Church which by the testimonie of venerable Antiquitie wee finde approved to remaine ever free from all errour to that rocke against which the power of hell shall never prevaile to that foundation which Christ hath setled by his promise and made for ever immoveable by his obtained Prayer Reply pag. 6â— How non-erring a Church your Roman hath beene in her head is already declared How infallible a rule of faith your Cheife Pastor hath proved in the primitive times venerable Antiquitie by severall examples hath detected What a rocke Peters pretended Successours have beene when the divell was let loose to split so farre as possible the ship of the Church hath not been left you untold And who can beleive that CHRIST his prayer for Peters faith was effectuall for the POPES when against faith they day he desire to usurpe his kingdome This we Catholickes saith the Iesuite are exhorted to doe by S. Cyrill sayinâ— Let us remaine as members in our head the Apostolicke Throne of the Roman Bishops from whence it is our part to seeke what wee ought to believe This also all Protestants are advised to doe by a Doctour of their owne who as we heard before telleth them that they ought diligently to search out the spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the pillar and ground of truth having found her then setting aside all other questions they ought to embrace her communion follow her direction and rest in her judgment y Reply pag. 6â— What Doctor Feild advised Protestants to doe hath beene formerly declared And for what Catholickes are exhorted to doe he urgeth S. Cyrill but from whence From Aquinâ—s z Cyril Alleâ— in Thesauro alleadged by S. Thomas in opusc cont Graecoâ— Reply pag. 6â— who forged it For Cyrill hath no such words His Thesaurus hath no such filth He neither consented unto nor approved this tyranny Hee was one of them that sent the Copy of the Councell of Nice to curbe these pretences before they got head I wonder why the Iesuite added not the like forgery of the Councel of Chalcedon to the same end from the same Author Here wee may see that the best grounds he hath to prove their holy Father to be infallible and the Romane Mother without spots are but authorities taken from deceit But leaving Doctor Feild formerly urged and answered he presents us with these sentences of the Auncient in which saith he as in a pure mirrour they may if they list espy their enorâ—ions disagreement from the truth Reply pag 63 And the first Ancient Father that he produceth is Ireneus All they that are in the Church of God ought to obey saith he unto those Preists who have their succession from the Apostles who together with the succession of their Bishoprick have received the assured grace of truth according to the good will of the heavenly Father And we ought to have for suspected such as withdraw themselves from the like principall succession and joyne themselves together in any other place I say wee ought to hold them as hereticks of a perverse judgment or as schismatickes selfe-liking presumptuous fellowes And elsewhere saith the Iesuite he declareth how such like hereticks are to be conâ—â—â—ed confounded according to the practice of his times to wit in the second age after Christ We confound saith he al those who gather otherwise then they ought how by that Church which is the cheifest the most auncient best knowne unto all men which was established grounded in Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul pointing forth that Tradition and faith which this Roman Church holdeth from the Apostles by the succession of Bishops even unto our dayes After this manner also saith the Iesuite did Tertullian troâ—â—ce wrest those Heretickes whom hee had to deale withal Let them shew unto us if they can the original of their Churches let them rip up the order of their Bishops in â—ueâ—â—ort that by a succession derived from the beginning they prove their cheife Bishop to have some one of the Apostles or Apostolicall men for his author and Predecessour for by this meanes the Apostolicall Churches doe make up their accounts And because the Heretickes then were destitute of all such proofe as Tertullian exacted of them for the maintenance of their cause even as our Adversaries saith the Iesuite are as this day He therefore bringeth in the Catholicke Church upbrayding them with them all Protestants in this manner Who â— God 's name are yeâ— When from whence came yoâ— hither What doe you amongst mine being none of mine By what right O Marcion doest thou cut my â—ood what leave hast â—hâ—â— O Valentine to turne my streames fountaines another way By what authority doest thou remove my bounds O Apelles O Luther O Calvin O Zuiâ—glius The possession is mine I have it of old I enjoyed it before you c Reply pag 69 and 70. All that the Iesuite hath produced from Irenâ—us Tertullian will make little for justifying his pretences if the point be truly considered For there is a bare personall succession which may accompany a false Church as it did the Iewish when the Pharisees saâ—e in Moses Chaire and the Churches of the East when Heretickes invaded the chaires of Catholicke Bishops Secondly there is a Successâ—â—â— not only personall of Bishops Preists but where the Catholick Apostoliâ—all doctrine is continued also The people wee say where this is plaine are bound to receive the Doctrin from Timothie every succeeding Bishop as Timothie â— Tim 1. 14. from the Apostle that established and first published the same Now whatsoever the Iesuite hath brought from these Fathers is no way advantageous for the Church of Rome For first we can shew and have done as good personall succession as the Roman Bishops can claime any Secondly to this our orderly Succession we can and have proved by comparison and consanguinity of Apostolicall doctrin that we are true and Apostolicall Churches Thirdly the Roman certaintie upon which their Profelyres must depend is no firmer by these Fathers testimonies then Ephesus Smyrna Corinth Philippi Germany Spaine France Egypt Lybia Thessalonica c Irenaeus pag. 140 142. Disci te ab Apostoli cis Ecclesijs Habetis Romae Linum Polycarpum Smyrnae ab Apostolis edoctum Tertull. Praeser p. c. 37. Proximè est tibi Achaâ— habes Corinthum Si non longè es â— Macedonia habes Philippos habes Thessalonicenses Si potes in Asiam tendere habes Ephesum si autem Italiae adjaces haqes Romam unde nobis quoque authoritas praest ò est Rhenanus Argum in Tert. de praescript alibi Impress Basil 1521. Tertullianus Ecclesiam unam Apostolicam nulla loco affigit Romanum Ec lesiam ornat magnificae laudis elogio non tamen tantam illam facit quantum hodiè fieri videmus nam Apostolicis Ecclesijs numerat non
acknowledging it the more authenticke for that imaginary decree mentioned by the Iesuit Besides there is no questioÌ„ but the denyal of those books of the new testameÌ„t were blameworthy else Epiphanius g Har. 51. 75. would not have charged the Alogi with Heresie for denying the Revelation of St Iohn The most learned Answerer goeth further to expresse the blindnes of this Rule to finde out Heresie by Gregorius de Valentia one of your principall Champions doth confesse that the vse of receiving the Sacrament in one kind began not by the Decree of any Bishop but the very vse of the Churches and the consent of the faithfull To which the Iesuite maketh Reply And is not that vse of the Churches and Consent of the faithfull a sufficient warrant I pray you to cleere it from the odious tearme of Sacriledge wherewith you vnadvisedly doe stile it h Reply pag. 12 And here if that which the Iesuite doth insinuate were granted for truth it were no sufficient warrant against CHRISTS institution but that justly it might bee styled Sacriledge even as the Answerer hath done What brought in the high places in Israel doe you suppose they were erected by any decree of Councell or otherwise if not so then by the Consent and practise of the Israelites and yet I doubt not but you will style that sinne Sacriledge or as bad vnlesse you thinke it piety to keepe backe from the temple what GOD had appointed for his service there Compare the omission of a typicall sacrifice with the removing of one of the Sacramentall expressions of Christ his death and passion instituted by himselfe and then judge which deserveth the baser Epithite But if you further question with Valentia when first did that Custome get footing in some Churches he returneth you for Answere saith the most reverend Primate Minimè constat it is more then he can tell 1. And yet saith our Iesuite hee largely and learnedly there proveth even by the expresse word of God that it was vsed in the Apostles times c. i Reply pag. 12 Did he attempt it his learning was exercised without his conscience Did he prove it the Iesuite saith so but I will thinke him worthy to be Generall of his Order if hee can doe either the Pope or the Diuell so much service as to perswade the world to beleive the same 2. Vpon which vse the ensuing Customer which got footing in some particular Churches were grounded k Reply pag. 12 This is as true as their new Creed for who will say that Valentia knew the ground vpon which this Custome was received in some particular Churches that hath his Minimè constat his know not whâ—â— for the Person that brought it in 3. The Councell of Constâ—â—ce from this chaine viz. Customes so grounded and other good reasons made it a laâ— c. l ibid True it is that your 〈◊〉 Orbis or Catholicke world never received it before and he that readeth their law must see that wilfulnes and not reason perswaded it For first they have a non obstâ—â—â—e for Christs institution Secondly they reject the Primitive practise m Concil Constan sess 13. apud Bin Licet Christus post coenam instituerit suis discipulis administraverit sub vtrâque specie panis vini hoc venerabile sacramentum tamen hoc non obstante c. licet in primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub vtrâque specie c. Thirdly they are forced to invent or confirme the poore deceitfull Cousenage of Concomitancy And all to make good this faith never heard of before Further what needed that to be made a law at Constance which Gods expresse word hath declared to be the vse and practise of the Apostles times how could that come into the Church by degrees which was brought in first by them that converted the whole Catholicke Church How ordained in the first Councell of Ephesus about a thousand yeares before the said Synode of Basil c. if but made â— law from Customes so grounded onely at Constance And now let Mr Malone consider how far he slideth â—rom that he ought to aime at the wisdome of his interâ—gation and let him also apprehend how he is forced by â—ecessity to seeke protection from the Apostles omitting â—mpora intermedia which they scorne in vs. And I could â—kewise wish him not to be vnmindefull how this Councell doth 〈◊〉 Antiqâ—â—ty which he so much desires to magnify and defend But if none of these considerations may worke any mutation in him let him vse his Vrbanus Regius †Cited by the Iesuite ibid. who for my part I know not neither will believe if hee were ever so prime a Doctour that should fasten so false a calumny on the Ephesiâ—â— Councell But grant the Iesuit all that he desires which is to make his Doctrine of receiving in one kinde as auncient as the Councell of Constance for opposition of their Decree wee are able to produce the Bohemianâ— not long after Gregorius de Valentia saith the most reverend Primate n In the answere to the Iesuites challenge pag. 3. 4. confesseth that it is more thâ—n he can tell when the Custome of receiving the Sacrament in one kinde began in some Churches The like doth Fisher and Caiâ—tan giue vs to vnderstand of Indulgences that no certainty â—â—â— be had what their originall was or by whom they were first brought in Fisher also further addeth concerning Purgatory that in the auncient Fathers there is either â—none at all or very rare mention of it that by the Grecians it is not beleived even to this day that the Latines also not all at once but by little and little received it and that Purgatory being so lately knowne it is not to be marvailed that in the first times of the Church there was no vse of Indulgences seeing these had their beginning after that men for a while had beene affrighted with the torments of Purgatory Out of which confession of the adverse part you may observe 1 What little reason these men have to require vs to set downe the precise time wherein all their prophane novelties were first brought in seeing that this is more then they themselves are able to doe 2. That some of them may come in podetentim as Fisher acknowledgeth Purgatory did by little and little and by very slowe steppes which are not so easie to be discerned as fooles bee borne in hand they are 3. That it is a fond imagination to suppose that all such changes must be made by some Bâ—â—â—â—or any one certaine author whereas it is confessed thâ— some may come in by the tacite coÌ„sent of many grow after into a generall custome the beginning whereof is past mans memory Here the Iesuite observes first want of Truth when he saith that we required him to set downe the precise time wherein all our profâ—â—â— novelties were brought in c o Reply
sacred Scripture did burst forth of those libraries wherein it was ecclipsed and the most lucide starres the auncient Fathers waited upon that originall light then many of these poore meteors and fained appearances were quickely obscured and despised of some of your owne So that your Dilemma proves but a childish florish For although it is most true that you have done as much as you durst to pretend Fathers make Fathers detract from Fathers adde to Fathers forging clipping washing cankering them yet these things being detected and casheered the Fathers are restored to their authoritie they formerly had although they are not thought fit to bee used as a rule against those Hereticks that have not spared in this manner to abuse their writings Againe saith the Iesuite you have given us flatlie once to understand that the Scripture was the rocke upon which alone you build your faith and from which no sleight that wee could devise should ever drawe you and therefore you bade us to our face alledge what authoritie we list without Scripture and it could not suffice How is the winde now changed how come you now to falsifie this your former resolution m Reply pag. 49 Did ever any Iesuite trifle in this manner and speake more inconsequent The Scripture is the rocke upon which alone he will build his faith no authoritie can suffice without Scripture therefore the winde is changed hee falsifies his former resolution Doth not this rationall deserve to censure others for false Logicke that pleads with such a shape of reason himselfe The Iesuite promised in his Challenge to produce good and certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures if the Fathers authoritie will not suffice Did he cast off their rock of Fathers because he promised Scriptures I thinke hee will not acknowledge it and why should he vainely heere dreame that the Scriptures are rejected by the most reverend the Lord Primate when to stoppe the Iesuites boasting out of a well grounded confidence in the goodnes of his cause he will not in this place stand upon his right Besides let the Iesuite shew me the generall consent of Fathers in a matter of faith without the Scriptures if hee be able If he cannot his thoughts are confused when hee dreamed of their authoritie without Scripture if hee say he will let him produce them for surely it is hard to bee beleived Furthermore when the Lawyers urge Constantines denation for Papall possession I aske the Iesuite upon what authoritie he would build his title whether upon the donation it selfe or the Lawyers interpreting it If the Donation be sufficient why not the Scriptures If the interpreters must be added yet this is not to take away the power of the Charter Nay if they be added 〈◊〉 necessary testimonie the Charter were nothing without the Lawyers What followeth in the Iesuite hath received Answere in the fift Section only here he will not be perswaded that he chooseth his owne weapons n Reply pag. 49 but let the Reader judge for bibling in his judgment is but babling it is no other then fencing to fight with Scriptures and to appeale to sole Scripture is but to agree with auncient Heretickes So that Scriptures are none of his armorie and if the Fathers bee rejected also what remaineth further but ipse dixit assisted with pretended miracles lying wonders But let them be whose weapons they will Hee telleth us that hee will use them and the first