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
also have defined contrarie to generall practise and custome of the Church though not in fundamentals yet in points of great consequence as your Councell of Constance * sess 13. against Communion in both kinds and your Trent Synode for private masse against the practise of primitive times a De consecr distinct â— cap peracta Peracta consecratione communicent omnes qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus sic enim Apostoli statueruntet sancta Romana tenet Ecclesia not of one particular Roman but of the vniversall body of the Catholicke Church so that there might be as good Musicke made of an emptie vessel as the impregâ—able harmonie you boast of and though there were no crosse definition against the foundation of faith yet that Pope is not hid and Councell which have made that faith from such an interpretation of scripture b Scot 4. â— 11. q 3. which Scotus could see no reason or authoritie for but what was in the sic volo sic jubeâ— of the Roman Church But further this Argument may bee retorted in their teeth if these points were not ab initio but got footing in the Church of Rome by Papall violence and decrees of Councels which were his owne then they have not the birth of Apostolicall traditions neither can they bee accounted cheife Articles c Suarez Ies dâ—trip â—iâ—t disput 5. § 4. num 4. Cum non sit vniversalis in tempore non potest per se fidem facere catholicam quae debet esse 〈◊〉 pore vniversalis but some of the points mentioned are by your owne thought to be put Iuris positivi which I thinke you will not stretch vp to the Apostles times as confession c all the rest have bene declared quibus gradibus they got footing in the church by the most learned Answerer against which the Iesuite hath in the point of Free will spoken little to all the rest materially nothing as wil be declared in the examination of them Now the Iesuite thinking hee hath performed some brave exployt concludes he hopes with triumph If we presse them to name those Popes who so 〈◊〉 from faith to infidelitie or brought in but one onely article of religion contrary to that of fore-going ages because they cannot satisfie our demaund herein it must be shuffled vp vnder the tearme of a vaine demaund d Reply pag 4. First we charge them not with decreeing contrary to the foundation interminis as that there is not one God three Persons c. but that they have added to the faith delivered by the Spirit of God many articles of their owne Neither do we say that they have forsaken the faithabsolutly for they professe it but the purity of it not contenting themselves with the auncient rule without mixtures of their own Such corruptioÌ„ such alteration of the faith they cannot deny therefore have laboured to excuse it that it is not new faith but a declaration of the old the birth of some of which â—aith was 1500. yeares after CHRIST and his Apostles had delivered the whole councell of God So that the Iesuite â—â—th marched valiantly and with Balaâ—m hath expressed his desire to curse Israell but all his hope is declared vpon which he founds his confidence that because we cannot satisfie his demaund hee is therefore secure that his demaund is not vaine when as the vanitie there of maketh it vnanswerable S â— Augustine thought it a vaine demaund to aske what God did before the creation of the world and therefore turnes it off with a menacing answere The most learned Answerer hath the same thoughts of the Iesuites Quare and casteth it off by just exception and both most rightly Yet the Iesuite inviteth vs to see SECT II. * Reply pag. 5. How vaynelie our Answerer proveth my Demaund to bee vayne IN this discourse the Iesuite is blinded and wanting reason to justifie his Demaund he will not want his good friend Frons ahenea to give some releife vnto his desperate cause The Answerer saith our Iesuite by a smooth and wylie sleight shrinketh from the Question a Reply ibid. c. But how proveth he this why in this manner Whereas I demaunded saith he What Bishop of Rome did first alter or corrupt the right faith He answereth that it is a vaine demaund to require the name of any one Bishop of Rome by whom or vnder whom this Babylonish Confusion was brought in And againe That it is a fond imagination to suppose that all such changes must be made by some Bishop or any one certaine Author And laying downe this he 〈◊〉 the 〈…〉 how wide this is from that which â—e demaunded b Reply ibid. Which I thinke the learned Answerer will not refuse for although the Iesuite would have this question which now in his iudgment is vnreasonable to have beene fâ—rged by the most reverend Primate yet it evidently appeares that it is an vnproportioned birth a deformed Embryo of his owne conceipt and that the Iesuite herein is driven not to smooth and â—ylie slâ—ights for his defence but to perverse boldnes and open outfacing For first in repeating his owne question and demaund What Bishop of Rome did first alter he not onely addes or corrupt the right faith but shamelesly omits that which woundeth him to the quicke In what Pope his dayes was the true Religion overthrowne in Rome d See the Iesuites demaund Now I would have this Iesuite to declare the difference betweene the bringing in of Babylonish Confusion and the altering the true Religion He proceedeth For saith he had he pointed vs out â—ny one Pope that had changed but one onely article of religion or true faith or brought in any one errour then had hee satisfied my demaund e Reply pag. â— That which the Iesuite here supposeth containeth two particulars first that we cannot assigne any one Pope which hath changed one onely article of Religion or true faith Secondly that we cannot assigne a Pope that hath brought any one error into the Church The first hath received answere in the precedent section The second the most learned Answerer hath satisfied in all the Demaundants particulars shewing how this Iesuites holy points of Doctrine and faith are such as the Apostles never knew the fathers scarce espied good men alwayes resisted and which came to receive authoritie amongst Papalines but were alwayes rejected by the Catholicke Church And notwithstanding the Iesuite braves it there are many other articles pretended by them to be of true Religion which are at the best but superstitious and grosse errors brought in by their holy Father or his children in after-ages to the disgrace of the true received doctrine of the Church in the first times But that which the Iesuite doth conclude herevpon is most chyldish that the pointing out any one Pope which had brought into the Church any one errour would satisfie his demand f Reply pag.
