muffling in part that can give it libertie to keep station in the Church of God without controule but when Piety is pretended and Heresie getteth in by protection thereof closed vp and vnespied this is Iniquitie in a Mysterie * 2. Thess â— 7. Whereby we see that the Iesuite hath not touched the most learned Primate his answer who for open heresies which like Edom cry out against the Church of God at their birth downe with it downe with it even to the ground †Psal 137. 7. confesseth that the impietie thereof is so notorious that at the very first appearance it is manifestly discerned c The most reverend the Lord Primate his Answere pag. 2. And whereas he dare challenge his Adversaries to give true instance so much as but of any one knowne and confessed Heresie which was not at it first divulging contradicted by some one or other Pastor of Gods Church how cunningly soever it came muffled in the mantle of Pietie d Page 6. making it as a thing impossible to be performed Heereby every man may perceive that the Iesuite is willing to close his owne eyes vpon condition he may pull out other mens For otherwise daâ—â— he be so bold as that hee should deny this Apostasie to have come into the Church without resistance when the spirit of God doth declare that the bringers in of it must have a time for detection not being opposed in the beginning but revealed and consumed * Thess 2. 6. 2. afterwards But leaving this what the Iesuite desires here was performed to him by the Testimony of Bernard and Reinerâ—us in the Answer to the first Section concerning the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 whom they have accounted condemâ—â—â—â— for Heretickes Yet because this point may bee morefully answered I will out of their owne authors gratifie him further in this particular And first from Prâ—teolus c Prateolus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Aquarij are knowne and confessed Her 〈◊〉 and yet quiâ— hujus 〈…〉 fuit ex quo tempore caeperit nemo est qui indicat Here the Iesuite must send for Saint Bridget for he will neede a Revelation in regard that as Prateolus acknowledgeth their first beginning is vnknowne So Alphonsus de Castro f Alphon de Castro adv haere lib 6. DeEuchaâ—istia Adversus hunc errorem tres Evangelistae pugnant Mathaeus scilicet Marcus Lucas cannot finde any throughout all the Ecclesiasticall History which opposed their Heresie at its first divulging and therefore runneth vp to the institution of the Sacrament and makes Mathew Marke and Luke the opposers A strange thing that this heresie concerning the Sacrament should have birth before the Sacrament was instituted or the institution thereof published by the Evangelists The Praedestinati are reputed by your owne for Heretickes yet Alphonsus de Castro g Idem lib. 12. de Praedestinatio Quis autem suerit hujus haeresis princeps Sigibertus subticuit nec egoapud aliquem alium reperi notwithstanding his search cannot finde their Author and Prateolus h Prateolus Elench Haeret. Quis eorum Dux institutor fuerit nescitur telleth vs their Captaine is not knowne So also the Abstinentes were taken for no better then Hereticks and yet you are so far from discovering the time of their birth that their spreading is not remembred as your Prateolus i Ibid Abstinentes quo tempore viguere non meminit Philastrius observeth Multitudes of this kinde might be produced but these shall for the present suffice in answer to the Iesuites challenge Hee secondlie observes that the most reverend Primate his distinction of such like Heresies and that Apostasie serve his turne nothing at all forasmuch as it hath no ground nor foundation which doth not proove more stronglie against his part then against vs. This distinction will presage as ill to Rome as a Comet if you faile to proove what you so confident he affirme But to make it good First he demaunds what can he infeâ—ta out of these sayings of the Apostle which we may not with farre more probabilitie apply to himselfe and to his Revolting Religion c rather then those auncient Fathers and holy Doctours of the Primitive Church whom he himselfe though else where hee confesseth them to â—â—ve beene godly 〈◊〉 yet in this place would have vs to thinke that they were of those who spake lyâ—â— in Hypocrisie and had a hand in bringing in of damnable Apostasie Secondly he saith That our Answerer and his mates did in their foreleaders Luther and Galvin revolt and depart from the Roman Church yea from all the world is voluntarily acknowledged by Calvin himselfe For which cause wee thinke that wee may with reason hold them guiltie of Apostasie indeed k Reply pag. 6. In all which observation wee finde him to charge vs first to further that mysticall iniquitie rather then those auncient Fathers of the Primitive Church Secondly that wee did revolt and depart from the Roman Church and are guiltie of this Apostasie But if all this were as true faith as the Iesuite professeth how maketh it to the overthrow of the exception A deepe charge but nothing to the purpose For the question in controversie is not who brought in the Apostasie but whether there