusticâ yet we cannot deny but Origen besides divers Hereticks did abuse it more 〈◊〉 enquiring after Allegories never dreaming of the letter Now if the simple because they mistake the literall sence the learned because too much given to allegories be inhibited the use of scriptures How can St Iohns words be true These things are written that ye might beleive that Iesus is Christ the Son of God that beleiving yee might have life through his Name * Ioh 20. 31. But he proceedes in his storying In like sort doth Franciscus Costerus in the preface before his Dominical sermons produce examples of grosse enormities proceeding froÌ„ this liberty f Reply pag. 27. The Author is of such worth that we might easily cast off his testimony but give him leave to relate his observatioÌ„s First a certaine Painter in Prussia who having read how Lot lay with his daughters learned thereby to defile his owne daughters also g Reply ibid. Suppose we have one ignorant Prussian that imagineth every example in Scripture equivalent to a Rule must Gods word upon this ground be denyed the Laytie surely there is no bon sequitur heere What if a Iesuite hath conceived King Butchery lawfull by Ehud's example h Io. Mariana de Reg. instit lib. 1. cap. 7. Itaque apertâ vi armis posse occidi tyrannum sive impetu in regiam facto sive commissâ pugnâ in confesso est Sed dolo atque insidijs excep tum quod fecit Aiod c. must the Scripture therefore be denied your learned train the reason truly is the same the consequent stronger Secondly Iohn a taylor of Leyden found out in his Bible that he should be a King and that he might lawfully have two wives at once and that all temporall goods ought to bee common amongst men i Reply ibid. Who knoweth not that the Church hath had even as amongst the learned Hereticks and those which have raised Schisme so also amongst the Laytie Phantastickes even in her best ages and times Must the Church seale up her treasure from the people because they have fond and strange imaginations Every eye may perceive that those very bookes which you deliver for the peoples instruction are as subject to vaine imaginations as the Scriptures therfore why permit you them to the people if you condemne us when as Gods word is lesse subject to abuse then the frames of sinfull men And for your setting up images in Churches for Lay-mens bookes besides their occasioning idolatrie what error and blindnesse bring they among the People as that Moses hath hornes c. and yet which of these are separated from them Must Lay-people with us for ever loose the comfort of Gods truth for the errour of one seduced fancie must images by you be pressed upon the people which occasion in the Church such fearefull events of Idolatrie superstition and errour But I pray you tell me what hath the Taylor of Leyden done more then your Roman Bishops where have his mistakes beene more grosse Hee by his Bible found hee should be a king They by their wresting their Bibles that they are above Emperours k 〈◊〉 de Maior obed c. Vnam sanctam In hâc ejusque potestate duos esse gladios spiritualem videlicet â—emporalem evangclicis dictis instruâ—mur Nam dicentibus Apostolis Ecce gladij duo hîc in Ecclesia scilicet cum Apostoli loquerentur non respondit Dominus nimis esse sed â—atis Certè qui in potestate Petri temporalem gladium esse negat malè verbum attendit Domini proferentis Converte gladium â—â—um in vaginam Eâ— paulo post Nam veritate testante spiritualis potestaâ— terrenam potestatem instituere habet judicare si bona non fuerit si de ecclesiâ ecclesiasticâ potestate verificatur vaticinium Hieremiae â—cce constitui â—e hodie super gentes regna c. quae sequnntur Ergo si deviat â—erâ—â—â— potestas judicabitur â potestate spirituali vide plura He that hee might have two wives They for Catholicke ends can dispence with a brother to marry his brothers wife l Antiq. Britan. p. 307. Sed quia jure divino â—â—â—tris sui relictam viduam haud liceret ducere it ur ad Papam Iulium Is Theologis Cardinalibus etiam dissentientibus instante Ferdinando ad contrahendum inter Henricum â— Regem D. Catharinam matrimonium Iuris divini dispensationem produxit c. and permit many Stewes m Agrip. de van scien cap. 64. Sixtus Pontifex maximus Romae nobile admodum lupanar extruxit also Hee would have all things common They will have nothing so appropriated to others that some way at least in ordine ad spiritualia may not belong to them n