encounter shal be concerning the dignity and preheminencie of the Church of Rome o Reply ibid. Indeed this is that fruitfull article of Faith that hath got all the new articles of the new Romane Creed This is the breast that nourisheth them that gives them strength The occasion wherefore he beginnes here is for as much as our Answerer taketh his first exception against him for styling all the auncient Doctors and martyrs of the Church universall with the name of the Saints and Fathers of the Primitive Church of Rome though he alledgeth heerein no more against me saith the Iesuite but this one bare Interrogaterie out of Albertus Pighius Who did ever yet by the Roman Church understand the universall Church p Reply pag. 49 What needes further proofe If neither the whole Roman Church neither your whole Roman world in the judgment of Albertus Pighius did ever take the Romane Church for the Church Vniversall is not this enough to lash the Iesuite for confounding Vrbem Orbem and mingling Heaven and earth together But he will take of Pighius by a Distinction If saith he the Roman Church be taken as it comprehendeth onely that Cleargie which maketh but one particular Bishoprick Diaces in the citie of Rome abstracting from that relation which it hath unto all other Christian Churches as the head unto the members then I say with Pighius who speaketh of it onely in this sense that no man ever by the Church of Rome did understand the Vniversall Church But if it bee taken as it is the Mother Church begunne in S. Peter under Christ and miraculously continued those of each one of the rest of the Apostles fayling by due succession of lawfull Bishops having a relation to all other Christian Churches as the head to the members then doe I say that it may rightly bee stiled with the name of the Vniversall Church And that all other Churches are to be accounted Catholick no further then they be linked in a subordinate obeysance thereunto q Reâ—â—â— pâ—g â—â— Here are many prettie things By this meanes the Church of Rome the Mother must bee borne after the daughter for many particular Churches had birth before Rome was a Church or the Roman Inhabitants received the Faith of Christ Secondly that the Catholicke Church must be in a subordinate obeysance to the Church of Rome before there was any Church there Besides the Catholick Church was never enclosed in any other place but the world never restrained to any other habitation To chaine it â—o any head out of Heaven or to confine it to any particular place on Earth were to make it schismaticall This Church concludes all Saints Noah's Arke was heere a Temple Christ delighted with this Church as in the Canticles before Rome was Rome or a Pontifex governed therein Some are in Heaven that never yeelded obedience to this Church or heard of Rome And it is more then probable some are in hell that were tearmed Holinesse it selfe whilst they remained in this Catholick here But what the Iesuite hath to make this Roman Church the Catholicke and mother of all other Churches in the next Section we shall examine SECT VIII THis Iesuite after hee hath obtained from the most learned Primate ex gratiâ libertie in his owne challenge to chuse his owne weapon would first use it to prove that The Auncient Fathers of the first Ages acknowledged the Roman Church to bee the head of all other Churches a Reply pag 40 I had thought
all Prelates d Reply pag. 51 Which of these words M. Malone prooves Rome to be above Hierusalem the Hils of Babylon to bee higher then the mountaines of the Lord Not the title of Cheife Bishop for this gives the Bishop no power but place no authoritie but precedency Is it the other that he sits in the Apostolicall eminencie Who doubts that the Apostleship is attributed to other Bishops aswell as Rome that dare not adventure to imagine the effect of this appellation to be a spirituall Monarchie As Sidonius to Lupus praeter officium quod incomparabiliter eminenti Apostolatui tuo sine fine debetur e 〈◊〉 l. 4. Epist 4. So likewise in the renunciation of the Metropoliticall Sea of Heraclea thus speakes Theodoret Chritâ—pulus Deprecor thronum principatum sacerdotium adhortorque eum qui vocatur quem Paracletus ad Apostolatum suum separabit And if we will give credit to Pacianus Episcopi Apostoli nominantur Bishops are called Apostles f 〈◊〉 Epist 1. so that it was no unusuall thing to give good Bishops titles that were indeed proper and peculiar to the Apostles of Christ as Prophets Apostles Evangelists and the like And therefore this can bee no rest for him to depend upon For the two places to prove Rome the head of all Churches cited out of Victor Vticensis Ennodius g Reply pag. 51 we have answered thereunto that this title is but an appellation that betokens honour and precedencie not power and superioritie Surely the Church of Rome got not this height by such arguments neither doe I thinke that it could bee maintained if it wanted other strength and defence So that any may see his capitall argument getteth no more then what we yeeld unto him in What his other endeavours will effect we may easily conjecture He bringeth in S. Ambrose next h Reply ibid. but with as little helpe for the Roman headship as the former from whom he expected assistance But here is no truth in this quotation all neither true Author true word true consequence For first how many can we finde that reject those commentaries upon Paules Epistles as being none of Ambroses some charging them as upon the Epistle to the Romans with Pelagianisme from which I thinke the Iesuite will defend this Father Secondly let the Author be who he will these words seeme to be inserted Cujus hodie rector est Damasuâ— for if it be he as by some of the learned of your side is supposed that wrot the booke of questions of the old and new testament i Bellarm de Script Eccles De Ambrosio M. credibile igitur est auctorem horum commentariorum esse Hilarium Diaconum Romanum qui Luciferi schisma propagavit he lived * Quaeâ—â— 43. 300 yeares after Christ and so could not speake these words of Damasus who was Bishop 367. Or if he were Remigias Lugdnnensis as Maldonat thinkes k Maldonat in Ioh. c. 12. v. 32. who lived about the yeare 870. I thinke you will say he spared the truth if he had said Hodie rector est Damasus And who doth not see the poore consequence that followeth hereupon Damasus is Rector of Gods house therefore the Roman Church is the head of all other Churches By this I dare say a man may prove any Church the Head of another for to what Bishop is not this style given Paul calleth himselfe and Timothie and others that were called to the regiment of the Church ministers of Christ stewards of the mysteries of God * 1 Cor. 4. v. 1 and himselfe a minister of the Church * Coloss 1â— 25. But let Gods word prevayle as the Iesuite is affected what hath heerein beene said of Damasus that hath not beene said and by Rome it selfe of Andrew the Apostle who I feare will not be admitted to enjoy the conclusion though the Roman Breviarie give him the premisses Majestatem tuam Domine suppliciter exoramus ut sicut Ecclesiae tuae beatus Andraeas Apostolus existit Praedicator Rector O Lord we humbly beseech thy Majestie that as blessed Andrew the Apostle is Preacher and Rector of thy Church l Cassander Prec Eccles De sancto Andreâ— I feare he would smell like Spalato that from hence should conclude that the Church which Andrew governed as a Bishop was the mother church of all others or that he were the universall Bishop from whom every man should receive his faith Nay Bellarmine will not exclude others from this title m Bellarm. de Rom. Pont l. c. 11. Omnes enim Apostoli fuerunt capita Rectores Pastores Ecclesiae universae and yet none shall have what the Iesuite infers thereupon but his owne Roman mistresse After Ambrose comes S. Hierome whom he bringeth in saying I following none as fiâ—st but Christ am united in one Communion to thy blessedneâ— that is to say to Petâ—rs Chaire Vpon this rocke I know the Church is builâ— Whosoever eateth the Lambe out of this house he is prophane He that gathereth not with thee doth scatter that is to say He that belongeth not to Christ standeth upon the side of Antichrist n Reply pag. 5â— What our Iesuite would have here is plaine that consent with the Roman Church makes a Catholicke and therefore it must be the Mother Church Is there no difference betwixt Rome now and then Who could then argue her of falshood or false beleife It were a poore reaâ—on to aâ—gue from her being pure to her corrupt defylings But wherein lyeth the strength of this Testimony Surely in side-â—â—king communion as if it were certaine that to commucate with Rome and her Bishop is suâ—ficient to declare a man catholicke and that non-union to that head were as much as not to be of the body of Christ Now what force hath this testimonie for confirmation hereof For we see Popish confession will not acknowledge Sergius a catholicke though he communicated with Honorius o Concil â— VI Oecum 〈◊〉 Act. 12. 1â— Neither doe the present Romanists embrace those Arrianâ— as Catholicke for Liberiâ—â— his familiarity nor condemne Athanasius though condemned by their Pope p Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4 c. 9. Nam ut colligitur ex Athanasij verbis ex Epistolis ipsius Liberij duo mala Liberius commisit Vnum quod subscripsit in damnationem Athanasij Altemâ—â— quod cum Haereticis communicavit Binnius Not. it Epist Liberij ad Episcopoâ— Orien extat tomo 1. Concil Quisquis innocentem Athanasium à Cathoâ—icorum communioâ—e arcet impioâ— verò Arianoâ— ad communionis vinculum admitti audeat 〈◊〉 non Catholicum sed Arianum esse oportet Will you accompt all for Hereticks that have not obeyed your Romane Bishop What say you to Irenaeus q Eusebius hist Eccles l. 5. c. 23. Extant autem verba illorum qâ—i Victorem acriter reprehenderunt Equibus Irenaeus To Cyprian r Bellarm. de Rom
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
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
falso 415. Ecclesia Propheâ—â— est more then a Prophet r Idem falso 224. Plâ—â—quaâ— Propheta yea greater then all the Prophets Å¿ Idem circ fals 286. Major omnibus Prophetis having the Spirit of GOD for 〈◊〉 â—iâ—ar t Idem falso 416. Spiritum Sanctum Ecclesiae Vicarium dicit Thus wee see what judge the Iesuite doth contest for and how farre they labour to extend his power to wit that the Pope who is not onely a Prophet but more then a Prophet yeaâ— greater then all the Prophets who hath the Spirit of God for his Vicâ—â— either with or without a Councell hath onely power to determine matters of Faith whereby we may know what to beleive and what not with authority not onely equall but superiour to the scriptures Now what strength doth the Iesuite bring to confirme this Rule His first place is Esay LIIII and the 17. Thou shalt judge every tongue that shall resist theâ— in thy judgment u Reply pag. 99. Surely the Iesuite is like to their Divines in the Councell of Trent who being restrayned to the Scriptures and forbidden schoole-disputes brought all the places out of the Prophets and Psalmes where they stand the words Confitâ—â—r and its verball Confissiâ— to proove Auricular Confession and they were accounted best learned who brought most of them * Hist Concil Tridâ—â— l. 4. p. 345. For here is nothing whereby to make the Pope the infallible Iudge of Controversies unlesse he will conclude that wheresoever Iudge or Iudgment is expressed it is meant of him The second is out of Mat. XI and the 18. Hâ—ll gates shall not prevaile against her x Reply ibid We confesse that all the powers of Hell shall never prevaile against the Church but we say this Church is neither the Pope naked nor Roman as hath in many places beene shewed Yet I would gladly know to what purpose this text is here produced The third place is Mat. XVIII and the â—7 Hâ—e that will not heare the Church let him be to thee aâ— a Heathen and a Publican y Reply ibid. If an infallible judge bee heere pointed out then all these abâ—â—â—dities will follow First that every particular Church should bee infallible and the Iudge of Controversies for Dâ—c Ecclesia hath relation to particular Churches not to the Catholicke Secondly a particular Church should not be subject to errour in criminall causes if this place pointed out an infallible judgment when as this infallibility is denyed not only your own Councels but your Popes also 3ly If the Churches judgment must be infallible because CHRIST requireth us to heare the Church How can the Pastors of the Church bee excluded from this priviledge when the people are enjoyned by the Apostle to obey and follow them Heb. XIII 17. His fourth place is Ephes IIII. II. and 14. God hath placed in the Church Apostles Prophets Pastors and Doctors c. To the end that we be â—â— more little children â—aâ—oring with every winde of doctrine z Reply ibâ—â— I shall shew hereafter that this text maketh against his Iudge his Monarch for the present he may take this with him First that we acknowledge as long as the Church had Apostles Prophets their testimonies were divine and could infallibly direct Secondly although the â—aâ—tors now are meanes ordained by God to the end that wee bee no more little children wavering with every winde of doctrine yet it doth not follow that they are infallible Iudges seeing the argument may as well hold of each as of all who are ordained to the same end which I thinke the Iesuite will not acknowledge His last is 1. Tim. 2. The Church is the Pillar and foundation of truth a Reply ibid. What therefore the Pope the infallible Iudge This followes not For he is the rock if we beleive Popish interpreters upon which the Church is built How then can he be the Church infallibly to direct The foundation surely differs from the roofe the Church that is builded from the rocke that she is builded upon Secondly the Iesuite may know that we envy not the priviledges which GOD hath given his Church nay he were no member of her that should not reverence her with obedience and therefore we acknowledge her the pillar and ground of Truth if containing the Apostles absolutely perfectly if without the Apostles we deny not her Counsels but with all obedience embrace them if she commaund as she is limited in matters of faith by the Scriptures But we see this place is more for the Church of Ephesus concerning which the Apostle speakes literally then Rome and yet experience hath perswaded us that there is no infallibility there Further then this some of your own dare not goe but make a difference betwixt the judgment of GOD and the judgment of the Church the one they say is infallible but the other may sometime deceive b Panorm in Decret De senten Excom cap. 28. Iudicium Dei veritati quae nec fallit nec fallitur semper innititur judicium autem Ecclesiae aliquando sequitur opinionem quae sâ—pè fallit fallitur Dried de dog Ecclesl 2. p. 58. Generale Concilium Papae Cardinalium Episcoporum Doctorum â—â— Scripturis propheticis intelligendis non est tantae authoritatis quantae fuerit olim Apostolorum collegum For Ruffinus his testimony that S. Basil and S. Gregory Nazianzen did take the interpretation of the Scripture not according to their owne proper understanding but according to the tradition of the Fathers c Reply p. 99. The Iesuite pointeth not out the place if he did I thinke little would appeare for his purpose in regard he is to prove the authority of a Iudge not the discretion of a Doctour And who doubts but any wise interpreter will use all meanes that may informe him to performe his worke But let Ruffine passe Augustine maketh an out-cry And doth not S. Augustine cry out saith the Iesuite that Truth reposeth in the belly of the Church c. d Reply ibid. And who saith otherwise He that should thinke that Truth is removed out of the Church thinkes amisse But to conclude from hence the Church the Roman Church the Roman Pope to be the Iudge or Rule of faith is inconsequent Neither doth that place of Augustine cited by the Iesuite in the Xth Section Evangeliâ— non credereâ—â— nisi me Catholica Ecclesiae commoveret authoritus containe any thing to enforce this for many things may move us to beleive that are not the Rule of Faith Miracles did this worke in many but this I hope is far from your Rule What is urged from Vincentius Lirinensis hath been fully answered His note from the Geneva Bible proves nothing If he finde this Iudge at Geneva he speedes well In these words I feare he cannot be espied And now having little or nothing he beginnes his Perâ—ration Behold here gentle Reader how although the articles
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.
