mil lib 3. cap. 5. Neminem posse etiamsi velit subesse Christo communicare cum Ecclesia coelesti qui nen subest Pontifici non communicat cum Ecclesia militante viz Romana So that we can justly say that wee have beene forced to depart from your particular Communion you declaring your selves schismaticks and enemies to the Catholicke Church and that wee doe adhere to the vniversall body it selfe in which Salvation will be found notwithstanding all your desperate Decrees cast out against the members thereof But our Iesuite sayth that we are so far from discovering any such thing that a prime Doctour †Doctour Feild in his Treatise of the Church lib. 3. cap. 13. cited Reply pag. 7. of ours confesseth that the Roman Church held still Communion with those other Churches that never fell into error We find not this in the place alledged but allowing it to be so why might not a perverse company hold Communion outward Conformitie with the true Church You make Iudas an Hereticke wee thinke hee was scarce so good and yet how long in this Hypocrisie did hee keepe Communion with the Apostles Arius was worse if it were possible for as the first would have dissolved his humanity this attempted with grosse conceits against his Divinity and yet his Communion was Catholicke and in outward appearance he a Socrat. eccl hist lib. 1. and his consorts b Carron in sum Concil pag. 39 Vndeâ—â—â— consilio inter se habito acquiescunt ad subscribendum manu solâ non mente subscribed to the Nicene Creed If this be all that you can say for your faith that you have held outward Communion with the faithfull it doth little avayle For a theife may be with true men and Heretickes with them that professe the faith and the Divell himselfe among the sonnes of God nay present himselfe before the Lord * Iob 2. 1 But an other †Master Bunny in his treatise tending to pacification sect 14. pag. 89. of the same ranke telleth vs that the Church of Rome hath ever continued after a sort in profession of the faith since the time that by the Apostles it was delivered to them c. And hath also in some manner preserved c. the word and Sacraments that Christ himselfe did leave vnto vs All this will not make Rome Catholicke or free her from Apostasie backsliding which surely is a very speciciall blessing of God and an evident worke of the holy Ghost from which confession our Iesuite inferrs that the Church of Rome her enemies being Iudges is cleerely freed from all suspition of Apostasie and is confessed to have held faithfull Communion with the true Church of God c Reply pag. 7 But all this foolishly and without ground even by the judgment of as cunning an Arguer as himselfe Parsons the Iesuite for hee doth not thinke Mr Bunny so kinde d Parsons Resolution in the second part of his Preface to the Reader It is such a PacificatioÌ„ as the high Preists of the Iewes wold have made with the Apostles after they had whipt and beaten them vpon condition they should neither teach nor preach any more the Doctrine of Christ as the Iesuite would have him neither doth he pick out of those words any such conclusion as heere is pointed out vnto vs which I have no cause to thinke hee would have omitted if the words would have afforded any such thing Yet we must consider that Mr Bunny was a Pacificator and would speake as much as possibly he could if not more then was fit for perswading vnion betwixt Rome and other Churches Moreover all the good he speaketh of the Romish church is that after a sort they continued in the profession of the faith which might have beene spoken of the Arians Nestorians Pelagians the most heretickes that did not vtterly cast of the name profession of Christianity for which of them after a sort did not professe CHRIST to be the Messias the Saviour of the world Further in some manner it preserued the word and sacraments but in such a maner that may stand with Apostasie The word they acknowledge but with Additions traditionall written the Câ—â—on so corrupted must not speak but with a tongue of the Pope's making The Sacraments they reject not but deny the People in the Eucharist the cup the other they have corrupted with many mixtures whereby it appeareth plainely that they have fallen from the auncient puritie embraced by the Roman church and that after a sort and in some manner onely they have had Communion with other Churches the word and sacraments being preserved not from their desire so much as from the blessing of God For if they might have done all at pleasure the word of God had beene changed for Evangelium aternum e Vide hist explica reverendis simi dom Primar de success stat Eccl cap â— and what doe you thinke would have become of the Sacraments So that the Answerer his worke neither totters nor wants a supporter as yet His third observation is that the most learned Primate will not have those opinions wherein we differ from him to be Heresies but onely a kind of still creeping in Apostasie hooded with the name of Religion and semblance of Devotion and therefore pretendeth himselfe to be excused from discovering vnto vs the author time of their beginnings f Reply pag. 7. Againe he chargeth the learned Answerer page 12. to denounce their opinions Heresies far spread and of long continuance which he imputeth to forgetfulnes till hee remembreth himselfe that they are not exempted from being Heresies by the Answerer but from being such as doe openly oppose the foundation of our faith g Ibid. So that these sayings may stand well together notwithstanding any thing he hath as yet vttered But he telleth vs if the differing points be heresies that never any did more openly oppose the foundation of faith then they And to prove this hee produceth the point of adoration of the hoste in the Sacrament of which he maketh no question but every man will easily vnderstand that if Hell were raked vp a more notorious Heresie could not be found c. and therefore it seemeth impossible in this Iesuites iudgment that any Bishop of Rome could be able to perswade such an impietie c. without being manifestly discerned h ibid. That this grosse and idolatrous Practise of Adoration of the Host is founded vpon a grosse and hereticall foundation is not denyed by the most learned Answerer Neither doe I thinke any man will otherwise conceipt thereof and yet by this concession the Iesuite getteth no ground for his inference therein For suppose this doth fight against Gods divine truth and in as violent a manner as the gates of Hell or power of darknes it followeth not that every man will easily espy i Rhem annota upon the 2. Thess cap 2.
Lord rebuke every proud tongue that dare attempt so high despight against God and his truth The Iesuite proceedes Lâ—c heere the Divells disputation against the Private Masse which I thought good to lay downe thus at large i Reply pag. 17â— Here the Iesuite beginneth to triumph but upon what reason the precedent discourse will declare yet his intent is pious that my poore deluded Countriman may understand whither his new Masters doe leade him k Ibid. The Owle might leave preaching unlesse it be to night birds for the Iesuite may assure himselfe that this most reverend Lord will never bee so deceived †Ruffin Hist Eccles lib. 1. cap. 11. Dolis apud ignorantes locus est scientibus vero dolum intendere non aliud est quam risum movere as to be taken with his delusions which are grounded vpon so filly a perswasion as Dabunt signa monstrous miracles and tale-Divinity His masters are CHRIST and his Apostles neyther doth hee refuse the sacred Chorus of the auncient Church these have not beene seducers they neither delude nor drawe into errors they will consume your man of sinne and because you feare the consumption you disgrace their effects and operations making the reading of the sacred scriptures l Reply pag. 17 the cause of most horrible impieties reviling with your tongue-prodigies GODS heavenly lampes least they should declare your filth by their celestiall light The holy Sacrifice of the Masse hath triumphed in the Church of God even from the beginning and shall continue mangre all Opposers unto the end m Reply pag. 17 c. If the Iesuite meane by the sacrifice of the Masse the administration of the body and blood of Christ whereby the sacrifice of Christs death is commemorated unto us he hath no Adversary For we know it was instituted by Christ and hath beene continued perpetually by the Catholicke Church even to these very times But if hee meane by the sacrifice of the Masse that outward visible sacrifice made by the Preist alone n Concil Trid. Sess 22. cap. 6. Sacrosancta Synodus Missas illas in quibus solus sacerdos sacramentaliter communicat non modo non damnaâ— ut illicitas sed etiam probat atque commendat wherein CHRIST is pretended really to be sacrificed this was never in the auncient Church much lesse triumphed therein and although the Iesuite would have it auncient yet it was not borne in the fathers time o Erasmus de concord Eccles versus sinem Sunt qui in Missa commâ—nionem requirant sic fateor a Christo suit institutum ita olim consuevit observari Casâ—ander Consult art 24. §. De iteratione pag. 223. Certe ex tota Canonis compositione manifestè apparet totam illâ—â—â—ysticam in qua Canon adhibebatur actionem vel publicam vel certe inter plures semper celebratam suisse Quod si â—odie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 queat facile verus â—ius intellectus restitui possit but brought into the Church by the decay of Devotion on the peoples part p Erasmus de amab concord Ecclesiae Verum id quo minus fiat haud stat per sacerdotes sed per laices in quibus hâ—u nimium refrixit charitas which defection it hath still nourished The word sacrifice indeed was in use amongst the fathers though Calvin thought it was abused neither did they or the Church of Rome thereby hold it a reall sacrificing of Christ but a commemoration of his death q Lombard Sent. lib. 4. Dist 12. par 2. Quaeritur Si quod gerit sacerdos proprie dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio si Christus quotidie immoletur vel semel tantum immolatus sit Ad hoc breviter dici potest illud quod offertur consecratur à sacerdote vocari sacrificium oblationem quia memoria est repraesentatio veâ—i sacrificii sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis Et semel Christus mortuus in crâ—ce est ibique immelatus est in semetipso quotidie autem immolatur in sacramento quia in sacramento recordatio fit illius quod factum est semel and therefore Calvin himselfe saith that your impiety in that particular being considered with the abuse of the auncients there would appeare betweene them and you an unmeasurable distance r Calvin lib. devera Eccles reform extat in Tractat. Theolog Calvini c. pag. 389. Vtrumque illis concedo veteres non mâ—do sacriâ—iciâ—â—oce abusoâ— esse sed etiam caeremoniâ Verum sireputemus quantum a veterum corruptelâ distet quae nunc abipsis fucatur â—â—pietas immensum est ferè intervallum and therefore the Iesuite abuseth their adversaries in making them to impute that to the fathers which they knew these never held Whereby the Iesuit might see how vaine he is in making us to be enemies of this mystery when we onely oppose their popish innovations and defiling of so sacred an institution And whereas the Iesuite would make Luther the first oppugner of private Masse it is a good argument that many were a sleepe when it first came into the Church seeing many of themselves forced by the testimony of the auncient Fathers confesse that it was not according to the auncient use of the Church of God Ignatius maketh all to communicate and all in both kindes Å¿ Ignatius ad Philadelphenses Vnuspanis omnibus confractus vnus calix qui omnibus distributus est in receiving of this blessed Sacrament Chrysostome t Chrysostomus in Cor Homil. â—8 Est autem ubi nihil differt sacerdos à subdito ut quando fruendum est hoâ—â—endis mysterijs similiter enim omnesut illa percipiamus digni habemur Non ficut in veteri lege partem quidem sacerdos comedebat partem autem populus non licebat populo participerâ— esse corum quorum particept erat sacerdos sed nunc non sic verum omnibus unum corpus proponâ—â—â— poculum â—um maketh Preist and People all alike This is acknowledged to be the practise of the primitive times by Innocent the third Innocent 3. lib. 6. Myster Missae cap. 5. In primitiva quidem Ecclesia singulis diebus qui celebrationi Missarum intererant communicare solebant sed excrescente multitudiâ—e c and by Durand Dur. raâ— l. 4. c. 53. In pâ—â—mitiva Ecclesiâ omnes qui celebrationi â—â—issarum interâ—rant singulis diebus communicarâ— â—lebant co quòd Apostoli omnes de â—alice biberâ—â— Domiâ—â— dicence Bibite exâ—â—oc â—mnes And to preserve pious mindes from embracing this fond perswasion of the Iesuites that Luther first impugned Private Masse I desire that they would consider with what impatience Chrysostome would have prosecuted the same when he expresseth bitternes even against the peoples neglect of communicating Indeed he could not actually dispute against that which was not yet we may coÌ„ceive by his words how he would have approved of Private Masse if it had