Bernardus Mornalensis in 3 libro de contemptu mundi Heu sua propria deputat omnia REX BABYLONIS Now let any indifferent judgement determine whether there bee not as good reason to deprive the Romish Cleargie of the use of Scriptures in the originall for the Papall abuse of it as the Lay-people for the default of a poore crazed though an Academicall Taylor Hee tells us further of one David George that by the same reading was bolde to affirme that hee was the sonne of God of an other in Germanie that reading the manner of Baptisme prescribed Mat. 28. thought himselfe obliged in conscience to baptize such young dogges as his Canet had lately whelped and under the pretext of a commandement given in those wordes Crescite multiplicamini c. the Anabaptists exercise their abominations in darknesse o Reply pag. 27 I need not to examine the truth for the bare matter of fact of this learned Iesuites variae historiae for it being granted that all is true what can be concluded against the libertie of using the Scriptures But in regard this foule mouth imputeth all these mischeifes to the reading of Gods booke hee hath onely declared himselfe an enemie to that light which in time will obscure and consume him and his faction God stiles his Word to be a lanthorne to our feete and a light unto our pathes * Psalme 119. v. 105. And who they be that Tertullian calleth Lucifugae p Tertul. de resurrect carnis cap. 47. let the Iesuite enquire For opinions and practises of like nature with the Iesuites examples Iesuites such kind of enemies to God may impute them to the reading of the Scriptures but the Holy Ghost pleading for himselfe whose words they are giveth another reason Rom. 1. 21. Because that when they knew God they glorified him not as God neither were thankefull but became vaine in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened Professing themselves to be wise they became fooles and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man and to birds and fâ—are-footed beasts creeping things
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—
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
deny this booke to be any of his Secondly the opinion against which Paschafius disputed was that onely of Heribaldus which our Protestants themselves confesse to be no other then a most grosse error g Reply pag 44. Here the Iesuite speakes whetstones For Paschasius doth not dispute against that opinion either 〈◊〉 or principally but toucheth it incidently Neither can 〈◊〉 Iesuite shew that Heribaldus himselfe ever held any such opinion Thirdly the said Paschafius doth testifie that in his time no man was found who did publickly maintaine any such error contrary to that Catholicke Doctrine which hee with the whole Church professea and defended which surely hee would not have said if any such booke had beene written by Bertram for that booke must needes have beene much talked of and the Author very publicke seeing that hee wrote it as the Emperors request and also dedicated the same unto his Majestie Reply ibid Here is a grosse mistake For if this booke of Bertram was written at the request of the Emperour Carolus Calvus who obtained not the Empire untill anno 875. Is it not dreaming to take it as a matter granted that we suppose the booke of Bertram to have been published when Paschafius wrote his who died in the yeare 851 Secondly here is a notorious untruth For Paschafius doth testifie no such thing but the contrary for in the beginning of his Epistle De corpore sanguine Domini ad Frudegardum he thus propoundeth the question Queris de re ex qua MVLTI dubitant You desire resolution in a matter whereof MANY doubt Besides the Iesuite as conscious of his deceipt doth not here tell us where Paschafius testifieth any such thing Fourthly it is well knowne that the Church of Rome with all Christian Churches adhering â—â—to her at that time did professe the same doctrine concerning the Reall presence which Paschasius then Layed downe and which to this day shee hath alwayes believed Is it likely then that such a booke being written even by the Emperors appointment not one man in all the world should be found to answere the same and to gaineâ—â—y that Author and his opinion so repugnant to that which was publiquely and generally maintained â— Reply pag 44. It is ill presumed for at this time this was no Doctrin of the Church of Rome neither received or decreed for such it being