Sea that have any busines l Antiochenum Concil â— sub â—ulio can 9. Ad Metropolin omnes undique qui negotia videntur habere concurrant And who can perceive any other thing in Irenaeus for he doth not as the Iesuite interprets him make all Churches to agree with the Roman for her more powerfull principalitie but sheweth that all faithfull men from all parts of the world comming to Rome in regard it was the imperiall Seate might learne what Scriptures were delivered by the Apostles Peter and Paul in regard at that time in this Fathers judgment they were there conserved by the Church And so Chrysostome in like manner doth attribute to the Citty of Antioch the titles of the great Cittie the Metropolis of the whole world to which multitudes of Bishops and Doctors came for instructions and being taught by the people departed m Chryâ—ostom de Verbis E 〈◊〉 Vidi Dominum hom 4. Magna civitas ac totius orbis Metropolis Quot Episcopi quot doctores huc venerunt a populo docti discedunt In the next course appeareth Athanasius who if wee may beleive this Iesuite together with all the Bishops of Egypt did acknowledge themselves subject unto the same viz the Roman Church though farre distant The ground that moves the Iesuite to be so well perswaded is their Epistle written to Pope Marke with this Inscription To the holy Lord Venerable Marke sitting in the Apostolicall height Pope of the Roman Apostolicke Sea and of the Church Vniversall Athanasius and all the Bishops of Egypt send greeting Besides he tels us that in this Epistle this holy Father with his fellow Bishops ingenuously acknowledgeth the Roman Church to be the mother and head of all other Churches and therefore they professe themselves to belong thereunto and that both they and all theirs will alwayes live obedient unto the same n Reply pag. 51 Here is a heape of Fathers like Abdisu and his company in the Trent councelli a fayned Athanasius a troupe of Gipsies These know better how to cant M. Malone then to speake Athanasius or like Bishops of the Catholicke Church Such bastard birthes as these may advance your now scarlet Mistresse to be the Lais orflourishing Flora of the world but never prove that auncient holy Church of Rome to have taken upon her as her right to bee the Head and mother of the Catholicke Church as you desire to manifest thereby Bellarmine tels us that both these Epistles of Athanasius to Pope Marke and Marke to Athanasius are supposititious o Bellar. Script Eccles De Athanasio De Epistolis Athanasij ad Marcum Papam Marci Papae ad Athanasium constat ex ratione temporis eas epistolas esse supposititias and Baronius gives them the like honor p Baronius an Christi 336. sect 58. 5â— At Mercaâ—â—is merces nonnihil suspectae redduntur But M. Malone may be excused for why may not he aswell cite a bastard father for the Catholicke Roman mother as their Pope did a fictitious Canon for the Catholicke Roman Father q Concil Carthag 6 Yet I wonder all these paines should be taken when the headship of the Church might by a generall Councell be taken from the Roman and given to any other as Cameracensis r Camerace nsis in Vesp aâ— 3 pag. 380. affirmes His next evidence is the generall Councell of Chalcedon where Paschasinus and other Fathers assembled there doe manifestly declare the Pope to be caput universalis Ecclesiae Heal of the Church universall Å¿ Reply pag. 5â— The Iesuite should have forsaken this for feare of losse For surely it is no otherwise then they gave it to the Church of Constantinople which at that time when this Councell was held had the same cause for her headship to wit the Empire and Senate as old Rome had Whereupon thâ—se Bishops thought it very reasonable that she should enjoye the same Priviledges as old Rome had and in ecclesiasticall matters sicut illa majestatem habere be an head of the Universall Church t Concil Chalced Act 16. Eadem intentione permeti centuÌ„ quinquaginta Deo amantissimi Episcopiae qua sedi novae Roma privilegia tribuerunt rationabiliter judicantes imperio Senatu urbem oâ—naâ—aÌ„ aequis senioris Romae privilegijs frui in ecclesiasticis sicut illa majestatem habere And what doth the Councell give to Rome if she had this title more then hath beene given to other Bishops and Churches Did not Basill tearme Athanasius caput universorum the head of all u Basil epist 52 Nazianzen also saith of him that he gave lawes to the whole world x Nazianzen Orat in