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
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
acknowledgeth it no better to afford the people free libertie to reade the scriptures then to cast Pearles before swyne Å¿ Reply pag. 27. which he hath received from Hosius t De expresso Dei verbo Sed sic visum est haeresiarchae nostri temporis qui primus dare sanctum canibus ante porcos ausus est projicere margaritas And it is no marvaile that they so much desire to inclose these commons of Gods people in regard they find not any to bee made Papists by the Catholicke Doctrine contained in them For experience it selfe hath taught them what fruite the reading of these divine mysteries in a vulgar tongue hath brought forth u Hosius de sa vern leg Experientiâ magistrâ didicimus quid fructus ea res attulerit Tantum abest ut accesserit ad pietatem aliquid plus ut etiam diminutum esse videatur The People saith Bellarmine take no profit out of the Scriptures but hurt x Bellarm. De verbo Dei lib. 2 cap. 15. Populus non solum non caperet fructum ex scripturis sed â—tiam caperet detrimentum Experimento idem comprobatur And the Iesuite telleth us a whole legend of tales to confirme this Doctrine y Reply pag. 27. So that it is most apparant by what hath beene already said that the auncient Church not onely permitted all Christians without exception or dispensation to heare and read the sacred Scriptures but also earnestly exhorted them to the practise of those holy duties and that the present Roman exhorteth none permitteth very few to be acquainted with those heavenly Oracles And shall weâ— then deny that Papists have remooved the bounds set by the auncient Fathers and fedde the people with huskes of superstition whom they ought to have nourished with the sincere milke of the word of life unlesse we can point them out the Pope that first attempted to bereave Gods people of so great a blessing But the Iesuite hath an other frame for his defence That scripture which those of the auncient Church had free libertie as he saith to reade was onely such as was approved to bee true and lawfull by the same Church the reading whereof amongst us at this day is as free as ever it was amongst our forefathers z Reply pag. 25. How tenderly doth the Iesuite tread here if this Ice breake sure he will be swallowed up He dare not graunt that the auncient Church gave free libertie to reade the scriptures and therefore pointeth it out as the most learned Answerers assertion as hee saith neither dare he confesse the truth concerning themselves that they deny them to the people as hath beene fully proved yet declaimeth of the desperate effects that are produced by the reading of them neverthelesse would perswade us to beleive 1. that they vary not from their forefathers 2ly that their adversaries have removed those bounds which were set by the Fathers in this point leading yea and driving Christ his flocke out of the wholesome pastures wherein formerly they were fed unto Salvation into the marish weedy and poysoned grounds of their new fangled vulgar Bibles a Reply ibid. For the first of which I willingly assent thereunto if by forefathers he understand those wise grave learned fathers which in watching the Church lost Religion learning languages and suffered Barbarisme and superstition to invade the same But if he meane those auncient lights the vigilant Bishops and Preists of the first and best times as wee take them to be none of your fathers so is it made good that you altogether in this practise vary from them it being most evident that the prime fathers for the edifying of Christs Church exhorted the people to the reading of the scriptures when your forefathers Mr Malone for the advancement of their Templum Domini in which is adored your Lord God the Pope were forced blasphemoâ—sly to inhibite the same b See this proved before in this Section For the second he will never prove it although hee attempt to performe the same by a two fold argument 1. Because our vulgar Bibles are not approved for holy Scriptures by the Church of God c Reply pag. 26 Whereunto I answere first that any mâ—y perceive the Iesuite cannot deny those bookes which we offer to the Church to be divine and revealed from God although â—e dreamâ—th that they have lost their nature by their translation Secondâ—y hee doth calumâ—iate us for the oâ—iginalâ— Canon oâ—t of which wee translate is allowed by the catholicke Church which they cannot say for theirs and the translation by a renowned member thereof which is sufficient for the approbation of the same Yet it may be he would have ours to bee allowed as their vulgar Latine hath lately been by canon in the Roman Church as if the Spirit of God remained at Eckron no word of God were to be found in Israel * 1. Kings 1. 2 3 But we know if it were in their power to approve or disprove it Gregory Sixtus d Consilium Episcopi Bononiae congregat de sâ—abiliend Rom. eccl Consilium nostrum esset ut tua Sanetitas Cardinalibus illis at que Episcopis quos in suis residere eclesijâ— contigerit praeciperet ut Decretales Sextum Clementinas Extravagantes regulas Cancellariae in 〈◊〉 quisque civitate legi ac doceri publicè curet Vtinam legendis hujusmodi libris homines ubique diligentisù incubuissent Neque enim res nostrae in hujusmodi deploratissimum statum ad ductae essent should bee the Canon which should governe the Church the Scriptures should not onely bee cast out but Gratian e Ibid. Ac non item Decreâ—i quod minimè mirum videri debet Est enim perniciosus liber author tatem tuam valde vehementer imminuit licet alicui extollere videatur Nam inter alia negat multis in loâ—â—s posse Papam vel tantillum ad eam Doctrinam adjungere quam nobis Christus ipse tradidit Apostoli docuêre also as too opposite to their intents The titles which they have given to Gods divine Oracles will declare how great affection they beare to the approvlng of them Besides if no translation be the word of God before the Roman synagogue hath approoved it I would know whether Sixtus or Clemens his edition be the word of God As for their vulgar edition by this rule it was no Scripture before the Trent assembly and the Rhemish Translation no Scripture to this houre His second Argument is that as it is not confirmed by Rome so it is disproved by Protestant Doctours themselves f Reply pag. 26. But herein two things are fit to be observed First that the Churches under the government of our sacred Prince did never propose any translation absolutely as without all kind of errour they being the workes of industrious and painfull and yet but men but as a faire helpe and means to
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—
〈◊〉 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
must be the measure and square of our faith Further you shall see he is taken in the traine whereby he thought to intrappe for in answering S. Augustine alleadged by the most learned Answerer he telleth us that the pretence of Scripture onely in such a matter of fact as this is 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 â—â—â—iâ—king from the question in hand r Reply pag. â—â— Indeed if the question in â—â—â—d were whether the Fathers of the primitive Church held these points or not then who would deny but it were a sâ—â—inking from the question in hand to fly to the scriptures But if the controâ—ersie heere bee concerning the rule whether the Iesuit hath rightly framed an invention to finde out true religion by then the producing of the true rule the sacred scriptures that a defective one framed by the Iesuit may be deâ—ected is neither from the matter or question in hand And if the points proposed by the Iesuite bee points of Doctrine as I doubt not but hee would have them yea doctrines of Faith and fundamentall also why should not hee try them by the Scriptures in regard hee confesseth that S. Augustine omitting the Fathers provoked the Donatists and Pelagians to the try all of Scripture for as much as he then disputed of a point of Doctrine onely Å¿ 〈…〉 29 But saith our Iesuite if it be demaunded to what pâ—â—pose then doth he fill up whole volumes with the Fathers saying if nothing but onely Scripture may suffice he answereth that he doth it to the end we should not thinks he is any whiâ—â— afraid of all whatsoeuer we can produce against him out of the Fathers and no wonder he should be so confident heerâ—â—â— when as he layeth this ground for himselfe No Father but God doe wee know upon whose bare credite wee may ground our consciences in things that are to bee beleived Reply pag. â—0 c. If the Reader please to consider he shall finde the most reverend Primate in answering the Iesuites demand to detect 2 things first the vanity of his invention in assigning a rule that God never instituted to find out points of true Religion by Secondly his foolish considence in that rule that layeth them open to heresie and shame Now by this they may know to what purpose the most learned Answâ—rer doth fill up whole volumes with the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with that sword which they 〈◊〉 to be their 〈◊〉 to wit the anncient Fathers 〈◊〉 might 〈…〉 those rayling Heresies that revile the 〈◊〉 of the â—â—â—â—ving God For although your rule be not 〈◊〉 of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherupon to ground our 〈…〉 of 〈◊〉 yet it wil be 〈◊〉 to shew that you are but 〈…〉 traditions reall 〈◊〉 prayer 〈◊〉 ◠〈◊〉 â—â—â—roso◠〈◊〉 heâ— 4. Ne mihi ca â—â—bi proferenâ—â— SIMPLICITER sidem adhibeâ—â— nisi de diviâ—â—â— Scripturis eorum quae â—â—cam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yoâ—â— Roman â—â—nce to be allowed by the 〈◊〉 Fathers And the most learned Answerer will never oppose the generall 〈◊〉 of the anncient Fathers in points of Faith which they have generally received out of the word of God but the Iesuite may consider that this is not to depend upon any authority without Scripture The Iesuite further revileth us for leaving the Fathers and cleaving to God although we most firmely adhere to them where they joyne in a generall consent with the saâ—red Scripture which is as much