shewed before that the most learned men then living resisted and opposed the same And Bellarmine himselfe supposing as the Iesuite doth erroneously and without ground that Bertram wrote before Paschafius doth thereupon conceive Paschafius his booke to have beene purposely written against Bertram k Bellarm. de Sacram. Euchâ— l. 1 c. 1. Tertius suit Bertramus tempore Caroli Crassi circa annum Domini DCCCLXXXVI cujus liber adhuc exâ—at Is rursum in connoversiam vocare coepit an esset verè in Eucharistia illud ipsum cerpus Domini quod de Virgine natum erat Confutavit hunc errorem doctissimè Paschasius Abbas Corbâ—ienfis qui illo ipso tempore floruit Fiftly when Berengarius some 200. yeares after Bertram bred that uproare which is knowne by bringing in the same opinion with that which is fathered upon Bertram when there was so much writing and disputing against Berengarius his sentence and for it how came it to passe that there was not as much as mention once made of this supposed booke whose authoritie surely might have done good service unto the part of Berengarius and would doubtlesse have beene produced by them if then it had any being at all l Reply pag. 45 Here is an irresistable demaund this surely will cleare the point But the Iesuite must consider that he ought to lay before us all those bookes that they have extinguished concerning the cause of Berengarius before hee can expect our answer to his Demaund for otherwise how can he make it appeare unto us that there was not so much as mention once made of this supposed booke Further we may observe here that this point of carnall presence was but disputable no matter of faith in Berengarius his time when there was so much writing and disputing against Berengarius his sentence and FOR it although the Iesuite would have had it 200. yeares before to have beene well knowne that the Church of Rome with all Christian Churches adhering unto her at that time did professe the same doctrine concerning the reall presence which Paschasius then layed downe To this profound silence saith the Iesuite let us adde what Guilmundus writing against Berengarius doth testifie It is most notorious saith he that untill Berengarius at this time beganne to rage no such madnes was ever heard of any where Adde moreover that S. Thomas of Aquin and the rest of the Schoolemen doe agree all in laying downe Berengarius for the first Author of that heresie which denyeth the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament without as much as once dreaming of Bertram g Reply pag 45 The Iesuite here bringeth the grosse absurdities of their owne writers to approve him in those things which hee hath layde downe For who can justifie either Guitmundus Aquinas or the rest of the schoolemen in laying downe Berengarius for the first that denyed the carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament when that very Councell which condemned Berengarius condemned also the booke of Iohannes Scotus de Eucharistia h Concil Vercellense tom 3 apud Binnium In qua in audientia omnium qui de diversis â—uius mundi partibus illuc convenerant Iohannis Scoti liber de Eucharistia lectus est ac damnatus sententia â—ua exposita ac damnata which assisted him in the defence of his doctrine it being plaine that he ever extolled this booke and condemned the other of Paschafius i Concil Roman 2. ibid Intellecto quod Ioannem Scoturs extollercs Paschasium damnares communi de Eucharistia â—â—dei adversa sentires promulgata est in te damnationis sententia which maintained your Roman doctrine And this is so evident and apparant a truth that without extreame impudencie it cannot be denyed being acknowledged by Bellarmine himselfe k Bellarm. de Euch. l. 1. c. 1. Primi qui veritatem corporis Domini in Eucharistia in quaestionem vocarunt fuerunt Iconomachi post annum Domini DCC Hi enim dicebant unicam esse imaginem Christi ab ipso Christo institutam nimirum panem vinum in Eucharistia quae repraesentant Christi corpus sanguinem Secundus auctor hujus erroris fuit â—ohannis Scotus qui tempore Caroli magni circa annum Domini DCCC scripsit Is enim primus in Ecclesia Latina de hac re dubiè scribere â—oepit cujus librum de Eucharistia damnatum fuisse in Concilio Vercellensi testatur Lanfranâ—â— c. So that they are but Dreamers that agreeed in laying downe Berengarius for the first Author of that Heresie Neither dare the Iesuite
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