accompted a good meanes to further the edifying of your Babell and to hold her followers together is not this then a good ground to resolve a mans judgment that things are not now kept in that order wherein they were set at first by the Apostle c See the most reverend the Lord Primate in his Answere to the Iesuites challenge pag. â— And hereunto the Iesuite replyes I have alwayes esteemed our Answerer so both for learning and sincerity that I preferre none of his ranke before him yet doe I not see how in this obiection he can escape a blemish in one of them at the least d Reply pag. 21 We have had good experience that the Iesuites jealousies are not crimes nor his words slaunder and therefore if he proves nothing he sayes nothing But he is ready in his armes For where he sayth that by S. Paules Order Christians should pray with understanding and not in an unknowne language alleadging for the same the 14 chap. of his 1. epistle to the Corinthian it is most certaine that neither in that fourteenth chapter nor yet in all S Paules Epistles there is any such order as he meaneth to be found which if he knew not his ignorance is to be wondred as if he knew it his integrity must be stayned for wronging the Apostle and deluding his Reader Reply pag. 22. It were vaine to bestowe time to defend this most learned Primate from this unjustly charging Iesuite especially in either of these dreames of want of learning or sincerity when his owne tongue and pen have manifested such deepe knowledge his life so sacred sincerity that a legion of Iesuites extracted cannot expresse the like And who is there that hath stood at the feete of this learned Gamaliel that hath not heard him to declare more learning then this Iesuite can boast of and seene in him more truth and candidenes of divine conversation then Iesuites and Fryars by their demure and painted out-side can challenge to themselves Nay whose conscience that knowes him doth not testifie of him that what is or may be required in a good man learned Doctor and faithfull Bishop may bee found in him f Epistol Bap. Mant. ad Ioan. Picum Mirandulam In uno codemque homine viderer videre Hicronymum Augustinum revixisse Neither doth this Iesuite deserve so learned an Adversary who slighteth those things which befoole his indeavours to answere and falleth into violent straynes against the Proposer But let us see what groâ—â—d our travailer now treades uppon No he will demaund first When he sayth that by S. Paules order Christians should pray with understanding what kinde of prayer doth hee meane g Reply pag. 22. To this we answere him All prayers which as well require the understanding as the will knowledge as Devotion But the Iesuite sayth if private prayer such as Christians by themselves doe exercise cleare it is that the Apostle in that fourteenth Chap. speaketh of none such and say he did it is well knowne that amongst us the use of praying in a vulgar tongue is left as free to each one as amongst the Protestants themselves Reply pag. 22 The most learned Primate interpreteth not those words of prayer as publick or private but in regard of the act of praying with what circumstances soever it be used and that by St. Paules order no prayers ought to be made of what kind soever which the parties invocating understaÌ„d not be they publicke or private for the whole Church or for particular necessity But for that freedome of praying in a vulgar tongue which you say is left to each one amongst you we know it false by experience unlesse your directions for saying of Ave's and Pater-nosters bee arbitrary and left to the discretion of your Catholicke children which I thinke no Popish father will admit For your Rhemists conclude that praying either publickely or privately in Latine is thought by the wisest and godliest to be most expedient i Vpon the 18 verse of the 14 chap. of the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians and though they confesse that their church hath commanded in some Councells that such as cannot learne distinctly in Latine specially the Pater noster and the Creed should be taught them in the vulgar tongue Yet the wisdome of the Church hath better liked and allowed of Latine Primars Beads and Prayers k Vpon the 1â— verse from whence the Iesuite may collect that the Rhemists stick closer to the Latine then himselfe insomuch that they would have the people to use not onely Latine Primars and Prayers but Latine Beades also All which without doubt are alike availeable Againe the Iesuite saith if he meane the Publicke Prayer and service of the Church certaine also it is that the Corinthians had theirs in the Greeke and not in any unknowne language and therefore the Apostle speaking of prayer in an unknowne tongue cannot be said to meane the publicke Service of the Church l Reply pag. 22 And wherefore in Greeke was it not because that language was more generally understood and did not the Apostles for the same cause make use of that tongue in revealing the mysteries of God But at length our Iesuit confesseth all which hee so violently fighteth against by distinguishing betwixt prayer which is directed to the edifying and instruction of the hearers upon which Prayer the Apostles Doctrine in that Chapter runneth altogether and their publicke Church service which cannot any way be said to be such m Reply pag. 23 For hereby we get this that our prayers both publick and private are agreeable to the Apostles grounds which are generall and that their prayers both publicke and private doe oppose the same And yet they thinke all wil be made up by a more grosse uncovering their shame and nakednes and therefore he telleth us that their publicke Church service is directed principally to the worship of Almighty God and not to instruct and edifie the hearers n Reply ibid. What God 's service and no way for instruction what Darke Church Darke soules all in obscurity Gods worship also Hath the Church beene without Vrim and Thummim since her captivitie in Babylon The Iesuite will have it so But wee know that as GODS worship is an act which GOD accepteth for his honour so thereby man doth increase in saving graces not of those onely which are appropriated to the will zeale and devotion but to the understanding also being made conformable to GODS Image in wisedome and knowledge o Thomas 22â— quaest 92. ar 2. Ordinatur primò divinus cultus ad reverentiam Deo exhibendam Secundò ordinatur ad hoc quod homo instruatur à Deâ— quem coliâ— Tertiò ordinatur dirinus cultus ad quandam directionem humanorum actuâ—m secundùm instatuta Dei qui colitur and surely if every action especially that which is christian and divine ought to be done to edification wee
as cheife in the calling of all Nations g Reply pag â—5 c. And we tell him that Pope Leo did speake more for Peter to advance himselfe then it is probable he would otherwise have done if his Chayre had not met with some opposition in those times for Leo maketh Christ Marke the tenth to reprehend the desire of that power which in the Iesuites quotation he seemeth to give to S. Peter h Leo Epist 55. ad Pulcher. Augustam de ambitu Anatolij Et ille vere crit magnus qui fucrit totius ambitionis alicâ—â—â— dicente Domino Quicunque voluerit inter vos major sicri sit vester minister Et quicunque voluerit inter vos primus esse erit vester servus Sicut filius hominis non venit ministrari sed ministrare although Maldonate the Iesuite would not have the words of the Evangelist so to be understood i Maldonat com in Marc. 9. 35. Non hic agi de prjma in gubernanda Ecclesia dignitate etsi co etiam sensuhunc locum alicubi apud Leonem magnum legi memini We have seene then saith the Iesuite how undoubtedly the auncient Fathers maintained S. Peters primacie as well ever all the Church of Christ as over the rest of the Apostles also k Reply pag. 55 But any may perceive with how false eyes his owne witnesses but little favouring his cause as we shall further shew hereafter So that any may conceive how poorely he hath layed the foundation of the Roman Catholicke Church vizt Peter his Monarchichall power over the Apostles Neither saith he will it be hard to shew the like uniforme consent of antiquitie in attestation of that other point denyed also by our Answerer in the Star-chamber concerning the same headship and Primacie which the Bishops of Rome doe inherite by lawfull succession l Reply pag. 55 And to manifest this he beginnes his entrance with a repetition of what hath beene said and answered before and then fixeth first of all upon the strong pillar of Popish height the Arabicke Canons of the Nicene Councell from whom hee doubteth not to bring us most plaine testimony in this point m Reply pag. 56 and who beleiveth him not for if these Canons speake not plainely for the purpose whereunto they were framed what device can helpe them But the Iesuite knowing his coyne counterfeit tels us that the Answerer doth soone rid himselfe of this and the like decrees of that holy Synode by averring them to be forged by certaine well-willers of the Roman Church in the name of the good Fathers that never dreamed saith he of such a busines n Reply ibid. And is not this a truth that the Iesuite cannot resist though he playes the Baby in telling us that if you desire to heare him prove this his saying you must have 〈◊〉 â—â— other proofe you are like to get none of him besides his owne rash affirmation o Reply ibid. For the matter is so cleare from all antiquity that there were but twenty Canons in the Nicent Councell all which we have that it were but the mis-spending of time to prove that which all acknowledge q See them repeated in the sixt Councell of Carthage apud 〈◊〉 um Besides could the famous lights of the world at that time be ignorant of these Canons as S. Augustine r Concil Carthag 6. c. 7. Augustinus Ecclesiae Hiâ—ponis Regiensis Legatus Provinciae Numidiae with 〈◊〉 and more 〈◊〉 Bishops Å¿ Epistola Aphricani Concil ad Bonifacium Papam 1. Aurelius caeteri qui praesentes affuimus numero ducenti decem septem ex omni Concilio Aphricae Were they so little esteemed that they were clofetted at Rome or so unknowne in the East that the Patriarches of Constantinople and Alexandria could make no returne of them t Epistola Concil Aphric ad Coelestinum Quia illud quod pridem per cundem co episcopum nostrum Faustinum tanquam ex parte Nicaeni Concilij exinde transmiâ—â—â—â—is in Concilijs verioribus quae accipiuntur Ni aena à sancto Cyrillo coepiscopo nostro â—◠〈◊〉 Ecclesiae à venerabili Artico Constantino 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ac auther 〈◊〉 missis tale aliquid non poâ—uimus repeâ—â—e though the one sent them intirely as they were decreâ—d by the Fathers at Nice u Epistola Attici Episcopi Constantinopolitani ad Concilium Africanum Sicut staâ—â—ta suntin Nicaea civitam à Pauibus canoâ—â—â— in integro ut jussisus direx and the other â—â—nsm faithfull exemplars from the authenticke Coppie x escripta ad Conc. Aphrican Cyrilli Alexandrini Episcopi Necesse habus 〈◊〉 exemplaria ex authentica Synodo in Nâ—â—â—â— Bythiniae habito vestrae charitati dirigere quae in Ecclesiastica historia requirentes 〈◊〉 But if there were nothing else to disgrace them the Iesuite his endeavours to justifie them from farre-fetched and counterfeit grounds were alone sufficient to render them suspected of themselves For doe you thinke that a â—â—e from the 〈◊〉 of S. Thomas sent from some sleight Mercenarie of the Pope to his mancipated servants the Iesuites in a matter that concernes the Popes greatnes so neerely is to be received as an infallible Argument Neither if this Papall altitude could stand upon true grounds would it need â—uch counterfeit supporters as these two Epistles cited by the Iesuit in regard they declare theÌ„selves counterfeite and are acknowledged for no better by their owne For if this Epistle were written to Pope Marke after the Arians burnt their bookes at Alexandria surely it must be many yeares after Pope Marke was dead their burning being in the raigne of Constantius y Athanasius Epistol ad orthodoxos in persecut when â—â— Pope Marke died in the time of Constantines government z Hieron in Chron. Further how could this Epistle lye hid when the controversie was betwixt the African Church and the Roman Bishops Besides could Marke send to Athanasius in Egypt when it is apparant by Baronius that he was â—â— Exul in France a Baron â—om 3 ad anâ—um 336 â— 39 Exul ho 〈◊〉 agebat â—â— Galliâ—â— Could the Roman Coppie and that of Alexandria so farre differ as wee see they did if the Pope had sent a true Exemplar ex Romano scrinie And not to presse the Reader any further What trifling follies doe they impute to the Niceâ—â— Fathers as to publish these Canons halfe Latinâ— halfe Greeke perswading that fourtie were made by the Greeke Fathers fourtie by the Latine and to insert tenne Cannons amongst the rest in relation to the seaventie languages which they conceived to bee in the whole world or the seventie disciples and all this by the assistance of the Spirit of God b Epistola Athanasij Aegiptiorum Episcoporum ad Marcum Papam Saâ—e praesentibus nobis octoginta capitula in memorata tractaâ—â— sunt Synodo scilicet quadraginta à Latinis similiter Latinis
in the Acts viz. a Bisâ—opricke n Rhem 〈◊〉 upon Luk â— â—â— And although the Iesuite now seeth that Peter can be no Monarch by his Apostleship such extraordinary power being given to others yet it hath beene that which they ever pretended to exalt him whom they would have to be Peters Successour and the Monarch of the Church and therefore they have had their mouthes and rescripts full of Apostle and Apostleship calling his office Apostleship saying that he heareth causes with his Apostleship why should he not determine with it All his instruments of government are Apostolical as Letters Decrees Mandates Buls Pardons Dispensations nay what hath he that is not Apostolicke Whether messenger or Legate Whether Palace Chamber Chancery Seale o Sacraâ— ceâ—am Rom. eccles l 1. Reg. Canc. Apostol Extra do jurejur c. Ego c. Besides how many of the Iesuites counterfeits urged for the Primacy are thought to speake effectually when they attribute to the Pope to sit in the Apostolicall height to have his See Apostolicke his office an Apostleship his priviledges his eminencies Apostolicall Fourthly he would have told them that the auncient Fathers declare in plaine tearmes how Christ grounding his Church upon Peter Mat. 16. committing his flocke to Peter Ioh. 21. wishing Peter to confirme his Brethren and praying for Peters faith that it should not faile Luc. 22. constituted Peter head of his Church upon earth and consequently thereby made him Prince Cheife Captaine Head Leader and Prelate over the rest of the Apostles p Reply pag. 60 But whosoever will weigh his quotations shall perceive that the Fathers have beene onely pretended by him they disdaining any such Monarchie as from those texts the Iesuite laboureth to collect And first for the 16. of Mat. Although the Fathers doe sometimes give Peter the name of the rocke or foundation upon which the Church is builded or grounded yet their meaning is not that the Church is builded upon Peter absolutely and personally but relativelie and from his faith or Christ that hee confessed And therefore Hillary that calleth Peter the foundation of the Church q Hilar. in Mat. 16 Faelix Ecclesiae fundamentum telleth us that not onely to say but also to beleive that CHRIST is the Sonne of GOD this faith is the foundation of the Church r Hillar l. 6. De Trinitat Christum Dei silium non solum nuncupare sed etiam credere Haec fides Ecclesiae fundamentum and in another place hee saith This is the alone happie rocke of faith confessed with the mouth of Peter Thou art the Sonne of the everliving GOD Å¿ Idem l. 2. De Trinitat Vna â—â—aec est faelix fidei Petra Petri ore confessa Tu es filius Dei vivi S. Basill also saith that CHRIST is truely a Rocke unmoveable but Peter is so from the Rockâ— Christ t Basil serm de Pâ—niten Christus verè Petra est inconcussa Petrus vero propter Petram And S. Ambrose concludeth u Ambros ser â— Recte igitur qui Petra Christus Simon nuncupaâ—â—s est Petrus â—â— qui cum Domino fidei societatem habebat cum Domino haberet nominis Dominici unitatem ut siqut à Christo Christianus dicitur ita à Petra Christo Petrus Apostolus vocaretur that rightly therefore because CHRIST is the rocke was Simon called Peter that so he that had a society of faith with his Lord might also have the unitie of his name that as a Christian taketh his denomination from CHRIST so Peter the Apostle might â—â—ke his name from the rocke CHRIST So also saith Gregory Nissen The LORD is the rock of faith even the foundation as the LORD himselfe saith to the Prince of the Apostles Then art Peter and upon this rocke I will build my Church x Gregor Nissenus cap. postremo testimoniorum con Iudaeos Dominus est Peâ—â—â— fidei â—â—â—quam fundamentum ut