laudeÌ„ Athanasij Leges orbi terrarum praescribit And Chrysostome calleth Antioch the Metropolis of the whole world y Chrysost de verbis Esaiae Vidi Dominum c. hom 4. Magna civitas ac totius orbis metropolis and in another place the head of all the world z Chrysost hom 3. ad Populum Caput totius orbis Iustinian likewise calleth Constantinople caput omnium civitatum the Head of all citties a Institut l. â— de satisdat § vlt. Whereby it appeares that the title of head was given to many persons and places for their excellency in some kinde or other and not for their supremacy Besides this to any that will veiw the Councell it will evidently appeare that the Roman Bishop was considered as then he appeared in the Councel by his Legates and not as hee was in his private chaire and was reputed Head of the Church not in regard of his Sea or succession but because hee did presede by his Legate that Church representative which was there gathered together as Cyrill was Head of the Ephesine b Concil Ephesiâ— apud Binn in Epistola ad Imperator tom in act Concil 〈◊〉 cap. 8. Quia inquam triginta illi contra sacram Synodum â—anctissimorumque Episcoporum hic coactorum CAPVT Cyrillum sanctissimum Alexandriae Archiepiscopum blasphemam depositionis noram ut 〈◊〉 in se continentem protulerunt and Hosius of the Nicene Councell c Bellarm. l. 1â— de Concil c. 19. Athanasius in Epist ad solitariam vitam agentes dicit Hosium Principem fuisse in eoâ— Concilio ipsum esse qui composuit Symbolum quod dicitur Nicaenum so that the Iesuite prooveth nothing here but onely amazeth his Reader with this pretence of a Councell having not one word in this Councell that will give him the priviledge of a Semper-President because he is head but accompting him Head because by the generall Councell he was accepted President and did discharge that office by his Legate there present The Iesuite hath ommitted nothing Steven Arch-Bishop of Carthage in that Epistle to Damasus which he wrote in the name of three African Councels hath this title To our most blessed Lord sitting in the Apostolicall eminencie Pope Damasus the cheife Bishop of
de effectu Sacraâ—u l. 2. c. 10 Respondeo primo librum citatum non esse Augustini sed alicujus haeretici qui multa docet contra fidem contra Augustinum that taught many things both against faith against S. Augustine I doe not urge this as if his testimonies from hence were of any strength they being answered in substance before but because you may see that they will avoyde no witnesses though in other causes they reject them that will advantage their cause For the titles given to S. Peter by Chrysostome as Cheife Captaine Head of the Apostles t Reply pag. 54. they all have received answere before For we acknowledge Peter Head which is the same with cheife of the Apostles otherwise how could Paul compare himselfe to the very cheife if there had beene no cheife And if the Apostle had bene by divine institution Paules Soveraigne how could Paul compare himselfe with him he himselfe being divinely assisted But the Iesuite making a pause is willing for brevities sake to let passe manie other holy Fathers and Doctors of the auncient Church who are most copious in the confirmation of Peters primacy over the rest of the Apostles u Reply pag. 54. And you have seene for what kinde of Primacie it is that the Fathers speake not a Primacie of power to which all the members of the Church must stoop but of Order excellency gifts graces for the Fathers will expell from their mindes that will sincerely read them all conceite that Peter had a soveraigne Monarchy over the Apostles See Peters Primacie the same with that of Iames and Iohn for so saith Clemens Peter and Iames and Iohn after the assumption of our Saviour although they were preferred before others of our Lord himselfe yet did not challenge this glory to themselves x 〈◊〉 hist Eccles l. 2. c. 1. Clemens hoc asserit Petrus enim inquiâ— Iacobus Ioannes post 〈◊〉 Servatoris quamvis ab ipso quoque Domino alijs essent praelati gloriam tamen hanc sibiipsis non vendicaâ—â—â—â— â—â—â— Neither is Paul by Chrysostome made lesse then Peter himselfe and from S. Paul his owne testimony Gal. 2. 