as the Fathers â— professe to do telling us that in appealing to scripture the most learned Answerer disagreeth with those of his own profession c. And to manifest this he bâ—â—geth in as he 〈◊〉 him Dr Hooker saying Of all things necessary the vâ—ry 〈◊〉 iâ— â—â— know what 〈◊〉 we 〈…〉 holy which 〈…〉 the Scripture i◠〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if any 〈◊〉 of Scripture did give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet still that Scripture which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the rest could require another Scripture to give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto it neither would we â—ver 〈◊〉 to any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our â—ssurance this may 〈◊〉 that unlesse 〈…〉 somthing which 〈…〉 we could not 〈◊〉 we do 〈◊〉 〈…〉 Scripture iâ— a 〈◊〉 and holy rule of 〈◊〉 This place of the learned Hooker presupposeth but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that historicall and what 〈◊〉 this against the 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉 of the Church or being a 〈◊〉 Umpier and sufficien◠〈◊〉 to square our â—aith and actions by For who knowes not that the Heavens cover all things and yet cover not themselves and what may hinder the Scriptures in like 〈◊〉 to teach all 〈◊〉 doctrines of faith and manners and yet not to point out themselves S. Augustines words are in every Papists mouth viz. that he would not beleâ—ve the scriptures unlesse the authority of the catholicke Church had moved him thereunto and yet he 〈◊〉 all things 〈◊〉 â—aith and 〈◊〉 to be 〈…〉 in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this necessary point of â—aith is a 〈◊〉 o◠〈…〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly the Iesuite abuseth his 〈◊〉 for the Churches testimony harely and alone begotteth but opinion in Hookers judgementâ— For saith â—o the more we bâ—stow 〈…〉 reading and learning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the more we 〈…〉 thing it 〈◊〉 â—â—th answere 〈◊〉 received 〈…〉 that the 〈…〉 with â—â— before 〈◊〉 â—â—w much more 〈◊〉 when the very thing 〈◊〉 ministred further 〈◊〉 And therefore Hookers words make â—â—thing against the 〈…〉 for 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 of Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 the way by 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which convinceth to beleive the scriptures to be the word of â— Lib. ◠〈◊〉 â— God 〈…〉 And thus Gods 〈…〉 give witnesse to his word doth not take 〈…〉 sâ—â—â—â—ciency to declare whose words they are and from what 〈◊〉 they 〈◊〉 any more then it doth the suffiâ—â—â—â—cy of their rule which consisteth of scripture and tradition also Whereby the 〈◊〉 may see he hath produced this worthy Author to no advantage â—â— being plaine that although there be something else to preparâ— the way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sid form dispâ— 3. sect 12. n. â—â—â— Admitti potest ex humâ—na authoritate geâ—â—rari quandam fidem humanam praeviaâ—â— ad fidem 〈◊〉 non â—â—â—quam 〈…〉 vel rationem 〈◊〉 ejus 〈◊〉 tanquam â—â—â—ditionem applicatiâ—â—â—â— objecâ—â—â— yet the minde is altogether 〈◊〉 by the â—â—ght oâ— the scriptures themselves the Church pointing 〈◊〉 ouâ— and they themselves 〈◊〉 the Churches 〈◊〉 So that the scriptures remaine the onely 〈◊〉 upon which a man 〈◊〉 his faith for any thing the Iesuite hath pickâ—â— out of this learned Divine â— D. Field 〈◊〉 his Appendiâ— to the booke of the 〈◊〉 par 2. §. ◠〈…〉 will 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â— any way 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where 〈…〉 I have in my Epistle 〈◊〉 That all mâ—◠〈◊〉 carefully 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the true 〈◊〉 that so they may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follow her directions and rest in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chargeth â—â— that â—â— my fourth 〈◊〉 following I 〈◊〉 her of almost all such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aâ— I 〈◊〉
a manifest contradiction in his words against himselfe for above he more then once saith the Iesuite 〈◊〉 our opinions prophane novelties and hereticall novelties If Novelties how are they now become Heresies farre spred and of so long continuance that we are bold to make duration the marke of our Church c Reply ibid. The Iesuite imagineth here Contradiction and why because â—â— opinion of long continuance cannot be stiled a Noveltie So that if we can manifest that a Noveltie may bee of long continuance our Iesuite is deceived in his slippery hopes And what will he make novum in Religion but that which is not antiquissimum Our Saviour when hee would declare Pharisaicall traditions to be Novelties did not respect their long continuance in the corrupt estate of the Church but saith ab initia non fuit sic * Mat. 19â—8 that they were not from the beginning delivered by God or practised by the Church So that if the duration and antiquitie of your opinions be but humane that is not Apostolicall neither from Apostolicall grounds It â—â—inke and justly that they may be esteemed new and novelties d Terrullianâ— de praescripâ— panlo ante medium Si haec iâ—â— sint constat proâ—â— de omnem doctrinam quâ— cum illis Ecclesijs Apostolicis matricibus originalibus sidei conspiret veritati deputandam id sinc dubio tenantum quod Ecclesiae ab Apostoli Apostoâ—â— Ã Christo Christus à Dâ—â— suscepit reljquam vero omnem doctrinam de mendacio praejudicandam quae sapiaâ— contra veritatem Ecclesiarum Apostolorum Christi Dei. for a point is 〈◊〉 in religion that did not proceed from God and his blessed Spirit either in terminis or by deduction from his word that is the Ancient of dayes whatsoever pretences of duâ—â—tion and continuance may be supposed 〈◊〉 was never generally received by the Roman faction themselves before the Councell of Lateran â—corus in 4. d. 11. q. 3. apud Bellarm. de Euchil 3. c. 23. ditis ante Lateranense concilium non fuisse Dogma fidei transubstantiationem â— Rhem. An not upon the 1. of Tim. 6. â—â— and yet wee are condemned for calling this a Noveltie whereas it crept in many hundred yeares after those words which they themselves account Novelties both in the Arrians which had their Similis substantiâ— and Christ to bee ex non existentibus and also other Hereticks that had their Christiparam and such like â— new coyned tearmes agreable to their sects Wherefore it is not enough to free your doctrines from being Novelties because they are of long continuance seeing the words of ancient hereticks being of more long continuance and auncienter in birth even many hundred yeares before them might better claime that priviledge and are neverthelesse stiled Novelties by your selves And as the Rhemists acknowledg of words so we say concerning points of doctrine that wee are to esteeme their newnes or oldnes by the agreeablenes or disagreeablenes they have to the true sence of Scriptures the forme of catholick faith and doctrine â—hem ibid. c. and not because it is long since they had their birth in the world So that you see Novelties are new doctrines which are neither delivered in Scriptures openly and in expressetermes or lye couchant in the same but had their births in aftertimes being framed by the phantasticke illusions of Sathan the producer of falshoods and heresies which is conformable to the Apostles doctrine for what 1. Tim. 6. 20. he tearmeth prophane novelties Gal. 1. 8. he expresseth to be new doctrine 〈◊〉 ibid. which is not the same but besides as the Rhemists â— or against that which the Apostle did deliver to the Church And therefore our Iesuite and his contradiction contradict his imagined Vanity and not prove or confirme the same For his other Collectaneas that if they be prophant Novelties then by the Rule of Lyrinensis they ought to bee impugned by producing and confirring the agreeing sentences of auncient Doctours Secondly that the consent of auncient Father is called the rule of the auncient Faith by Lirinensis in the place alledged k Reply pag. 36 1. Wee have shewed before l See before Sect. 5. prope finem that we dissent not from Lyrinensis being rightly understood For all kind of heresies are prophane Novelties howsoever they differ in extent or age Yet all kind of Heresies are not to be impugned though prophane Novelties after this manner in Vincentius Lirinensis his judgement Besides Lirinensis maketh not the Fathers rules absolutely but because they assisted at that time the Scriptures to rule unruly hereticks that would wrest the same so that when the Fathers cannot do the worke for which they were used that is stop the Hereticks mouthes because that having corrupted antiquity they will also pretend it then he thinketh such heresies though prophane Novelties are not to be dealt withall this way And for his second observation although the Iesuit collecteth untruly yet who will deny consent of Fathers to be the rule of faith according to that Fathers meaning For in the immediate quotation following out of the same Father we finde that it hath beene the custome of Catholicks to try their faith two manner of wayes FIRST by the authoritie of the Divine Canon next by the tradition of the Catholicke Church m Vineâ—â— Lirinens adv Profanas Novationes Primò scilicet divine legis auctoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione not for that the Scripture is not sufficient in it selfe but because very many interpreting the divine word at their pleasures do conceive varying opinions and errours n Ibid Hic forsitan requirat aliquis cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat quid opus est ut eiecclesiasticae intelligentiae iungatur autoritas Quia videlicet Scripturam sacraâ—â— pro ibsa sui altitudine non uno codemque sensu universi accipiunt quod â—â— Confideratio temporis 〈◊〉 Now in these words who doth not see that Lyrinesis doth make consent of Fathers not to be an absolute or sufficient rule of Faith as he doth the Scriptures but a directive rule to the right understanding of the absolute and sufficient rule of faith which is the holy Scriptures Neither can we otherwise confecture but that Lirinensis giveth this directive Rule for his owne time Ibid. Ad and not to all succeeding ages for by many particulars it is apparant that the foundation and ground of his whole discourse received being from those wise experiences which the present age hee lived in and precedent had afforded him Besides wee have many Mathematicall instruments which are rules in their kinde as the Globe Quadrant c and there are many bookes written to assist us in their use now I hope you will not say the rule to use the instrument is the absolute rule it selfe to draw a Conclusion in the Mathematickes And why likewise may not the Fathers that assist and direct in understanding of the Scriptures be