ipse Dominus ait ad principe◠〈◊〉 Tu es Petrus super â—anc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam 〈◊〉 And S. Augustine teacheth us that The Church is founded upon a rocke from whence even PETER took his name For the rocke tooke not its denomination from PETER but PETER from the rocke even as CHRIST taketh not his name from Christians but a Christian from CHRIST y August truâ—â— 124. in Iohan. Ecclesia fundata est super petram â—â— de Petrus nomen accepit Non enim à Petro petra siâ—â— Petrus à petra siâ—â— non Christus à Christianis sed Christianus à Christâ— vocatur Theodoret shall conclude for this particular who telleth us that Blessed PETER or rather the LORD himselfe layed the foundation for when PETER said thou art CHRIST the Sonne of the living GOD the LORD said upon this rocke I will build my Church Bee not you therefore denominated from man for CHRIST is the foundation z Theodoret. in 1. Cor. 3. Fundamenâ—â—â— jecit beatus Petrus vel pâ—tius ipse Dominus Cum enim dixisset Petrus Tu es Christuâ— filius Der viâ—â— dixir Domiâ—â— super hanc 〈◊〉 â—rarâ— aedificabo EcclesiammeaÌ„ Ne voâ—â—â— go denominaâ—â— ab hominibus Christus 〈◊〉 â—â—◠〈◊〉 So that the Iesuite may see how Peter was the rocke and foundation by confessing and preaching CHRIST the true rocke The latter of which duties to wit preaching CHRIST is so bitter â—nto their Popes that I thinke they had rather forsake their Rock-ship then be tyed thereunto And as the Church was no otherwise grounded upon Peter then you have heard from the Fathers so neither was the flocke of CHRIST Io. 21. committed to Peter in the Roman sence For feeding is not domineering that which before did point out a sheepheard must not now constitute a Prince or Monarch But not to descant upon this place in every particular the Iesuite may take notice that there want not Fathers that thinke the other Apostles had as much interest in feeding as Peter himselfe and that hee received no new power by his pasce oves this is cleare from the reasons that the Fathers give wherefore CHRIST spake onely to Peter As first not to give him a new power and Commission but to stirre him up to conâ—â—sse his LORD thrice as before hee denyed him So Augustine tract in Iohan 123. Cyrillus in Iohan. lib. 12. cap. 64. Secondly that hee might renewe the Apostle shippe for so saith Cyrill But CHRIST said fiede my Lambes renewing unto him the dignitie of his APOSTLESHIP least it might seeme to be lâ—st for his denyall which happened by humane informitie a Cyrillâ—â— in Io. l. 12. c 64. Dixit autem pasce agâ—â—◠〈◊〉 Apostolâ—â—â—s ei renovâ—â—â—â— dignitatem ne propter â—egatioâ—em quae human◠〈◊〉 accidit lâ—befactaâ—i videreâ—â—â— What new power is here given What ordinarie jurisdiction that ordinarily did not belong to the rest Here is the old Apostleship renewed to Peter which by denyall of his Master he
non habentem maculam aut rugam non sie accipiendum est quasi jam sit sed quae prâ—paratur ut sit quando apparebit etiam gloriosa Nunc enim propter quasdam ignoranties in firmitates membrorum fuorum habet unde quotidie tota dicat Dimitte nobis debita nostra Neither was it the question in those times whether the Catholicke Church could bee spotted with Heresie but with sinne which was affirmed by the Catholicke Church against the Pelagians and this the Iesuite seemeth now to conceive and therefore telleth us that by reason of ignorant and infirmities of her members in other matters the Church hath dayly occasion to pray for the forgivenesse of sinnes n Reply pag. 43. Now the Iesuite giving the title â—â—spotted unto the Primitive Church of Rome which he accounteth the Catholicke how could the most learned Answerer understand the Iesuites tearme but according to the sence of the word as it was vulgarly taken in the primitive times Secondly it were not amisse to conceive that the Iesuite in his Challenge calleth the Primitive Church of Rome 〈◊〉 o In his Challenge in his enquirie in this section hee layeth downe the Roman Church without reâ—â—raynt of Primitive and lastly in his proofe hee thinketh hee hath got the day if from antiquitie he can prove that the Catholicke Church cannot faile So that you may easily â—spy who is guiltie of mingling one question with another But let us examine this new question as the Iesuite hath proposed it Whether the Church of Rome may rightly be tearmed Vnspotted or no p Reply pag â—â— That the auncient Roman Church was invincible never fundamentally erring in the foundation of faith in all her members for the first 400. or 500. yeares after Christ The Iesuite telleth us our Doctors and Masters grannt q In his Challenge So that the Controversie is not what the Primitive Church of Rome was in regard of Heresie but what the Roman Church is lyable unto in her succession which the Iesuite resolves and as he would make us beleive from Augustine and other anncient Fathers saying that in the truth and soundnes of her faith and doctrine shee is evermore invincible and not lyable to any spot or stayne r Reply pag. 43 But neither doth Augustine Origen Eusebius Alexander B. of Alexandria Athanasius Cyrill B. of Hierusalem or Philo Carpathius c. whom he urgeth Å¿ Reply pag 64 pag 650 say any thing for the Roman but for the Catholicke Church to which they beare testimony that it cannot faile So that our Iesuite falleth under Bellarmines Censure who affirmeth that they doe but trifle away the time who contend to prove that the Church cannot absolutely faile because it is graunted by the Protestants themselves t Bellarm. de Ecclesia mil l. 3. c. 13. Notandum autem est muluâ— ex nostris tempus 〈◊〉 dum probant absolute Ecclesiam non posse dâ—ficere 〈◊〉 Calâ—â—â—â— eâ—teri 〈◊〉 â—i id concedunt which the Iesuite knowing though dissembling after he hath produced S. Chrysostome for the perpetuitie of the Catholicke Church argueth fâ—r her But what Church doth this holy Father meane thinke you Surely none other then Peters Church u Reply pag. â—â— c. Peters Churchâ— proâ— nefâ—â— was the Church espoused to Peter purchased by Peter redeemed by Peter At Antioth the Church was first called Christian * Acts 1. v. 26. which name it hath retained and shall it loose its title and 〈◊〉 now and bee denominated from Peter The Spouse of Christ the mysticall body of Christ the house of God the Lords granary and 〈◊〉 Stapleâ— Relect cont 1. q. â— art 1. not 5 Vt est corpus Christi in uno sensu propter internam gratiam ita est domus magna Cheisti â—st area ager dominicus in alio sensu propter externam collectionem c. but Peters Church is somewhat harsh Chrysostome neere giveth the Church no such title onely their poore forged Cyrill hath Ecclesia Apostolica Petri an evidence answerable to the cause yet not convincing for the same title might be given to the Church of Antioch But can the wordes of Chrysostome stretch to the Roman Church â—et the Iesuite shew it if he be able That Church whereof Chrysostome speaketh is the Church of Christ not of Peter that Church whereof he is a Pastor y Chrys in Mat homâ—â—â— Ecclesiae futurae pastorem constituit not a Monarch the rock upon which it is builded is not Peter but Christ beleived confessed by Peter Ibid. Et super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam id est fidem atque confessionem Peter had no gift given him to preserve this Church from amidst â—â—erce assaults and raging flouds in this Fathers opinion though the Iesuite would perswade it but Peter was confirmed in his faith confessed by this promise made that the gates of hel should not prevaile against the Churchâ— Neither had Peter power given him to make the Church invincible but to declare it Ibid Petrus Ecclesiam per universum orbem amplificatam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 validiâ—â—â—â— monstravit And as the Fathers ground this priviledge of the unspotted â— Non enim turbari te con venâ—â— cùm audicris quia traâ—ar crucifiâ—â—â— integritie of the Roman Church upon the promise of Christ to Peter Matt 16. so also they oftentimes deduce the same from the vertue of that prayer which Christ made to his Father for Peters faith that it should never faile Luc 22. wherin doubtlesse he was heard for his reverence Heb. 5. 7. Reply pag. â—â— There is no ground why the Roman should enjoy this priviledge either from Christs promise or his prayer as the Iesuite hath failed in deducing any thing from the former so doth he shew his abilities in this latter at his first entrance For first he brings in forged Epistles under the name of Lucius d Bellarm. l. 2 de Rom. Pont. c. â— dare not affirme this Epistle to be undoubted it is dared Gallo Volusâ— ano Cosâ— when as they were not Consule at that time as appeareth by Baron Annal. to â— an â— and Felix e The Epistle is dated Claudio Paterno Coss when as there were none such in his time Baron ad aâ— 273. good Bishops who would have 〈◊〉 the pride that they are urged heere to 〈…〉 the rest he cites 〈◊〉 good Bishop we will not deny yet his goodnes did not declare itselfe at all times when he spake of S. Peter or the Roman Church but his infirmity For as the Bishops of Rome both before and after him desired more then was fit so it will be no difficulty to shew that they contended to justifie their desires by unfit meanes and especially by swelling wordâ—â— in the honour of S. Peter and their owne Seâ— and practises sutable thereunto Insomuch that they were esteemed smoâ—â—â— by some
Church which by the testimonie of venerable Antiquitie wee finde approved to remaine ever free from all errour to that rocke against which the power of hell shall never prevaile to that foundation which Christ hath setled by his promise and made for ever immoveable by his obtained Prayer Reply pag. 6â— How non-erring a Church your Roman hath beene in her head is already declared How infallible a rule of faith your Cheife Pastor hath proved in the primitive times venerable Antiquitie by severall examples hath detected What a rocke Peters pretended Successours have beene when the divell was let loose to split so farre as possible the ship of the Church hath not been left you untold And who can beleive that CHRIST his prayer for Peters faith was effectuall for the POPES when against faith they day he desire to usurpe his kingdome This we Catholickes saith the Iesuite are exhorted to doe by S. Cyrill sayinâ— Let us remaine as members in our head the Apostolicke Throne of the Roman Bishops from whence it is our part to seeke what wee ought to believe This also all Protestants are advised to doe by a Doctour of their owne who as we heard before telleth them that they ought diligently to search out the spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the pillar and ground of truth having found her then setting aside all other questions they ought to embrace her communion follow her direction and rest in her judgment y Reply pag. 6â— What Doctor Feild advised Protestants to doe hath beene formerly declared And for what Catholickes are exhorted to doe he urgeth S. Cyrill but from whence From Aquinâ—s z Cyril Alleâ— in Thesauro alleadged by S. Thomas in opusc cont Graecoâ— Reply pag. 6â— who forged it For Cyrill hath no such words His Thesaurus hath no such filth He neither consented unto nor approved this tyranny Hee was one of them that sent the Copy of the Councell of Nice to curbe these pretences before they got head I wonder why the Iesuite added not the like forgery of the Councel of Chalcedon to the same end from the same Author Here wee may see that the best grounds he hath to prove their holy Father to be infallible and the Romane Mother without spots are but authorities taken from deceit But leaving Doctor Feild formerly urged and answered he presents us with these sentences of the Auncient in which saith he as in a pure mirrour they may if they list espy their enorâ—ions disagreement from the truth Reply pag 63 And the first Ancient Father that he produceth is Ireneus All they that are in the Church of God ought to obey saith he unto those Preists who have their succession from the Apostles who together with the succession of their Bishoprick have received the assured grace of truth according to the good will of the heavenly Father And we ought to have for suspected such as withdraw themselves from the like principall succession and joyne themselves together in any other place I say wee ought to hold them as hereticks of a perverse judgment or as schismatickes selfe-liking presumptuous fellowes And elsewhere saith the Iesuite he declareth how such like hereticks are to be conâ—â—â—ed confounded according to the practice of his times to wit in the second age after Christ We confound saith he al those who gather otherwise then they ought how by that Church which is the cheifest the most auncient best knowne unto all men which was established grounded in Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul pointing forth that Tradition and faith which this Roman Church holdeth from the Apostles by the succession of Bishops even unto our dayes After this manner also saith the Iesuite did Tertullian troâ—â—ce wrest those Heretickes whom hee had to deale withal Let them shew unto us if they can the original of their Churches let them rip up the order of their Bishops in â—ueâ—â—ort that by a succession derived from the beginning they prove their cheife Bishop to have some one of the Apostles or Apostolicall men for his author and Predecessour for by this meanes the Apostolicall Churches doe make up their accounts And because the Heretickes then were destitute of all such proofe as Tertullian exacted of them for the maintenance of their cause even as our Adversaries saith the Iesuite are as this day He therefore bringeth in the Catholicke Church upbrayding them with them all Protestants in this manner Who â— God 's name are yeâ— When from whence came yoâ— hither What doe you amongst mine being none of mine By what right O Marcion doest thou cut my â—ood what leave hast â—hâ—â— O Valentine to turne my streames fountaines another way By what authority doest thou remove my bounds O Apelles O Luther O Calvin O Zuiâ—glius The possession is mine I have it of old I enjoyed it before you c Reply pag 69 and 70. All that the Iesuite hath produced from Irenâ—us Tertullian will make little for justifying his pretences if the point be truly considered For there is a bare personall succession which may accompany a false Church as it did the Iewish when the Pharisees saâ—e in Moses Chaire and the Churches of the East when Heretickes invaded the chaires of Catholicke Bishops Secondly there is a Successâ—â—â— not only personall of Bishops Preists but where the Catholick Apostoliâ—all doctrine is continued also The people wee say where this is plaine are bound to receive the Doctrin from Timothie every succeeding Bishop as Timothie â— Tim 1. 14. from the Apostle that established and first published the same Now whatsoever the Iesuite hath brought from these Fathers is no way advantageous for the Church of Rome For first we can shew and have done as good personall succession as the Roman Bishops can claime any Secondly to this our orderly Succession we can and have proved by comparison and consanguinity of Apostolicall doctrin that we are true and Apostolicall Churches Thirdly the Roman certaintie upon which their Profelyres must depend is no firmer by these Fathers testimonies then Ephesus Smyrna Corinth Philippi Germany Spaine France Egypt Lybia Thessalonica c Irenaeus pag. 140 142. Disci te ab Apostoli cis Ecclesijs Habetis Romae Linum Polycarpum Smyrnae ab Apostolis edoctum Tertull. Praeser p. c. 37. Proximè est tibi Achaâ— habes Corinthum Si non longè es â— Macedonia habes Philippos habes Thessalonicenses Si potes in Asiam tendere habes Ephesum si autem Italiae adjaces haqes Romam unde nobis quoque authoritas praest ò est Rhenanus Argum in Tert. de praescript alibi Impress Basil 1521. Tertullianus Ecclesiam unam Apostolicam nulla loco affigit Romanum Ec lesiam ornat magnificae laudis elogio non tamen tantam illam facit quantum hodiè fieri videmus nam Apostolicis Ecclesijs numerat non