5. Indeed your Religion consisteth of one point absolutely and simply Papall supremacy and we doubt not but if that were overthrowne all the Fabrick of your late Roman erection would quickly fall to the ground yet the Catholick faith is not such it consisteth not of one only article neither is it everthrowne by the intrusion of every errour for this being granted if we can shew you the time when Indulgences g Roâ—â—ens Art 18. In principio nascentis Ecclesiae nullus fuit Indulgentiarum vsus or any other errour crept into the Church of Rome you must then conclude catholick religion throughout the world was overthrowne a conclusion forced from shame And let all men judge whether this be not a desperate advantage given to free himselfe from the present danger Neither can the Iesuite from his confidence of Roman puritie glory as he heere hath done in regard he seemeth to have changed his opinion before hee printed halfe his booke curbing his lavishnes and making the Church of Rome free not from all errours as heere he doth but from spots of misbeliefe only h Sect 9. which I feare he will be forced to flye vnto hereafter when hee shall examine his owne iollity in this particular For who brought in that doctrine that the Pope is Lorâ— over all or did extend Indulgences to your Purgatory flames but Boniface the 8 if wee beleive your owne Agrippa i De vanitat scient cap 61. Hic est ille magnus Bonifacius quia tria magna grandia fecit primum falso oraculo deluso Clemente persua sit sibi cedere Apostolatum secundum condidit sextum Decretalium Papam asseruit omnium Dominum tertium instituit Iubilaeum indulgentiarum nundinas illasque primus in Purgatorium extendit Besides this in Leo k Ser. 4 de quadragesima Cùm ad tâ—gendum infidelita tem suam nostris audeant interesse mysteriis ita in Sacramentorum communione se temperant interdum ut tutius lateant ore indigno Christi corpus accipiunt sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurire omnino declinant the great his time it was a note of a Maniche to communicate in one kinde yet now wee fee it is practifed by them which would perswade the world that they are Catholickes and although they may quarrell that the cause is different yet they may see the act of omission onely condemned by Leo the Pope Also in the Primitive times the Sacrament was received by the faithfull in both kindes in the Greeke Church till Cassanders l Consult Art 22. initio Satis compertum est vniversalem Christi Ecclesiam in hunc vsque diem Occidentalem vero seu Romanam mille amplius à Christo annis in solenni praesertim ordinaâ—ia huius Sacramenti dispensatione vtramque panis vini speciem omnibus Ecclesiae Christi membris exhibuisse time in the Westerne or Roman Church for above a 1000 yeares and yet in the Councell of Constance Henricus de Piro Iohannes de Scribanis m Concil Constantien Sess 13. apud Binium stiled it Mos perversus and the whole Councell decreed against it Concupiscence the Apostle calleth sinne but yet it is now no doctrine of the Roman Church for the contrary is decreed in the Trend Councell n Concil Trident. Sess 5. Hanc concupiseentiam quam aliquando Apostolus peâ—â—atum appeilat fancta synodus declarat Ecclesiam Catholicam nunquam intellexisse peccatum appellaâ—i quod verè propriè in renatis peccatum sit sed quâ—â— ex peccato est ad peccatum inclinat Si quis autem contrarium senserit anathema sit And many more may bee found out if I did desire to muster vp your iniquities in this kinde But it shall suffice for the present to referre the Iesuite and the Reader to the Catalogue of the right reverend the Lord Bishop of Derry o Lib. 3. de Antich cap 6. Catalogus veterum haeresum quas Ecclesia Romana renovâ—â—it c. which when Mr Malone or his whole Tribe hath fully answered I may conceive he had something besides his wilfulnes to breed his confidence in this opinion In his examination of the second exception against the Demaund hee hopeth to enervate it by his observations therevpon the first whereof is that therein the Answerer supposeth our catholicke Doctrine to bee that Apostasie which the Apostle speaketh of 1. Tim. 4. 1. 2. p Reply pag. 5. And here our Iesuite wisely collecteth for the learned Primate doth neither acknowledge your Roman Church either in Diocesse or ad extra for Catholick neither your additions mixtures for Catholick Doctrine any more then Saul * 1. Sam. 10. 11 for a Prophet because he got amongst the Prophets as your deceipts have crept into the Creed But yet that by your corrupt mixtures and declinings is truly accomplished that Prophecy 1 Tim 4. hee makes little doubt And what abuse is done heerein to your glorious Synagogue why should not false doctrines and novelties fall before the auncient and radicall truth as Dagon †and false gods before the Arke Nay what doth the learned * 1. Sam. 5. 3. 4. Primate suppose that was not deprecatively expressed in your Trent-Councell by a Bishop q Cornelius Bishop of â—iton â—0 of your owne for if to fall from Religion to Superstition from Faith to infidelitie from Christ to Antichrist bee not an Apostasie let the Iesuite declare what it is But the Iesuite would faine know in what sence wee take Apostasie whether as it designeth an vtter Revolt from the faith of Christ which the Iesuite is confident they cannot bee charged withall Because elsewhere the learned Primate confesseth that men dying as hee saith in our Religion doe dye vnder the mercy of God r Reply pag. 5. What doth the Iesuite meane by this Doth he thinke the most learned Answerer by their Religion did poynt out Ignatius his plat-forme or the Religion of their Holies Francis and Dominick Were any of their other Religions conjectured at which are imployed to frame Christ a Religion by policie that their Master might obtaine a Monarchie by fraude Surely whatsoever the Iesuite may conjecture these will finde but little shelter for their securitie in that sermon But if this Interpretation square not who doth hee then meane by men dying in our Religion if those that lived in the Roman Communion then his collection is vayne also For who can doubt that some may bee saved there without casheering of the Apostasie tâ—eâ—ce Many followed Absalom * 2 Sam. 15. 11. that were true of heart and yet the Iesuite will not deny a Rebellion against David and falling away of the People from him The high places were not taken away and yet Asa's †◠Chron 25. 17. heart and many others no doubt were vpright all their dayes Iudas * Acts 1. 18. may betray Christ and hang Demas †2
sim 4. 10 and others fall from heaven to earth and yet the Apostles and Diseiples adhere to their Master When the whole world in a manner communicated with the Arians were none safe but Athanasius Å¿ Athanas in epist ad solitaâ—â—am vitam agentes Christi standiosi vt magnus ille Pâ—pheta Elias abscondebantur in speluncas cavernas terrae sese abstrudebant aut in solitudine oberrantes commorabantur Hieronymâ—â—on Luciferian Ingemuerit totus Orbis Arianum se â—â—se miratus sit Gregorius Valent Analys l 6. cap. 4 § Probatio 4 Novimus c. cum Arianorum perfidia in orbe penè to to dominabatur c not those which were ignorant of their heresies who if they had knowne them would have abhorred their corruptions t Aug. epist 162. ad Donat Qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam perversam nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt 〈◊〉 quam non aâ—daciâ— praesumptionis 〈◊〉 pepererunt sed à seductis aâ—qâ—e in errorem lapsis parentibus acceperunt quaerunt autem cautâ soliciâ—udine veritatem corrigi parati cum invenerint nequaquam sunt inter Haereticoâ— reputandi Were all the Papists in Queene Elizabeths time damned which joyned in Communion with the Churches of England and Ireland The learned Primate is not so vncharitable as to judge perdition to everie one in the Roman Communion and yet hee doubteth not but that the Apostasie was there Who knowes not that the Roman Pale includeth a Church as well as a Faction and though at the best it bee but a Pest-house as the most reverend Primate fitlie styles it yet hee doth not thinke it impossible but that some poore Soules which had more love to Christ then knowledge of the Doctrine of Popish faith might through the mercy of God u Cypr. Epist 63 13. Si quis de anteeessoribus nostris vel ignorantèr vel simplicitèr non hoc observavit tenuit quod nos Dominus facere exemplo magiâ—â—erio 〈◊〉 docuit potest simplicitati ejus de indulgentia Domini venia concedi nobis verò â—â—â—â—â—terit ignosci qui nunc à Domino admoniti instructi simus escape such infection and contagion which is deadly and mortall whereas the poyson of Apostasie will never leave the grand Masters till it hath brought them to confusion and ruine And this is all he speaketh for the Iesuite's Religion But hoping wee will not charge them with an vtter Revolt he enquires whether wee by Apostasie vnderstand Heresies which doe not so openly oppose the foundation of Christian faith but come cloked with Hypocrisie and vnder the name of Pietie for if wee acknowledge this then howsoever some Heresies doe oppose the foundation of Christian faith more openly then others yet all of them doe still come cloked with the name of Pietie and have beene alwayes observed by the diligent watchmen of Gods house in their very beginnings Reply pag. 6. How doth this take away the learned Primate's just exception For while he distinguisheth of Heresies that oppose the foundation some more and some lesse openly and all cloked with Pietie and vrgeth that all these open heresies were observed in their beginnings what doth hee proove but that which was confessed before For wee acknowledge that Heresie whether more or lesse openly opposite to the foundation hath beene more or lesse observed 〈◊〉 by the Pastors of the Church but yours are of an other nature they were not Heresies at the first but seedes onely or at least appeared not to be so but came in as Pietie when Heresie was closed and sealed vp in a Mysterie and not seene at all Besides this there is nothing vrged by the Iesuite of any weight to take away this Answere He sayth that all Heresies came cloked with the name of Piety and for this he bring three examples to proove his generall conclusion The first of Origen for the salvation of Divels The second he imputeth to Tertullian which was begunne by Montanus y Alphons de Castro adver Haer lib 11. De nuptiis Hujus haeresis authores sunt Cataphryges quo rum princeps fuit Montanus Eundem errorem postea docuit Tertullianusqui ersâ— prius contra Cataphryges pro hae re pugna verat posteatamen ad Caâ—aphryges iediit eorum defendens errorem Bzovius ann 172. Porro quod dogmata Montani attinet sunt haec deâ—inia quae docebat Secundas nuptias velut forâ—â—cationem damnabat c. against second Marriage The third Montanus his rigorous fasts z Pag. 6. Which kinde of arguing as it is not concludent for how followeth it that because three heresies have a shew of Pietie therefore all So the same makes nothing against the Answerer it being granted For who doubteth that Heretickes have alwayes pretended Pietie and that their birthes have beene so presented to the world that they have borne some shew of truth and further that judgments not divinely enlightened have received them many times with religious applause and yet they have beene resisted and opposed by those which had more cleare eyes and could see aright But doth it therefore follow that the bundle of Heresies included in the grand Apostasie wrought by the man of Sinne at different times in a mysterie which must expect a time for Revelation * 2. Thess 2â— 6. 7. should be detected in the first houre of their birth by circumstances of person time and place Many heresies have carried a shew of Pietie but some have beene so mystically delivered that they have received her name Some with their shewe cannot hide their substance their expresse contradiction of Scripture as those of Origen and Montanus which displeased every weake eye and therefore in these circumstances required might easily be detected But these mysticall a Anselmâ— in â— Thess 2. Mysterium quia viderur occultum quia tales operarii ostendunt se velut ministros aut famulos Christi cùm revera sint ministri Antichristi Nam iniquitas â—orum est mystica id est pictatis nomine palliâ—ta ones are of another nature so cloaked that their impietie was hid so presented to the world that they are accompted Piety if you demaund their mother as the Saracens Sarah they dare cry the Church if their Father as the Pharisees to Abraham * Ioh. 8. 39. they dare looke to heaven if you question their Antiquity they like the Gibeonites †Iosh 9. 3. â—â— pretend the Apostles and plead the Apocrypha if Vniuersalitie they are travaylers and as they say throughout the world yet this is but Orbis Romanus the Roman Church Doe you thinke these Vagrants and Wanderers which can bush and brake for their owne safetie are so easily detected as those down-right youths which in their first appearance tell what they are by their face and compleâ—â—â—â— Is there no difference betweene a face muffled with pretences barely and painted with equivocall colours It is not pretending Pietie in heresie neither
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
given them for godly men what is affirmed here but that the fathers looking alwayes to the advancement of Religion fought couragiously against all that openly crossed the same yet might which is not absolutely affirmed but peradventure sleepe whilst poysonous seeds that carried a semblance of Devotion were sowen or have some hand vnawares no way intending hurt but good to the Church of God to bring them in And that there is nothing spoken to the derogation of the Fathers pietie or godlines I thinke any man but Mr Malone will easily conceive For what offence hath this learned observation committed Is any ignorant that wicked wretches may bring good to the Church who never intended it as Iehu * â— King 10 18. 31. Iudas and all preachers for gaine c. and that good men might trouble the Church and broach errors in it and thinke thereby they have done God service as m Euseb eccli hist lib 3. Iraeneus n ibid. lib 7. Cyprian c. and yet some of them have beene by your selves acknowledged for Saints and Martyrs But while the true mens cause is pleading the Theife must not escape We acknowledge it an easie matter to excuse the Fathers of this Apostasie but how will Mr Malone free his owne For although he may dare and outface much yet it is manifest that their cloystered cattell and those of the like hiew are pointed out by the Apostle to be principall Engineres for bringing it in And this is so plainely descried that every simple lay-man by this place * 1. Tim. 4. 2. 3. can paint them out for how are those Hypocrites which speake lyes in Hypocrisie by whom this Apostasie shal be brought in discovered but by these two open and declaring notes of forbidding marriage and abstainning from meats Things which agree so fairely with the cloystered and Romish Cleargie that if we should plead any interest therein we should be cryed downe for sleepers whilst this Towre was in building And although we are charged with Apostasie by the Iesuite yet being examined by the Apostles notes wee shall escape very well For M. Malone knoweth that Delectus ciborum is no article of our Creed nor point of our practise And from the second marke he hath better reason to excuse vs for I cannot doubt but hee that knowes our wives haue kirtles o Reply pag. 206. hath surely observed that our Preists have wives But let the Apostle vse what notes he pleaseth the Iesuite will prove that we are guiltie of Apostasie how because wee have revolted and departed from the Roman Church for which he vrgeth Calvins p Absurdum est postquam discessionem à toto mundo facere coacti sumus inter ipsa principia alios ab a liis dissilire Cal ep 141. confession but if here be not lyes in Hypocrisie where are they to be found For that which he cites from Calvin acknowledgeth onely that they were forced to make a departure from the whole world when as the Iesuite would have him that died long before the most reverend Primate was borne voluntarily to acknowledge that the learned Answerer c. did depart from the Roman Church q Reply pag. 6. But pardon this escape Is there no difference to be forced to depart and voluntarily to make a schisme y Aug. de Bap. con Donat lib 5. Cap 1. Apertissimum enim sacrilegium omines schismatis si nulla 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seperatiâ—â—â— to be driven from you by your corrupt doctrines that you will not reforme and with pertinacy and wilfulnes to embrace heresies Wee have washed alone because you will not be cleane and because your Naaman Å¿ Dried de Ecâ—l dog lib â— cap 4. Neque tenentur oves subesse Pastori vlli qui iam sactus est aut ex pastore lupus aut saluti gregis contrarius will not wash in Iordan must we adhere to your Leprosy still He is the Schismaticke that causeth t Cassan consult Art 7. de Ecclesia vera Neque vnquam credo controversia apud nos de externa Ecclesiae vnitate extitisset nisi Pontifices Romani â— hâc authoritate ad dominationis quandam speciem abusi â— fuissent eamque extra fines a â— Christo Ecclesia praescriptos ambitionis et cupiditatis causâ extulissent the schisme and we are confident that it was no more revolting u Cypr. epist 63. Non debemus attendere quid alius ante nos faciendum putaverit sed quid qui ante omnes â—st Christus prior fecent neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet sed DEI veritatem for vs to leave your corruptions then for the Exorcists to fire their bookes * Act 19. 