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
delivered to the Saints * Iude v. 3. 4. neither the instrument Gods Booke †Luke 1. 4. written for this purpose and continued for this end that it might be a memoriall of Gods truth for the time to come for ever and ever * Esai 3â— â— Doe you thinke that if all or any of this had made for him or given advantage to his cause the Iesuite would have closed his eyes I cannot beleive that it was courtesie which made him for beare but the brightnesse of the testimony which this 〈◊〉 his tender eyes durst not behold whereby you may take notice of the Iesuits practise in leaving convincing grounds untouched that he might the better and with the lesse reproofe stile that a vaine betaking to the Scriptures which truely is done in imitation of Christ and by Apostolicall direction And furthermore who amongst his owne will not be ashamed of his wry mouth and cloven tongue that dare stile that a conveighance which this most reverend Father urgeth from antiquity citing Tertullians wordes Is this the honourer of the auncient Church that accounteth the iudgement of the fathers as the assured touchstone to try all controversies betwixt us i In his Epistle to the King Here wee see what esteeme they may expect at his handes if they crosse his way for though he forbeare to question Tertullian whom he cannot answere yet you may perceive his direction followed by the most learned Answerer is persecuted by this Mountebanke with a base invective But although the Iesuite dare not absolutely submit his cause unto this tryall yet for the present he will accept his motion upon condition that if the Answerer come short of proving this way that a change hath beene made that saying of Tertullian shall point at him and his doctrine and all the rest which he casteth at us shall fall upon his owne head k Reply pag 20 I understand not this condition nor I thinke he himselfe but if the Iesuite convict us by Tertullian his rule we are content that he shall triumph and be acknowledged a Victor The first instance then produced by the most reverend Primate is this In the Apostles dayes when a man had examined himselfe he was admitted unto the Lords table there to eate of that bread and drinke of that cuppe as appeareth plainely 1. Cor. 11. 28. In the Church of Rome at this day the people are indeed permitted to eate of the bread if bread they may call it but not allowed to drinke of the cuppe Must all of us now sâ—â—t our eyes and siâ—â— * As it was in the beginning so now Sicâ—â— erat in principio nunc unlesse we be able to tell by whom and when this first institution was altered l See the most reuerend the Lord Primate his answere to the Iesuites challenge And the Iesuite would perswade that this is a weake argument by his crosse pleading of foure things practised by us 1. In the Apostles dayes the faithfull received the sacrament after meate in the euening * 1. Cor. 11. â—1 in the Protestants Church at this day it is commonly received fasting and in the morning therefore it is not with them sicut erat in principiâ— nunc 2. In the Apostles dayes the sick were annointed * Marke 6. 3. Ia. 5. 14. with oyle and a commandement given so to doe the Protestants practise no such thing therefore c. 3. In the Apostles dayes the faithfull were commanded to obstaine from eating of bloud * Act. 15. and strangled meates Among the Protestants there is no such abstinâ—nce observed Therefore c. 4. Christ when hee ministred the sacrament said * Mat. 26 6. Take eate this is my Body the Protestants now adayes say not so but take â—ate this in remembrance c. And from this he concludes that it is not with the Protestants sicut erat in principio m Reply pag. 20 c. Heere any man may see that this Iesuite dare not stand to his accepted motion to bee tryed by Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles the sacred Scriptures and therefore hee laboureth to weaken the strength thereof but let him mantle himselfe in his pretences never so much this is sufficient to declare that a change hath beene made which is all that the most learned Answerer desireth to conclude So that if wee can declare that Papists not Protestants in their changes made have fallen from the puritie of Doctrine and practise of primitive times the Iesuite will rest like a Franciscan Novice demure and tongue-tyed for ever For the three first instances wee confesse that a change hath beene made and that heerein wee have followed the practise of those that brought them in But for the fourth hee deales like a shuffler and would seeme to insinuate that we have dealt with those words * This is my Body Hoc est corpus 〈◊〉 as they haue done with some of the Commandements either cast them out or put something in the place thereof as their owne 〈◊〉 and Ribadâ—nâ—yra n The second they have left out and â—ut in stead of the fourth Commandement Remember to sanctifie the holy Dayes have done Wheâ—â—â— our Church teacheth Children before Confirmation that the Body and Bloud of Christ which is the inward part or thing signified of the sacrament are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithfull in the Lords Supper o See the Catâ—chisme in our Common Prayer Booke and in the celebration of the Communion the whole institution is repeated in these words expressely Take â—ate this is my Body which is given for you p See there the Order for the Administration of the Communion So that this is but an imaginary change pretended having no truth in it at all For the Changes confessed they are not but in things indifferent and ceremonies which no Papist dare deny but the Church of God had and hath power to alter CHRIST as in the Sacrament prescribing the substance leaving the Ceremonie to the ordering of the Church r Augustin epistol 118. Salvator non praecepit quo deinceps ordine sumeretuâ— ut Apostolis per quos dispositurus erat Ecclesiam servaret hunc loâ—â—m Nam si hoc ille monuisset ut post cibos alios semper acciperetur credo quòd cum morem nemo variâsset as is apparant in those wordes This doe not thus in 〈◊〉 of â—ee Luke 22. 19. This Answere the Iesuite knew would put a period to his vaine flourish and therefore by repeating it hee thinkes to avoyde the same as if the rule by Scriptures were of no force if this answere were permitted for saith hee What force leaveth he to his owne argument made against us in a matter of the like indifferency Å¿ Reply pag. 20. If the Iesuite could prove it so it were something to the purpose but lame Ignatius heere leaves his armes and fals to
that first spoyled Gods people of this heavenly treasure yet it is most certaine that they are defrauded of their right which undenyablie demonstrates the Iesuites demaund to be frivolous and vaine that concludeth the Church of Rome doth remaine pure and undefiled still unlesse we can point out a Pope that brought in every corruption wherewith she is tainted Neither will it serve the Iesuites turne to exclaime against our translations for although wee should confesse that some of ours have as many faults as we know to be in the vulgar Latine or they charge the Originalls withall that some expresse it with more impatiencie then Clemens did the omissions of Sixtus t Praefatio ad Lectorem ult citat Non pauca in sacra Biblia praeli vitio irrepsisse quae iteratâ diligentiâ indigere viderentur yet this is not sufficient to to make our translations no Scriptures to excommunicate them out of the Church or to deprive the people of the true use thereof For is any ignorant that vulgar translations in primitive times were in many particulars faultie and more grosse then any translation which is allowed to bee read in the Church of Ireland u Ibid. S Hieronymus tempore suo accidisse testatus est tot scilicet fuisse exemplaria quotcodices cùm unusquisque pro arbitrio suo addeâ—et vel detraheret Did not Lucian and Hesychius at severall tymes correct the Septuagint x Hieron in libr. Paralip praefat Alexandria Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesyâ—â—ium laudat autorem Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat mediae inter has Provinciae Palaestinos codiceâ— legunt quoâ— ab Origine elaboratos Eusâ—bius Pamphilus vulgaverunt totusque Orbis hâc inter se triphariâ varietate compugnat Were all the translations out of Greeke into Latine without faults as they were without number y Augustin de Doctr. chr lib. 2. cap. 11. Qui enim Scripturas ex Hebraea lingua in Graecam verterunt linguam numerari possunt Latini autem interpretes nullo modo The vulgar Latine now in force by decree in the Church of Rome abounded with errors or els your Popes were full of impiety that kept all the learned traine of the Roman Church 22. yeares in worke to correct is before it could bee fitted for an impression then let it passe not without downright errors as by Clements altering adding detracting contradicting of it in thousands of places in his after-edition is most apparant and hath beene formerly declared z Vid. lit â— â— Further whereas the Iesuite urgeth St Hierome that the Gospell of Christ by pâ—rverse interpretation is made the Gospell of man or which is worse the Gospell of the Divell a Reply pag. 26. Our Iesuite hath forgot himselfe for what hath interpretation to doe with our translation we confesse Arius and Pelagius used the Scripture in this manner that your great Roman Interpreter hath so behaved himselfe that he needeth not to give place to any precedent Hereticks b See the right reverend and most learned the Lord Bishop of Kilmore his Epistle to M â— Wadsworth chap. 3. pag. 62. 