bee such an Apostasie that concludeth within it many Heresies like terra filij begotten wee know not by whom borne wee know not where nor when The learned Answerer saith there are such and the Iesuite saith nothing materiall to the contrary and therefore the demaund to finde out all heresies onely by person time and place must remaine vaine and ill-grounded still But whereas the Iesuite by wrastling and strugling thinketh his demaund is made good if he can cast this Apostasie from themselves and Rome it maketh nothing for him but altereth the question as if his demaund excepting these mysticall iniquities had desired by circumstance of person time and place to have pointed out all other heresies onelie And who doth not see this defence erected by the most learned Answerer for the Catholicke faith impregnable and so far without his shot that he would fasten falshoods which are ridiculous vpon his learned pen that hee might with some shew and advantage fight against the same For who chargeth the Fathers that they speake lyes in hypocrisie let him point out the place if hee can in which the most reverend Primate would have them thinke that they were of those or such kinde of men Hee telleth vs indeed that when the seeds of mysticall iniquitie were a sowing they the Fathers that kept watch and ward against the one open heresies that oppose the foundation might sleepe yea peradventure might at vnawares themselves have some hand in bringing in this Trojan horse commended vnder the name of Religion l Page â— c. But is heere any thing that attempts to perswade you that the fathers speake lyes in Hypocrisie or doth crosse that testimony which elsewhere hee hath
〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 â—all of the aâ—â—cient Fathers and the Councell of 〈◊〉 Canone 〈…〉 these bookes are omitted â—â—â—â— part of the 〈◊〉 Scripture Thirdly the reputed 47. Canon of the third Councell of Carthage which is their cheifest testimony by the indgemeÌ„t of their own was never determinâ—â—â—â— that Synode â—arclaij Paraenesis l. 1. c. â—1 Refertur â—ic canoâ— concil 3. Carthaginensi cui Augustinus interâ—â—it sed ex 〈◊〉 constat posterioris Concilij esse quod paulo post sub Boni â—â—cio convocaâ—â—m Fourthly in after ages they were by many rejected a never getting authority till the Trent decree Besides these bookes will by their owne light declare of what authority they are The 〈◊〉 I hope will grant that God is as true in his word as the Pope infallible in his decrees if upon this ground these bookes deserve credit let the Reader conclude first for Iudeth whether it were â—squam or ullâ—bi we cannot tell neither I thinke the Iesuite himselfe Again she honoureth that fact of Siâ—â—on * Caâ—â—s loco â—â—pra citat Constat auâ—em 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctisâ—imoâ— in contrariam sententiam 〈◊〉 qui tamen semper in Ecclesia Catholica sunt habiti Nich. Lyâ—an super 〈◊〉 â— 1. super Tobiâ—â— Abuleâ—â—â—s super Math. c. 1. D. Aâ—â—on 3. p. â— 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 loâ—â— tum maâ—ime in fine 〈◊〉 super 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etiam sex â—â—cros esse 〈◊〉 Gelaâ—â—â—â— Pâ—pa rejecit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Macha Diâ—â—â— autem Gregorius l. moral â—â— rejjoâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de Tâ—â—â—poribus Rich l. 2. Exceptioâ—â—â— c. 9. Ocham â—â— Diâ—◠〈◊〉 1. l. 3. 〈◊〉 Ac D. Aug docet aâ— Ecclesia esse quid em receptos seâ—â—â—â— certa side 〈◊〉 9. 2 and Levy which the Spirit of God abhorreth as appeares by Moses †Gen. 49. 5. And we may see that Iudeth fitting her selfe for lyes and deceit * 〈◊〉 9. 10 desireth God to give a blessing thereunto †Ver. 13. which action as it condemneth the person that doth the same so doth it disgrace this booke which speaketh â—â— directly opposite to the Apostolicall rule * Eph. 4. 25. And as Iudeth doth detect her selfe so doth Tâ—bit also by his vaine story of the Rivall Devill †Tob 6. 14. the driving away of a devill or an evill spirit which should trouble any with the smoke of the heart and the liver of a fish * Tâ—â— 6. 7 contrary to Christs doctrine that there are some devills which will not be cast out but by fasting and prayer †Mat. 17. 21. And wherefore should the Apostle Eph 6. 13. have left this out of his aâ—moury if it had bene of such forâ—â— eâ—â—icacy as is here expressed Further we have an Angell lyeing chap. 5. verse â—â— and a fish travailing on Land chap. 6. verse 2. The Maâ—chabees containe many things which declaâ—â— the author of them not to write with confidence of Godâ— Spirit asisting him as first that he was an Epitoâ—â—ist of â—â—son * 2. Maccà b 2. 23. Secondly he excuseth himselfe †2 Maccab. â—5 39. as if the holy Ghost might deserve a censure Thirdly it appeareth that his end is to delight his Reader * 2. Maccab. 2 25. 15. 40. and to get honour to himselfe †2. Maccab. 2 â—6 â—7 Lastly he justifieth Razis in killing himself * 2. Macâ—ab 14 41. 42. 