19. and to reject their impieties And although I will not deny but we were in this manner forced to forsake your corruptions yet our Iesuit proves it but vntowardly by Calvins confession for if the world and the Church of Rome be the same with the Iesuite why might not we conclude from his Baptisme and entring the Cloyster but by vowing to forsake the world in the one and departing from it in the other hee hath revolted and apostated from the Roman Church his Catholicke Brethren But is not the Iesuite pittifully distressed that would from a Schisme falsly pretended to be confessed by Calvin prove vs guiltie of the grand Apostasie mentioned by the Apostle Now the Iesuite thinking that wee would have swallowed his follie and answered him some other way laboureth to prevent vs by crossing that which his Conscience told him would make for our just defence for saith he Neither can it suffice them to say that they departed from the Church of Rome because she her selfe had gone out of the true Church vnlesse they declare vnto vs what true church that was out of which the said Roman Church departed x Reply pag. 7. As if this were hard to be done What is the Catholicke Church doe you know it not that pretended one contracted in a small compasse by Roman ligatures but that trulie Catholicke dispersed over the â—ace of the earth †Cassand consult art 7. Veteres potissimum Catholicam dictam volunt quod per vniversum orbem diffusa sit This is that you have falne from and like Donaâ—isâ—s y Alphons de Castro advers Haer lib 5. de Eccles Ab Ecclesia se divisit dicens in sola parte Donati esse veram Ecclesiam in alijs autem partibus quae Ceciliano favebant non esse Ecclesiá quia etsi ibi aliqui essent boni communione tamen malorum maculabantur ita Ecclesia peribat have condemned her in her particular members as if no salvation were to be had but with you z Extrav de maior obed cap vnam sanctam Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus dicimus definimus pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis Bellar de eccl
59. And here the Iesuite without doubt is gravelled for that which before he saith is notorious he cannot here lay downe he saith it was contradicted against Theodorus c. but he doth not tell vs that Theodorus was the first who brought that into the Church neither speaketh hee one syllable of the person time and place in what manner this supposed Heresie of Preists marriage was brought in But if we can proove this an Heresie as ancient as the Apostles time as the Church of the Iewes that the institution thereof is divine Surely they were asleepe that were watch-men in the Church or else the contradiction hereof had not beene left to their opposall mentioned by the Iesuite And to verify this the two last assertions neede not proofe it being plaine to every man that God instituted marriage without restraint in Paradise * Gen 2. â—2 and Preists and Levites †His enim cum â—aeteris omnibus jus connubii jam inde ab initio fuit vndè scriptum est 19 Iudicum Vir Levites habitans in monte Ephra im accepit uxorem de Bethleem Iuda Ioiada Pontifex ex tribu Levi in vâ—â—rem habuit â—esabeth sororem Ahoziae regis Iudae 22. 2. Pa. ralip. in after-timeâ— vsed that lawfull â—emedy as well as â—aiâ—â—s And for the Apostles practise that they had wives Clemens Alexandr h Clem Alex Strom lib â—â— Philippus autem 〈◊〉 quoque suas 〈◊〉 tradidit Eâ— Paulus quidem certè non veretur in quadam epistola suam appellaâ—e conjugem quam non circumâ—â—rebat quòd non magno ci esset â—pus â—inisterii in a manner all antiquity doth averte Neither doth Bellarmine i Lib. 1. de Clericis cap. 20. deny it for if he did how could he charge the Apostles postquam vocati à Christo fuerunt to doe that which hee can never proove to have beene done viz officio conjugali renunciásse seeing the Apostle testifieth the contrary 1. Cor. 9. 5. and the Canons of the Apostles k Carran sum Coâ—c caâ— 5. Episcopus aut presbyter vâ—â—rem propriam nequaqu â—â— sub obâ—â—nâ—â— religionis abâ—iciat Si vero rejecerit excommuâ—icetur sed si perseveraverit dejieiatur and Concil Gangrens l Caran sum cone can 4. Quicunque discernit à presbytero qui uxorem habuit quòd non oporteat co ministrante de oblatione percipere anathema sit expresse their distaste of such practises the first inhibiting Preists sub obtenâ—â— religionis to put away their wives the other the people for the like cause to contemne their ministration But if hee maketh Chrysostome and Epiphanius to reproove this errour or heresie in Theodorus and certaine others as the first opposers of necessity of Preists their single lives Alphonsus de Castro m Advers haeâ— lib. 13. De Sacerdo haer 4. may learne that Luther is not Hujus haeresis primus author And Innocent the third might have received instruction if he had had but as wise Councell as this Iesuite that before the time of Theodorus Monachus the Orientall Church did receive the vow of continency at least virtually which this holy father n Titul de Cler con cap cum olim cit ibid per Alphon de Castro could not finde out and that it was first opposed by him And how shall wee give credit to their compilers of Councels in their other narrations when Gratian in this particular is casheered by this Iesuite as an Ignoramus or a pettie observer for he telleth vs that o Distinc â—â— cap. syracusanae cit ibid per Alphon de Castro Orientalis Ecclesia non suscâ—pit votum castitatis Surely the Iesuite saith in effect that Innocent the Father and Gratian and Alphonsus de castro the sonnes were children in these affirmations and did not wisely observe precedent times for if they had they should have found Preists to have beene restrained either by law or vowe vntill Chrysostome and Epiphanius their time when Theodorus Monachus and some others did onely oppose this doctrine But Chrysostome was not so affected to oppose the marriage of Preists or Bishops as may appeare in his second Homile vpon the first chapter of the Epistle to Titus tom 4. p Obstruere prorsusintendit â—â—reticorum ora qui nuptias damount often dens eam rem culpa carere immò ita esse pretiosam vt cum ipsa etiam possit quispiaâ—â— ad sanctum episcopatus solium subvehi whatsoever he thought of Monks And for Epiphanius as he contradicted the marriage of Preists so did many Priests in his time practise the same as is confessed by himselfe q Epiph haer 5â— He tels vs also their denyall of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the father and the sonne was begunne and gainesayed about Anno 764. as witnesseth our Adversary Keckermanus in System Theolog. pag. 68. r Reply pag 10 â—Pag 9. The Iesuite promised s out of the learned workes of their moderne Catholick writers to shew vs in what Bishops dayes these differences did first arise but yet heere he is willing to imbrace the testimony of their Adversary Keckerman and for necessity we presume because he can have little evidence elsewhere Whereby we may see how convincing a rule that is which is taken from person time and place to detect Heresie and errour when as our Iesuite cannot by these circumstances point out from the evidence of good stories the prime Greekish errour for which they pretend A. C. his true Relations pag. 49. principally to cast off the Greeke Church and to make it hereticall But if Keckerman be observed he saith not much to the purpose for which the Iesuite hath produced him for whereas a set time a set place a notorius person ought to have beene produced Keckerman for time brings the whole compasse of 764 yeares pag. 6â— annis post Christâ—â— natum 764. the age of along-liued Pope and for the person the Iesuite nameth him not and for the place where this errour received birth if the Iesuite will have vs to conceive the Greeke Church the place is as much extended as the time as containing a larger circuite vnlesse he hop over to their new plantations of America then the Roman Catholick Church And heere let the Iesuite either confesse that he vnderstood not his Adversary or plead guiltie of wilfull a busing his author For Keckerman never sayd that the Greek Church denyed the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father neither doth he appoint the yeare when their denyall of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Sonne was begunne and gainsayed And therefore wee must conceive hee read this Author with a squint eye and a corrupt minde when he maketh him to point at the time for the beginning of this errour to bee about anno 764. it being plaine that this opinion had ground in the Church long before even in the judgment of this Author x Ibid. cited by himselfe In the next repeated errour
who being not justified doe dye are appointed for euerlasting punishments By which it is evident that the fiction of Purgatory is not to be admitted but in the truth it is determined that every one ought to repent in this life to obtaine remission of his sinnes by our Lord Iesus Christ if he will be saved And let this be the end This compendious and briefe Confession of vs we conjecture wil be a contradiction to them who are pleased to slander maliciously accuse vs and vnjustly persecute vs But we trust in our Lord Iesus Christ and hope that he will not relinquish the cause of his faithfull ones nor let the rod of wickednes lye vpon the lot of the righteous Dated in Constantinople in the Moneth of March 1629. CYRILL Patriarch of Constantinople OVr Iesuite is charged by the most reverend Primate Some things are maintained by you which have not beene delivered for Catholicke Doctrine in the primitive times but brought in afterwards your selves know not when The Iesuite pumping for an answere herevnto talketh of ambiguity doubtfull phrases fighting in a cloud As if a man could deale more plainely with the Roman faction then to tell them that there are many points held now of faith by them which the first times never received for Catholicke doctrine and that they themselves know not when many of them were first broached in the Roman Church But the Iesuite fearing least he should be espied in opposing so manifest a truth would here raife a myst or fogge that he might the better steale out of danger for he indeavoureth to perswade That by those words the Answerer goeth about to make his simple Reader beleive that we maintaine doctrine contrary to that of primitive times because forsooth we maintaine now somethings which were not expresly declared nor delivered as necessary articles of Christian faith c Reply pag. 11 He were a simple reader indeed that would beleive this Iesuite either in his faith or doctrine if it have no better support then the declaration of some of their late Councels to confirme it But he were more then simple that can pick the Iesuite his collection from the learned Answerer his words Simple men interprete the Bels as they imagine and imagination hath directed the Iesuite heere and not the truth For what hath the words of the most reverend Primate to doe with the species of opposition where chargeth he you with maintaining doctrine contrarie to that of primitive times where doth he insinuate so much He that discovered your intrufions to have been brought in vnder the name of Piety was not so forgetfull to judge those points contrary to the received doctrine of faith You teach new faith this is the charge You deny not the old professedly in any point this were too grosse and fit for the fooles your brethren open Heretickes and not for the wisest sonne that can promote his fathers kingdome by a more secret and mysticall fraud So that let his words be softer then oyle or sharper then darts I am sure heerein the Iesuite fayles when hee thinketh them to be shot at the innocent The Iesuite would speake more to purpose to free himselfe and his faction and to this end he delivereth to us two propositions 1. We maintaine some things as Articles of faith which were not in primitive times expressely determined declared delivered for such And 2. Wee maintaine some things as articles of our faith which are contrary to that which hath beene declared for Catholick doctrine in primitive times would have vs know that there is a great difference betwixt these two sayings d Ibid. But as the Iesuite granteth the former to be true of themselves so the most learned Answerer in this place doth not charge them with this latter at all For I doubt not but that the most reverend Primate will yeeld so farre vnto you that in shew at least you holde the Apostles Creed and with the Pharisees give it the first place of honour as they Moses law yet notwithstanding your additions have cast contumely many times vpon the ancient faith as Pharisaicall traditions vpon Moses law * Mat. 25. â— 9. That which Roffensis sayth may be acknowledged in a right sence that there were many points universally held by the Primitive Church in beleife and practise the which with explanation were defended against contradicting Hereticks that arose in after-times But what is this to new doctrine never universally received nor anciently knowne or what argument is heere perswading you to declare that for ancient faith which was never delivered from the Apostâ—â—s c. or received by the Primitive Church But the Iesuite that he might gaine credit to his first proposition tels vs. Before the Nicen Councell some books of Canonicall Scripture were doubted of yea and rejected from the Canon by some of the Ancient without any blame at all which after the said Councel could not lawfully be called in quèstioÌ„ e Reply pag. 11 And all to very little purpose For first the Nicene Councell did not declare doubtfull books for Canonical Scripture nor point out the Canon which the Catholick Church did universally receive neither doth it make at all against their universall receipt of those bookes that some privat men or Church doubted of or rejected them For the Iesuite will have his doctrine generally received if affirmed by ten or eleven Fathers †Valentia if by the choysest Why shall f Reply pag. 94 not Gods booke have equall priviledge with a Papall Indulgence when the first is acknowledged in a manner by most this never taken notice of nor acknowledged at all Besides suppose that some private men or some few Churches did not receive some booke of the Canon yet this can no way hinder the universal receipt of the whole more then a mountaine or a wave the Globes roâ—undity Secondly although they were not blame worthy as the Iesuite would have it which should not receive some bookes of the New Testament which is false yet they were not without blemish for if it were an honour to the Iewes especially to the tribes of Iudah Benjamin that to them wholly intirely were commended the Oracles of God * Rom. 3 2. it must needes bee a dishonour to the ten tribes to have rejected all but the five bookes of Moses Thirdly although those bookes were doubted of yet they were doubtingly received for you cannot finde them by any Church canonically rejected Fourthly it had bin as foule an errour to have decreed any thing against the authority of those books before the Nicen Councel as afterwards For if the Iesuit will take it to bee such a tye that all are bound to stand vnto the declaration of a Councel why did not the Councel of Laodicea f Carran in sum Concilâ— can 59. performe their obligatioÌ„ but in the repetition of the Canon leave the book of Iudith to be placed amoÌ„gst the Apocrypha not