author neither any Apostle nor any man Apostolicall c See the Answere to the Iesuites Challenge pag. 7. The Iesuite boasteth if the Fathers authoritie will not suffice hee will produce good and certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures d See the Iesuites Challenge in fine The most learned Answerer tels him if he would change his order and give the sacred Scriptures the precedency he should therein doe more right to God the author of them who well deserveth to have audience in the first place and withall ease both himselfe and us of a needelesse labour in seeking any further authoritie to compose our differences And thereupon as St Augustine the Donatists so this most reverend Lord provoketh Papists Let humane writings be removed let Gods voyce sound Produce but one cleare testimonie of the sacred Scripture for the Popes part and it shall suffice alledge what authoritie you list without Scripture and it cannot suffice e Answere to the Iesuites Challenge pag. 10. And in the same page he further expresseth himselfe And this we say not as if we feared that these men were able to produce better proofes out of the writings of the Fathers for the part of the Pope then we can doe for the Catholicke cause when we come to joyne in the particulars they shall finde it farre otherwise but partly to bring the matter unto a shorter tryal partly to give the word of God his due to declare what that rocke is upon which alone we build our faith even the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets * Ephes â— â—0 from which no sleight that they can devise shall ever drawe us Here also in the place alledged he shewes that although by reason of their corrupt dealing with antiquitie it is high time for us to listen unto the advice of Vincentius Lirinenfis and not be so forward to commit the tryall of our controversies to the writings of the Fathers who have had the ill hap to fall unto such hucksters handling Yet that you may see saith the most reverend Primate f In his Answere to the Iesuitea Challenge pag 20. how confident we are in the goodnes of our cause we will not now stand upon our right nor refuse to enter with you into this field but give you leave for this time both to be the Challenger and the appointer of your owne weapons Now let all men judge whether there can bee a more plaine expression without fast and loose without tergiversation without inconstancie when as the most learned Answerer adhereth with the auncient Fathers to the true and absolute rule the sacred Scriptures and yet to satisfie the Iesuite is willing to try our faith according to the rule proposed by the Iesuit himselfe not that our doctrine had no other foundation or testimony besides the Fathers but that the Iesuites vaine pretences of Antiquitie might be detected and made knowne and that the world might see that their Doctrine and Church is not to bee justified by the testimonies of either God or man unlesse it bee that Man of sinne who in this cause would bee both party and Iudge and in matters which hee calleth faith would have his determinations to be received without dispute The Iesuite proceeds Although we have already shewen how little right you have to stand uppon in this case yet such thankes as this your courtesie doth deserve wee willingly returne g Reply pag. 48 Palmarium Facinus What have you shewen but your shame You have declared your distast of Scriptures and if the Fathers would performe the worke you expect from them why doe you muster in their ranke such hired Souldiers Epistles Canons Bookes swolne with forged titles corrupted depraved that they might deceive but that gladiatorio animo although neither God nor good men will plead for you yet you will not leave to plead for your selves Wee have heard you say ere while saith the Iesuite that we have had opportunitie enough of time and place to falsifie the Fathers writings and to teach them the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans and that we have performed it so well by clipping washing cankering c. that thereby their complexions being altered they appeare not to be the same men they were h Reply pag. 48 And where I pray you doth the most learned Answerer unsay it O but if this be true saith the Iesuite how can the goodnes of your cause be proved by them if not true what satisfaction can you make us for your uncharitable slaunders If the Fathers bee corrupted