43. a commendation fitter for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then the patient Marâ—â—rs of Christ as S. Augustine Aug. câ—n Gâ—ud l. c 31. Dictum est quod 〈◊〉 nobiliter merit meâ—us veller hâ—militer â—â—â— enim 〈◊〉 Illiâ—autem verbis historia gentium â—â—â—dare 〈◊〉 sed viros 〈◊〉 huius â—â—culi non martyrâ—â— Christi observeth To these many more may be added but this which hath bene spokeÌ„ will suffice to shew that they have dealt without all conscience in obtruding those bookes upon the church which were never as canonicall received from the Iewes unto whom were committed the oracles of God * Rom. 3. 2. never delivered to the primitive Church from the Apostles never aproved by any father of the church for almost 400 yeares never thought of when the Canon was repeated such which by their Physiognomy detect themselves Whence we may gather that the Church of Rome now hath varied in her judgment from the church of God then althogh we be not able to lay down the precise time when she thought her selfe wiser then her forefathers heerein Neither will his turning to the Epistles of Iames Iude the second of Peter c Reply pag. 2â— c any thing availe his cause in regard there is a great difference betwixt those Epistles these bookes of Iudeth Tâ—bit and the Macchabees for although some private men did doubt of the former yet the church in generall did receive and approve the fame * See before pag. â—5 whereas on the contrary the Iesuite after all his search cannot finde â—â—â— testimony either of Father or Councell that accounâ—â—â— the latter Canonicall for well-nigh 400 yeares after Christ And therefore most indiscreetly did the Iesuit vrge 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 to prove the like doubt to have bene held of these Epistles with those bookes which they absolutely call Apocrypha Secondly he abuseth his Reader when he would perswade that they were ouely particular Fathers that doubted of these bookes when the Iesuite cannot finde that they were received either of the Iewes or the Apostles or Primitive Fathers for certaine ages after Christ Thirdly to what thoughts of desperation is he and his fellowes driven to defend this adding to the Canon as first that doubtfull writings which have beene accompted Apocryphall for certaine hundred of yeares which our Iesuite calleth somtime may by the publick authority of the Church be declared Canonicall and secondly that particular Fathers which indeed are all the Fathers that lived in the first 300. almost 400. yeares the Iesuite citing none within that compasse but Cyprian and their bastard Calixtuâ— as hath beene formerly declared might doubt of the authority of those bookes without prejudice till the Church had declared them for Canonicall by publicke authority But if the Canon was not compleate in the first times I would know when it was made perfect and whether in those times tradition was enabled to declare the same or whether the Fathers were negligent to testifie this truth and also whether Canonicall and Apocryphall is a distinction lately invented All this the Iesuite must resolve or else acknowledge the Canon of the Church in the Primitive times to be certainely knowne and setled which will declare their vanity and change in these last times to adde unto the sacred Canon and rule of Faith upon pretence that the Church hath power to declare canonicall Scripture A Doctrine invented in after-ages by the Roman faction who as they looked for unlimited power so to defend their practises they desire an unrestrayned rule making Scriptures what
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
questions then fight combates to begge the points controverted then to purchase the glory and honour of a Triumph He declares the preparation to the warre Mr Vsher vpon his receipt proclaimes this a Iesuites Challenge prepares himselfe to the fight buckâ—ls on his harnesse What to doe to warre with a Pigmie you are deceived A sling and a few stones * will best answere currish 1. Sam. 17. 40. Rhetoricke alicentious Rayler He desires to informe his Reader that for as much as the maine controversy concerneth the fathers iudgments for the first 500 yeares in his proofes hee hath kept compasse howsoever he hath descended to disproove his Adversary Here let him know that we will follow him in the path that he should tread in his extravagant collections and descent from the rule prescribed wee desert him and herein we take no other libertie then what he assumeth to himselfe as is apparant in his second information He hath enlarged himselfe in that article of the Reall presence and why I pray you In regard of the eagernesse wherewith the adverse part doth impugne the same Who seeth not that the blind beggar strikes but hee knoweth not whom for if he vnderstand by the adverse part that part of the Catholicke Church which liveth vnder his Majesties government as his words import he is blindlie mistaken for who knowes not that many in the Church of England confesse Christs presence in the sacrament though they assigne not the manner how but to entertaine the Catholicke meane as he tearmes it †pag. 44. to acknowledge Christs presence in the Eucharist in a sacrament all manner I thinke he can neither find pen nor tongue that contradicteth the same Yet what he saith he will proove by miraculous demonstration and surely I thinke he is better able to iustifie their doctrine about the Sacrament by their legends then the Scriptures and by new invented wonders c Alexand de Hales in 4. sent q. 