pag. 1â— This Iesuite wanteth honesty otherwise he would not observe with falshood and jealousie that for which there is no ground in the most reverend Primates words For first he speaketh not of the Iesuit alone but of all his Tribe and do you thinke it is so hard a thing to find some of you asking What yeare the Religion of the Papists came in prevailed Whether all nations suddenly and in one yeare were moved to the doctrine of the Papistes Whether in a moment the masse was said in stead of other Apostolicke communion p See Doctor Fulks answere of a true Christian to a Counterfeite catholicke Is it not your owne Demaund In what Popes dayes was true Religion overthrowne in Rome and when you come to explaine your selfe in your Reply is it not the certaine time which you demaund of us page 1. and the precise time page 14. Secondly saith the Iesuite I observe false logick to wit Because Fisher Caietan or Valentia cannot tell therefore none else can tell q Reply pag. 13 This is none of the most learned Primates inference but the Iesuites Yet I dare say that it is better logicke then the Iesuite hath usually replyed withall For may not one argue from a probable ground but it must destroy the whole Systeme of Logick drive Aristotles Topicks out of his Organon Fisher Caietan Valentia not Punies though Mr. Malone seeme to sleight them but great Rabbins of Popish Divinity nay I thinke I may say the greatest without deserving censure cannot tell therefore none can tell is a probable argument and not false Logicke as this sixt Predicable would have it For if the best learned caÌ„not find out the time when these Customes c. were first brought in it is a vehemeÌ„t if not a violent presuÌ„ption that poore Punies cannot finde that out If a Sheriffe that hath posse CoÌ„mitatus returne non est inventus vpoÌ„ a persoÌ„ a Catchpole will scarse find out the fugitive And I thinke it is good logick for I am sure it is good reasoÌ„ that if Fisher Caietan Valentia cannot tell this Iesuite as he hath done may well hold his peace Yet here is more logick theÌ„ the Iesuite 〈◊〉 see or at least theÌ„ he hath observed for Valentia saith minimè coÌ„stat it doth not appeare wheÌ„ that Custome of receiving the sacrameÌ„t in one kind did first get footing in some Churche Fisher Câ—ietan say that no certainty can be had by whoÌ„ Indulgences were first brought in or what was their original r See them veged by the most reverend the Lord Primate in his answer to the Iesuit's challenge pag. 3 therefore it will follow necessarily that all the wise men in the Roman Church are not able to set downe the precise or certaine time wherein these Novelties did first arise vnlesse the Iesuite will despise the iudgments of their learned Cardinall their highly esteemed Bishop and his owne Valentia Againe Because Valentia cannot tell when the Custome of receiving the Sacrament in one kind began in some particular Churches therefore we know not when it was first vsed in the Church at all whereas it is shewen to have beene first brought in by Christ his Apostles Å¿ Reply pag. 13 Here is impudeÌ„cy would make an Ethiop blush for what can be more fowle theÌ„ to fasteÌ„ those things vpoÌ„ this most reverend Lord which he never intended neither can bee collected froÌ„ his wordes But the Iesuite frames argumeÌ„ts that he may with more facility answer theÌ„ the most reverend Primates are not so easily digested That which hee collecteth froÌ„ Valentia is that the vse of receiving the sacrament in one kinde began first in some Churches grew to be a generall custome in the latine Church not much before the Councell of Constance in which at last to wit 200 yeares ago this custome was made a law SecoÌ„dly that it doth not appeare when first that Custome did get footing c And out of this confession c. he observeth What little reason these men have to require us to set downe the precise time wherein all their prophane novelties were first brought in seeing this is more then they themselues are able to doe * See the most reverend the Lord Primate in his answere to the Iesuites challenge pag â— Which observatioÌ„ or inference the Iesuit durst not touch as being too well guarded by the premisses if Valentia may be beleived for him to avoyd For suppose one should say speake as true as Valentia that the plague or a leprosie as heresy is did begin first in some Provinces was afterwards scattered throughout the Roman Empire and should further adde that it doth not appeare wheÌ„ first that infectioÌ„ did get footing in some Provinces Doth it not necessarily follow that all men must be ignorant when the ContagioÌ„ or Leprosie first infected the Empyre So that if this Iesuite had framed his argumeÌ„t truly according to this most reverend Lords collection it would have made him gape for an answere Valentia that speaketh truth for wee must not thinke that a Iesuit can lye telleth vs that the receiving of the SacrameÌ„t in one kind did first begin in some churches at a time that doth not appeare afterwards got by custome into the Latine being made a law by a decree at Constance therfore it is more theÌ„ your selves can do to tell wheÌ„ this custome got footing in the Church at all And further if Valentia did coÌ„tradict himselfe saying at one time that this custome was brought in by Christ and his Apostles at another that it began first in particular churches so spread at a time that doth not appeare let the Iesuite bedaube him with an excuse or condemne the waverer And againe Because Fisher Caietan grant that no certainty can be had by whom Indulgences were first brought in therefore they must be profane novelties wheÌ„ as both Fisher Caietan ground theÌ„ vpon the word of God condemning him of another untruth when he affirmeth that they give us to understand how no certainty can be had what their originall was u Reply pag. 13 Here the Iesuite is driveÌ„ to the like inventioÌ„ for the learned Answerer maketh no such infereÌ„ce His intentioÌ„ there being onely by Popish witnesses to prove that you know not the originall of some points of your faith to discover thereby your vanity in requiring of vs the precise time of their birthes Profane novelties he stileth not these alone but all your other after-byrthes also yet proveth theÌ„ prophane and new in his most learned answere following And although the most reverend Primate intended in this place no such thing yet if a Popish Martyr and Cardinall beare not false witnesse they wil be little better then prophane and novelties also by their testimonies For if Indulgences be such a point of faith that no certainty can be had what their originall was or by whom they
were first brought in whether by Balaam or an Apostle though the Iesuite his fellowes could proâ—e it by Apocrypha to be as auncient as the towre of Babeâ—â— it wil be prophane and new in the opinion of any Christian iudgment and vnderstanding still And here it is not to be omitted how the Iesuite flyes to that which they coÌ„temne in us the sacred scriptures deserting the successioÌ„ of this article of glorious RomaÌ„ faith suspecting the fathers so much boasted of by him to prove it of universall beleife must we be urged then in reason to tell you at what time Purgatory and Indulgences were first brought into the Church wheÌ„as the Greeke Fathers seldome mentioned Purgatory never received it x Roâ—â—ens ar 18. Graecis ad hunc vsque diem non est creditum Purgatorium esse when some of the Latine apprehended it not y Ibid. Sed neque Latini simul omnes ac sensim huâ—us rei veritatem conceperunt when sometime it was vnknowne z Ibid. Aliquandiu Purgatorium in cognitum and but lately knowne to the Church a Ibid Sero cognitum ac receptum Ecclesiae fuerit vniversae when it got strength pedetentim by little little not from scriptures or fathers interpreting them onely but partly ex revelationibus b Ibid. by some whisperer in a trunke or a worse Gipsy But if these notable points in the opinioÌ„ of Valentia Caiâ—tan Fisher had their original froÌ„ Christ his Apostles the word of God why should the Iesuit desire any other medium to examine the truth of their report but their own levell The word of God is sufficient to canonize these of faith could you but finde them delivered there But we are sure of your disability herein vnlesse you fly vnto the ayde of your pro ratione voluntas your will-guiding Interpreter And the Iesuit might have forborn to charge the Answerer with untruth in regard he but only repeats Fisher Caietans opinions and the Iesuite himselfe thus farre jumpeth with them that there is some uncertainty when first their vse began Besides I would gladly know whether the word of God without succession be able to point us out the certaine original of the Doctrine of faith if it be what will become of his demaund if it be not where findeth he the vntruth that he doth falsly charge the Answerer withall Finally Because Fisher affirmeth that the knowledge of Purgatory came in pedetentim by little little therefore it ought not to be admitted nor esteemed For by the same Logick he may prove that S. Iames his epistle ought not to be admitted for Canonicall Scripture because as S. Hierome c Paulatim tempore procedente meruit authoritatem Hieron de vitis illust verbo Iecobus doth witnesse by little and little in processe of time it obtained authority credit d Reply pag. 13 This is another brat of the Iesuites begetting let him foster it the most learned Answerer concludeth no such thing but shewes that this profane Novelty crept pedetentim like a snaile to the height of Papall faith and therefore is not easy to be discerned But the Iesuite had a great mind to make vse of Ierome's words and without a forged preparation hee was not able to bring them in Yet as he vrgeth them there is great difference betweene these two instances For the Epistle of S. Iames was first received by the Catholike Church e Eusebius apud Sixt. Sâ—nens Bibl. Sanct lib. 7. haer 9. Noâ— tamen scimusistam epistolâ—m Iacobi cum caeteris ab omnibus Ecclesijs recipi though doubted of by some particular members thereof f Sixtuâ— Senens ibid. Nec ita perperà m sequentia verba Hieronymi interpretanda sunt ut ex his dedueamus Epistolam hanc vel temporum successu vel Ecclesiae diâ—â—imulatione divinam factam Iaâ—obo ascriptam cum tadis ipsa non esset hoc enim impossibile prorsus est sed sic potius juxta veram Hieron mi mentem exponenda sunt quod Epistolam hanc de qua primum inter ALIQVOS ambigebatur an divino spiritu aâ— ab Apostolo Iacobo scripta esset Ecclesia Christi paulatim tempore procedente â—â—mperit esse veram et canonicam etipsiâ—s Iacobi germanam But Purgatory was not received so far as they can manifest but by degrees in particular Churches only never at the best esteemed as of faith but among Romanists Secondly Purgatory partim ex revelationibus came to be beleived of some particular Churches when the Epistle of S. Iames from the worth divine light that was in it selfe meruit authoritatem got authority not in the Catholicke but amongst those doubting Churches which had not received it So that heere is the difference of paulatim and pedetentim S. Iames his Epistle was knowne and received by the Catholicke Church and did by degrees remove the jealousie of those particular Churches that suspected it Purgatory being vnknowne at sometime to the Catholick Church which must either be in the Apostles dayes or never vnlesse this point were more vnhappy then any other point of Doctrine got to be knowne afterwards in the Roman Church not from Scriptures which knew it not but by revelations and tales of a Ghost When our Answerer then c. doth demand of us whence tho foresaid points of Purgatorie Indulgences Communion in one kind have their Originals we can shew even out of the very authors alledged by himselfe that they have their Originals from the institution of our Lord howsoever it be granted that there is some uncertainty when first began their publique and frequent use g Reply pag. 13 What doth the Iesuite get by this he affordeth us matter sufficient to prove his Demaund idle For first what little reason hath he to aske What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion which wee commend in them of the first 400. yeares and In what Pope his dayes was the true Religion overthrowne in Rome when they themselves are forced to distinguish in regard of time the practise of their faith from the person that instituted the Doctrine thereof confining this vnto the age of Christ acknowledging the other to have beene brought into the Roman Church they know not when †〈◊〉 constat Secondly what ground hath the Iesuite the rest of his profession to require the circumstances of person time and place to find out heresies by but because the true auncient faith hath beene ever continued in the Church by perpetuall succession being beleived practised therein without interruption And yet here our Adversaries confesse that a doctrine may be taught by Christ yet never practised in the immediate following times but as a thing forgotten begin in particular Churches after the Apostolick times and from thence slyde into the Roman never into the Catholick at such a time which they are not able to designe
Lord rebuke every proud tongue that dare attempt so high despight against God and his truth The Iesuite proceedes Lâ—c heere the Divells disputation against the Private Masse which I thought good to lay downe thus at large i Reply pag. 17â— Here the Iesuite beginneth to triumph but upon what reason the precedent discourse will declare yet his intent is pious that my poore deluded Countriman may understand whither his new Masters doe leade him k Ibid. The Owle might leave preaching unlesse it be to night birds for the Iesuite may assure himselfe that this most reverend Lord will never bee so deceived †Ruffin Hist Eccles lib. 1. cap. 11. Dolis apud ignorantes locus est scientibus vero dolum intendere non aliud est quam risum movere as to be taken with his delusions which are grounded vpon so filly a perswasion as Dabunt signa monstrous miracles and tale-Divinity His masters are CHRIST and his Apostles neyther doth hee refuse the sacred Chorus of the auncient Church these have not beene seducers they neither delude nor drawe into errors they will consume your man of sinne and because you feare the consumption you disgrace their effects and operations making the reading of the sacred scriptures l Reply pag. 17 the cause of most horrible impieties reviling with your tongue-prodigies GODS heavenly lampes least they should declare your filth by their celestiall light The holy Sacrifice of the Masse hath triumphed in the Church of God even from the beginning and shall continue mangre all Opposers unto the end m Reply pag. 17 c. If the Iesuite meane by the sacrifice of the Masse the administration of the body and blood of Christ whereby the sacrifice of Christs death is commemorated unto us he hath no Adversary For we know it was instituted by Christ and hath beene continued perpetually by the Catholicke Church even to these very times But if hee meane by the sacrifice of the Masse that outward visible sacrifice made by the Preist alone n Concil Trid. Sess 22. cap. 6. Sacrosancta Synodus Missas illas in quibus solus sacerdos sacramentaliter communicat non modo non damnaâ— ut illicitas sed etiam probat atque commendat wherein CHRIST is pretended really to be sacrificed this was never in the auncient Church much lesse triumphed therein and although the Iesuite would have it auncient yet it was not borne in the fathers time o Erasmus de concord Eccles versus sinem Sunt qui in Missa commâ—nionem requirant sic fateor a Christo suit institutum ita olim consuevit observari Casâ—ander Consult art 24. §. De iteratione pag. 223. Certe ex tota Canonis compositione manifestè apparet totam illâ—â—â—ysticam in qua Canon adhibebatur actionem vel publicam vel certe inter plures semper celebratam suisse Quod si â—odie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 queat facile verus â—ius intellectus restitui possit but brought into the Church by the decay of Devotion on the peoples part p Erasmus de amab concord Ecclesiae Verum id quo minus fiat haud stat per sacerdotes sed per laices in quibus hâ—u nimium refrixit charitas which defection it hath still nourished The word sacrifice indeed was in use amongst the fathers though Calvin thought it was abused neither did they or the Church of Rome thereby hold it a reall sacrificing of Christ but a commemoration of his death q Lombard Sent. lib. 4. Dist 12. par 2. Quaeritur Si quod gerit sacerdos proprie dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio si Christus quotidie immoletur vel semel tantum immolatus sit Ad hoc breviter dici potest illud quod offertur consecratur à sacerdote vocari sacrificium oblationem quia memoria est repraesentatio veâ—i sacrificii sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis Et semel Christus mortuus in crâ—ce est ibique immelatus est in semetipso quotidie autem immolatur in sacramento quia in sacramento recordatio fit illius quod factum est semel and therefore Calvin himselfe saith that your impiety in that particular being considered with the abuse of the auncients there would appeare betweene them and you an unmeasurable distance r Calvin lib. devera Eccles reform extat in Tractat. Theolog Calvini c. pag. 389. Vtrumque illis concedo veteres non mâ—do sacriâ—iciâ—â—oce abusoâ— esse sed etiam caeremoniâ Verum sireputemus quantum a veterum corruptelâ distet quae nunc abipsis fucatur â—â—pietas immensum est ferè intervallum and therefore the Iesuite abuseth their adversaries in making them to impute that to the fathers which they knew these never held Whereby the Iesuit might see how vaine he is in making us to be enemies of this mystery when we onely oppose their popish innovations and defiling of so sacred an institution And whereas the Iesuite would make Luther the first oppugner of private Masse it is a good argument that many were a sleepe when it first came into the Church seeing many of themselves forced by the testimony of the auncient Fathers confesse that it was not according to the auncient use of the Church of God Ignatius maketh all to communicate and all in both kindes Å¿ Ignatius ad Philadelphenses Vnuspanis omnibus confractus vnus calix qui omnibus distributus est in receiving of this blessed Sacrament Chrysostome t Chrysostomus in Cor Homil. â—8 Est autem ubi nihil differt sacerdos à subdito ut quando fruendum est hoâ—â—endis mysterijs similiter enim omnesut illa percipiamus digni habemur Non ficut in veteri lege partem quidem sacerdos comedebat partem autem populus non licebat populo participerâ— esse corum quorum particept erat sacerdos sed nunc non sic verum omnibus unum corpus proponâ—â—â— poculum â—um maketh Preist and People all alike This is acknowledged to be the practise of the primitive times by Innocent the third Innocent 3. lib. 6. Myster Missae cap. 5. In primitiva quidem Ecclesia singulis diebus qui celebrationi Missarum intererant communicare solebant sed excrescente multitudiâ—e c and by Durand Dur. raâ— l. 4. c. 53. In pâ—â—mitiva Ecclesiâ omnes qui celebrationi â—â—issarum interâ—rant singulis diebus communicarâ— â—lebant co quòd Apostoli omnes de â—alice biberâ—â— Domiâ—â— dicence Bibite exâ—â—oc â—mnes And to preserve pious mindes from embracing this fond perswasion of the Iesuites that Luther first impugned Private Masse I desire that they would consider with what impatience Chrysostome would have prosecuted the same when he expresseth bitternes even against the peoples neglect of communicating Indeed he could not actually dispute against that which was not yet we may coÌ„ceive by his words how he would have approved of Private Masse if it had