how dare you enter into this Field if not corrupted why did you charge us wrongfullie i Reply ibid. If the most learned Answerer had not detected your frauds you had never beene charged by him with those crimes If your clipping washing cankering had not beene espied or if he had bene so credulous as to have beleived all your impostors that you can stile Fathers of Councells then might you justly have demaunded How could the goodnes of his cause bee proved by them But whenas you dare not trust God in his owne meaning nor the true ancient Fathers or lawfull decrees of Councels without the assistance of your bastard authors to helpe in time of necessity this gives him ground sufficient to justifie our cause that hath no need of such treacheries and to detect yours even they being Iudges whom you appeale unto For in the point to bee handled afterwards whether Peters Primacie did descend to all succeeding Bishops of Rome what testimony bringeth the Iesuit but Arabick canons of the Nicene Councell proved to be according to the title by an experiment from the mountaines of S. Thomas 1605 k Reply pag. â—6 and confirmed by an epistle of Athanasius to Pope Marke l Reply pag. â—7 Here is one Counterfeit brought to justifie another and all for the counterfeite authoritie of the Roman Bishop This your corrupting of antiquitie would have hindred us if the same had not beene detected but this most reverend Lord can discerne betwixt the right hand and the left and point you out those witnesses that you onely dare commit your selves unto The Councell of Nice was corrupted by the Pope for to magnifie his Chaire and sea and to make the African Fathers beleive that he had that by positive law which now they challenge by divine right but did these Fathers trust the corrupters No they sent for the true coppie and then left the pretenders May not this be done in the like manner by the most learned Answerer True it is that Gibeonites with their pretences of antiquitie and outward mustines may sometime deceive a Ioshua yet we doubt not but time and experience may reveale the fraud Iacob was deceived by Laban but it was in the night Day declared who deceived him Whilst the world was no further learned then the Pope infallible what excellent testimonies were there for the Papall triple but when the Sunne the
as cheife in the calling of all Nations g Reply pag â—5 c. And we tell him that Pope Leo did speake more for Peter to advance himselfe then it is probable he would otherwise have done if his Chayre had not met with some opposition in those times for Leo maketh Christ Marke the tenth to reprehend the desire of that power which in the Iesuites quotation he seemeth to give to S. Peter h Leo Epist 55. ad Pulcher. Augustam de ambitu Anatolij Et ille vere crit magnus qui fucrit totius ambitionis alicâ—â—â— dicente Domino Quicunque voluerit inter vos major sicri sit vester minister Et quicunque voluerit inter vos primus esse erit vester servus Sicut filius hominis non venit ministrari sed ministrare although Maldonate the Iesuite would not have the words of the Evangelist so to be understood i Maldonat com in Marc. 9. 35. Non hic agi de prjma in gubernanda Ecclesia dignitate etsi co etiam sensuhunc locum alicubi apud Leonem magnum legi memini We have seene then saith the Iesuite how undoubtedly the auncient Fathers maintained S. Peters primacie as well ever all the Church of Christ as over the rest of the Apostles also k Reply pag. 55 But any may perceive with how false eyes his owne witnesses but little favouring his cause as we shall further shew hereafter So that any may conceive how poorely he hath layed the foundation of the Roman Catholicke Church vizt Peter his Monarchichall power over the Apostles Neither saith he will it be hard to shew the like uniforme consent of antiquitie in attestation of that other point denyed also by our Answerer in the Star-chamber concerning the same headship and Primacie which the Bishops of Rome doe inherite by lawfull succession l Reply pag. 55 And to manifest this he beginnes his entrance with a repetition of what hath beene said and answered before and then fixeth first of all upon the strong pillar of Popish height the Arabicke Canons of the Nicene Councell from whom hee doubteth not to bring us most plaine testimony in this point m Reply pag. 56 and who beleiveth him not for if these Canons speake not plainely for the purpose whereunto they