〈◊〉 In sacramento apparet caro interdum humanâ procuratione interdum operatione diabolicâ then the venerable testimonie of the auncient Church And it is not to be neglected what an open way to Atheisme is prepared by their published legends and approoved miracles whilst they dare averre that none can beleive the scriptures wherein are contained Christs miracles but by their Churches proposall and that the same hand though not in the same manner doth deliver their legends for the comfort of her pretended catholicke children although the consequence be not necessary may it not fall out that one finding fraud and falshood in these wonders d Lyranus in Daniel 14. Aliquando fit in Ecclesia maxima deceptio populi in miraculis fictis à Sacerdotibus vel eis adhaerentibus propter luciuÌ„ temporale Ga Biel in Can Miss lect 49 Miracula dicit fieri hominibus ad imagines confluentibus nonnunquam operatione Daemonum ad fallendum inoidinatâ—s cultores Deo permittente exigente talium infidelitate may entertaine a jealousie of the truth of those miracles that confirme our faith e De tribus mundi impostoribus Italy I thinke knowes the effect of this snare not infecting inferiors alone but your infallible Chaire f Io. 23. Concil Const Sess 2. And doe not your imaginarie fables herein next to your images and idolls confirme the Iewes in their hardnesse of heart to thinke Atheisticallie of our faith and Messias For working feeling in the well disposed Protestant Reader by those your pretended supernaturall events I thinke vnlesse it be such as Augustine found in himselfe in reading Dido and Aenâ—as an imaginarie discourse a phantasticke compassion you may despaire of For we are not now to receive new doctrines or new miraculous confirmations g Stella in Luc. 11. 19. We have Moses and the Prophets let vs heare them * Luke 16. 29. if any man preach any other Gospell then that we have received let him be accursed †Gal. â— 9. Wadding Legat Phiâ— terâ—ii c. sect 3. And we need not to be ignorant Mr Malone how the Dominicans answered the Patrons of the immaculat conception of the blessed Virgin when they brought to confirme their cause miraculous proofes that they were of the same stampe that Iannes and Iambres wrought in Aegypt but let this expect its proper place I will not yet forsake the Preface The Iesuite confesseth that he hath roughly and freelie dealt with the Answerer and this he desires might not be imputed to any disregard that hee hath to his person or learning which hee honours and highly esteemes The Iesuites Common-wealth is not Athens all ingenuous men are not cloystered in their Colledges The Iesuite confesseth that we have one But to deale with one whose person he professeth to honour and learning highly to esteeme in more disgracefull and virulent straines then Michael did with the Divell * Iude. 9. how can the Iesuite apologise for this But here I hope his Maiestie and all others of eminent place will consider to what a height this spaune of Ignatius hath ascended in this kingdome that they did not onely builde the Babylonian turrets scorne and outface our true Religion practised by his sacred Maiestie established by the lawes of Church and State but also revile the most eminent for Pietie Learning and Prelacy in our Ecclesiasticall Government Yet let him triumph in his snarling language all good men doe see such eminencies of learning and sincerity in the most reverend Primate that a Iesuites tongue though more besmeared cannot defile his honour or his name Neither doth this coelestiall luminary greeve any more then the Moone at his Dogge-Rhetoricke That which vexeth Lots * â— Pet 2. 7. righteous soule is to see his Country made Sodome and Aegipt by blindnes and Idolatry An heard of swine he knowes may make a greater noise then an army of men and who wypeth her mâ—uth or vseth her tongue more then the harlot If such things as these will justifie Papall intrusions Mr Malone will not faile who hath given vs loud cryes and a large volume but praetereà nihil Some things else we finde in this preface as their pretence of Vnitie and our Division which because hee pipeth it so often in the body of his Reply we will there take some opportunitie for the consideration of the same The Iesuite a vayne Demaundant THe Iesuite after his Preparatives addresseth himselfe to the Reply and first layeth downe his demaund What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion which the Protestants commend in those of the first 400. or 500. yeares confessing it to have beene the true religion of Christ and his Apostles a Reply pag. â— And here we may see the Iesuites additions In his first demaund he expressed onely the true religion here he addeth of Christ and his Apostles which I do not except against as if I did conceive a religion might bee true that is not from Christ and