delivered to the Saints * Iude v. 3. 4. neither the instrument Gods Booke †Luke 1. 4. written for this purpose and continued for this end that it might be a memoriall of Gods truth for the time to come for ever and ever * Esai 3â— â— Doe you thinke that if all or any of this had made for him or given advantage to his cause the Iesuite would have closed his eyes I cannot beleive that it was courtesie which made him for beare but the brightnesse of the testimony which this 〈◊〉 his tender eyes durst not behold whereby you may take notice of the Iesuits practise in leaving convincing grounds untouched that he might the better and with the lesse reproofe stile that a vaine betaking to the Scriptures which truely is done in imitation of Christ and by Apostolicall direction And furthermore who amongst his owne will not be ashamed of his wry mouth and cloven tongue that dare stile that a conveighance which this most reverend Father urgeth from antiquity citing Tertullians wordes Is this the honourer of the auncient Church that accounteth the iudgement of the fathers as the assured touchstone to try all controversies betwixt us i In his Epistle to the King Here wee see what esteeme they may expect at his handes if they crosse his way for though he forbeare to question Tertullian whom he cannot answere yet you may perceive his direction followed by the most learned Answerer is persecuted by this Mountebanke with a base invective But although the Iesuite dare not absolutely submit his cause unto this tryall yet for the present he will accept his motion upon condition that if the Answerer come short of proving this way that a change hath beene made that saying of Tertullian shall point at him and his doctrine and all the rest which he casteth at us shall fall upon his owne head k Reply pag 20 I understand not this condition nor I thinke he himselfe but if the Iesuite convict us by Tertullian his rule we are content that he shall triumph and be acknowledged a Victor The first instance then produced by the most reverend Primate is this In the Apostles dayes when a man had examined himselfe he was admitted unto the Lords table there to eate of that bread and drinke of that cuppe as appeareth plainely 1. Cor. 11. 28. In the Church of Rome at this day the people are indeed permitted to eate of the bread if bread they may call it but not allowed to drinke of the cuppe Must all of us now sâ—â—t our eyes and siâ—â— * As it was in the beginning so now Sicâ—â— erat in principio nunc unlesse we be able to tell by whom and when this first institution was altered l See the most reuerend the Lord Primate his answere to the Iesuites challenge And the Iesuite would perswade that this is a weake argument by his crosse pleading of foure things practised by us 1. In the Apostles dayes the faithfull received the sacrament after meate in the euening * 1. Cor. 11. â—1 in the Protestants Church at this day it is commonly received fasting and in the morning therefore it is not with them sicut erat in principiâ— nunc 2. In the Apostles dayes the sick were annointed * Marke 6. 3. Ia. 5. 14. with oyle and a commandement given so to doe the Protestants practise no such thing therefore c. 3. In the Apostles dayes the faithfull were commanded to obstaine from eating of bloud * Act. 15. and strangled meates Among the Protestants there is no such abstinâ—nce observed Therefore c. 4. Christ when hee ministred the sacrament said * Mat. 26 6. Take eate this is my Body the Protestants now adayes say not so but take â—ate this in remembrance c. And from this he concludes that it is not with the Protestants sicut erat in principio m Reply pag. 20 c. Heere any man may see that this Iesuite dare not stand to his accepted motion to bee tryed by Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles the sacred Scriptures and therefore hee laboureth to weaken the strength thereof but let him mantle himselfe in his pretences never so much this is sufficient to declare that a change hath beene made which is all that the most learned Answerer desireth to conclude So that if wee can declare that Papists not Protestants in their changes made have fallen from the puritie of Doctrine and practise of primitive times the Iesuite will rest like a Franciscan Novice demure and tongue-tyed for ever For the three first instances wee confesse that a change hath beene made and that heerein wee have followed the practise of those that brought them in But for the fourth hee deales like a shuffler and would seeme to insinuate that we have dealt with those words * This is my Body Hoc est corpus 〈◊〉 as they haue done with some of the Commandements either cast them out or put something in the place thereof as their owne 〈◊〉 and Ribadâ—nâ—yra n The second they have left out and â—ut in stead of the fourth Commandement Remember to sanctifie the holy Dayes have done Wheâ—â—â— our Church teacheth Children before Confirmation that the Body and Bloud of Christ which is the inward part or thing signified of the sacrament are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithfull in the Lords Supper o See the Catâ—chisme in our Common Prayer Booke and in the celebration of the Communion the whole institution is repeated in these words expressely Take â—ate this is my Body which is given for you p See there the Order for the Administration of the Communion So that this is but an imaginary change pretended having no truth in it at all For the Changes confessed they are not but in things indifferent and ceremonies which no Papist dare deny but the Church of God had and hath power to alter CHRIST as in the Sacrament prescribing the substance leaving the Ceremonie to the ordering of the Church r Augustin epistol 118. Salvator non praecepit quo deinceps ordine sumeretuâ— ut Apostolis per quos dispositurus erat Ecclesiam servaret hunc loâ—â—m Nam si hoc ille monuisset ut post cibos alios semper acciperetur credo quòd cum morem nemo variâsset as is apparant in those wordes This doe not thus in 〈◊〉 of â—ee Luke 22. 19. This Answere the Iesuite knew would put a period to his vaine flourish and therefore by repeating it hee thinkes to avoyde the same as if the rule by Scriptures were of no force if this answere were permitted for saith hee What force leaveth he to his owne argument made against us in a matter of the like indifferency Å¿ Reply pag. 20. If the Iesuite could prove it so it were something to the purpose but lame Ignatius heere leaves his armes and fals to
crutches For what are the Arguments hee contendeth with 1. That there was never any commandement given that the Cup should be given to the Laytie 2. That the use of celebration of the Cuppe was not sâ— generall in the Apostles time c. And for this hee cites a Iesuite and tells us that Cardinall Perâ—n in his Reply to the King of Great Brittaine hath undeâ—yabliâ— proved that uppon just cause the Church might change the Communion of both kindes into one that Cardinall Bellarmine hath most largely disputed heâ—reof and clearely prooveth That Christ in the Sacrament is wholly contained in one kinde and that under one kinde there is found the full substance and vertue of the Sacrament t Reply pag. 20. 21. c. Loe heere is the brave confirmation of his indifferent Chalice * If Christs Bloud how â—lightly is it valued when they fight to avoyde it which if allowable I wonder hee should take so much paines in his Reply but have referred all the Controversies to his Predecessors paines because nihil dictum est quod non â—â—it dictum priâ—â— But as hee prooves so shall his answere bee sutable His referments shall bee answered with referments For their Peron I referre him for answere to Mâ—â—lin And for Bellarmine I could name him an hoast But this sacriledge of theirs I will truely lay downe and breifly in a few wordes that the Reader may see the ground of our Churches practise and the base and simple shiftes that they are forced unto for their defending of the surreption of the Cuppe And although our Iesuite declareth himselfe to have beene borne in a full Moone or the Dogge-dayes by his folly and reviling calling our Cleargie the Cupping Ministery u Reply pag â—â— yet GOD bee thanked wee defire not the cuppe for our owne selves in that their appetite is seene but for the people also that all things may bee ordered in the Church according to Christs institution And heerein all may see that hee might as justly revile CHRIST and his Apostles as hee doth those whom hee styles the Câ—pping Ministery And I thinke a Papist and a Preist might best of all men let that scorne have passed seeing the Cuppe not of the New Testament might â—it them for their armes with a Poâ—uâ— non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their Motto For a man may be in the act of â—eriting with them that is none of the soberest x Less de Iustie â—uâ—e l. 4. cap. 2. dubitat â— nu 10 p. 718. 719. Si tantus â—it excessus ut peccet mortiserè amittit meritum â—â—junij sicut aliorum bonorum operum Si aâ—tem non peccet mortiferè non amittit absolutè sed solum ex parte Quia quâ parte voluntariè abstinet à cibâ—â— vetitis et à secundâ refectione propter Ecclesiae prâ—â—ceptum meretur quod meritum non eliditur etiamsi in usu cibi vel potus non seâ—â—â—â— dâ—â—iâ—am modeâ—â—tionem quâ â—amen parte excedit non â—eâ—eâ—â— nay a man may be drunke and yet fast truly y â—â—llarm lib. 2. de bonis operibus in partic cap. 1. Iejunium EcclesiasticuÌ„m est abâ—â—inâ—ntia cibi secundum Ecclesiae regulam assumpta paâ—le post Iejunium igitur Ecclesiasticum dicitur abstinentia cibi quoâ—iam hoc â—â—junium neque POTVS neque medicamentorum sed solius cibi absâ—â—â—â—nâ—iaâ— perâ—se râ—quiâ—iâ— if Bellarâ—ine his definition of a Fast be adequate to the thing that is defined But letting all this passe I will shew plainely that the Cuppe cannot be taken from the Sacrament but the perâ—eâ—tion and integritiâ— if not the substance thereof is utterly overthrowne And to deale with a Iesuite from Iesuiticall grounds we may observe that if it crosse the substance either of Christs institution or of his Sacrament â—r his precept or of the practise of the primitive Church a Reply to Iesuite Fisher by Dr Fran White pag. 466. 467 it can no lesse then vitiate the whole action That it crosseth these what tongue can deny which impudencie hath not appropriated to its selfe For did CHRIST exhibite a double thing to the Apostles faythes and memories and did hee not likewise for the effecting thereof consecrate two materiall elements bread and wine was it not the practise of the primitive Church b Lyranâ—â— in 1. cor 11 Fit hic 1. Cor. 11. mentio de duplici specie nam in primitiva Ecclesia sic da â—atur â—idelibuâ— Cassander consult ar 22. pag. 168. Satis conâ—â—at occidentalem seâ— Romanaâ— mille à Christo â—nnis in â—olenni et ordinaria hâ—â—jus Sacramenti dispensatione â—tramque paâ—â—â— et â—iâ—â— specâ—em omnibus Ecclesiâ— Christi members eâ—hibuiâ—â—e iâ— quod ex in nuâ—â—â—iâ— veâ—â—rum scriptorum taâ— Grâ—coâ—um quam Latinorum testimoâ—â—â—s manifesâ—â—â— est atq ut ita facerent inductoâ— fuisse 〈◊〉 instituâ—â— exemploque Christi and of the Latine for a thousand or more yeares to administer it in the same manner not onely to the Cleargy but to the people also by the institution example of Christ â—ellarâ— De Euchar. l. 4. c. 24. Ecclesia autem vetus ministrabaâ—â—â—b duplici specie quando Christiani â—rant pâ—â—â—â—i 〈◊〉 Crescente aâ—tâ—m multiâ—â—â—â—ne magis â—â— magis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—t sic paâ—latiâ— defâ—â—â—â—sâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the contrary ever received by the Church deliberatly upon concluding grounds or did it stealedas the rest of the tares into the Romish Church by Custome If the Iesuite can shew us better grounds to acquite it from intrusion let him declare it this was the cheife reason the Councell of Constance e Concil Constantien Seâ—â— 13. Licet Christus post â—â—â—nam instiâ—â—erit suis discipulis administraverit sâ—b 〈◊〉 que specie panis vini hoc venerabile â—â—cramentum tamen hoc non obstante sacrorum Caâ—oâ—â—â—â—â—thoriâ—aâ— laâ—dabilis approbata coÌ„â—etudo ecclesiae servavit servat c. Et sicut haec consâ—â—â—â—do ad evitâ—â—dum aliqua pericula et scandala est rationabiliter introducta quod licet in primitiva ecclesia hujuâ—â—odi sacramentum reciperetur à fidelibus sub utraque specie posâ—â—à à confiâ—â—entâ—bus sub utraque et à laicis tantuâ—â—odo sub specie panis sâ—cipiâ—â—ur c. Vnde cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia sanctis patribus rationabiliter introducta diâ—â—issimè observata sit habenda est pro lege had for its defence and what strength it hath against Christs institution and the Primitive practise any may conceive What hath mooved the Roman Church to this surreption of the Cuppe from the people no man can without doubting imagine for if those wife motives repeated by Gerson should bee the cause wee may see how weake arguments will moove the Apostolicall power against CHRISTS institutions For first he telâ—ethus of the danger in the effusion 2. The inconvenience of the portation of it from place to place 3. The vessell might bee as filthâ—â— as Iudas his trunke 4. There