crutches For what are the Arguments hee contendeth with 1. That there was never any commandement given that the Cup should be given to the Laytie 2. That the use of celebration of the Cuppe was not sâ— generall in the Apostles time c. And for this hee cites a Iesuite and tells us that Cardinall Perâ—n in his Reply to the King of Great Brittaine hath undeâ—yabliâ— proved that uppon just cause the Church might change the Communion of both kindes into one that Cardinall Bellarmine hath most largely disputed heâ—reof and clearely prooveth That Christ in the Sacrament is wholly contained in one kinde and that under one kinde there is found the full substance and vertue of the Sacrament t Reply pag. 20. 21. c. Loe heere is the brave confirmation of his indifferent Chalice * If Christs Bloud how â—lightly is it valued when they fight to avoyde it which if allowable I wonder hee should take so much paines in his Reply but have referred all the Controversies to his Predecessors paines because nihil dictum est quod non â—â—it dictum priâ—â— But as hee prooves so shall his answere bee sutable His referments shall bee answered with referments For their Peron I referre him for answere to Mâ—â—lin And for Bellarmine I could name him an hoast But this sacriledge of theirs I will truely lay downe and breifly in a few wordes that the Reader may see the ground of our Churches practise and the base and simple shiftes that they are forced unto for their defending of the surreption of the Cuppe And although our Iesuite declareth himselfe to have beene borne in a full Moone or the Dogge-dayes by his folly and reviling calling our Cleargie the Cupping Ministery u Reply pag â—â— yet GOD bee thanked wee defire not the cuppe for our owne selves in that their appetite is seene but for the people also that all things may bee ordered in the Church according to Christs institution And heerein all may see that hee might as justly revile CHRIST and his Apostles as hee doth those whom hee styles the Câ—pping Ministery And I thinke a Papist and a Preist might best of all men let that scorne have passed seeing the Cuppe not of the New Testament might â—it them for their armes with a Poâ—uâ— non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their Motto For a man may be in the act of â—eriting with them that is none of the soberest x Less de Iustie â—uâ—e l. 4. cap. 2. dubitat â— nu 10 p. 718. 719. Si tantus â—it excessus ut peccet mortiserè amittit meritum â—â—junij sicut aliorum bonorum operum Si aâ—tem non peccet mortiferè non amittit absolutè sed solum ex parte Quia quâ parte voluntariè abstinet à cibâ—â— vetitis et à secundâ refectione propter Ecclesiae prâ—â—ceptum meretur quod meritum non eliditur etiamsi in usu cibi vel potus non seâ—â—â—â— dâ—â—iâ—am modeâ—â—tionem quâ â—amen parte excedit non â—eâ—eâ—â— nay a man may be drunke and yet fast truly y â—â—llarm lib. 2. de bonis operibus in partic cap. 1. Iejunium EcclesiasticuÌ„m est abâ—â—inâ—ntia cibi secundum Ecclesiae regulam assumpta paâ—le post Iejunium igitur Ecclesiasticum dicitur abstinentia cibi quoâ—iam hoc â—â—junium neque POTVS neque medicamentorum sed solius cibi absâ—â—â—â—nâ—iaâ— perâ—se râ—quiâ—iâ— if Bellarâ—ine his definition of a Fast be adequate to the thing that is defined But letting all this passe I will shew plainely that the Cuppe cannot be taken from the Sacrament but the perâ—eâ—tion and integritiâ— if not the substance thereof is utterly overthrowne And to deale with a Iesuite from Iesuiticall grounds we may observe that if it crosse the substance either of Christs institution or of his Sacrament â—r his precept or of the practise of the primitive Church a Reply to Iesuite Fisher by Dr Fran White pag. 466. 467 it can no lesse then vitiate the whole action That it crosseth these what tongue can deny which impudencie hath not appropriated to its selfe For did CHRIST exhibite a double thing to the Apostles faythes and memories and did hee not likewise for the effecting thereof consecrate two materiall elements bread and wine was it not the practise of the primitive Church b Lyranâ—â— in 1. cor 11 Fit hic 1. Cor. 11. mentio de duplici specie nam in primitiva Ecclesia sic da â—atur â—idelibuâ— Cassander consult ar 22. pag. 168. Satis conâ—â—at occidentalem seâ— Romanaâ— mille à Christo â—nnis in â—olenni et ordinaria hâ—â—jus Sacramenti dispensatione â—tramque paâ—â—â— et â—iâ—â— specâ—em omnibus Ecclesiâ— Christi members eâ—hibuiâ—â—e iâ— quod ex in nuâ—â—â—iâ— veâ—â—rum scriptorum taâ— Grâ—coâ—um quam Latinorum testimoâ—â—â—s manifesâ—â—â— est atq ut ita facerent inductoâ— fuisse 〈◊〉 instituâ—â— exemploque Christi and of the Latine for a thousand or more yeares to administer it in the same manner not onely to the Cleargy but to the people also by the institution example of Christ â—ellarâ— De Euchar. l. 4. c. 24. Ecclesia autem vetus ministrabaâ—â—â—b duplici specie quando Christiani â—rant pâ—â—â—â—i 〈◊〉 Crescente aâ—tâ—m multiâ—â—â—â—ne magis â—â— magis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—t sic paâ—latiâ— defâ—â—â—â—sâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the contrary ever received by the Church deliberatly upon concluding grounds or did it stealedas the rest of the tares into the Romish Church by Custome If the Iesuite can shew us better grounds to acquite it from intrusion let him declare it this was the cheife reason the Councell of Constance e Concil Constantien Seâ—â— 13. Licet Christus post â—â—â—nam instiâ—â—erit suis discipulis administraverit sâ—b 〈◊〉 que specie panis vini hoc venerabile â—â—cramentum tamen hoc non obstante sacrorum Caâ—oâ—â—â—â—â—thoriâ—aâ— laâ—dabilis approbata coÌ„â—etudo ecclesiae servavit servat c. Et sicut haec consâ—â—â—â—do ad evitâ—â—dum aliqua pericula et scandala est rationabiliter introducta quod licet in primitiva ecclesia hujuâ—â—odi sacramentum reciperetur à fidelibus sub utraque specie posâ—â—à à confiâ—â—entâ—bus sub utraque et à laicis tantuâ—â—odo sub specie panis sâ—cipiâ—â—ur c. Vnde cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia sanctis patribus rationabiliter introducta diâ—â—issimè observata sit habenda est pro lege had for its defence and what strength it hath against Christs institution and the Primitive practise any may conceive What hath mooved the Roman Church to this surreption of the Cuppe from the people no man can without doubting imagine for if those wife motives repeated by Gerson should bee the cause wee may see how weake arguments will moove the Apostolicall power against CHRISTS institutions For first he telâ—ethus of the danger in the effusion 2. The inconvenience of the portation of it from place to place 3. The vessell might bee as filthâ—â— as Iudas his trunke 4. There
S. Augustine's time there were many more heresies that oppugned the Primitive Roman Faith y Reply pag. 8. then hee nameth sects to discredite ours For Perkâ— as the Iesuite hath mistaken his name so his Author if he speake as he is alledged for I have him not hath forsaken the truth there being no ground in the Church of England to produce so vaine a charge But for that noble * Sir Edwine Sands Knight the true inheritour of his Fathers vertues he doth shew in the place cited z In his Relation of Religion that whatsoever unity is amongst us proceedeth from the meere force and vertue of veritie which he accompteth the best and blessedest and which onely doth unite the soule with God And that the Unity of the Church of Rome is but for order in the world c. antecedent before us for which worldly peace they are beholding to their Father and adviser yet he further acknowledgeth our differences are not essentiall or in any part capitall Whereby the Reader may see with what truth he hath cited this Author For the most learned Bilson hee doth onely bewayle the mindes of many men that are not so prone to peace as they ought A complaint that the best age of the Church might have taken up And therefore if the Iesuite will proove our jarres let him forsake such poore advantages that for the most part are raised from Passion and manifest that in fundamentall points we vary one from another or all from the Catholick Church for otherwise it is more then probable that Babell will remaine where the most learned Answerer left it even in the midst of the Roman blindnes SECT IIII. THe most learned Primate as he hath sufficiently shewed the meanes whereby tares that have crept into the Church might bee detected viz â— by having recourse unto the first and best times doth further shew that the like may be done by comparing the state of things present with the middle times of the Church To which the Iesuite replying sheweth himselfe offended not so much to be foyled by his Adversary as to have it knowne This word thus doth doth more perplexe the Iesuite then the blowes which make him smart and therefore his passion expresseth it selfe Why saith hee unlesse you performe it better then thus I see not but your selfe may be crowned an Innovator of idle arguments a Reply pag. 25 No neither of idle demaunds for that is so proper to the popish schooles that no man can deprive them of this catholicke title and least want of succession should make them loose their priviledge the Iesuite hath sufficiently continued it in this his vaine Reply The first of these Arguments which the Iesuite would have accompted idle is comprehended in these words I finde by the constant and approved practise of the auncient Church that all sortes of people men Weomen and children had free liberty to reade the holy scriptures I finde now the contrary among the Papists and shall I say for all this that they have not remooved the bounds which were set by the Fathers because perhaps I cannot name the Pope that ventured to make the first inclosure these commons of Gods people b See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Answere to the Iesuites Challenge pag 9. And hereunto the Iesuite giueth a downe-right answere that hee findes no truth in this his saying first because he layeth not downe where amongst the auncient any such practise is testified to have beene 2ly neither doth he shewe where amongst us he findes the contrary c Reply pag. 25 The most learned Answerer thought it not necessary to produce witnesses to manifest so open truthes whereof the Iesuite could not be ignorant besides he is vaine and wilfull to conclude a thing untrue because the proofe is not particularly urged for who will seeke to prove those things which are most manifest which the Iesuite without declaring his ignorance cannot deny But because he chargeth this most reverend Lord with untruth I will take away that scruple from whence he seemeth to deduce this conclusion and breifly manifest first that it was the constant and approved practise of the auncient Church that all sorts of people had free liberty to reade the holy scriptures secondly that we finde the contrary amongst the Papists that then we may see whether his impudency will deny that which his deceite in this place is willing to cover For the first it is a proposition so cleare that I am perswaded the Iesuite would not have denyed it if he could with safety to himself his cause acknowledge the same Yet although he doth not confesse it I neede not much to trouble my selfe in the manifesting thereof there being such cloudes of witnesses And to goe further then the Priâ—itive times after Christ It is apparant that Gods word was not given to be kept under a bushell but as the sunne in the Orbe of the Church to lighten and irradiate the hearts of his Children as may be gathered from the scriptures penning in their vulgar tongue when they spaâ—e Hebrew To this purpose it was that Moses commaunded the Israelites to * Deut. 6. â— write the law upon the posts of their houses and on their gates And that it was a custome amongst the Church of the Iewes to try doubtfull things by the scriptures may be collected by the words of our Saviour * 10. 5. 39. Search the Scriptures for in them yee thinke yee have eternall life and they are they which testifie of mee And why should the Iewes have sent their Hebrew text to be interpreted if they had conceived that the vulgar use had not beene permitted Also it appeareth 2. Tim. 3. 15. that it was the familiar practise of good people to breed up children in the knowledge of the sacred scriptures And that it was the practise of the primitive times is plaine by the * Act. 17. 11. Bereans who searched the scriptures dayly to try the truth of the Apostles Doctrine and were therefore accounted more noble then those in Thessalonica Neither was it practise onely but the Apostle in those times perswadeth thereunto by shewing the blessing which followed the same Apoc. 1. 3. Blessed is he that readeth and they that heare the words of this Prophesie c. And for the Ages following who can be ignorant that knowes any thing of that which the Iesuite desireth proofe of For Polycarpus to the Phillippians saith I trust that you are well exercised in sacred scriptures d Polyâ—arp ad Philippâ—n Confido benè exercitatos esse in sacris literis nihil vos latet And in Origen his time the reading of these divine mysteries dayly prayers the word of instruction were the nutriments whereby the Spirit e Origen in Levit hom 9. Nutrimenta igitur spiritus sunt divina lectio orationes assiduae sermo doctrinae His alitur cibis his coÌ„valescit his victor