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
are written by the most blessed Pope of the Roman city because S. Peter who liveth in his proper See is president in the same giveth the truth of faith to such as seeke the same a Reply pag. 59 But what is all this He perswades Eutyches to adhere to the truth of Doctrine preached by the Roman Bishops from what reason Because S. Peter who liveth in his proper See is president in the same giveth the truth of faith to such as seeke the same Who meaneth hee here by S. Peter Not the Apostle in person surely if he did they did ill to usurpe that chaire that he did presede in himselfe hereby they are debarred of succession If he meant his doctrin this might have been said of Antioch other Episcopall Sees But if they will have Peter so to remaine in the Roman city that he may give the true faith by inspiration to such as seeke the same this is too grosse to bee beleived though Leo hath some words that cast upon us this interpretation b Leo epistol â—9 ad episc Viâ—â—â— So that you see Chrysologus here speakes litle for a Monarchy by succession The Iesuite is at a pause yet before he leaves he brings forth Siricius Pope c Reply pag. 59 but doe you conceive the reason That he may make his discourse sutable and as he begun with a forged Councell so hee might conclude with a counterfeit Pope Now as if he had beene able to have pleaded the cause of those ignorant Delinquents to silence the whole Star-chamber he tels us By these authorities many more th◠〈◊〉 which might be alledged it appeareth how casilyone migâ—â— have taken up our Answerer in his Star-chamber flourish concerning this matter of S. Peters and his successourâ— universall Iurisdiction d Reply pag â—â— But let me advise the Iesuite unlesse he leaves counterfeits forgeries to keep himselfe out of that Chamber which 〈◊〉 pleaders pretenders of that kinde For although his folly and conceite may so advance the opinion he hath of his Rhetorick that he presumes he can perswade any thing Yet experience will acquaint him that he cannot so easily in that place deceive But let us veiw this Orator how he would have argued if at that time he durst have confessed S. Peter in that presence First he would have told those grave Councellors That howsoever all the Apostles were equally chosen and extraordinarily sent by Christ to preach teach and convert all nations and had herein equall jurisdiction every one over all Christiaâ— people throughout the world yet as S. Leo doth truely observe though all were elected alike yet to one was granted the preheminencie over the rest e Reply pag 60 All which had beene a slender defence unlesse hee had proved better then he hath done that Peters preheminencie was Monarchicall of power not of honour and gifts c. as we our selves acknowledge Secondly he would have said that they had then the like Apostolicall power extraordinarily given unto them over all nations but not in the same degree with Peter their power being over all yet not over one another as Peters was who was their Head f Reply pag â—â— which is a dreame and fancie as hath beene shewed in answere to his former productions Yet if the Apostles were equally chosen as the Iesuite saith and had equall jurisdiction to teach all nations throughout the world if if they had plenitudinem potestatis fulnes of power as Bellarmine confesseth g 〈◊〉 de Rom 〈◊〉 c. 11 if they were endued as before hath beene related pari consortio honoris potestatis with the like fellowship of honour and power as S. Cyprian and to the same effect other Fathers have affirmed how can this disparity arise Doth he thinke by a framed deceit that neither hath foundation from Scriptures or Fathers to controule our beleife The Apostle 1. Cor. 11. v. 5. telleth us that there were Summi Apostles cheife Apostles not one that was summus the cheife and sheweth Gal. 2. v. 9. that Peter with others gave the right hand of fellowship and Communion not of commaund to him and Barnabus Besides the Apostles shew more power over Peter then the Iesuite can shew that he exercised over them They sent him to Samaria Acts 8. v. 14. They question his actions and call him to an accompt Acts 11. Paul reproves him Gal. 2. where he fayled Paul chydes and Peter suffers saith S. Chrysostome that whilst the Master being â—hidden doth hold his peace the Schollers might verie easily change their opinion h Chrysost in Epist ad Galat c. 2. Vnde Paulus objurgat Petrus fustinet ut dum magister objurgatus obticescit facillimè discipuli mutatent sententiam An act that the glosse is perswaded would not have beene done unlesse he had thought himselfe Peters equall i Gloss Ordinar Resti Quod non auderet nisi sâ— non imparem sentiret or as Cajetan conceiveth something greater k Caietan in locum Thirdly he would have told them that they the Apostles were but as extraordinary Embassadours unto all Nations Peter was the ordinary Pastor not onely over all Nations but also over the very Apostles themselves l Reply pag. 60 But that grave Councellor would have espyed the Iesuite to have disadvantaged himselfe