may be want of a Barber amongst the Laicks But the killing Argument is this that if the Cuppe be given to the people there wil be no difference betwixt the people and their Priests f Gerson d. com sub utraque specie Primum periculum in effusione Secundâ—m in depoâ—tatione de loco ad locum Tertium in vasorum sordidatione c. Quaâ—â—â—â— in longis baâ—bis laicorum Item quod tanta esset digâ—itas laicorum circa sumâ—â—â—â—â—â—m corporis Christi sicut eâ— Sacerdoâ—um vide plura ibid. Would not this moove a Saint thinke you to scorne Christ and his institution and embrace that which is but a Custome and had no better a stile before the Councell of Constance But that we may further manifest this truth One thing may be said to be of the substance of another two manner of wayes either integrally or essentially And first who doth not see that the sacrament is deprived of an integrall member by taking away the Cuppe For the second it is no difficult thing to be manifested for any Iudgement will determine the Sacrament to bee maymed when it is received according to mens pleasures leaving that prescript forme which is layed downe by Christ himself in such a part that doth conferre grace g Vasques t. 3. in 3. disp 215. c. 2. Vnaquaeque species hujus Sacramenti quatenus Sacramenti para est suam habet significationem diversam hinc sequitur unamquamque speciem in hoc sacramento su um effectum per se operari Besides they must acknowledge themselves either violators of Christs Testament h Mat. 26. Hoc est sanguis meus Novi Testa menti Luc. 2â— Hoc poculum est novum illud testamentum per sanguâ—em meuâ—â— Durand rat l. 4 c 42. Christus post coenam corpus san guir em suum dedit Apostolis utâ— hoc sacramentum velut ultimum testatoris mandatum arctius memoriae commendaretur or that hee revoked what hee first instituted by some subsequent act Nor can I see how the Sacrament may be without the signe to wit the bread and wine any more then without the thing signified which is the Body and Bloud of CHRIST when both are required to the conficiency of a Sacrament as a body and soule to the constitution of a man i Bonaven l. 4. D. 11. p 2. ar 1 q 2 Vt perfectè esset vel signaretur redemptio ex hoc perfecta refectio debuit signari corpus in pane anima cujus sedes est iâ— sanguine in vino Neither doth this institution alone crosse the Romane practise but the Precept of Christ also Mat. 26. Drinke yee all of this which pointeth not onely to the Apostles but to the people also notwithstanding their pretences to defend their fraud as is apparant by Paschasius k Paschas cap. 15. de corp Christi Accipite â—bibite ex hoc omnes tam ministri quam reliqui credentes Damasâ— orth fid l. 4. cap. 14. who interpreteth this precept not of the Ministers onely but of all beleivers And yet Becan one of our Iesuites owne societie will not have this a precept to the Apostles themselves so fearefull they are to heare our Saviours commaunds but telleth us that CHRIST his wordes Drinke yee all of this are of the same strength with those of Luke 22. 7. Take this and divide it among your selves And as if our Saviour had suspected the Apostles to have beene as Cupping a Ministery as this Iesuite now chargeth us true Catholickes to be hee maketh CHRIST to deliver all the wine to one with this caution that hee should not drinke it all but taste a little of it and afterwards deliver it orderly â—o his fellow Apostles l Becan Manual contr lib. 1. c 9. p 340. Calvinistae objiciunt illud Bibite ex hoe omnes Resp Hoc solis Apostolis dictum est qui erant praesentes cùm enim Christus diviâ—isset panem Eucharisticum in varias partes singulis Apostolis singulas porrexisset calix autem co modo dividi non posset uni ex Apostolâ—s integrum porrexit cum hâc cautione ut non putaret totum sibi ebibendum esse sed aliquid inde gustandum ac deinde reliquis ordine porrigendum Itaque verba illa Bibite ex hoc omnes perinde valent atque illa Lucae 21. 7. Accipâ—â—e dividite inter vos id est unus non exhauriat totum calicem seâ— singuli aliquid bibant that they might partake of the Chalice with him whereas the direction was a precept unto all there present to communicate in the Cuppe and not a caution onely for him that first received â—â— forbeare drinking of all as that Iesuite would perswade And although the Precept Luke 22. 19. This doe in remembrance of mee immediately followeth the consecration of the Element of Bread yet it is plaine and pressingly evident that it hath relation to the whole institution in which the Cuppe is contained as may bee convinced from an other Evangelist Mat. 26. 27. Besides this the Apostle Saint Paul 1. Cor. 11. 23. maketh the whole institution not excluding either Element to bee delivered from CHRIST to him that the practise thereof might bee observed in the Church And though it bee a finne for a Papist to confesse it Ruard Tapper ar 15. m Ruard Tapper arâ—â— 5. Concludunt enim utilius esse habito scilicet respcetu ad efficaciam virtutem sacramenti sub utrâque specie Ibid. Plus gratiae spiritualis sub utrâque conseratur quam sub alterâ tantum specie Ibid Et cum Sacramenta conferant gratiam quam significant quando completior et perfectior est significatio plenâ—orem oportetesse effectum cannot deny but to communicate in both kindes is of greater efficacie then in one it being acknowledged that the Sacraments conferre that grace which they signifie so that when the signification is more full and perfect as hee confesseth it to bee being received in both kindes the effect must answere thereunto And Alexand. Halensis peremptorily affirmeth the receiving under both kindes to be of more merite for increase of Devotion and faith n Alex Al. p 4. q. 11. Sumptio quae est sub duabâ—â— speciebus est majoris meriti tum ratione augmentationis devotionis tum ratione fideâ— diâ—atationis actualis tum ratione sumptionis completioris rursus ibid. Sumptio sub utrâque specie quem modum sumendi tradidâ—â— Dominus est majoris efficaciae complementi So that while our Cuppe by which our Iesuite hath denominated us to be a cupping Ministery proveth to bee a Grace-Cuppe we may with more patience deryde the reproach of his scorningfolly And not to dwell on the examination of this sacriledge any longer it is plaine both by the testimony of Bonaventure o Bonaven lib. 4. dist 11. part â— ar 1. quaest 2. Quantum ad signationem vel significantiam sunt
accompted a good meanes to further the edifying of your Babell and to hold her followers together is not this then a good ground to resolve a mans judgment that things are not now kept in that order wherein they were set at first by the Apostle c See the most reverend the Lord Primate in his Answere to the Iesuites challenge pag. â— And hereunto the Iesuite replyes I have alwayes esteemed our Answerer so both for learning and sincerity that I preferre none of his ranke before him yet doe I not see how in this obiection he can escape a blemish in one of them at the least d Reply pag. 21 We have had good experience that the Iesuites jealousies are not crimes nor his words slaunder and therefore if he proves nothing he sayes nothing But he is ready in his armes For where he sayth that by S. Paules Order Christians should pray with understanding and not in an unknowne language alleadging for the same the 14 chap. of his 1. epistle to the Corinthian it is most certaine that neither in that fourteenth chapter nor yet in all S Paules Epistles there is any such order as he meaneth to be found which if he knew not his ignorance is to be wondred as if he knew it his integrity must be stayned for wronging the Apostle and deluding his Reader Reply pag. 22. It were vaine to bestowe time to defend this most learned Primate from this unjustly charging Iesuite especially in either of these dreames of want of learning or sincerity when his owne tongue and pen have manifested such deepe knowledge his life so sacred sincerity that a legion of Iesuites extracted cannot expresse the like And who is there that hath stood at the feete of this learned Gamaliel that hath not heard him to declare more learning then this Iesuite can boast of and seene in him more truth and candidenes of divine conversation then Iesuites and Fryars by their demure and painted out-side can challenge to themselves Nay whose conscience that knowes him doth not testifie of him that what is or may be required in a good man learned Doctor and faithfull Bishop may bee found in him f Epistol Bap. Mant. ad Ioan. Picum Mirandulam In uno codemque homine viderer videre Hicronymum Augustinum revixisse Neither doth this Iesuite deserve so learned an Adversary who slighteth those things which befoole his indeavours to answere and falleth into violent straynes against the Proposer But let us see what groâ—â—d our travailer now treades uppon No he will demaund first When he sayth that by S. Paules order Christians should pray with understanding what kinde of prayer doth hee meane g Reply pag. 22. To this we answere him All prayers which as well require the understanding as the will knowledge as Devotion But the Iesuite sayth if private prayer such as Christians by themselves doe exercise cleare it is that the Apostle in that fourteenth Chap. speaketh of none such and say he did it is well knowne that amongst us the use of praying in a vulgar tongue is left as free to each one as amongst the Protestants themselves Reply pag. 22 The most learned Primate interpreteth not those words of prayer as publick or private but in regard of the act of praying with what circumstances soever it be used and that by St. Paules order no prayers ought to be made of what kind soever which the parties invocating understaÌ„d not be they publicke or private for the whole Church or for particular necessity But for that freedome of praying in a vulgar tongue which you say is left to each one amongst you we know it false by experience unlesse your directions for saying of Ave's and Pater-nosters bee arbitrary and left to the discretion of your Catholicke children which I thinke no Popish father will admit For your Rhemists conclude that praying either publickely or privately in Latine is thought by the wisest and godliest to be most expedient i Vpon the 18 verse of the 14 chap. of the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians and though they confesse that their church hath commanded in some Councells that such as cannot learne distinctly in Latine specially the Pater noster and the Creed should be taught them in the vulgar tongue Yet the wisdome of the Church hath better liked and allowed of Latine Primars Beads and Prayers k Vpon the 1â— verse from whence the Iesuite may collect that the Rhemists stick closer to the Latine then himselfe insomuch that they would have the people to use not onely Latine Primars and Prayers but Latine Beades also All which without doubt are alike availeable Againe the Iesuite saith if he meane the Publicke Prayer and service of the Church certaine also it is that the Corinthians had theirs in the Greeke and not in any unknowne language and therefore the Apostle speaking of prayer in an unknowne tongue cannot be said to meane the publicke Service of the Church l Reply pag. 22 And wherefore in Greeke was it not because that language was more generally understood and did not the Apostles for the same cause make use of that tongue in revealing the mysteries of God But at length our Iesuit confesseth all which hee so violently fighteth against by distinguishing betwixt prayer which is directed to the edifying and instruction of the hearers upon which Prayer the Apostles Doctrine in that Chapter runneth altogether and their publicke Church service which cannot any way be said to be such m Reply pag. 23 For hereby we get this that our prayers both publick and private are agreeable to the Apostles grounds which are generall and that their prayers both publicke and private doe oppose the same And yet they thinke all wil be made up by a more grosse uncovering their shame and nakednes and therefore he telleth us that their publicke Church service is directed principally to the worship of Almighty God and not to instruct and edifie the hearers n Reply ibid. What God 's service and no way for instruction what Darke Church Darke soules all in obscurity Gods worship also Hath the Church beene without Vrim and Thummim since her captivitie in Babylon The Iesuite will have it so But wee know that as GODS worship is an act which GOD accepteth for his honour so thereby man doth increase in saving graces not of those onely which are appropriated to the will zeale and devotion but to the understanding also being made conformable to GODS Image in wisedome and knowledge o Thomas 22â— quaest 92. ar 2. Ordinatur primò divinus cultus ad reverentiam Deo exhibendam Secundò ordinatur ad hoc quod homo instruatur à Deâ— quem coliâ— Tertiò ordinatur dirinus cultus ad quandam directionem humanorum actuâ—m secundùm instatuta Dei qui colitur and surely if every action especially that which is christian and divine ought to be done to edification wee
may see where our Iesuite is that in the supreame act of divine adoration denyeth any thing but darkenesse to remaine Moreover saith the Iesuite when S. Paul in that Chapter speaketh â—â— a strange tongue certaine it is that hee meaneth an unknowne language miraculously imparted to the speaker by the gift of tongues but the Latine is none such c. p Reply pag. 23. This is false by the Iudgment of their owne Dionisyus Carthusianus upon the x. verse of this Chapter But suppose it were not yet in effect it is the same crossing the generall rules of the Apostle as those tongues which were given by miracle The Iesuite doth further from the Rhemists make the Coâ—tents of this Chapter to be this that men though they had strange tongues by miracle yet should not preferre the same before prophesie the speaker of languages being inhibited to vtter his inspiration unlesse there were an interpreter It were not much if this were in part granted the Iesuite but is there nothing else driven at by the holy Apostle surely if their practise durst indure tryall the Apostle speaketh to other endes also Bellarmine maketh the Apostles words to signifie prayer singing and giving of thankes and confesseth that Chrysâ—stâ—me and Theophilact Ambrose and Haymo understand this place of prayer q Bellarde verbo Dei lib. 2. cap. 16. Nam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quibus vocibus Apostolus utitur non significant concionari fed pre cari canere gratias agere Quncirca Chryso 〈◊〉 Theophilactur nec non Ambrosâ—â—â— Haymo Haymo hunc locum de precibus intestigâ—â—t Veâ—â—â—isp â—â—â—â— â— Que vis â—es mundi ex natura â—ei seâ—â—â—so periculo â—â—â—â— cum Deb sicut â—â—ago ipsiuâ— adorari potest The Iesuite also observeth that the Apostles doctrine in this Chapter runneth altogether uppon such a prayer as is directed to the edifying and instruction of the hearers and yet hath the face to deny that the Apostle either meaneth publicke or private in this Chapter Howsoeuer surely the drift of the Apostle here must be something else then that cited from the Rhemists For if the understanding of the party that either prayeth or assenteth to the prayer be not exercised why may not God be worshipped with any words as you confesse he may be adored 〈◊〉 Image or representation be it of beast or manâ— and then why may not the Church make use of one of Ariosto's Poems in a strange tongue or such sleight phantasies seeing the mindes might performe their â—eale where the wordes signifie nothing to the purpose at all But whatsoeuer Prayer is meant here in this chapter either publicke or private it is plaine that it ought not to be used but in such a manner that it might be understood for saith the Apostle ver 15. I will pray with the Spirit I will pray with understanding Neither hath this relation to him that prayeth but to all those that communicated with him in his prayer So ver 16. Else when thou shalt blesse with the Spirit how shall he which occupieth the roome of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thankes seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest And although this Iesuite thinketh he doth wisely when he telleth us that those tongues which the Apostle inhibites were not such as the Latine but such as the Apostle spake by miracle having the gift of tongues this maketh more against him for if God would not have those tongues which did principally give honour unto his name to be used in prophesying or praying without an interpreter where the people could not understand them much lesse other tongues which were onely obtained by industry and paines And the Apostle giveth the reason by expressing the inconvenience that thereby they shal be Barbarians to each other ver 11. and be like a Trumpeter that strikes amazement but stirreth up no Devotion unlesse a blind and a distracted one when the Trumpet giveth but an uncertaine sound * â— 8. Whereby it is apparant that all popish prayer whether private or publick is made in opposition of these grounds layed downe by the Apostle under these poore pretences that the efficacy of the prayer consisteth in the very vertue of the worke â—hum vpon the 13. verse of this chapter c. that the publicke Church Service is directed principally to the worship of Almighty God and not to instruct and edifie the hearers Reply pag. 23. that it perâ—â—neth much more to unity Rhem. vpon the 11. verse of this chapter that men should in their devotion pray like Parrates and the Preists read the Exhortation with an intent not to be understood And as this opposeth the Apostle his direction how to pray so doth it contradict the generall practise of the primitive Church founded upon this rule For Origen sayth that the Greekes truely doe call upon GOD in Greeke the Romans in Latine and euery one also doth pray unto him in their native and vulgar tongue x Origen Con Celsum lib 8. At Graeâ—i quidem graece hunc nominant latinè Romani singuli item nativâ vernaculâ linguâ Deum precantur And also the Councell of Lateran under Innocent the third by reason that in many parts people of diuers languages were mingled within the same cittie and diocesse having divers 〈◊〉 and manners under one faith did straitly commaund that the Prelates of such citties or diocesses should provide fit men which according to the diversityes of 〈◊〉 and languages should celebrate divine service minister the ecclesiasticall sacraments unto them instructing them aswell by word as by example y Concil Lateranen 4 tum Oecum sub In nocen 3o. cap. 9 Quoniam in plerisque partibus intra eandem civitatem atque diâ—â—ce sin permixti funt populi diversarum linguarum habentes sub una fide varios ritus mores districtè praecipimus ut pontifices huiusmodi civitatum sive diâ—â—cesium provi deant viros idoneos qui secundum diversitates rituum linguarum divina officia illis celebrent ecclesiastica sacramenta illis ministrent instruendo cos verbo pariter exemplo which Decree must needs crosse their subsequent practise Further although Aquinas doth justifie the service of the Roman Church which the vulgar understand not yet he aâ—â—irmeth this to have beene madnes in the Primitive times z Aquin in 1. Cor. 14. Dicendum est ad hoc quod ideo erat insania in primiâ—â—â—â— Ecclesiâ— quia erant rudes in ritu ecclesiastico And if understanding be not requisite in your Church service wherefore insert you in your missall the prayer of St. Ambrose Make me by thy grace alwayes to beleive and understand that of so great a mistery a Missaâ— Roman Orat sancti Ambro ante missam fac me per gratiam tuam semper illud de tanto mysterio credere