63. ad pag. 69 But for which of our good workes would hee stone us Now you may see how great cause our Iesuite hath to complement it Hath not then our holy mother the Catholick Church good reason to barre her children from reading of such dangerous bookes as lead their Readers head long into perdition and doth shee not hâ—reby regard that Christian reverence and respect which is due unto the Majesty of Gods sacred Word more by keeping it from defiled hands then our Adversaries doe by casting that pricclesse pearle before such wyne c c Reply pag. 27. Here our Iesuite is out of his coule like a Fencer in his flourish For they are not corrupt translations which his faction detesteth for none are more corrupt â—â—e hath â—â— authentick but vulgar and even now our vulâ—mple h 〈…〉 were but poisoned grounds new faâ—gled d deservâ—â—d train 〈…〉 Reply pag. 26 name of holy Scripture yet here they shall haveger 〈◊〉 of pricelesse pearles which as the Iesuite saith â—n his â—â— before sâ—ynâ— Surely if our translation be no Scripâ—â—es where is the breach of reverence of Christian respect where is the Majestie of the sacred word prophaned if ours be the true word of God Let the Iesuite returne to his vomite which he hath disgorged against God and his Oracles I would know whether it is more honour to Gods Booke to bee reserved in close Libraries or in the hearts or hands of his Saints Whom he meaneth by Swyne every one may perceive even those that Christ prized at the high rate of his precious bloud the laytie and all others to whom this libertie by the Adversaries is denyed But our Iesuite must learne that the word of God is of that efficacie that it can make cleane wallowing swyne and those which are now dogges and without it will force to cast up their vomite and in time it will purge and consume Antichrist and that foule fabrick of iniquity your Aâ—gean Roman stable And further our Iesuite deales like the Iewes with the Inhabitants of the towre of Syloam * Luke 13. 4. pâ—â—ving quidlibet de quolibet particular doctrines by desperate events First he telleth us that since the most learned Answerer printed his booke there fell out an example among our selves which might sufficiently condemne this their perniâ—ious licensing of every giddie braine to reade their Bibles But I pray you what example is this why of one Gray who not long agâ—â— â—â—ving inhumanely murthered his owne sonne excused his bloody fact by the example of Abram whom God commanded to sacrifice his sonne Isaac c Reply pag. 27 Who will excuse the bloody fact of that distracted wretch But yet who can collect any such thing from the Iesuites fond premisses as he laboureth to conclude Nabal was his name and folly was with him ever◠〈◊〉 knoweth that it was coÌ„ceived discontent which 〈…〉 his soule in that speculative desperatnes that 〈…〉 Divels suggestion not the scriptures which 〈…〉 to that evill And I pray the Iesuite to tell me the 〈…〉 why amongst them images the Laye-mens bookes 〈…〉 not wrought the same effect seeing by them â—he historieâ— of the Bible are likewise represented Further will the Iesuite argue the Divell hath abused scriptures by suggestion therefore the scriptures should bee taken from the tempted for their ordinary use If this were good Logick the Iesuite might debarre Christ of his scriptum est * Mat. 4. 4. 7. because the Divell cited text Neither can the Iesuite shew such grosse abuses in the interpretation of scriptures by those which have beene indifferently learned as have beene committed by the learned themselves some of them prooving to be the greatest Architects of Villanie It may be the Anthropomorphites did embrace their opinion
〈◊〉 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
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
when with frivolous surmises he seekes to make his Reader beleive that the Monks of Wengart should have thrust somewhat out of Rabanus his penitentiall but such dribling objections are worthy to bee answered with laughter f Reply pag. 4â— What doe we finde heere but a rabble of words that carry no weight at all for they are not frivolous surmises that are used against the Monks of Weingart nor dribling objections that are urged against you Mr Malone First if there be a blanke in Rabanus his penitentiall set forth by Petrus Stuartius as is not denyed if Stuartius received a blanke Manuscript from the Monks of Weingart as is likewise acknowledged If Romanists may purge or blanke manuscripts as Possevine affirmeth g See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Answer to the Iesuites challenge pag. 15. 16. 17. If the words blanked or purged out make against the Popish carnall presence in the Sacrament and for the cause of the Protestants as the Iesuite that can now with the Answerers helpe make up the blanke out of Paschasius well knoweth though hee will not acknowledge so much How can hee with any modestie call it a fâ—â—volous surmise that the Monkes of Weingart did thrust those words out of Rabanus his Penitentiall and that a dribling objection a pettie instance which convinceth the altering of the complexions of the aunciâ—ut by fretting unlesse such rasures are not fretts and washing away the soundest part of their writings For it is well knowne how that blanke which hee observeth in the Penitentiall published by Steuartius is to bee supplyed out of Paschasius Radbertus whose Doctrine as it seemeth was there alledged b Reply pag. 42 I doubt not that it is well knowne how that blanke should be filled up now it is cleared to you by the most learned Answerer yet I suppose you never learned it by your owne paines out of Rabanus his penitentiall The Iesuite tels us if Paschafius were the first bringer in of the Carnal presence as our Answerer doth blindly avouch without doubt his saying could prejudice nothing our cause and consequently it is a foud imagination to thinke that the Monkes of Weingert should have clipped his words for any advantage in thiâ— matter i Reply pag. 43 Who doth thinke Paschasius his assertion could prejudice your cause It is the fretting of Rabanus not Paschasius that the Answerer complaineth of The words that declare Paschasius his Doctrine in his or your owne bookes we give you leave to raze at pleasure but to raze it in Rabanus where it is brought forth to receive a judgment to undergoe a censure this maketh I hope for the advantage of your cause For doth not your blanke and rasure hinder the Reader to see Rabanus in his words following cui errori quantum potuimus c. to condemne the Paschasian and Popish doctrine and there I hope you gained by it unlesse it were no losse for the most famous Doctor of his time the most glorious starre of Germanie k Barâ—n tom 10 a◠§. de Raban Fulgentissimum Germaniae sidus directly to pronounce your Doctrine erroneous But if our Answerer will allow others to build upon surmises but halfe as boldly as he presumeth to doe himselfe and upon grounds farre more likely also then he hath any it may very well be thought that Rabanus Maurus that famous Arch-bishop of Ments whose commentaries for the most part are in the ordinarie glosse upon the Scripture of so great request in the Church of God who also as it is well knowne was never yet â—oted by any writer before Waldensis to have maintained any point contrarie to the Catholicke faith of the then Roman Church l Reply pag. 4â— c. I feare the Iesuites surmises wil be according to the imagination that he hath had of his learned Answerers demonstratives frivolous and vaine But before we examine them observe in these words a false supposition that the Doctrine of the carnall presence was in Rabanus his time the generall received doctrine of the Roman Churcâ— Secondly a most untrue assertion for before the Waldenses William of Malmesbury reproached Rabanus as disputing against the doctrine of the carnall presence m Guil. Malmes in praef Epit Amalarij de divinis officijs ad fraâ— rem Robertum Mâ— in Bâ—bliothe Colleg. Omnium Animarum Oxon. Admonitum te volo ut unum exhis qui de talibus disputaverun fugiendum scias Rabanum nomine qui in libro de officijs Ecclesiasticis dicit Sacramenta Altaris proficere ad saginam corporis ac pro hoc corruptioni vel morbo vel aetati vel secessui vel postremo morti obnoâ—ia quae de Domini corpore dicere credere scribere quanâ—â— sit pâ—riculi vides which in all probabilitie the Iesuite having the learned Answerers booke De christianarum Ecclesiarum successione statu in his hand could not be ignorant of though here he wilfully dissemble the same Now let us see what his câ—ca insomnia his sleeping surmises will prove that are brought in with such untruths First because it is well knowne that Rabanus Maurus wrote one peuitentiall worke before this voide free from all such error therefore it is not likely that he should write another n Reply pag. 43 Here is a wise surmise a convincing reason as if it wereso unusall that men should write twice of the same generall subject especially occasion being offered by the propounding of a new question as it here fell out For this penitentiall was written in answere to certaine particular questions propounded by Bishop Heribaldus as the booke it selfe sheweth whereunto you may adde the expresse testimony of Sigebertus Genblacenâ—s de illustr Eccles scriptor cap. 90. that saith Rabanus did write de quâ—stionibus Canonum ad Heribaldum Episcopum librum unum ad Reginbaldum Coëpiscopum de eadem re librum unum one booke concerning the questions of the Canons to Bishop Heribladus and an other booke concerning the same matter to Regiâ—â—ld his Collegue Secondly many Authors saith the Iesuite as well Catholicks as others doe alledge that booke which Paschasius wrote de Corpore Domini as if it had beene composed by Rabanus whereby they declare that he was held to bee of the same minde with Paschasius in this point of the Eucharist o Reply pag. 43 Heere is a surmise indeed if this may moove a Iesuite surely he will make Hierome a Pelagian in regard many authors alledge the confession of faith and Epistle ad Deâ—etriadem framed by Pelagius as if they had beene composed by Hierome This then is no ground to prove Rabanus to be of the same minde with Paschasius and if without ground any held as the Iesuite perswadeth he may know they held an error induced therunto by the no clean dealing of those that coyned false titles to those bookes Now as if surmises had beene demonstratives our Iesuite telleth us