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleannes through the lusts of their owne hearts to dishonour their owne bodies betweene themselves Who changed the truth of God into a lye and worshipped the creature more then the Creatour who is blessed for ever Amen Whereby wee may see from whence such fearefull practises and opinions proceede not from Gods truth but from the contempt of it when men had rather adhere to their vaine imaginations then that heavenly light Which is further declared Rom. 1. 28. Even as they did not like to retaine God in their knowledge God gave them over to a reprobate minde to doe those things which are not convenient And what ground this Iesuite hath to charge the scriptures with these fearefull effects he saith not But let him tell us whether doth Gods booke afford one syllable to justifie any of these practises layed downe by him nay doth it not deterre them from such wickednes That corrupt men in the maliciousnes of imagination may pervert the Scriptures to their own destruction as we deny it not so it maketh nothing at all against the vulgar use thereof And heerein our Iesuite is worse then Adam Eve the Serpent or hee that possessed them in their corruptest nature none making God the cause of their fearefull wickednes as the Iesuite in these particulars doth his Word And I thinke the pollution of Popish Preists might with as much truth bee objected unto them as to Anabaptists nay I dare say though I hate to give them a word for defence that there is as much sufferance for notorious pollution within the Papal command as under any government and confusion in the world as will be cleared by their stewes incestuous dispensations filthy Sodomies and mincing those sinnes which a chaste minde is distempered to thinke on q Sanches lib. 4 de debito con jugali disp 46 and modestie forbiddeth me to name But our Iesuite will conclude the matter and tells us if our Answerer cannot prove as sure he cannot that ever any such liberty was granted to the people to read such like Scripture as is allowed amongst them at this day let him tell us himselfe how farre he is from agreeing with the practise of either first or middle ages of the Church wherein no such Bibling nor Babling amongst the common people was ever beard or dreamed of r Reply pag. 27 If this Iesuite by such like scriptures would have the same translations prooved to have beene in practise in the first or subsequent ages or if he would have us to proove that there were others which were as corrupt as he presupposeth ours to be in common practise then he requireth us to proove what we affirme not Yet this wee may justly say that there was never translation in the Latine Church before Hierome's time but was more corrupt then any he can finde allowed in the Church of Ireland since the Reformation which may bee demonstrated by their owne measure or rule for if our translations be nearer the Hebrew out of which they were translated then those afore-mentioned Versions out of the Septuagint it cannot bee denyed that they are more agreeable to the truth And that they come nearer the Hebrew we need not to goe farre for manifestation thereof in regard they are more agreeable to the Vulgar Latine which in the judgement of Papists is nearer to the Hebrew then the Septuagint and by consequent then any translation from thence whatsoever But it hath this notwithstanding beene formerly shewed in this Section that the Fathers not onely permitted the same scripture for the people to read as we doe now but exhorted them also to that dutie And this did continue in the Church of God untill God and his truth being neglected and contemned humane inventions and superstitious customes which did better consent to Papall tyrannie then the Scriptures could any way doe invaded the Church And notwithstanding our Iesuites pretences wee know it is not because the Scriptures are so dangerous in their use that they are not permitted by the Romish Faction but because by their light every weake judgement may discerne Papall Hypocrisy f Verger secretar Pont. act 1. pag. â—1 Et scio quidem te non ignorare prudentissimos homines qui diu in hâc causâ versati sunt ita sentire ut si ea judicanda sit ex verbo Dei in veteri novo testamento scripto juxta eum sensum quem ex Epistolis atque actis Apostolorum agnoscimus ipsos Apostolos tâ—nuisse docuisse fore ut vincamur à Lutheranis and thereupon bee inclined to cast off that Usurper which raigneth in their conscience t Consilium quorund Episcop Bonon congregat de stabiliend Rom Eccles Denique quod inter omnia consilla quae nos dare hoc tempore beatitudini tuae possumus omnium gravissimum ad extremum reserâ—aviâ—us oculi hic aperiendi sunt omnibus nervis admittendum erit ut quam minimum Eâ—angeliâ— poterit praesertim vulgari linguâ in â—â—s legatur civitatibus quae sub tuâ ditione potestate sunt Sufficiatque tantillum illud quod in Missa legi solet nec co amplius cuiquam mortaliâ—m legere permittatur Quamdiu enim pauculo illo homines contenti fuerunt tamdiu res tuae ex sententiâ successere eaedemque in contrarium labi coeperunt exquo ulterius legi-rulgò usur patum â—st Hic ille in summa est libes qui praeter caeteros hasâ—e nobis tempestates ac turbines concitavit quibus propè abrepti sumus Et sane si quis illum â—iligenter expendat deinde quae in nostris fieri ecclesijs consueveâ—unt singula ordine contempletur videbit plurimum inter se dissidere hanc doctrinam nostram ab illâ prorsus diversam esse ac saepè contrariam etiam So that whether you have made a change or our selves let the Reader determine and whether Bibling in a language that may be understood doth not better agree with the auncient practise then Babling in an unknown tongue where the people and the stones are equally edified I also desire the Reader further to conceive how the Iesuit hath behaved himselfe in this controversie that when hee should have freed his Church from the change mentioned and so have avoided the most learned Primates argument he doth nothing labour to prove their agreement with the Fathers as he should haue done but onely goeth about to perswade that the Fathers never permitted such translations or as he tearmeth it such like Scriptures to be read of the people as are allowed amongst us at this day Al which is nothing to the purpose in regard the change consisteth in their different practise from the auncients and not in our agreement with them For if all sorts of people did reade the Scriptures in the primitive times being invited thereunto by the Christian practise of the faithfull and the exhortations of the Bishops then living and that the
p Glossa apud Gratian. de consecr Dist 2 Panis est Ambrosius de sacramentis â— Quâ—â—tomagis operatorius est fermo Christi ut sint quae erant in aliud commuâ—entur sic quod erat paâ—is ante consâ—crationem jam corpus Christi est c. Hoc 〈◊〉 est impossiblle â—â— panis sit corpus Christi sed haec verba ad 〈◊〉 intellectum 〈…〉 ita solvit 〈◊〉 as the Iesuite would perswade us hee is here willing to doe though in other mens judgements they would have a more wholesome understanding if the words ut sint quae erant were utterly cast out of the text Neither doe the subsequent words of Ambrose helpe his translation or assure him that he hath hit the marke to wit Before consecration there was not the body of Christ after consecration I tell thee plainely that it is now the body of Christ q Reply pag. 40 For the change which Ambrose speaketh of is no other then of a childe of Adam to be made a new creature r Ambros de sacram l. 4. c. 4 Tu ipse eras veâ—us creatura postquam consecratus es nova creatura esse coepisti accipe igitur quemadmodum serâ—o Christi omnem creaturam mutare consueverit which the Iesuite I hope will not say is done by Transubstantiation His further defence resteth in this that they have other editions which have those words Å¿ Reply pag. 40 This indeed concludes that all your impressions of Ambrose are not guilty of this clipping but this excuseth not all Now saith the Iesuite if he who either at Rome or at Paris set forth that worke found not in the exemplar or manuscript which he tooke in hand to print those words ut siat quae erant is that a sufficient argument to charge us with cankering c. when as we otherwise doe generally hold to this day the auncient reading t Reply ibid. To which I answere that if any such corrupted exemplar were no man that was fit for such a worke could bee ignorant that the exemplar was depraved in regard Gratian u Gratian. de cons dist 2. c. Panis est and other your bookes of more ordinarie vse x Breviare Rom. lect 58 infra octav corp Christi repeate this sentence of Ambrose with those words ut sint quae erant Besides this it was Berengarius his usuall argument against the carnall eating of Christ y Modius Noâ— dist 2. c. Paniâ— est and therefore the true reading to such no question learned men as were imployed about that worke could not be unknowne So that if he who either at Rome or at Paris set forth the same found no such exemplar where those words are omitted as it is more then probable or finding any such corrupt one should publish it contrarie to Gratian and all other Coppies for the sole behoofe of the Popish cause what can this bee but a cankering and fretting away of a sound part of anâ—iquitie To conclude the most reverend the Lord Primate hath not in this particular exceeded in a circumstance for all probability will perswade that these words ut sint quae erant have troubled your braines for being urged by Berengarius and accurately explained by Guitmundus and Algerus z yet an accurate explanation could not serve the turne but sometime an exemplar is pretended where sint is left out a Ibid. Vt sint quae erant Haec B Ambrosij verba quae Berengarius Catholicis objiciebat accuraâ—è explanantur à Guitmundo l. 3. ab Algero l. 1. c. 7. Lanfranous autem non modo ea optiâ—è interpretatur sed etiam ad dit in quibusdam codicibus sic legi Si igitur tanta vis est in sermone Domini Iesu ut inciperent esse quae non erant quaâ—â—â— magis operatorius est ut quae erant in aliud commuâ—entor â— So Lanfranc vide lit â— prucedenâ— sometime where the whole sentence is omitted b So the Roman Edition sometimes the words are inserted but ad sanum intellectum they are to be translated not as they beare but as in the Roman Church they ought to be understood c So Hugo Card. The second instance is out of the imperfect worke uppon Matthew â—omil 11. where the Author writeth thus Si ergo haee vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre sic periculo sum est in quibus non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis ejus continetur â—uanto magis vasa corporis nostri quae sibi Deus ad habitaculum praeparavit non debemus locum dare Diabolo agendi in cis quod vult If therefore it bee so dangerous a matter to transferre unto private uses those holy vessels in which the true Body of Christ is not but the mystery of his Body is contained how much more for the vessels of our bodie which God hath prepared for himselfe to dwell in ought not we to give way unto the Divell to doe in them what he pleaseth Those wordes in quibus non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis ejus continetur in which the true Body of Christ is not but the mystery of his Body is contained did threaten to cut the very throate of the Papists seall presence saith the most learned Answerer therefore in good policie they thought it fit to cut their throat first for doing any further hurt Whereupon in the Editions of this worke printed at Antwerpe apud Ioannem Steelsium anno 1537. at Paris apud Ioannem Roigny anno 1543 and at Paris againe apud Audonum Parvum anno 1557. not one syllable of them is to bee seene though extant in the auncienter edition â—â— one whereof is as old as the yeare 1487 d See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Answere to the Iesuite's challenge pag. 14 The substance of the Iesuites answere to excuse this clipping is twofold First from Sixtus Senensis who doth testifie as our Iesuite saith that some auncienter â—â—ppies have not those words at all e Reply pag 41 But I would aske the Iesuite what coppies those are whether manuscripts or printed if Manuscripts where are they why doth he not point them out why doth he not direct us to them if more auncient Popish printed Coppies this doth but point them out for more ancient clippers But the truth is Sixtus Senensis saith no such thing in the booke alledged f Sixtus Senens l. 4. bibl Sancta And therefore letting him passe the Iesuite hopes to make sure worke by telling us that this appeareth by the marginal note of that very coppie which our Answerer citeth g Reply pag 43 But the truth is there is no such marginall in the edition set out at Antwerpe anno 1537. by the first corrupter of the place Iohannes Mahusius as being conscious hee had never seene any such Coppie yet in the fourth Tome of Chrysostome set out
at Paris anno 1546. which the Iesuite alledgeth not there is this marginall annotation Haec in quibusdam exemplaribus desunt but what were those quadam exemplaria Manuscripts surely not but the former printed one of Mahusius his editions set out at Antwerpe anno 1537. and at Paris anno 1543. And is not this a prettio tricke of legerdemaine first to corrupt the Author in print and then in after editions to cite those so corrupt impressions under the equivocall title of quaedam exemplaria Is not this a brave restoring of an Author to the auncient puritie of it's true and first reading So that indeed any may see that hee which followeth such guides must have the throate of his understanding cut with the knife of will full blindnes but the most reverend Primate is too well experienced in these their practises to be intrapped by such cheates or blinded with such wiles But if it be read with those words saith the Iesuite our Answerer himselfe cannot free it from manifest error mention being made of the Vessels onely of Salomons Temple which King Balthazar transferred to prophane uses and therefore was punished with losse of life and Kingdome and seeing that in those vessells neither the Body of Christ nor yet the mysterie of his Body is contained those words are not onely superfluous but also erroneous and false h Reply pag. 41 Indeede this Argument of the Iesuites is most erroneous and false for this learned Author shewiug us how to keepe our Vessels in Holynesse presseth it first from the Vessels used in the Temple Si enim vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre peccatum est periculum sicut doceâ— nos Balthasar qui bibens in calicibus sacratis de regno depositus est de vita i Opus imperfâ—â— Matth hom 41 For if it is a sinne and dangerous to transferre unto private uses the sanctified vessels to wit those of the Iewes as Balthasar doth teach us who drinking in the holy vessels lost both his Kingdome and his life Then from the vessels used in the Church Si ergo haee vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre sic periculosum est in quibus non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis Christi continetur quantò magis vasâ— corporis nostri c. If therefore it be so dangerous a matter to transferre unto private uses these holy vessels signanter demonstrativè that were used in the Church Christian and in all probability were before his face wherein the true Body of Christ is not but the mystery of his Body is conteined How much more for the vessels of our body which God hath prepared for himselfe to dwell in ought wee not to give way unto the Divell to doe in them what hee pleaseth But let the