were framed what device can helpe them But the Iesuite knowing his coyne counterfeit tels us that the Answerer doth soone rid himselfe of this and the like decrees of that holy Synode by averring them to be forged by certaine well-willers of the Roman Church in the name of the good Fathers that never dreamed saith he of such a busines n Reply ibid. And is not this a truth that the Iesuite cannot resist though he playes the Baby in telling us that if you desire to heare him prove this his saying you must have 〈◊〉 â—â— other proofe you are like to get none of him besides his owne rash affirmation o Reply ibid. For the matter is so cleare from all antiquity that there were but twenty Canons in the Nicent Councell all which we have that it were but the mis-spending of time to prove that which all acknowledge q See them repeated in the sixt Councell of Carthage apud 〈◊〉 um Besides could the famous lights of the world at that time be ignorant of these Canons as S. Augustine r Concil Carthag 6. c. 7. Augustinus Ecclesiae Hiâ—ponis Regiensis Legatus Provinciae Numidiae with 〈◊〉 and more 〈◊〉 Bishops Å¿ Epistola Aphricani Concil ad Bonifacium Papam 1. Aurelius caeteri qui praesentes affuimus numero ducenti decem septem ex omni Concilio Aphricae Were they so little esteemed that they were clofetted at Rome or so unknowne in the East that the Patriarches of Constantinople and Alexandria could make no returne of them t Epistola Concil Aphric ad Coelestinum Quia illud quod pridem per cundem co episcopum nostrum Faustinum tanquam ex parte Nicaeni Concilij exinde transmiâ—â—â—â—is in Concilijs verioribus quae accipiuntur Ni aena à sancto Cyrillo coepiscopo nostro â—◠〈◊〉 Ecclesiae à venerabili Artico Constantino 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ac auther 〈◊〉 missis tale aliquid non poâ—uimus repeâ—â—e though the one sent them intirely as they were decreâ—d by the Fathers at Nice u Epistola Attici Episcopi Constantinopolitani ad Concilium Africanum Sicut staâ—â—ta suntin Nicaea civitam à Pauibus canoâ—â—â— in integro ut jussisus direx and the other â—â—nsm faithfull exemplars from the authenticke Coppie x escripta ad Conc. Aphrican Cyrilli Alexandrini Episcopi Necesse habus 〈◊〉 exemplaria ex authentica Synodo in Nâ—â—â—â— Bythiniae habito vestrae charitati dirigere quae in Ecclesiastica historia requirentes 〈◊〉 But if there were nothing else to disgrace them the Iesuite his endeavours to justifie them from farre-fetched and counterfeit grounds were alone sufficient to render them suspected of themselves For doe you thinke that a â—â—e from the 〈◊〉 of S. Thomas sent from some sleight Mercenarie of the Pope to his mancipated servants the Iesuites in a matter that concernes the Popes greatnes so neerely is to be received as an infallible Argument Neither if this Papall altitude could stand upon true grounds would it need â—uch counterfeit supporters as these two Epistles cited by the Iesuit in regard they declare theÌ„selves counterfeite and are acknowledged for no better by their owne For if this Epistle were written to Pope Marke after the Arians burnt their bookes at Alexandria surely it must be many yeares after Pope Marke was dead their burning being in the raigne of Constantius y Athanasius Epistol ad orthodoxos in persecut when â—â— Pope Marke died in the time of Constantines government z Hieron in Chron. Further how could this Epistle lye hid when the controversie was betwixt the African Church and the Roman Bishops Besides could Marke send to Athanasius in Egypt when it is apparant by Baronius that he was â—â— Exul in France a Baron â—om 3 ad anâ—um 336 â— 39 Exul ho 〈◊〉 agebat â—â— Galliâ—â— Could the Roman Coppie and that of Alexandria so farre differ as wee see they did if the Pope had sent a true Exemplar ex Romano scrinie And not to presse the Reader any further What trifling follies doe they impute to the Niceâ—â— Fathers as to publish these Canons halfe Latinâ— halfe Greeke perswading that fourtie were made by the Greeke Fathers fourtie by the Latine and to insert tenne Cannons amongst the rest in relation to the seaventie languages which they conceived to bee in the whole world or the seventie disciples and all this by the assistance of the Spirit of God b Epistola Athanasij Aegiptiorum Episcoporum ad Marcum Papam Saâ—e praesentibus nobis octoginta capitula in memorata tractaâ—â— sunt Synodo scilicet quadraginta à Latinis similiter Latinis