for in one place hee acknowledgeth that all the Apostles had the like Apostolicall power extraordinarily given unto them being Heads and Pastors of the universall Church their difference being in Degree m Reply ibid. and here he makes S. Peter not onely in degree to excell the rest of the Apostles in the Apostolicall office but gives him another different power superiour to the Apostleship which he calleth ordinary not onely over all nations but also over the verie Apostles themselves But I aske the Iesuite why it should be a good argument for Peters primacie that he was first named among the Apostles Mat. 10. v. 2. if the naming of the Apostles in the first ranke of the ministers of the Church Ephes 4. v. 11. may not obtaine from the Iesuite the same priviledge It seemeth hard that the Iesuite should so plead for the Papacy that thereby he should labour to diminish the Apostolicall power especiallie when the Rhemists will have the name of Apostle to signifie dignity regiment paternitie principalitie and primacy in the Church of GOD according to that of S. Paul 1. Cor. 12. v. 28. And GOD hath ordained some in the Church as first Apostles And that they thought the Apostleship to be no bare extraordinary power legantine but as supreame so ordinary it will appeare by their describing of it to be a calling of office governement authoritie and most high dignitie given by our Master with power to binde and loose to punish and pardon to teach and rule his Church which is called by a name expressing ordinary power in the Psalme and
said so much for it as Aquinas his Cyrill Canus l 6. â— 5 Cyrillus apud Thomaâ—â—ulâ—o evidentiùs quim authores â—aeâ—eâ—i huic veritati testimonium perhibet and yet in the true Cyrill there is never a word to be found And further in the Councell of Chalcedon hath not the same Thomas l In opâ—sâ— con â—rrores Graecoâ—â—m mentioned decrees they never dreamed of and laboured to make the Greekes esteemed Hereticks by such invented forgeries that he hath brought against them and all for Appâ—aâ—â—â—â— Râ—â—â— â—or â—â—â— holinesse his universall vicarage The cause sheweth the forger and the forger confesseth the weakeâ—â—s of the cause Now not onely forging and coyning but also clipping hath bene too manifest You say your selves that Hereâ—ickes have done this and we beleive it and who are those heretickâ— if you cannot declare who those be surely they were never done the assigning of persons time and plâ—â—e by your doctrine being the mâ—dium to finde such concealâ—menâ—s out Further if the monuments of antiquitie be corrupted we may justly accuse you that pretend to bee the keepers and teachers of the Church that you would suffer such things to be done and know not whom you may truely suspect so that if you confesse corruption declare the corrupters if you know corruptions and doe not assigne them it is more then probable that you were acquainted with the worke Howsoever you may not reâ—urne this upon us whom you acknowledge to be little â—â—â—â—ienter then your order and but a little in antiquitiâ— preceding your faith So that we may conclude the injury is little the accusation being just The Iesuite nameth other injuries that he will let passe as when to shun that difficultie which pinched him saith he in my demaund he framed it fâ—â—re otherwise then it was prepâ—â—nded Reply pag 93 94. See the answere thereto whether the Iesuite played not Simplician in the demaund For the â—â—iâ— passages which he likewise complaineth of the Iesuite promiseth afterwards to discover theâ— c. To which we referre the Reader Yet one thing the Iesuite must not lâ—t passe to observe that when he said that the Answerers Religion cannot be â—â—ue because it disalloweth of mâ—â—y cheife articles which the Saynts and fâ—thers of that priâ—itive Church of Rome did generally hold â—o be true the Answerer will needes prescribe unto him what he must prove saying that it will not â—e sufficient for him that some of the Father◠〈◊〉 some of those opinions but he must prove if he will deale to the purpose that they held them generally and held them too not as opinions but 〈◊〉 dâ—â—ide as 〈◊〉 to the substance of faith and Religion Reply pag. 94 Surely if these be not fit caâ—tions for them to observe that by antiquity universalitie and consent of Fathers pretend to find the truth of doctrine let any modest nature discerne for if the Iesuite observes not these rules he may urge at pleasure but can prove nothing if they be of faith now they must have beene so in the Primitive times for that rule is unalterable and without change And besides Tertul. dâ— Virg. vel c. 1. Regula fidei una omnino est sola illa immobilis iâ—reformabilis if they were then reputed points of faith the rule to prove doctrine by consent would faile if the Fathers did not generally consent in every one of these for if Fathers did diâ—fer in grounds of Faith and Catholicke Religion where was their harmonie And if they consent not in all why should their consent be made a rule for the confirmation of any p Cal Lex Iurid Regulae ofâ—icium est exhibere nobisgeneraliter definitionem