8. And now saith that ancient Father doth Paul shew himselfe to be equall to the rest of the Apostles in honour neither doth he compare himselfe to those others but unto the very Cheife declaring that every one of them had obtained alike dignity y Chrysost in Epist ad Gal. c. 2. Iamque se caeteris honore parem ostendit nec se reliquis illis sed ipsi summo comparat declarans quod horum unusquisqueâ— parem sortitus sit dignitatem Ambrose knowes not whether should bee preferred z Ambros serm 66. B. Petrus Paulus eminent inter universos Apostolos peculiari quâdam prerogativa praecellunt utrum inter ipsos quis cui praeponatur incertum est but Cyprian and Hierome make them all equall Christ after his resurrection saith Cyprian gave equall power to all the Apostles a Cyprian de Vnitate Ecclesiae Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat And the rest of the Apostles were even the same that Peter was being endued with the like fellowship both of honour and power b Ibid Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis Hierome also speaketh as much The Church is founded equally upon all the Apostles all received the kingdome of Heaven ex equo super eos Ecclesia fortitudo solidatur c Hierom. l. 1 cont Iâ—rin At dicis super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claves regni 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex â—â—â—â— c. So that the Iesuite had done well if he had taken up before if he had not troubled his Reader with proving that kinde of Primacy which is not denyed him and had forborne the attempting a proofe of that which the Fathers will never graunt But howsoever he resolves that Optatus Bishop of Milevetum must not be let passe in regard he will seeme to catechize our Answerer himselfe very handsomely in these words Thou canst not deny but that thou knowest full well that the Episcopall Chaire hath beene first given unto Peter in the cittie of Rome wherein Peter the head of the Apostles hath sitten whence also hee was called Cephas In the which one Chaire Vnitie might be kept of all men least the rest of the Apostles should maintaine every one their singular Chaires to themselves so that now he should be a schismaticke and an offender who would seeme to raise up another against this onely Chayre d Reply pag. 54. This place of Optatus if the Papists doe rightly interpret it must enclose a notorious falshood for can it be affirmed with truth by Optatus that in his time the Apostolicall Chayre was onely placed in the Citty of Rome when other Apostles had their severall seates and Chaires in other Citties also as Iames at Hierusalem aswell as Peter at Rome all which were visible and conspicuous to the Church before Optatus his time as we may see out of Tertullian Percurâ—e Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipse â—â—huc cathedra Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur c Tertul. praescrip con haereâ—â—â—â— And therefore Optutus his Chayre cannot be interpreted for the onely chayre of the Catholicke Church placed by Peter at Rome from which whosoever did separate himselfe upon what cause soever should be a Schismaticke But Optatus being rightly understood declareth thus much and no more That Peter having his seate placed at Rome and yet Eusebius maketh him not the first Bishop therâ— f Euseb hist Eccl. l. 3. c. â—â— 19. the Apostles did forbeare to place their seates in that Cittie and therefore judgeth the Donatists schismaticall that placed another Bishop of their Schisme in Rome contra singularem cathedram which this father sheweth was ever one in Rome in ea sedit primus Petrus succedit Linus Lino Clemens So that the Donatist Permenian with his fellowes were esteemed Schismaticks by Optatus not because they separated themselves from the Vnitie of the Roman Church as now they understand it but in regard by placing a Bishop of their faction in Rome they contemned the established policie of the Church that required in one Citty but one Episcopall Chayre Whereby we see that Optatus is so farre from catechizing the Answerer that hee doth checke the Iesuite and his faction that in like manner as the Donatists have done doe now intrude upon our Episcopall Chaires in Ireland titular Bishops of their faction of Schisme not forbearing the chayre of S. Patricke it selfe But drawing to conclusion of this point the Iesuite could wish that both the Answerer and all his Adherents would listen well unto S. Leo who saith that Peter onely in all the world is chosen
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
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.
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