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
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
Head for that Church obtained this title by reason of the Cittie wherein the principall members of the Church remained and because it was an Apostolicall Church not for that all the other Apostolicall Churches were subordinate unto it in power The second hee urgeth is out of the Eight Epistle of his fourth booke where hee would have Cyprian to stile the Roman Church the roote and the mother of the Cathelicke Church x Reply pag 50 If this be true surely Cyprian had a conceipt that the branch might grow before the roote for who will say that Rome first received the Faith or the name of Christians or that there was no Catholicke Church before Peter preached there But Cyprian meant no such thing as this Iesuite would perswade him to affirme Hee findes a Schisme in Rome betwixt Novatianus and Cornelius Nevatianus being made Bishop the other living suspends his judgment in this matter untill hee had enquired the truth from the Romane Preists and Deacons y Cyprian Epistol 45. Omnia interim integra suspenderentur done end nos iidem collegae nostri rebus illic aut ad pacem aut pro veritate compertis redirent onely hee adviseth them that like good Navigators they should not separate themselves from the unity of the Catholicke Church z Ibid. Nos enim singulis navigantibus ne cum scandalo ullo navigarent rationem red sentes scimus nos hortatos cos esse ut Ecclesiae Catholiâ—â— radicem matricem pag 〈◊〉 at 〈◊〉 which he understandeth by this phrase taking the roote and mother of the Catholicke Church to bee the â—â—nitie of Faith and not as our Iesuâ—â— would collect that thereby is meant the Roman Congregation for wherefore then should he suspend his judgment till he heard the matter if his thoughts had concluded as this Iesuite would have it that Cornelius and his Adherents were the roote and mother of the Catholicke Church And that this is the meaning of S. Cyprian we may easily perceive in regard he taketh these wordes ad Catholicâ— Ecclesiae unitatem to the unity of the Catholicke Church and ad radicis matris sinum to the bosome of their roote and mother in his 42 Epistle to expresse the same thing Besides wee may further observe that the roote and mother of the Catholicke Church is not Cornelius and his Diocess in regard the Iesuite will not have the Pope and his Diocese to be the Catholicke Church a Reply pag. 49. which S. Cyprian Epist 43. makes to bee the Mother ad matrem suam id est Ecclesiam catholicam His third witnesse from Antiquity is Tertullian who even when hee was fallen otherwise â—nto heresi yet did he though he was an Hereticke acknowledge the Bishop of Rome to be Episcopus Episcoperum the Bishop of Bishops b Reply pag. 51. As if this were sufficient to make the Romane Church the head of all other Churches or the Pope the Father of all Bishops Well if it be not Rome hath lost one of her best Arguments for her triumphant Station over the Church of GOD. And who knoweth not that this title was given to all those that had Bishops under them as all Patriarches and Metropolitans had And what is more common then to give other Bishops the stile of Summus vel princeps Episcoporum Cheife or Prince of Bishops as Rabanus speakes of the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandria c Rabanus l. 1. de instit Cleric c. 5. Sicut Archiepiscopus Antiochenus Episcopus atque Alexandrinus Antistes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graeco â—ocabulo dicitur quod sit summus vel Princeps Episcoporum tenet enim vicem Apostolicam praesidet Episcopis caeteris Yea so common was this appellation that in the third Carthaginian Councell this title was inhibited to all the Metropolitans d Concilium Carthag 3. can 26. Vt primâ— sedis Episcopus non appeiletur princeps Sacerdotum aut summus sacerdos aut aliquid hujusmodi sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus But least the Iesuite should say that the stile of Prince of Bishops is not so concludent for an universall government as to be called Bishop of Bishops we shall finde Sidonius calling Lupus Pater Patrum Episcopus Episcoporum Father of Fathers and Bishop of Bishops Sidonius l. 6. Epist 1. Benedictus Spiritus sanctus Pater Dei omnipotentis quod tu Pater Patrum Episcopus Episcoporum and Athanasius was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arch-Preist of Preists f 〈◊〉 in orat â—â— de laudibus He ronis which is the same in effect whereby we may see upon how slender a foundation the Castle of S. Angelo is raised Yet if Tertullian be but observed by an eye that will not be blinde it will appeare that he speaketh onely in scorne and ironically when he cals your Roman Bishop cheife preist and Bishop of bishops Onely this Roman Fisher will forsake nothing that commeth to his hooke though it be but the scorne of an Hereticke He ceaseth not but brings in old Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. saying that with this Roman Church by reason of her more powerfull Principality or Supremacy it is necessary that all other Churches doe agree g Reply pag. 51. All this maketh little to give the Church of Rome the headship pretended For the question here is particular concerning the Canon of the Scriptures and the Church of Rome is commended for her truth as she then stood h Irenaeus l. â— c. 3. In qua semper ab his qui sunt undique consecratâ— est quae ab Apostolis traditio not for her infaâ—libilitie in ages after that she should remaine the same For were see Augustine forsakes the Roman Church in which some doubted of the Epistles to the Hebrewes and adhered unto the Greekes who received it into the Canoni Irenaeus also in another matter forall the powerfull principalitie that he gave unto the Roman Church reproved sharpely her Monarch and forsooke not in all probabilitie their Commuâ—ion whom hee had excommunicated k Eusebius hist Eccles l. 5. c. 23. Extant autem verba illorâ—â— qui Victorem acriter reprehenderunt equibus Irenae us Besides if all other Churches did agree with the Roman i Augustin l. â— de Peceat merit remissse 27. Ad Haebraeâ—â— quoque Epistola quan quam nonnullis incerta fit tamen magis me movet authoritas Ecclesiarum Orientalium quae hanc etiam in Canonicis habent propter potentiorem principalitatem by reason her more powerfull principalitie it were good our Iesuite would have interpreted what he had meant thereby for these are words that better fit an imperiall government then the rule of the Church And that people should come thither for this respect I thinke the Church of Rome hath little cause to triumph therein any more then other Patriarchall Seas because all men come up from all parts to the Metropoliticall
rightly be tearmed unspotted or no a Reply pag. 6â— In discussing whereof hee durst not free this Church of his so much adored from all spots but onely those which are of misbeleife b Reply pag. 6â— and spots of misbeleife whose spots can they be Not the true Churches foâ— that company which beleiveth not aright cannot be esteemed the Church Vniversall or Particular so that every pure Church in this sense hath equall priviledge though he pretends it for the onely triumph of the Roman 〈◊〉 every man for â—e that is an Heretick truly 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 appelâ—ation 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 of CHRIST neither of the Church But the Iesuites preface is full of confidence As the Answerer provoked me to the former disputation though I weene to his smart so doth he give me the like occasion to buckle with him in this e Reply pag. 6â— Whom have we here Hercules with his distasse smart your Fathers and fellowes use not to make such worthies smart you had rather destroy then wound men of his quality But where or when was this smart given I am sure wound or scarre we see none Surely the Iesuite hath bene Chaplaine to the knight Errant that fights sleeping that conquers in his dreames otherwise he could not stand so fortified with imagination as he here appeares Nemo alieno sensu est miser he feeles nothing he complaines not it is not sufficient to prove that he smarts because you conceite that you have given him a wound this hath declared your desire but not manifested the event you presume of But the Iesuite seemeth to promise as much in this Section because in a twitting fashion the Answerer saith that he not onely confounded Urbem Orbem but also mingled heaven and earth together by giving the title of unspotted unto the Catholicke Church of Rome â— Reply pag 62 Hath not this just charge a just ground If unspotted be a property belonging to the triumphant Church can it without confusion be attributed to any Church upoÌ„ earth How this word unspotted is taken in antiquity S. Augustine hath determined and the Iesuite saith nothing materially in opposition why should it not then continue in it's strength still I would know whether the Church in generall or in her members can be without spots that is not defiled in manners though free from false beleife The Church that was free as much as humane imperfection would permit confesseth herselfe blacke though comely * Cant. 1. 