juris But wherefore doth the Iesuite distast these he shewes it is not for any just exception he can take against them but out of a jealouâ—ie from whence they proceed whether from charitie which he will not beleive or which is more likely perchance from a conceipt of his weakenes and ignorance whereby the Answerer was afrayde that he knew not himselfe what he had to prove or how it might be prâ—â—ved Reply pag. 94 which the Iesuite for his ownesake is unwilling to acknowledge For saith he though I confesse my selfe to be the weakest of a thousand yet have I no reason to thinke that he would any way support my weakenes who hath undertaken to enter into 〈◊〉 with me before such Specâ—â—tors â—â— in their veiw the â—east â—â—yle cannot be reâ—â—ived without a great disgrace r â—bid Here the Iesuite manifesteth his charitie but declareth no syllable for defence of his knowledge He makes his owne glorie the end of his quarrell and deemeth the Answerers indeavours to looke towards the same end but it i◠〈◊〉 glory â—â— disgrace that his 〈◊〉 resolution 〈◊〉 â—â— feares â—◠〈◊〉 Godâ—â—â—uth from the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 to keepâ— Christs 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 this iâ— the worke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee bee reviled by frogges and â—â—custes hee despiseth it 〈◊〉 â—e knoweâ— will 〈◊〉 in â—er 〈◊〉 and wisdome will have a time as to be justified of so to 〈◊〉 her children And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Answerer◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what hee esteemes them the Iesuites chaâ—â—ty appeaâ—â—s but small that feedes Christs flocke like the hireling for the wages of applâ—â—se and not from the ground of 〈◊〉 Pases because hee 〈◊〉 the Lord. For â—er him 〈◊〉 of the most leaâ—â—ed 〈◊〉 câ—â—â—itie to himselfe or 〈◊〉 towards the Fatheâ—â— as â—â— pleaseth I am 〈◊〉 â—e hath said nothing heere that may perswade us that hee hath swallowed downe all antiquitie or that his knowledge is so great that from the Answeâ—â—â—s learned 〈◊〉 he might not receive instruction But the Iesuite 〈◊〉 know that these are not the reasons that mooved him to perswade the obsâ—â—â—ation of these rules but their desperate impudeâ—ciâ—s for who knowes not that they can pretend Fathers for their cause that held 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by devising a 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make them their friends when they are urged against them and also make that faith which was not in the Fathers Creed neither found in any of their expositions upon the same This is the reason of giving these câ—â—tions because they use the Fathers to blind not to manifest the truth of the ancient â—aith therefore the Iesuite may see how â—ond his imaginations are how poore hâ—â— conceit But the Iesuit sees the RomaÌ„ faith to be such that he dare not undertake to prove it but bysome few and that not as points 〈◊〉 but as points held by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by presuÌ„ptioÌ„ as if in antiquity there were not a 〈◊〉 betwixt their Creed with the points therein other remote deductioÌ„s from the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from hence are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether this 〈…〉 which the 〈…〉 of Fathers Now he will give 〈…〉 wherefore he 〈◊〉 these 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 is he 〈…〉 any puâ—pose For first he confesseth it absurd that
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
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
by their greatest Divines in their glosses chaines decrees of Popes summes of Divinity from the weight and worth of the worke as cannot be denyed by their owne x Sixtus Seuen Bibl. sanct l. 4. â—unt ex opposito qui hoc ipsum opus conâ—endunt esse Chrysostomi adducti non solùm auctoriâ—â—te Apostoliâ—ae Eclesiae quae publicè inter divinas â—â—udes legit homilias ex his commentarijs sub nomine Ioannâ—â— Chrysostomi sed etiam permoti pondere gravitate sententiarum propositionum â—ujus operis quae ad confirmationem Christianorum dogmatum sub titulo testimonio auctoritate Chrysostomi inducuntur in glossis authenticis quas vocant ordinaâ—iaâ— in Caâ—enis Evangelicarum explanationum in Decretis summorum Pontificum 〈◊〉 Theologiciâ— magni nominis Theologorum So that you may see the most learned Answerer hath brought this instance not as you vainely affirme in derision of the blessed Sacrament but to manifest your corrupting of the workes of antiquity for your own advantage without the authority of any auncient manuscript Copy whatsoever Neither is the authority of this worke so contemptible although the Iesuite may take libertie to â—â—eight antiquity but that seeing it hath served the Popes turne it may well serve ours also to cut the very 〈◊〉 of the Papists reall presence And therefore yâ—◠〈◊〉 Commilitones Mr Malone that carry the mariâ—â—â—â—r the beast in your fore-heads may continue your blaâ—â—â—â—â—es and abuse the Scriptures as you have done his â—aâ—â—ed ordinance of the blessed Sacrament deriding the fâ—llowers of his sacred institution but howsoever you flatter your selves The right hand of the Lord will finde out those that hate him and shall make them as a fierie even in the time of his anger * Psalme â—â— And howsoever your scarlet Mistresse saith in her heart I fit a Queene and am no Widdow and shall see no sorrow Yet her plagues shall come in one day death and mourning and famine and she shal be utterly burnt with fire for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her * Reâ— 18. â— 7. 