Vessels be what they will in the judgment of his owne Sixtus Senensis this Author doth here allude unto the Sacrament k Sixtus Senens Bibl. Sancta l. 6. Annot 21. Author operis imperf hom 11. alludere videtur ad haereâ—im corum qui â—egant verum corpus Christi esse in Sacramento altaris dum ait Vasa sanctificata c. which is all that wee neede to require And therefore the Iesuite hath little cause to sport unlesse it be in his shame it being evident that hee that thrust out those words did canker fret and corrupt this place and not restore it to the auncient puritie as the Iesuite vainely laboureth to perswade After all these paines the Iesuite conceiving hee hath not satisfied the Reader closeth up all with an other answer no doubt without exception The truth is saith the Iesuite as Bellarmine rightly observeth that imperfect worke upon Matthew though it goe commonly amongst the workes of Chrysostome yet is it none of his l Reply pag. 41 Who saith it is Was it urged by the most reverend the Lord Primate for Chrysostomes Here he contendeth to little purpose his fight is but folly For saith the Iesuite it aboundeth with errors c. the which errors have beene foisted in by divers Hereticks m Reply ibid c. But who were those Heretickes what were their errors were they not Arians Montanists Manichees Donatists Pelagians n Sixtus Seneni Bibl. sanctae â— 4. In Matthae um extat incerti autoris imperfectum opus varijs Montani Maâ—ichaei Arij Donati ac Pelagij haeresibus implicitum Had their Heresies any thing to doe with the question of the Reall Presence or the controversies betwixt us Wherefore the Iesuite concludeth I doe not see that any accompt ought to be made thereof at all o Reply pag. 41 A poore fetch because in some particulars it hath beene p Sixtus Senen ibid. Ego quod ad dam nihil habeo nisi hoc ipsum opus disertum doctum esse ac dignum quod assiduè legatur si tamen prius diligentissime expurgatum fuerit ab ijs erroribus quos in sexto libro in censuris super Matthaei expositoribus annotavimus abused by Heretickes therefore it must be rejected in the whole Sixtus Senensis approveth not this for he acknowledgeth the worke wittie and learned and wortâ—y of a daylie Reader if it were first diligently purged froÌ„ those errors which he hath noted in his sixt booke And Bellarmine although he thought it was either composed or corrupted by some Hereticke doth neverthelesse confesse it is a learned booke and contrary to the Iesuite minime sperâ—enous no way to â—e despised q Bellarm. de Scriptor Eccles Cujuscunque sit opus aut ab Haeretico aliquo Compositum suit aut ab Haeretico aliquo corruptum quamvis alioqui liber sit doctus minime spernendus Whereby wee may see how great esteeme the Iesuite hath of ancient Writers and with what clippings his well-willers would put forth these learned monuments if they might have their desire For although Bellarmine thinketh it credible that this Author was a Catholicke and his booke not to be despised though it were corrupted by auncient Hereticks r Ibid. Proâ—â—de eredibile est auctorem suisse Catholicum sed opus illius ab Arianis depravatum yet Sixtus Senensis before he will give him this liberty will have him purged not onely of the auncient heresies that were as the Iesuite speaketh foysted into him but of all those errours also which he hath noted in his Censures upon the Expositors of Matthew as in his fift homilie where he favours the Lutherans in the point of originall sinne Å¿ Sixtus Seuen lib. annot 16. in the IX where hee overthrowes the freedome of humane will t Ibid. annot 10. in the XIth XVIIth and XIXth where he denyes the reall presence in the Sacrament of the Altar u Ibid. annot 11. But the Iesuite will have it altogether rejected and no accompt to be made thereof at all and yet it hath beene used as a Champion to fight the Christian cause
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
author neither any Apostle nor any man Apostolicall c See the Answere to the Iesuites Challenge pag. 7. The Iesuite boasteth if the Fathers authoritie will not suffice hee will produce good and certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures d See the Iesuites Challenge in fine The most learned Answerer tels him if he would change his order and give the sacred Scriptures the precedency he should therein doe more right to God the author of them who well deserveth to have audience in the first place and withall ease both himselfe and us of a needelesse labour in seeking any further authoritie to compose our differences And thereupon as St Augustine the Donatists so this most reverend Lord provoketh Papists Let humane writings be removed let Gods voyce sound Produce but one cleare testimonie of the sacred Scripture for the Popes part and it shall suffice alledge what authoritie you list without Scripture and it cannot suffice e Answere to the Iesuites Challenge pag. 10. And in the same page he further expresseth himselfe And this we say not as if we feared that these men were able to produce better proofes out of the writings of the Fathers for the part of the Pope then we can doe for the Catholicke cause when we come to joyne in the particulars they shall finde it farre otherwise but partly to bring the matter unto a shorter tryal partly to give the word of God his due to declare what that rocke is upon which alone we build our faith even the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets * Ephes â— â—0 from which no sleight that they can devise shall ever drawe us Here also in the place alledged he shewes that although by reason of their corrupt dealing with antiquitie it is high time for us to listen unto the advice of Vincentius Lirinenfis and not be so forward to commit the tryall of our controversies to the writings of the Fathers who have had the ill hap to fall unto such hucksters handling Yet that you may see saith the most reverend Primate f In his Answere to the Iesuitea Challenge pag 20. how confident we are in the goodnes of our cause we will not now stand upon our right nor refuse to enter with you into this field but give you leave for this time both to be the Challenger and the appointer of your owne weapons Now let all men judge whether there can bee a more plaine expression without fast and loose without tergiversation without inconstancie when as the most learned Answerer adhereth with the auncient Fathers to the true and absolute rule the sacred Scriptures and yet to satisfie the Iesuite is willing to try our faith according to the rule proposed by the Iesuit himselfe not that our doctrine had no other foundation or testimony besides the Fathers but that the Iesuites vaine pretences of Antiquitie might be detected and made knowne and that the world might see that their Doctrine and Church is not to bee justified by the testimonies of either God or man unlesse it bee that Man of sinne who in this cause would bee both party and Iudge and in matters which hee calleth faith would have his determinations to be received without dispute The Iesuite proceeds Although we have already shewen how little right you have to stand uppon in this case yet such thankes as this your courtesie doth deserve wee willingly returne g Reply pag. 48 Palmarium Facinus What have you shewen but your shame You have declared your distast of Scriptures and if the Fathers would performe the worke you expect from them why doe you muster in their ranke such hired Souldiers Epistles Canons Bookes swolne with forged titles corrupted depraved that they might deceive but that gladiatorio animo although neither God nor good men will plead for you yet you will not leave to plead for your selves Wee have heard you say ere while saith the Iesuite that we have had opportunitie enough of time and place to falsifie the Fathers writings and to teach them the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans and that we have performed it so well by clipping washing cankering c. that thereby their complexions being altered they appeare not to be the same men they were h Reply pag. 48 And where I pray you doth the most learned Answerer unsay it O but if this be true saith the Iesuite how can the goodnes of your cause be proved by them if not true what satisfaction can you make us for your uncharitable slaunders If the Fathers bee corrupted how dare you enter into this Field if not corrupted why did you charge us wrongfullie i Reply ibid. If the most learned Answerer had not detected your frauds you had never beene charged by him with those crimes If your clipping washing cankering had not beene espied or if he had bene so credulous as to have beleived all your impostors that you can stile Fathers of Councells then might you justly have demaunded How could the goodnes of his cause bee proved by them But whenas you dare not trust God in his owne meaning nor the true ancient Fathers or lawfull decrees of Councels without the assistance of your bastard authors to helpe in time of necessity this gives him ground sufficient to justifie our cause that hath no need of such treacheries and to detect yours even they being Iudges whom you appeale unto For in the point to bee handled afterwards whether Peters Primacie did descend to all succeeding Bishops of Rome what testimony bringeth the Iesuit but Arabick canons of the Nicene Councell proved to be according to the title by an experiment from the mountaines of S. Thomas 1605 k Reply pag. â—6 and confirmed by an epistle of Athanasius to Pope Marke l Reply pag. â—7 Here is one Counterfeit brought to justifie another and all for the counterfeite authoritie of the Roman Bishop This your corrupting of antiquitie would have hindred us if the same had not beene detected but this most reverend Lord can discerne betwixt the right hand and the left and point you out those witnesses that you onely dare commit your selves unto The Councell of Nice was corrupted by the Pope for to magnifie his Chaire and sea and to make the African Fathers beleive that he had that by positive law which now they challenge by divine right but did these Fathers trust the corrupters No they sent for the true coppie and then left the pretenders May not this be done in the like manner by the most learned Answerer True it is that Gibeonites with their pretences of antiquitie and outward mustines may sometime deceive a Ioshua yet we doubt not but time and experience may reveale the fraud Iacob was deceived by Laban but it was in the night Day declared who deceived him Whilst the world was no further learned then the Pope infallible what excellent testimonies were there for the Papall triple but when the Sunne the
of Bishops in the Roman See that invincible rock upon which Christ built his Church For who will dreame that Father to esteeme that present seate or succession to be the rocke for any other reason then because they held the rocke confessed by Peter And in this sence not only Peters successors at Rome but all other successors of Peter the rest of the Apostles might bestiled rocks p Origen in Math hom 1. Petra est 〈◊〉 omnis qui imitator est Christi ex quo bibebant qui bibebant de spiritali consequenti petra Et super omni hujusmodi petra aedificatur ecclesia Dei In singulis enim quibuscunque perfectis qui habent in se congregationem verborum oâ—erum sensuum omnium qui hujusmodi beatitudinem operantur 〈◊〉 Eccelesia Dei cui portae non praevalent inserorum Si autem â—per unum illum Petrum arbitraris Vniversam Ecclesiam aedificari à Deo quid dicis de Iacobo Iohanne filijs tonitrui vel de singulis Apostolis Vere ergo ad Petrum quidem dictum est â—u es Petrus c. tamen omnibus Apostolis omnibus quibuscunque perfectis fidelibus dictum viâ—â— retor For why may not those churches that cleave fast to the rock of faith be called rocks to stay and adheare unto q Iranaeus l. 4. c. 43. Ijs qui in Ecclesijs sure presbyteris oporter obaudire qui successionem habent ab Apostolis quicunque cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundùm beneplacitum patris acceperunt Idem c. 44. Adherere his qui Apostoloâ—um doctrinam oustodiunt cum presbyterij ordine sermonem sanum conversatio nem sine offen sa praestant as well as the Roman her Bishops in regard Augustine saith in that very Psalme that if any man come full of the Catholicke faith wee are wont to give eare unto him as unto these men r August in Psalm contra partem Donati Talis si quis ad te veniat plenus Catholica side Quales illoâ— sanctos viros omâ—es solemus audire But what makes the former words to the Iesuites conclusion Doth S. Augustine here declare Roman Preists Successors to Peter in a Monarchicall estate or such unmoveable grounded rocks that all the Churches in time to come must be grounded upon them Surely the sesuite will never finde this to bee S. Augustines meaning but from what the Roman Preists had beene and from what for the present they were alluding to our Saviors words he doth stile them a rock that the gates of Hell did not at that time prevaile against making them a good directory to truth whilst they adheared to the Apostles doctrine For by the course of that Psalme we cannot conceive S. Augustine to have thought otherwise in regard he doth not give the Bishop of Rome power to end and determine that controversie but maketh Donatus his request to have his cause heard at Rome to be unjust telling us what the Emperour had ordained that divers Bishops Preists should heare the matter not the Roman Bishop alone Å¿ August ibid Nam Donatus cùm volebat Africam totam obtiâ—ere Tunc Iudices transmarinos petijt ab Imperatore Sed haectam unjust petitio non erat de charitate Hoe ipsa veritas clamaâ— quam vclo modo refeâ—e Nam consensit Impeâ—â—â—or â—â—â—â—t quae soderenâ— Romae Sacerdotes qui tunc possent Caeciliano cuâ— illâ— audite which he would not have done I suppose if the Bishop of Rome had had that Monarchy by Apostolicall succession which now they pretend by that title to enjoy But there is not a word of Augustine that proveth the Roman Bishops Successors of Peter in any office power or Bishoprick or so much as maketh him Bishop of Rome That he had his seate there where the Roman Preists had their Succession he insinuateth but in this place he telleth us no more nor so much as Eusebius who beginneth the Roman Bishop with Linus t Eusebius hist Eccles l. 3. c. â— Linus verò primum post Petri Pauli Martyrium Romanae Ecclesiae Episco patum sorâ—iâ—ut est for the words of Eusebius after the martyrdome of Peter and Paul can no more make Peter Bishop of Rome then Paul and I thinke they will not admit two Bishops at once in one Citie Much more might be urged to shew that the Iesuite hath produced S. Augustine to testifie that which hee never thought of But I will come to Chrysostome whom the Iesuite produceth expecting much from him because hee nameth Peters Successours Why saith he did Christ shed his bloud but to regaine those sheepe the care of whom he committed both to Peter and to Peters Successours u Reply pag. 59 I aske the Iesuite whether he thought the Apostles had no commission from Christ to have a care of his sheepe whether Goe ye into all the world and preach the Gospell to every creature * Marke 16. 15 did commaund no care of CHRISTS flocke or whether there be no successors of Peter but the Bishops of Rome Cardinall Cusanus cannot deny that all Bishops are the successours of Peter x Nich. de Cusa Card. l. 2. De concord cath c. 13. Non possumus negare omnes Episeopos esse ejusdem successores Scilicet Petri And S. Chrysostome in the very place cited by the Iesuite expresseth himselfe to be free from the conceit that the Bishops of Rome are S. Peters onely Successours For why should he perswade Basil to be minde full of his dutie hee being a Bishop from this reason because CHRIST said to Peter Lovest thou me Feede my sheepe and because the care of his sheepe are committed to Peter and his successours y See Chrysostomes testimony produced before in the beginning of the Section if hee had not beene one of them This title I have shewed before doth belong to other Bishops as well as Romane neither is it denyed by Bellarmine himselfe z Bellarm de Rom. Pont. l. â— c. 23. Respondeo in Apostlatu continâ—â— Episcopatum Episcopes succedere Apostolis and therefore I may forbeare here further to presse it The next is Leo but I shall not neede to speake to that which is urged from hâ—m here in regard I shall have more occasion in the next Section He loved to be great and to make Peter greater then he should be for his owne sake as I have in some things before declared shall hereafter more fully shew Yet all that hee desired I suppose was not so great licentiousnesse as the Bishop of Rome desireth and would have all to attribute unto himselfe Now commeth the Bishop of Ravenna Peter Chrysologus in his Epistle to Eutyches You are not much beholding to that See that you should bring a Bishop from thence to give testimony for you but what saith hee Wee desire thee honorable brother that thou wilt listen dutifully unto those things which