5. And the Iesuites citation out of Paâ—â—anus acknowledgeth a freedome onely from heresies Paciâ—â— epist 3. Ecclesia est non habens â—aculam neque rugam hoc est haereses non 〈◊〉 which every true Church and true member hath But how will the Iesuite prove the Roman Church unspotted First hee must have two things graunted him according to his present understanding or â—lse a â—ople First by the Roman Church we must understand the Church universall as hath beene declared saith he in the former Section f Reply pag. â—â— Secondly Vnspotted must have relation to spots of misbeleife only And then I say saith the Iesuit that the Roman Church hath ever bene found and will alwayes remaine in that kind unspotted even unto the end of the world g Reply ibid. This is after-wit but if the Iesuit hath not proved the Roman Church to be the universall in the former Section if the universall hath beene without spots of misbeleife when the Roman in her prime-member hath bene infected with Leprosy this will declare that the Roman Church if their positions be true was not without spots or Catholick either For the first the Iesuite would get by Petition that by the Roman Church is understood the Church universall But let him know it is too great an almes to grant an Adversary Ioh. Sansour in Polycratic l. 6. c. 24. Romana Ecclesia quae materomnium ecclesiarum est se non tam matrem exhibet alijs quam novercam Sedentin eâ Scribas Phâ—risae ponentes onâ—â—a importabiliâ— in humeris hominum quae digito non coâ—â—ngunt and too great an imposture to be approved in them For I am sure no modest man will dreame that the Church of CHRIST could be so forsaken by CHRIST that it were not worthy to be governed but by reprobates as Aliace testifies of the Roman Church h Card de Aliaco lib. de Reform Eccl. cap. de Reform religionum In proverbium abierit Ad hunc statum venisse Romanâ—â— Ecclesium ut non fit digna regi nisi per reproboâ— The Catholicke Church were a poore mother to instruct Gods Saints if she did not shew her self so much a mother as a stepmother if in it fit the Scribes and Pharisees Hereticks long since condemned by Christ and yet Iohannes Sarisburiensis affirmes this of your Roman Church Besides those which have bewayled her corruptions have told us that prophesie is now quite extinct in the Church and it is accomplished that is written 3. Kings 22. I will goe forth and be a lyeing Spirit in the mouth of all the Prophets k Aâ—aâ— Pelagde planctu Ecclesiae l. x. act 5 Ad literam hoâ—â—â— in Ecclesia deficit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod scribitur 3. Regum 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this were harsh for any to affirme of the Catholicke Church of God Moreover it is crosse to reason it selfe to make the Roman the Catholicke Who will thinke that the whole is not greater then the part that Catholicke and Roman are ejusdem ambitus that the Churches Subsistency must depend upon that which will faile that must be utterly overthrowne l Ribeâ—â— Iescom in Apocal. 14. num 44. 48. Babylon significat Romam in fine mundi futuram Besides were there no Saints nor Martyrs before Rome was converted Nay were all the Roman Converts malefidians before Peter confirmed them in the Faith Poore Stephen thou art little behoulding to this Iesuite that Heaven must now be shut to thee which Christ opened * Acts 7. 36. at thy Matyredome But this Grand-imposture hath beene lately layed open by the reverend and learned the Lord Bishop of Leichfield and therefore I may heere forbeare it For the Second I will breifly declare the Iesuites Vanitie herein and first to take away all ambiguitie S. Augustine that useth this tearme of unspotted not of the Primitive Roman but of the auncient Catholicke Church expoundeth what he meant by the same Wheresoeuer in these bookes I have made mention of the Church not having spot or wrinckle it is not so to be taken as if she were so now but that she is prepared to be so when she shall appeare to be glorious For now by reason of certaine ignorances and infirmities of her members the whole Church hath cause to say every day Forgive us our Trespasses m August Retract l. 2. c. â—8 Vbi cunque iâ— his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 memorari Ecclesiam
ancient Doctrine Doe you thinke the Divell playeth â—ex onely in his owne Kingdome No assure your selves no more then the Pope Pontifex only at Rome for though hee swayes not universally yet many States â—eele his secret practices to worke division amongst those that are united to the truth Is not this the greatest part of your worke to make sedition to breake peace Divide impera is not a lesson that the Iesuites are now to learne seeing it hath beene their dayly practice l Dist Compeâ— Dâ— Iesuit 〈◊〉 â— 27. â— Watson Quodâ— 3. art 4. p. â—â— And although the Iesuite would now excuse it I cannot see but the Christian CoÌ„mon-wealth at this time is pestred by their Vrbanus or Turbanus as Cardinall Benno stiled an other of the like Condition of the same name m Benno in vita Hildebrand So that the Iesuites pretences to free his Supercilious Master from being that which he was justly stiled are too vaine and light there being no hope that we shall fee a generall peace for matters of Religion settled to the Christian world as long as he is suffered to keepe this rule in Gods house n The Iesuite might have taken notice of what was urged by the most reverend Primate immediately before those words whereas he carpeth in the Sermon preached before his Majesty pag. 13. 14. viz. That Nilus Arch bishop of Thessalonica entring into the consideration of the originall ground of that long continued schisme whereby the West standeth as yet divided from the East and the Latine Churches from the 〈◊〉 wrote a whole booke purposely of this Argument wherein he sheweth that there is no other cause to be assigned of this distraction but that the Pope will not permit the cognisance of the controversie unto a generall Councell but will needs sit himselfe as the alone Teacher of the point in question and have others hearken unto him as if they were his Schollars and that this is contrary both to the ordinances and the practise of the Apostles the Fathers thereunto we may adde the testimony of their owne Cassander consult Art 7. de Ecclesia vera Neque unquam credo controversia apud nos de externa Ecclesiae unitata extitisseâ— nisi Pontifices Romani hâc authoritate ad dominationis quandam speciem abusi fuissent eamque extra fines à Christo Ecelesia peaescriptos ambitionis et cupiditatis causâ â—utulissent But returning againe to the Answere he telleth us that Our Answerer alledgeth for himselfe the example of S. Cyprian who with the rest of the African Bishops dissented from the Pope and Church of Rome without being cut off from the Catholicke Communion To which the Iesuite replyes that this is easily answered forasmuch as the point wherein S. Cyprian did vary from the Pope was not declared by the Church untill after S. Cyprians death and therefore it might have beene maintained without any breach of Catholick Vnitie * Reply pag. 80 What he speakes concerning the Churches declaration will have a more fit place hereafter But to shew how little the Iesuite hath spoken for his cause wee may first consider That Cyprians opinion was condemned by your Pope his Councell the contrary defined o Bellar. l. 2. de Concil c. 5. Constat Cornelium Papam cum nationali Concilio omnium Episcoporum Italiae statuisse non debere haereticos rebaptiâ—â—ri et eundem sententiam postea approbasse Stephanum Papam et jussisse ut haeretici non rebaptizarentur yea S. Cyprian himselfe excommunicated and so severely dealt withall by Pope Stephen that he would not admit the African Legats to speake with him but styling Cyprian a Counterfeit said that CHRIST did deny any Communion to be held with him p Cassander Consult ar 7. Cùm Stephanus Episcopus Romae utbis Cyprianum quod in ipso erat repelleret Episcoposaâ— ipsum ex Africâ legatos nec ad sermonem communis colloquij admitteret praecip eret universae fraternitati ut venientibus non solum pax communio sed tectum hospitium negaretur insuper Cyprianum Pseudo Christum dolo sum operarium diceret Haec scribit Firmilianus Episcopus è Cappadociâ ad Cyprianum cujus Firmiliani meminit Eusebius Histor 6 l. c. 25. l 7. c. 13. Ad quem Stephanus scripsit non esse communicandum ijs qui ad Haereticos transcuntes rebaptizant All which did not make the declaration of the Church in Augustines opinion so that we may easily perceive that Augustine did not thinke the Pope to bee the Church or his declaration to be the Churches definition And indeed what toyle did Vincentius Lyrinensis q Advers prophan Novat take in vaine if the Pope could define alone if there were no true knowledge of Scriptures but where he gapes if for him CHRIST onely prayed Besides see what Church did define this Not the Roman out of which Cyprian was excommunicated and never reconciled but that for which Cyprian shed his blood r Augustin l. 2. cont Crescon c. 32. Non accipio quod de baptizandis haereticis et schismatics B. Cyprianus sensit quia hoc Ecclesia non accipit pro qua B. Cyprianus sanguinem fudit to wit the true Catholick which with Cyprian is every Maundy Thursday by their Bulla Coenae excommunicated at Rome And therefore the Iesuite hath unwisely urged S. Augustines wordes against the Donatists Put your selves into that Church which as it is manifest S. Cyprian defended and then may you alledge S. Cyprians authoritie for your Doctrine Å¿ Reply pag. 81. It being plaine that the Roman Schismatickes accuse and accurse that Church in which Cyprian dyed a blessed Martyr accompting it no further Catholicke then it is Roman All that followeth is chaffe Finally saith the Iesuite I would our Answerer did observe in this example how notwithstanding so many Bishops as in Africke joyned with S. Cyprian who in number were more then are in all his Majesties dominions yet was there found a superiour Church that did controule them all herein prescribing both to them others what they ought to follow and beleive by whose authority S. Augustine as we have heard and all the rest of the African Bishops did reject that opinioÌ„ of S. Cyprian embraced the contrary t Reply pag. 81. First wee may see that the Bishop of Rome had not so peaceable a dominion as the Iesuite pretends if so many Bishops did resist his controuling as the Iesuite acknowledgeth Secondly you may see his falshood in his cautelous conveighance labouring to perswade that the Roman Church was the superiour Church having authority to controule them all to prescribe to them and others what they ought to follow and believe whenas Augustine never dreamed of it when he and the African Bishops alwayes resisted and disdained it u See before pag. 301. That they did not adhere to Cyprians opinion the