8. His third instance saith the Iesuite out of the same booke concerning the sacrifice of the Body and Bleod of IESVS CHRIST put in for the sacrifice of Bread and Wine is too too childish for we indifferently allow of both those manner of speeches as signifying one and the same thing therefore the changing of those words could advantage us no more then it doth helpe our Answerer to prove what he intended y Reply pag. 40 c. Mr Malone hath an ill name for every thing that displeaseth him This instance is too too childish but as wise as himselfe thinke not so For Sixtus Senensis by those words which they have changed judgeth this Author to deny the Body and Bloud of Christ to be in the Sacrament of the Altar z Siâ—tus Seuen Bibl. sancta l. 6. Annot. 21. Author operis imperf homilia 1â— alludere videtur ad haeresim eorum qui negant verum Christi corpus esse in Sacramento Altaris dum ait Vasa c. Neque ab hac sententia abludit cum hom 17. non multo ante finem Eucharistiam appellat panem benedictum hom â—9 ferè in principio vocat sacrificium paniâ— viâ—â— and would therefore have this place to bee purged a Idem libro 4o. And will any deny the corrupter that used this sleight of hand to bee of the same opinion The Text then is corrupted this is not denyed and therefore notwithstanding the Iesuite falsely pretendeth the changing of those wordes doe not advantage them the most reverend Primate hath prooved what hee intended to wit that the Papistes have heereby so altered the complexions of the auncient writers that they appeare not the same men they were The Iesuite runs on in his examination Two instances more saith he in this matter doth our Answerer produce still striving to surpasse himselfe more and more in vanitie For besides that our question is concerning the writers of the first five ages he commeth out with Fulbertus and Rabanus whereof the later lived in the ninth age the former in the eleventh so farre is he ever from speaking to the purpose b Reply pag. 42 I see the Iesuite is wearie of his worke he is not willing to have his owne arraigned of Forgery and therefore excepts against these instances as not being to the purpose in regard the question is concerning the writers of the first 500. yeares c Reply pag. 42 In answere whereunto we say It is equall perfidiousnes to corrupt the authors of the middle age as those of the first 500. Secondly if they confesse guiltie in these they deserve to be suspected in their impressions of the most auncient Thirdly Augustine is here corrupted though it be in the writings of Fulbertus and so both the auncient and middle aged Doctors suffer violence Fourthly let this be to the purpose or not the Iesuite cannot excuse their corrupt handling of authors and for corrupt ends when as Fulbertus was published corruptly ad refutandas haereses hujus temporis But taking them in order the Iesuite telleth us that In the former for want of sounder matter when as the Answerers subject here is Popish corruptions he fiddles about a mistake of two words which though he confesseth himselfe to have beene amended in the end yet must it needs such is his distresse serve him for an instance to proove that wee have corrupted the writings of the auncient d Reply pag. 42 I am sure the Iesuite doth not like the Musicke hee tearmeth it so wisely but I may excuse him heerein for the Papists were unwise that would otherwise commend it But whose mistake was this Dicet Haereticus in all probabilitie could not be the Printers here then was the error he that set forth this booke did not foresee the words were S. Augustines and so easie to be detected And whereas the publisher did afterwards put this among his Errata he was much behoulding to his Adviser that assured him if those words remained his fraud would be discovered Now any may see who is in distresse he that forgeth for necessitie and correcteth for shame or the most learned Answerer that hath found out and scorned the Cosener The Iesuite comes to the second and exclaimes that the Answerer makes much a doe about nothing e Reply ibid. as if it were a matter of nothing to corrupt the auncient writers If the Reader will but observe the Iesuite he shall finde him where he is most plunged and stifled to be most abundant in his rayling language scorning and contemptible behaviour towards the Answerer For what reason hath he to tearme this learned observation a dribling objection worthy to be answered with laughter builded only upon surmises when he groanes under it and all his strugling is not able to deliver him thence See what he saith I say about a blanke