either 〈◊〉 a Neasâ—uig or mac a 〈◊〉 in regard their fathers villany adhâ—â—eth to that name and addeth afflictioâ— to their mindes but for the sonnes of Preists and Bishops amongst us what repining humour can possesse them seeing they were borne in honourabâ— Dist 56. cap. Osius Osius Papa suit silius Stephani subdiaconi Bonifacius Papa â—uit silius â—ucundi presbyteri Faelix Papa filius Felicis presbyteri de titulo Fasciolae Agapitus Papa â—ilius â—ordiâ—ni presbyteri Theodorus Papa 〈◊〉 Theodoâ—â— Episcopi de 〈◊〉 Hierosotyma Sylverium Papa filius Sylverij Episcopi Romae Deusdedit Papa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subdiaâ—â—◠〈…〉 natione 〈◊〉 〈…〉 matrimâ—ny their patents living in the rule appointed by the Apostle But the Iesuite as 〈◊〉 of his sports commeth in good sober sadnesse to wonder that in such an audience the Answerer blushed not to affirme that Rome had little to alleadge for this perfâ—rment but onely that S. Peter was crucified in it But what can the Iesuite say it hath more Why he tells us That 〈◊〉 can â—ll 〈◊〉 that the Apostle did relinquish Antiâ—â—h to 〈◊〉 his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 her u Reply pag. â—â— As if the Bishop and Monarch of the whole Church 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 a double mansion several places of 〈◊〉 Did their Popes relinquish Rome by fitting in the chaire â—â— Aâ—ignion Or was it possible that hee that kept the Bishoprick of the whole Church could relinquish the Seâ— of Antioch by his so journing at Rome The â—â—suite would perswade it and that it was done by commaund For saith he as 〈◊〉 Writers ◠〈◊〉 Papa 〈…〉 doe relate Peter was commanded so to doe by CHRIST himselfe Reply pag. â— Here is nothing to make the inheritance to descend upon the Church of Rome from divine testimony And Bellarmine indeede conceived the matter onely probable â—â—remptorily hee concludeth not that the Bishop of Rome by divine right is Peters Successour y Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. â— c. 1â— Et quo â—â—am â— Mar 〈◊〉 Papa i â—â— ad 〈◊〉 sâ—â—â—bit 〈…〉 S. 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 contra 〈◊〉 Athanasius in Apâ—logia 〈…〉 Marry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor â—â—â— improbabile Dominum 〈…〉 ut â—edem 〈…〉 â—â—geret 〈◊〉 uâ— Romaâ—â—s Episcopus 〈◊〉 â—â— succedâ—ret sed 〈◊〉 â—â— hoc â—â—t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ratio 〈◊〉 non est 〈◊〉 institutione 〈◊〉 quâ— in â—â—â—gelio legitur neither will he 〈◊〉 it of faith that Peters seate was there onely hâ—◠〈◊〉 that it is most probable pâ—â— credendum and he will â—â—count you a Catholicke if you beleive it z Bellarm de Rom Pont. l 4. c 4. Accedit quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christâ—m imperasse 〈◊〉 ut Romae â—edem â—ollocaret non â—â—men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibi collâ—caret Quoâ—iam ergo â—on constat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peâ—â—o ut Romae 〈◊〉 colâ—ocaret ideo non est de 〈◊〉 divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Romae â—â—dem esse constitutam sed â—amen ut 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is this the Cardo upon which all the Catholicke Romane â—aith turâ—eth Is there no more certainery in this ground-worke Must Peters inheritance descend certainely upon him who by divine right cannot proove himselfe to bee his Heire Must one Witnesse and that a knowne Counterfeit and â—â— Marcâ—lluâ— a Haec est una illarum epistolarum quas 〈…〉 esse 〈◊〉 tell us a story and obtâ—ine an Empire This is too great a reward Now whereas hee tells us that Peter was Bishop of Rome the space of â—â—ve and twentie yeares Antioch having had him but for 〈◊〉 and consequently that he laboured more fruitfully and performed all more gloriously in her then in Antioch and finally that in her even by Christs appointment also he glorified God by the triumph of his blessed death and martyrdome b Reply pag. â—â— We tell him that when he attempts to prove it hee shall not want his answere That Peter was at Rome preached there was crucified it is not much to grant him but that hee was there such a Bishop as Linus c. hee cannot prove some making him such a Bishop as Paul was others making him nonâ— at all But the Iesuite chargeth the most learned Answerer with judging according to the flesh when hee made the Apostles death and martyrdome a slender cause why Peter should respect her so much And further telleth us that surely it is no slender cause for the Catholicke Church to sing therefore of her with solemne joy in this sort Thrice happy Rome that with the purple blood Of such great Princes stand'st adorn'd and blesâ— Not thine owne worth but their deserving good Crownes theâ— on earth the fairest and the best c Reply pag. 61 62. This most grave and reverend Lord I confesse hath nor as some of you could have wish'd put off the 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 man in the Iesuiticall forme d Hassen Mullerus de Votis Iesuitarum c. 6 Si Nobiles illoâ—â—m societatem ingrediantur habitu veniant splendido ac precioâ—o permittunt â—t triduum eâ—m reservent quo lapso cum â—â—ponere alteri dare Societatis habitum â—â—duere jubenâ—â—â— Et hoc est secundùm illos veterem exuere 〈◊〉 seipâ—â—m mottiâ—â—cais alteri suâ—◠〈◊〉 â—â—â— neither as your Popes have â—nterpreted 〈◊〉 I. Epist 3. ad 〈◊〉 the Apostle Rom 8. â— â— â— but as God himselfe hath commaunded wherein the World is his Witnesse and I thinke it but time spent to justifie him But let the Iesuite prove this Argument to bee convincing if hee bee able his singing and other passages will not worke the feate The Saints in Rome wee know as the Church otherwhere were much confirmed by the patient sufferings of the Martyrs but this doth not excuse much lesse lift up Rome Did Abels blood that â—â—yed for vengeance plead then for glory Did innocent blood theâ— advance your Monarchy that now you make your selves drunke with the blood of the Saints Hierusalem lost heâ— Crowne by the Prophets blood must the Apostles triple Rome Yet if Rome get such an height in martyring the servant what might Hierusalem pleade that crucified the Lord These you see are silly inventions but the strongest pillars of the Romane faith The Iesuite hath done his doe yet he telleth us Much more might be said and now intreates the Gentle Reader to trophey him for his victory But hee hath not yet cured the wound that hath beene given him though hee conceiteth all faire smoothe and without scarre He hath laboured to make Fathers and Saints the Popes serving-men the World his Citie Heaven the Church and Purgaâ—ory his Provinces but as you see all in vaine The downe-right blowes he perswades himselfe to be given we feele not our sheildâ— are not peirced neither are the least of our bul warkes overthrowne SECT IX THis Section shewes that the Iesuite having overshot himselfe in a tearme would now make it good by an interpretation and thereupon hee enquires Whether the Church of Rome may
coâ— qui 〈◊〉 animarum zelantes ardenter sacris studijs procurantes multos in Ecclesia Dei operantur spirituales profectus magnum faciant ibi fructum their bookes burnt r Ibid Diâ—â—icte praecipientes ut quicunque libellum ipsum habuerit cum prorsus in toto in qualibeâ— sui parte comburere abolere procuret the Fryars preserved from the flame the Fryars made inquisitors of heresies Å¿ Bulla Alexandri IV. inter liter Ponâ—iâ—â—c pro officio Inquisit à â—â— Pegâ—à edit Rom. an 1585. pag. 5051. Alexander Episcopus servus servorum Dei Dilectis filijs universis fratribus Praedicatorum Minorum ordinum Inquisitoribus â—aereticae pravitatis c. Praesentium vobis auctoritate mandamus 〈◊〉 in â—odem negotiâ— de divino eâ— Apostolico favore confisi omnj humanâ— tractare deposito constanter ac â—ntrepide procedentes cirea extirpandam haereticam pravitatem câ—m omni vigilantiâ— omnique â—â—â—dio laboretis Prateol de haer in Guileâ— de S. Aâ—â—â—e Gault sec 13. these censured as forsaking the faith I will not for all this say that there were no members of CHRIST in the Church of Rome yet I dare say that all these Factionists against the Person Ghospell Preisthood of CHRIST were members of the Divell Neither is Dissention at this day such a fugitive from the Roman Church as the Iesuite would have us to beleive The Regulars of Ireland yesterday would excommunicate the Seculars out of the Hierarchie and preferre their Prelates before their Bishops for this reason because their Bishops are Subulci Swyneheards their flockes swyne Censura Paris Propos 2. Sacerdotes sunt meri saeculares Ibid. Propos â— Superiores Regularium digniores sunt Episcopis siquidem dignitas Pastoris peten da est ex conditione sui gregis quemadmodum opilio dignior est subulco The Sorbonists that cry loudest in this Heard make the Regulars as hath beene before related in their positions to be schismaticall inept hereticall * See before pag. 136. c. Now we may see what reason the Iesuite hath to use his interlineall glosses or to demaund with what reason the Answerer pretends harmony in Religion u Reply pag. 79 seeing it is apparant that the quarrels of Protestants are but in ceremonies or at worst in points of no absolute consequence that their differences are in matters that concerne the life of Religion unlesse they thinke the Church may subsist without CHRIST his Gospell or his Preisthood We may complaine with Ioseph that our brethren or those which should be so are too hard hearted that will offer to cast us into the pit of Death and Heresie for such pettie and small differences that being scanned with charitie would not appeare to be materiall when as your Variances Mr Malone would burst into scisme nisi ignis securis in officio contineret x Spal contra Suar. c. x. nu 30 Schisma proculdubiò facerent etiam nostrae Romanenâ—â—umsectae modo à me nominatae nisi illos ignis securis in officio contineret unlesse your Peacemonger tyed you to Unity by the faggot and the hangman So that his declamation out of Chrysostome doth torture himselfe not punish us for who barely seemes to have CHRIST but the Principall of Papists And what Alcoran denyes him more then their eternall Gospell Who mixeth the Gospell with decrees of men Have they forgot them who will have traditions to be received with the Scriptures pari pietatis affectu y Conc. Triden sess 4. Omnes libros tam veteris quam novi Testamenti neenon Tradiones ipsas pari pietatis affectu ac reverentiá suscipit â—c veneratur Are they not at Trent and Rome And therefore wee condemne you not because you are at oddes with Heretickes but because you are at peace with Hell and contention against the Faith But although the Iesuite hath fayled in his first attempt to make our dissentions such as either drive us from the Church or the Church from us yet hee ceaseth not but proceedes to manifest that the most learned Answerer in his Sermon at Wansted did seeke to shake off the palpable badge and cause of discord from himselfe by laying all upon the Pope and his universall superioritie as may appeare saith the Iesuite by his words Neither indeede is there any hope that wee shall see a generall peace for matters of Religion settled to the Christian World as long as this supercilious Master the Pope shall bee suffered to keepe this rule in Gods house But is not this saith the Iesuite just as if malefactors should give out that they can never live in quiet peace whilst Iustice beareth sway Or yet as if the damned spirits should complaine that they can never finde rest in Hell while God in Heaven beareth rule z Reply pag â—0 It is just as like as the Pope is either like to God or Iustice It is true as I have shewed before that the Divell is somthing lesse ambitious then the Pope For if the Scripture do point out that wicked one he would be but similis altissimo like unto the most High yet the Pope doth so farre disdaine to bee like GOD that he must be GOD himselfe No sooner Pope but he must bee placed upon the Altur and be worshipped lib. 1. ceremon sect 1. pag. 16 a Bis super altare collocatur cum mitra ibi que adoratur If in the Chaire who governes but a Celestiall Prince b Carer de potest Rom. Pon. 2. c. 24. n. 19. Hâc itaque in re Itali maximè se divino mâ—nere extollant super omnes nationes quod habuerintprin cipem coelestem Pontificem scil Romanum Talke of his power it is Omnipotent c Theses Pauli 3. Dicatâ— Vicedeum Christianâ— reipublicae Monarcham invictissimum et pontificiae omnipotentiae conservatorem acerrimum His Act the act of GOD d Panor in cap inter corpcralia de trans Episc His Tribunall one with God e Hostiens de trans Episc c. quanto n. 11. from whom there is no Appeale to GOD f Aug Triumph quaeâ—â— 6. 1. Nulla appellatio tenet facta aÌ„ Papà ad Deum quia unum Consistorium est ipsius Papâ— ipsius Dej because this presupposeth a superiour The Vnity and Trinitie of his Deitie I have shewed before out of Morinus g See before pag. 135. lit â— Besides he is as like to Iustice as he is truely GOD and no further I will not say that like Ziâ—â—ri hee â— surped his Monarchie by killing of his Master but by actions in our Saviours testimony equally unjust as by butchering his servants slaughtering his Saints Iustice gives Hee takes from every man his due His actions are the measure of Iustice not measured by it Princes and Preists the most glorious witnesses of the world whose prerogatives he covets and usurpes can witnesse this Shall wee thinke that all