is not the only way and with Vincen Lyrin that heresies had euer their sproute vnder a certaine name in a certaine place and at a certaine time yet hee doth not say that they are ever knowne to after-times Nay we confesse further that before Valentinus there were no Valentinians and before the heretick Marcion no Marcionists But we are able to produce heresies whose heads they cannot find ouâ— g Alphon de Castr adv Haer lib 4. Acephali fie nominati quoniam simul insurgentes nullus repertus est qui illorum esset princeps atq magister and yet we doubt not but they had an head and some that they stile heretickes and yet by the confession of their owne cannot bee prooved so by this rule h Bernard in Cantic serm 65. 66. Apostolici Quaere ab illis suae sectae auctorem neminem dabunt Quae haeresis non ex hominibus habuit proprium haeresiarcham Manichaei Manem habuete principem praeceptorem Sabelliani Sabellium Ariani Arium Eunomiani Eunomium Nestoriani Nestorium Ita omnes caeterae huâ—â—smodi pestes singulae singulos magistros homines habuisse noscuntur à quibus origineÌ„ simul duxere nomen Quo nomine istos titulove censebis Nullo quoniam non est ab homine illorum haeresis neque per homineÌ„ illam acceperunt absit tamen vt per revelationem Iesu Christi sed absque dubio vti Spiritus sanctus praedixit peâ—immissionem fraudem daemoniorum in hypocrisi loquentium mendacium prohibentium nuoere Reiner cont haeret cap. 4. Interomnes sectas quae adhuc sunt vel fuerunt non est perniciossor Ecclesiae quam Leonistarum c. Aliqui enim dicunt quod duraverit à tempore Sylvestri aliqui à tempore Apostolorum Many bare false witnes but their witnesse agreed not together Mark 14. 5â— other heresies that are all head and yet the head of these heresies had a time for revelation * 2. Thess 2. 3. 6. 8. We confesse this Rule is not vaine in respect of those heresies that brought amazement in the Church at their first entrance and were full growne in their first appearance as that of Arius and the like as the most reverend Primate acknowledgeth yet it is vaine to finde out those guilded treacheries that stole in by deceipt Is there no difference betwixt open armes and secret fraud betwixt robbing at noon-day in the sight of the sun secret burglaries when the world is a sleepe Some like Cacus steale heresies into the Church as he oxâ—â— into his Cave backward perswading the world that heresie is driven from that place where it enters in others cut in sunder the Gordian knots of Vnitie of Faith Alexander-like with down-right blowes and professed opposition May not a carefull watchman sleepe with security and not feare the one when the other will waken him by his violence and noyse And to answere all this methode as before was confessed is good against violent intrusions which burst forth into loud cryes at their birth but for those conveyances which first appeare like an egge before the Serpent bee hatched it is a vaine simple and frivolous ground His second Argument to prove this demaund is not vaine is because the Answerer his forefathers masters and brethren have bestowed such labour and toyle in searching tossing vp antiquitie to shape if they could a wiser answere i. Reply pag. 2. This answeres it selfe with a non sequitur Pro 26. 5. Answere a foole in his follie least he be wise in his owne conceipt not in his wise interrogations that like Caiphas * Ioh. 18. 14. his Prophecies may come into his mouth by flashes but in his folly What if some of ours have thus far descended to your wisdome to answere this question I hope you would have conceived it to be rather ex abundanti to stoppe the fooles mouth then to satisfie his demaund Some questions are best answered by heeles as Ioseph answered his Mistresse †Gen 39. 12. as poore oppressed christians your Pandarismes by flying out of Babylon Some by sibeâ—ca as our Sauiour the high preists * Mat. 26-63 Some ironicaly as Micaiah Ahab †1. King 2â— 13 All this doth not justifie the Interrogation free it froÌ„ vanitie because in some sort or other it is answered It was vsuall with those that could not manifest the truth by solid proofes to be ever asking questions So those wretches that saw Christs workes when they were amazed at them yet could cry by what authoritie doest thou these things and who gaue thee this authority * Mat. 21. 23. Our Saviour answered these questions by asking an other †ibid. 25. what must this justify the cheife Preists and Elders doth this banish vâ—nitie from their lippes I but this Demaund hath troubled their braynes yea even to madnes sometime k Reply ibiâ— What then therefore no vaine demaund What is this but a Bedlaâ—s argument Is this question of such efficiencie and working that it turnes the brayne I should have expected it in their doctrines which like Henbane and Hemlocke prâ—â—â—ce worse operations but this question alas what hath it done It may be gathered out of their severall answers to the same in which they not onely contradict one another but even fight most strangely each man with himselfe l Reply ibid. This is no argument to proove them mad that answer the question if there be any neither to free the question that is proposed from Vanitie Humanum est errare it is mans weaknes that makes him erre not his madnes Madnes is never right how can it then erre That which is ever a wandring can never goe out of the way Give me libertie to aske whether contradiction either of ones selfe or of his owne profession be a symptome of madnes If it be not what doth he gather from his pretences herein If it be I dare vndertake to produce mad Popes mad Cardinals mad Bishops and Preists and fine Cloisters as full as Bedlam of such commodities And here I know not wherefore I should follow the Iesuite any further seeing that this which he produceth is nothing to the purpose being farre from concluding the question which he pretendeth to justify But he that hath vndertaken to waite vpon a mad man must not refuse to follow the wanderer over boggs and mountaines the high way being seldome his ordinary road And I pray you let vs see our contradictionâ— and selfe-fight from whence he concludes our madnes Surely this man was amazed and dreamed of warre where there is most true peace For Whitaker declareth plainely that the Holy Ghost hath fore-told in Scriptures such an Apostacie and defection and saith he we see it with our eyes but to inquire of the time when it invaded the Church non est laborandum est hâ—c curios◠〈…〉 quaestio m De eccle contr 1. quaest 3. And in like manner Iohn Cameron
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
the Roman Church could not free that age from darkenes Thirdly that the Spirit which assisted Popes Princes in those times was the Spirit that worketh in the Children of disobedience * Eph. â— â— Fourthly that Heresies might have come into the Church of Rome for any care the Pope had to keepe them out if GODS divine providence had not prevented them Fiftly that the Divell aboundantly sowed his tares of vices in Princes Prelates yet Gods divine providence did so worke that no new Heresies did then arise Is not heere a brave defence to make the Answerer his argument to languish and sleepe for ever Surely the Iesuite was betwixt sleeping and waking that he said he knew not what But did the Divell thinke no ground fit for his tares but Princes and Prelates Surely we are able to demonstrate that this bad blinde sleepie age did give seed-time for innumerable corruptions in others also yea so flourishing were the blossomes and prodigious the fruite which sprung from that seed husbanded by the Divell that it infected the whole Roman Church in such a manner that Gerebertus in his Apologie for the Councell of Rhemes put his petition up to Christ in Heaven as having no hope for good in the Roman Church upon earth it being so far infected that loosing the nature of a mother shee cursed the good blessed the evill communicated with those whom shee ought not to salute bound them with excommunication whom Christ had freed being accepted of him and zealous of his lawe z Gereber Apolog pro Rhemens Concil post acta Concil Rhem. Sed una salus hominis ô Christe â—â—â—eâ— Ipsa Roma omnium Ecclesiarum hactenus habita mater bonis maledicere malis benedicere fer tur quibus nec Ave dicendum est comâ—â—â—icare tuamque legem zelantes damnare abutens ligandi solvendi potestate à te acceptâ And so corrupt was that age that all vertue was consumed both in head and members a Io. Stella in vitâ Benedicti â— Papae 122. Acciderat illi aetati quòd omnis virtus tam in capite quam in membris ex hominum ignaviâ consumpta suerit nay so farre was Religion out of date that Preists and Bishops durst not speake of Iustice or righteousnes in regard they neither loved nor practised it b Aâ—lfric serm ad Sacerdotes MS. in Biblioth Colleg. Benedict Cantabrig His diebus tanta negligentia est in Sacerdotibus Episcopis qui deberent esse â—oâ—umnae Ecclesiae ut 〈◊〉 non audent de justitia loqui qui justitiam nec faciunt nec diligunt But the Iesuite thinketh all is well if Princes and Prelates were defiled together Yet Wernerus their owne Carthusian may assure us that our Iesuite putteth Princes causelesly into a lewd company when as hee coupleth them with Popes for hee telleth us it was most apparant that Holines had left the Pope and fled to the Emperours c Werner Fascic tempâ—tat 6. circ an 944. Sanctitatem Papam dimisisse ad Imperatoreâ— accessisse hoc tempore clarâ— apparet which is cleare on the one side also by the testimony of their owne Baronius who saith that most sordide whooâ—es governed at Rome their lustfull mates ascending the Chayre d Baron tom 10. Annal. an 912. §. 