ibid. I have made it good before that Heresie is more ancient then the Papacy and that duration doth not exclude their opinions from being prophane and hereticall novelties c Before p. 193. 194. in which place as also hereafter the Inquisitor may receive satisfaction But hee telleth us that the most learned Answerer consequently will have us to beleive that his Religion is of more antiquity d Reply p. 106. Now as the Iesuite distasted the terme of Noveltie deservedly cast at himselfe and his so he is impatient that antiquity might any way belong to us and therefore in a disgracefull manner saith that the most learned Answerer endeavoureth to make good the antiquity of his profession first by jumping at once over a Thousand sixe hundred yeares and squaring his faith by that of the Apostles e Reply ibid. But this is not vanity if it were done unlesse the Iesuite will condemne himselfe as vaine also For in severall particulars he is forced to jumpe to the Apostolical times himselfe as hath beene before observed f Pag 86. 87 Neither dare he adhere to his touchstone the fathers but where his holy Father hath approved him g Reply p. 98. And for GODS Pen although he doth distast it yet he is willing to pretend from thence some safety though imaginarily when otherwise hee can finde no protection at all h See the direction at the letter But let the Iesuite know that he leapes short that reacheth not the Scriptures And to bee taught by any other without CHRIST and his Apostles in divine mysteries is to be deceived Give GOD and his Word the first place the Fathers will never bee denyed to be great helpes to truth and devotion and this is all that the most learned Answerer doth desire Secondly saith the Iesuite by adventuring though faintly to justifie it by that which the holy Fathers in middle ages did professe i Reply p. 106. Here the Iesuite detects himselfe that what he hath uttered before is untrue for there he chargeth the Answerer with jumping at once over a Thousand sixe hundred yeares and yet in this place he acknowledgeth him to justifie our profession by that which the holy Fathers in middle ages did professe Here we may see the reason why Mr Malone pleads the Fathers for his touchstone and accuseth us for rejecting them not because he accompts them the Rule or is confident in their tryall but because the people whom they dayly deceive are not so well able to make use of them whereby to convict their errours These are they that cry the Fathers the Fathers and yet despise them Wee keepe them under the commaund of their MASTER yet deny them not their just reverence their deserved honour We haue seene saith the Iesuite how he hath failed in the first producing no more for himselfe then all Heretickes have ever done k Reply p. 106. If the most learned Answerer had onely pretended Scripture without the truth or true sense of it he had done no more then the Devill Papists and other Heretickes have done but how will the Iesuite prove this to have beene practised by his learned Answerer The Scriptures he desires not as Papists and heretickes have abused them but in their true sence This light because you cannot endure must you therefore be a conquerour Poore fugitive How doth he dreame when he flyes from that power that prosequutes and would condemne him For the sword of the Spirit would not onely as the sword of the Angell make the Asse bruise the legge * â—â—â— â—â— â—â— but even breake the heart of the false Prophet if his eyes did behold the brightnesse of it And as vainely doth he charge the most learned Answerer with feare and shamefull tergiversation from the Fathers testimonies l Reply p. 106. when as whatsoever he hath said concerning them is the same that some Papists nay the Iesuite himselfe notwithstanding hee calls them the touchstone hath affirmed Was it not Mr Malone that rejected the Fathers generally consenting and defended them that did likewise m Reply p. 92. Who declared it lawful for every one in points that the Pope hath not made faith to presse urge the Fathers or reject them as they please n Reply p. 93. Doth not a troop of their owne exclude them from that authority in the Church which the Iesuite would seeme to give them neither affording theÌ„ the honor of a rule or touchstone either o Bellarm. â— de Concil author l. 2. c. 12. Scripta Patrum non sunt Regulae neque habent auctoritatem obligandi Wadding legat de concep Virg. Mariae sect 2. Orat. ◠§. 6. Nec enim parvum Doctorum aggerem sed Dei sapientiam spiritum pro regula rectore veritatis habet sancta haec nostra quae fallâ— non potest mater Ecclesia The Iesuite further telleth us that the Answerer in demonstration of his forwardnes taketh upon him to give the first onset himselfe But it is easie to espy saith he how this pretended hardines is nothing else but a meere cover and cloake to hyde the weaknes of his cause and to boulster out his booke with a shew of antiquitie more then with a substance of verity being flush alwayes in words and refined periods yet still failing in sound reason and judgment p Reply p. 106. What the Iesuite hath espied I presume he hath not kept secret therefore whether this conceit be not one of his selfe flatteries will be espied in the proper place where he hath declared what hee hath beene able to performe But though we should grant him saith the Iesuite whatsoever be alleadgeth out of the Fathers and that wee should confesse their sayings to make altogether for him hath not his owne mouth pronounced that all this will not be any way sufficient forasmuch as no authority but that of the Scripture can suffice And if he had reason to cry out with S. Augustine and say let humane writings bee remooved let Gods voyce sound with what sense now may he be thought to have stuffed such a deale of Paper with humane authorities It wil be answered that it is done onely to shew the confidence hee hath in his cause and that the Fathers howsoever hee esteemeth them little make wholly for him and against us q Reply p. 107. To this wee answere that iâ— his cause did not gaine by it yet the Catholicke Church is no looser when the grand deceivers of the Romane Faction are detected and their pretences of antiquity made knowne for delusions Secondly is the cause of Religion no way assisted by the writings of the auncient Fathers unlesse wee acknowledge them with the Iesuite the assured touchstone Navigators as are all that saile in the Sâ—ippe of the Church have much comfort and direction by the other Starres although the North alone infallibly direct their course and assists them to the
that the most reverend Primate in that Historicall explanation did not discend to the ages of Wickliâ—â— or Husse and therefore could not bring them in for Pâ—lâ—ars of his successive Church The Iesuite further telleth us that they are confessed to be damned herâ—ticks h Reply â— 11â— but bringeth not any testimony for the same He that speaketh most bittâ—rly is O sâ—aâ—der against the Waldenses who taxeth their opinions as absurd c. But I hope wee are not tyed to belâ—ive him where it is apparant hee was altogether deceived That the most learned and holy Bishop Iâ—well did cast off the Waldenses as none of ours may bee imputed to this that hee bâ—held them as their persecutors painted them out with spots of Maâ—ichâ—isme and other hereticall errours But if the Iesuite will read that discourse which hee cavils at hee shall see that the heresies imputed to thâ—m were bred in the malicious minds of Papists who did therefore fâ—igâ—â— these opinions to be theirs because they reproached their dissolute lives and no otherwise i Girard Histor Franc. lib. 10. Quam vis pravis iâ—buti â—â—erint opinionibus non hoc taâ—en tantum Papae magnorum Principum odium in â—os concitabat quantum libertas orationis quâ dicâ—oâ—um Principum atque Ecclesiasticorum vitia morâ—s dissolâ—tos culpare ipsiusque Papae vitam actionâ—â— reprehendere consâ—everunt Haec praecipua res fuit quae universorum â—is conâ—â—avit odium quaeque â—ffecit ut plures â—efariâ— affingerentur â—is opiniones à quibâ—◠〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—ant alâ—â—â—â— Thirdly saith the Iesuite both Luther himselfâ— and all his followers doe make him the first Author of Protestanâ—y k Reply pag 110. What Luther the first that ever taught the doctrine professed by Protestants Those that are better read in story then our Iesuite confesse otherwise for Poplinerius acknowledgeth the Waldenses and Protestants to differ little and that this doctrine was preached and defâ—nded throughout Europe in France Spaine England Italy Germany and other Nations also l Popliâ—er hist Franc. lib. 1. â—dit aâ— 1581. fol 7. b Hi Albigenses invitis Principibus Christianis omnibus circa annum 1100 temporibus subsequentibus doctrinam suam ab eâ quam hodie PROTESTANTES amplectuntur parùm differentem non per Galliam solum totam sedâ—â—iam per omnes pâ—nâ— Europae oraâ— disseminârunt Nam Galli Hispani Angli Scoti Itali Germani Boâ—â—mi Sâ—xonâ—â— Poloni Lithuani gentes aliae â—am ad hunc diem pertinaciter defenderunt But I need not to stand in defence of that booke which doth defend it selfe and ever will against either the Iesuite or his fellow-labourers neither hath he urged any thing worthy observation against the same For there is no question but Luther did powerfully preach against Popish corruption and by his ministery together with others whom GOD raised up with him did publish the Gospell the light whereof for a long time they did disgrace and revile It is not enough to make Luther the Author of our Religion because after your Apostasie heâ— was one that at first did publickely and zealously preach the same When the Arians persecuted the Catholicke Faith eclipsed obscured it made it reputed Hâ—resie insomuch that the whole world m See before pag â—5 lit â— in marg was an Arian and Catholicke also in her owne judgment was the Catholicke faith afterwards published with zeale and victory the birth of Christian Religion the beginning of our Creed Nothing more triviall That which the Iesuite speakes afterwards of Luthers remorse of Conscience is ridiculous and might have beene spared for who can doubt but that in his â—calous performing of his duty in publishing the Truth of the Gospell of CHRIST the Divell did as violently assault him within as the Pope without thereby he was afflicted with as many superstitious feares within as outward terrors for the same reasons I suppose in regard the preservations of their kingdomes did depend upon it Now at last that he may conclude he casts up his Audit Sâ—â—ing that our Answerer cannot tell us that which we demaâ—nded to wit when or by whom our Catholicke Religion was first brought in n Reply p. 11â— Although there is no Injunction for it as hath beene shewed that he should answere your Demaund yet hee hath in all your particulars discovered your innovations which how it hath beene avoyded wil bee examined in their due place Yet the Iesuite telleth us that he will doe the Answerer the favour to tell him briefly where when and by whom his Protestant Religion was first begun o Reply p. 113. But I aske the Iesuite whether in his Conscience he is not checked for urging Calvin c with a corrupt minde when from their words he would have it concluded that the Catholicke Faith did first bâ—gin at Wittâ—nbergâ— I hope the Iesuite can consider that the repairing of the Temple was not the laying thâ— foundation of it neither David Hâ—â—â—â—hiah or Iosiah their regulating of things amisse a bringing in of a new law Teaching for doctrine the Traditions of men this makes a beginning but let the auncient of dayes be preached in the last times this is no Novâ—ltie no new thing But saith the Iesuite Loâ— here then the place where Wittenberge the yeare 1517 the day of the moneth the xxxi of Octâ—ber the day of the weekâ— Saturday yea the very houre of the day twelve of the clocke when first Protestancie was brâ—â—â—hed by Luther p Reply p. 1â—3 Nothing more fond Luther resisted Popish abuses such a day therefore the Faith preached by Luther did then first begin What did de make a new Gospell as some of you have attempted q See before pag. 330. 331 or frame a new Creed as you have lately done r See before 359. I desire the Iesuites evidence or his modesty his evidence to convict Luther or his modesty to condemne himselfe For if the opposing of Iâ—dulgences be the beginning of our Faith as the Iesuite doth insinuate Bellarmine will shew that he hath fayled both iâ— person time and place Å¿ Bellarm. de Indulgen l. â— c. 1. Primi qâ—â— indulgentias contempserunt oppugnârunt fuâ—ruâ—â— Waldenâ—â—â— Seqâ—â—tus est Valdenses Ioannes Wicleâ—â—â— Wicleâ—um seqâ—â—ti sâ—â—â— Hussitâ— Hos MAIORES PARENTES habâ—it Maâ—tinâ—s Lutherus And although he give Luther the name yet Bzovius will not have Luther but Staâ—pitius to have first begun the worke Bzovius Annal Eccles in ann 1517. num â— Staâ—pitius quoque quamvâ—â— PRIMVâ—â—apâ—dâ—m validâ—ori postea brachio vibrandum contra Ecclesiam conjâ—â—issâ—t sectâ— tamen cujus si non â—â—ctor certè promoâ—o◠〈◊〉 â—â—â—en darâ— non potuit sed â—â—rpiâ—â—dinem hanc Luthero reliquit And notwithstanding the Iesuite telleth us so confidently that Protestancie was first brâ—ached by Luther the yeare 1517. yet the same Author affirmeth that he disputed against them in the points oâ— free-will mâ—rits and traditions the yeare before Ibid. nuâ— 1â— Superiore poâ—â—o anâ—o 1516 Idem Lutherus disputavit conâ—ra Scholasticoâ— Theologoâ— de libero aâ—â—â—trio meritâ—s bonoâ—um opâ—â—â—â— traditionibuâ— Ecclesiasticiâ— â—asque propositioâ—eâ— Toâ—o 1. opâ—â—u◠〈◊〉 â—â—serâ—it â—◠〈◊〉 â—â—ique appaâ—eâ—◠〈◊〉 jam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So punctuall the Iesuite is that in the judgment of his owne he hath in every circumstance troad awry His repetition of Aâ—gâ—stines rule That Custome which â—en looking up into former tiâ—â—s doe not finde to have beene brought in by any that lived after the Apostles is rightly beleived to havâ— beene delivered by the Apostles themselves helpes neither them nor their cause for they never have nor ever wil be able to manifest either by our confession or otherwise that Roâ—ish customes have beene universally received neither can they defend them from Noveltie in their â—â—â—rance wherefore they may well bee cast forth into thâ— Dâ—nghill as wanting the Salt of Apostolicall institution for their seasoning So that S. Augustines Rule condemneth their Novelties and the GENENERALL CONTROVERSIE is cleared but indeed no otherwise then to the detection of their Egyptian Darkenes