8. Quae tunc facies sanctae Ecclesiae Romanae quà m foedissisima cùm Romae dominarentur potentiffimae ae què ac fordidissimae meretrices quarum arbitrio mutarenâ—â—r sedes darenâ—ur Episâ—opi quod auditu horrendum infandum est intruderentur in Sedem Petri earum amaâ—â—pâ—eudâ— pontifices Here first this Iesuite hath abused Princes as their usuall practise is in joyning them with such filthy and foul-lived wretches as their Popes are confessed and acknowledged to be when Princes have reprehended and loathed them labouring to bring them to reformation as Otto and the Roman Synode did Iohn the 12. or 13. for you agree not whether he is calling him to purge himselfe of most fearfull offences as Homicide Perjury Sacriledge Incest drinking the Divels health Dicing invocating Iupiter Venus and other Divels e â—uitprand Tiâ—inens Hister l. 6. c. 9. â— 10. Summo Pontifici et universali Papae Domino Iohanni Otto divinae respectu clementiae Imperator Augustus cum Archiepiscopis Liguriae Tusciae Saxoniae Franciae in Domino salutem Romam ob servitium Dei venientes dum filios vestros Romanos scilicet Episcopos Cardinales Presbyteros Diaconos et universam plebem de vestra absentia percontaremur et quid caussae esset quòd nos Ecclesiae vestrae vestrique defensores videre noluissetis talia de vobis tamque obâ—â—oena protulerunt ut si de hiâ—â— oâ—ibus dicerentur vobis verecundiam ingererent Quae ne magnitudinem vestram omnia lateant quaedam vobis sub brevitate dâ—scribimus quum si cuncta nominatim exprimere cuperemus dies nobis non sufficeret unus Noveritis itaque non à paucis sed ab omnibus tam vestri quam alterius ordinis vos homicidij perjurij sacrilegij et expropria cognatione atque ex duabus sororibus incesti crimine esse accusatoâ— Dicunt et aliud audâ—â—â— ipso horrendum Diaboli vos in amoreâ— viâ—um bibisse c. Neither let the Iesuite thinke that the Divell made them so evill men and yet left them good Bishops to preserve the purity of Catholicke doctrine this surely would bee a Paradoxe in all places but at Rome where they acknowledge doctrines were not as the auncient Prophesies delivered to the Church by holy men as the Spirit gave them utterance but brought in by such that were not able to rule their owne houses well and therefore farre unfit to be governours of the Church of God And as the Iesuite was deceived in the Divels arable land so with Bellarmine is he mistaken in the seede also For iâ— iâ— probable that he who did sowe seedes of Heresie in the slumbering age before this snorting nap would bee idle when hee was altogether without resistance If Image-worship got footing when their eyes were open may wee not expect that other heresies came in when they were fast asleepe In what primitive times durst an Image by rowling eyes and sweating knavery require adoration from the people Durst any godly Bishops decree for this idolatry in the first sixe ages No this Heresie was resisted by three hundred thirtie eight Bishops at Constantinople Anno 754. And though afterwards it got strength at Nice was defended by Rome and at last got to be Roman faith yet was the same disliked denyed opposed resisted by all the good men that lived in that after-times as Charles the great the Councell of Franckford Lewes his son the Synode of Paris Alcuinus the Church of England and the Waldenses c. Neither did the English distaste it as an ordinary folly and superstition onely but as contrary to true faith such an opinion which the Church
of God did execrate and abhorre All which is fully justified out of ancient monuments by the most learned Answerer f See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Answere to the Iesuites challenge pag. 461. 462. 463. And his booke De successione statu cap â— the Iesuite being tongue-tyed replying nothing thereunto But were there no seedes of Heresie in that age Bellarmine is willing to have it so and the Iesuite is confident in the same opinion but the truth is Heresie was embraced of them which should have resisted it otherwise there would not have been so many fruitlesse complaints as holy men powred forth in the immediate following times Yet how shall wee make a true search for Heresies in this age when Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that it was vnhappie as affording neither writers of any worth nor Councells g Bellarm. in Chronol Vâ—de hic Seculum infelix in quo nulli Scriptores illustres nulla Consilia It seemes wee must be beholding to their experiences which did observe somthing when they did awake Genebrard then telleth us that for almost 150 yeares Pontifices circiter 50. à virtute majorum prorsus defecerint Apotactici Apostaticive potiùs quam Apostolici About fifty Popes altogether fell away from the vertue of their Ancestors being disordered and Apostaticall rather then Apostolicall h Genebrard Chron in Annum Christi 901. Others relate that the Devill got power to elect him whom Papists now would have to be as an infallible oracle to direct to Heaven i Platina in vitâ Silvestri secundi Gerebertus ambitione et diabolicâ dominandi cupiditate impulsus largitione primò quidem archiepiscopatum Rhemensem inde Ravennatem adeptus Pontificatum postremò maiore conatu adiuvante Diabolo consecutus est hac tamen lege ut post mortem totius illius esset cuius fraudibus tantam dignitatem adeptus erat Aenaeas Sylv. in comment de gestis Basil Concil lib. 1. Nec â—â—â— fugit Marcellinum iussu Caesareo idolis thurificà sse alium vero quod majus horribilius est diabolicâ fraude Romanum pontificatum ascendisse Others amazed mourned for the Church as if in Rome Sathan had beene at liberty in perniciem totius Ecclesiae to the destruction of the whole Church k Baron Annal. toâ— 12. an 1170. And many not long after wondring at the face of the Church concluded that Antichrist had placed his seate in the Church of God l Vide reverendum doctissimum Episcop Derens de Antichristo l â— cap. 9 Could all this be effected and not one error creepe into your Church to bespot the Roman Puritie I might tell you that the opinion of the grosse and carnall eating of Christ in the Sacrament had so little admittance in the Church before this carelesse and snorting time that in the precedent age it was scorned of the most learned in the Christian Church Rabanus Bertramus Iohannos Scotus c. I might name you Purgatory if the most learned Primate had not declared it to be a new devise never heard of in the Church of God for the space of a thousand yeeres after the birth of our Saviour Christ * In the answere to the Iesuites challenge pag. 178. And it were no great matter to shew you the Hildebrandine Heresie which must have had his seeding in this age or not farre from it By all which the Iesuite may perceive how sleepy a defence he hath made for a snorting age and how vainely he deduceth arguments to make good his Popish Religion from our nescience of person time and place it being cleared that his demaund in respect of these circumstances is meerely vaine and that his Digressions doe nothing benefit his cause SECT III. IN this peice of Vanity the Iesuite proceeds to discover How vaynelie our Answerer betaketh himselfe to the Scriptures a Reply pag. 19 and the Iesuite hath shewed more vanity in his entrance into this third Section then I am perswaded he wil be able to declare against the Answerer throughout his whole Reply for he confesseth that the most learned Answerer hath thus farrerun on answerlesse b Reply ibid. a wonderfull thing that hee who hath so domineered should acknowledge here for a part as before for the whole that Responsa ejus which were replyed unto sine responsionibus were answerlesse notwithstanding the Reply Secondly he telleth us that the most reverend Primate in betaking himselfe to the Scriptures and shewing his copiousnes of Abilities hath abandoned all that he hath formerly said c Reply ibid. But if this were forcible and not Vanitie surely wee should have vaine Answerers amongst their Schoolemen their Commentators especially and the more learnedly and fully they expresse their thoughts the more vaine should they be demonstrated to bee by this line and measure Thirdly he insinuateth that this most reverend Lord is hereby brought to confesse that he cannot by the Iesuites way give them satisfaction d Reply ibid when as he hath most learnedly and punctually answered each particular of his demaund which sheweth in him not Vanity onely but Iesuiticall impudency and out-facing falshood There are other meanes left saith the most learned Answerer whereby wee may discerne the tures brought in by the instruments of Sathan from the good seed which was sowen by the Apostles of Christ besides this observation of times and seasons which will often faile us But the Iesuite would know what other meanes are these that yet remaine and the most reverend Primate hath manifested out of Tertullian e Tertull praescript advers Haeret cap. 32. that their very Doctrine it selfe being compared with the Apostolickâ— by the diversity and contrarietie thereof will pronounce that it had for author neither any Apostle nor any man Apostolicall f Reply pag. 20. I hope this meane is no new invention but Tertullians advice no upstart direction but the practise of his times whereby the Iesuite may see that the repugning of the vaine pretences of Heretickes may bee as well or better performed by comparing their heresies with that doctrine which is Apostolicall then by the circumstances of person time and place which convicteth him of notorious vanity in making his vaine demaund the necessary square to measure heresies by And whereas this Iesuite saith hee is content to winke a little for this time at the Answerers converghance g Reply pag. 20 The Iesuite for one promise keepeth faith he is not alwayes of Carthage his speech doth not here bewray him for hee winkes indeed and is so wilfully blinde that he will not take notice of Christs practise in convincing Pharisaicall novelties urged by the most learned Primate h In his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge from Mat. 19. 8. from the beginning it was not so neither Apostolicall Councell to prescribe against the infection of Seducers crept in at unawares earnestly to contend for the faith which was first