〈◊〉 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
they list interpreting it according to the times how they pleasâ— d Epistola 2. Nich. de Cusa Card. de usu commu ad Boâ—emoâ— Ecclesia hodierna non ita ambulat in ritu communionis sicut ante ista tempora quando sanctissimi viri utriusque speciâ—i Sacramentum necessarium esse vi praecepti Christi et verbo opere aâ—â—â—uebant Poâ—â—â—â— ne tunc Ecclesia â—rrare Certè non Quod si non quomodo id â—â—diè verum non est quod tunc omnium opinione affirâ—abatur cùm non sit alia Ecclesia ista quam 〈◊〉 Ceâ—â—â— hoc te non movent quod diversis temporibus alius alius ritus sacrisiciorum at etiam 〈◊〉 stante veritate invenitur scripturasque esse ad tempus 〈◊〉 et vaâ—â—â— intellectas ita â—â—uno tempore secundùm currentem universalem 〈◊〉 â—â—poâ—â—rentur mutato 〈◊〉 iterum sententia mutaretur SECT V. How vainely our Answerer betaketh himselfe to the Scriptures againe IN all this Section we finde nothing but what the most learned Answerer before stiled a sleight a In his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge pag 11. for where will he manifest the most reverend Lord scared with the auncient Church whose testimonies he is assured afflict these worst and last times but that he might first give the sacred Scriptures the precedencie which is due to the word of God and that he might not erect a new faith which was never builded upon the foundatton of the Apostles and Prophest b Ibid. Now let us see to what purpose the Iesuite hath heere spent his paines He it should seem was willing to finde out a way whereby the true Religion might be knowne and first hee taketh it for graunted that the Primitive Church of Rome held the true Religion for the first 500. yeares Secondly that this true Church of Rome did generally hold the chiefe Articles of Religion pointed out by himselfe in his demaund and then would have men to judge of true points of Religion by the testimony of that Church c See the â—â—â—â—ites Reply pag. 29. The most learned Answerer in this place saith nothing to these things in particular but to the Iesuites whole frame which he maketh a rule to finde out true Religion by arguing it first as a needlesse labour secondly as a tedious rule in regard matters in controversie might be brought to a shorter tryall thirdly as derogating from the Word of God that Rocke upon which alone wee build our faith from which no sleight that they can devise saith he shall ever draw us d See the 〈◊〉 reverend Lord Primaâ—â— his Answer pag. 11 Vpon this the Iesuite hath almost spent a whole page to prove that the sayings and authorities of those auncient Fathers are sufficient to prove what their opinion was e Reply pag. 29. in the points controverted as if the most learned Answerer had denyed that which in the very place alledged by the Iesuite he undertaketh to make good viz r that the Fathers writings fortifie the Catholicke cause against the Pope his party And this we say saith the most learned Answerer 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 find it far otherwise f In his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge â— Gregor de Valen. Analys Fidei l. 8. c. 8. Fatendum est raro accidere posse ut quae sit Doctorum omnium uno tempore viventium de religione sententia satis cognoscâ—tur Sunt enim Catholici Doctores in Ecclesia ubique diffusa plurimi qui proinde omnes nec facile congregari nec interrogari possunt quid senâ—iâ—nt Whereby it is cleare that the Iesuite hath altogether fought with his owne shadow or the Iesuite Valentiag having not assaulted either word or passage of the most learned Answerers For if this most reverend Lord had accepted the rule I doubt not but he would have acknowledged the Fathers able to relate their owne beliefe and would further have accepted them as sole Umpier but accompting this but a Iesuiticall shift to avoide the true touchstone or ground of faith the holy Scripture he tells him that alledge what authority you list without Scripture and it cannot suffice which the Iesuite did observe although he is unwilling to take notice of it in regard hee supposeth that the Answerer will not be satisfied herewith h Reply pag. 29 This dispute sheweth that the Iesuite hath not beene so well imployed as the Emperour for in all this his fishing ne musca quidem he hath not caught a Fly and therefore the good man is sleepie that thinketh the Answerer hath for got himselfe for although he should graunt the first that the primitive Church of Rome held the true Religion of Christ for the first 500. yeares it will not needes follow that whatsoever points the Fathers of that Church generally held without the Scriptures should be points of true Religion For then every point of Morality Philosophy Rhetorick 〈◊〉 should be points of true Religion and this is crossed in the Greeke Church which is a true one but yet notwithstanding may not bee justified in every particular that they generally handle Neither dare the Iesuite admit the consequent for then the points of the blessed Virgins conception in originall some k Canus â—oâ— Theol. l. 7. c. 1 n. 1. n. 3. receiving of the Sacrament by children l Rejoynder pag. 25. and the opinion of the Millenaries m Sixtus Senens Bibl. sancta l. 5. c. 233. of the vulgar reading of the Scriptures n Rejoynder p. 139. 14â— 145. communion in both kindes o Rejoynder pag. 116. that the bookes of Toâ—y Iudith and the Macchabees are Apocryphall p Rejoynder pag. 166. must be points of true Religion Nay further the Iesuite urgeth that the most learned Answerer elsewhere confesseth that those which dye in the communion of the Church of Rome at this day dye under the mercy of God q Reply pag. 5 which surely this most reverend Lord would not have granted to them if he had not beene perswaded that they beleived aright in the foundation of faith and yet he doth not take any Church since the Apostles times to have beene more corrupt or full of errour then your owne So that a particular Church as the Roman may in some of her members be true in the foundation of faith and yet tainted with many corruptions both of manners and doctrine Is not this plaine by many of S. Paul his Epistles by the Church of Pergaâ—â—s * Revel â— â—4 And therefore the Iesuite may consider how weake a rule hee would perswade us to follow as if this argument were concludent because we hold a particular Church a true Church therefore that Church
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto her so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 safely follow her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rest in her judgement in thâ—â— I say generall Counceâ—â— may 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church her selfe from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christian Religion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all This is a â—ad beginning being a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 him I lay down 〈…〉 first that the Church including in iâ— all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ appeared in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all those 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles times i◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 happily not from all ignorance Thirdly that the Church including 〈◊〉 the â—eleivers living 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 free not onely from 〈◊〉 in such things 〈…〉 to 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈…〉 thing that any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Christian 〈◊〉 and religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without all doubt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the judgement of the Church in 〈…〉 so â—â— to the thing◠〈◊〉 in Scripture or 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that â—ath beene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 or Rome but the Vniversâ—ll Church neither that Vniversall Church which 〈◊〉 be gathered together in a generall Councell which is 〈◊〉 sometimes to have erred but that which dispersed through the world from the Baptisme of Iohn continueth to 〈◊〉 times Sixtly that in the judgment of Waldensis the Fathers successively are more certaine judges in matters of faith then a Generall Councell of Bishops though it be in a sort the highest Court of the Church as the Treatisâ—r saith But saith the Iesuite if yet for all this our Answerer will not be brought to build his conscience upon any other authority d Reply pag. 32 I perceive a little thing will beget conâ—idence 〈◊〉 Iesuite that is so lifted up with producing two old objections to little purpose but what then why majora his agreat one of our owne shall schoole him a little better Pooâ—e â—edant in what manner By telling him out of Lyriâ—ensis that the auncient consent of godly Fathers is with great carâ— not onely to be searched but also to be followed of us cheifly in the rule of Faith Reply ibid. As if the consent of Fathers were the absolute rule of Faith without Scriptures when you yourselves dare not attribute to any Fathers authority power to expresse the rule of Faith by their bare consent For Durand saith that although the Church hath power of Gâ—â— on 〈◊〉 yet that doth not exceede thâ— limitation of the Scripturâ— f Durand â—â— Dist. 44. q. 3. â— 9. Ecclesia licet habet in terris dominationem Dei. illa tamen â—on excedit limitationem Scripturae Universall extent of Doctrine is a good directory to truth but the absolute foundation of Faith are the sacred Scriptures Neither are we at all to give credit saith the Author of the imperfect worke upon Matthew amongst the workes of Chrysostome unto the Churches themselves unlesse they teach or doe those things which are agreeable to the Scriptures g 〈◊〉 Commentar in Mat. homil 49. intes operâ— S. Chrys incerto auctore Nec ipsis ecclesijs omnino â—redendum est niâ—â—â—a dicant vel faciant quae convenientia sunt Scripturis No testimonies have any strength that walk without God his word The Fathers adhere to the Scriptures therfore we ought to adhere to them so are we to embrace the authority of the ancient Doctors Councels as those that embraced the holy Scriptures in their faith doctrin and for that cause this learned Bishop coupleth them together Wee rest saith he upon the scriptures of God upon the authority of the ancient Doctors and Councels Reply pag. 31 inferring thereby that those which fixe their faith have not onely divine testimonies but also the judgement and beliefe of the best men to declare the same as good subsidiarie helps to their convincing grounds which doth not conclude that any authority besides the Scripture is necessary but that it is a faire convenient rule to bridle mens fancies least the Scriptures should be wrested by them which are too much wedded to their owne conceits to patronage their errours And what Augustine gave to Bishops and Councels this learned Bishop assenteth unto but I am assured that the Iesuite will not bee able to prove that S. Augustine ever embraced such a thought as to believe that the receiving of humane testimonies should disable the Scriptures from being the onely concluding and sufficient rule for he is of a quite contrary opinion as is apparant in many places of his writings Aâ—g â— Donat. post collat c. 1â— Quâ—si Episcoporum Concilia Scripturis Canonicis fue â—int aliquandâ— comparata Neither will our Iesuite have us in our appâ—â—le to Scripture to betray our cause by our disagreement with our selves alone but also by our agreement with ancienâ— Heretickes and who are those Hereticks The Valentinians Ennomians Marcionists Arians and others whâ— as it is well knowne saith this Iesuite were wâ—nt to reject all other authorities and to â—â—nce with Scripture onely Reply pag. â—â— If this Iesuite be not a fencer judge by his weapons both edge and point being rebated for his most powerfull performance ends not so much as in a scratch or scarre And whereas he saith we fence with Scripture onely it seemeth he knoweth not the nature thereof otherwise he would repute it with the Apostle a sword for a â—ouldiâ—r yea sharper then a two-edged sword We acknowledge many subsidiarie helpes but indeed none sufficient to controule the conscience but Scriptures onely And herein we follow these ancient Hereticks 1. Augustâ—â—â— cited by the most learned Answerer and unanswered by the Iesuite Let humane writings be removed let Gods voice sound Aug. de Pastor c. 14. Aâ—ferantur chartae humanae sonâ—â—t voâ—â—s divinae ede mihi unam Scripturae â—ocem pro parte Donati and further in his booke of the Vnity of the Church hee saith Let them declare their Church if they be able not in the speech and rumours of the Africans not in Councels of their Bishops not in the passages of their disputes not in their â—ignes deceitfull wonders because even against these things the word of God hath perswaded us to be â—aâ—y but in the Law Prophets Psalmes the Pastors voyce the Evangelists preaching and labours that is in all the canonicall authority of holy Scriptures m Aug. de Vnit. Eccle. c. 88. Ecclesiam suam demonstrant si possunt non iâ— sermonibus rumoribus Afrorum non in concilijs Episcoporum suorum non in literis 〈◊〉 libet disputatorum non in signis prodigijs â—allaâ—ibus qui etiam contra ista verbo Domini prâ—parati cautiâ—â—ddiâ—i sumus
ever beene pretended by such as not onely interpret the same to their owne lust but also reject what parcels or bookes they please and for this he cites the Marcionists rejecting the Old Testament the Manichees the New 〈◊〉 and Cerinthus the Acts of the Apostles the Ebionites the Epistles of S. Paul Luther that of S. Iames c. Yet would these men saith he be tryed by none but by the Scriptures when as they had discarded all such Sâ—riptures as were found any way to make against their Errors In like sort deale our Adversaries at this day l Reply pag. 32 But if we doe neither interpret the Scriptures after our own lusts neither deny any part of the sacred faith that was once delivered to the Saints if we adhere to that perfect rule which of it selfe is sufficient and more then sufficient ad omnia for all things m Vincen. Lyrin Cùm sit perfect â—â— Scripturarum canoâ— fibique ad omnia satiâ— superque suffielat Surely the Iesuite is a Calumniator and we are no Hereticks not so much as in similitude onely We know Hereticks both adde to the Scriptures and detract also This we see at Rome let the Iesuite espy it amongst us if he can in Ireland Further iâ—â—â—â— ignorant that Heretickes in discarding all that makes against them have rather forsaken Scriptures then pleaded tryall by them for what is this but the Preparer of an Index Expurgatorius so that we may see from whence Papists had their so profitable inventions And where can you finde a greater agreement in this kind then betwixt your selves and Heretickes for you admit no Scriptures but with your owne glosses which is as much in effect as to deny all And if the râ—â—e concerning God be as true concerning Scriptures Non est minus Deum fingere quam negare It is no losse error to feigne a God then to deny the Deitie what will your additions to the Scriptures merite You embrace not onely Apocryphall bookes but whatsoever superstitions your corrupt practice hath produced and these because God will not justifie them you will have to be Apostolicall Traditions His accusation that we admit what Scripture wee like of and cast out what displeaseth n Reply pag. 3â— us is the report of a Iesuite Italian newes a thing which he will never manifest as you may perceive by his proofe Ecclesiasticus with them is no true Scripture saith the Iesuite and why it approveth Free will too much o Reply ibid. The Iesuite argues but with his owne impudencie and no reason of ours Ecclesiasticus hath no authority to confirme points of Doctrine and therefore was justly cast off by Whitaker That it is so reputed by the Church of God is because it was never written by any of the Prophets 2. Peter 1. 19. never received by the Church of the â—ewes to whom were commended the Oracles of God Rom. 3. 2. Further it had never approbation by the Apostles in the Church of God and besides these generals there are many other particulars for which wee reject this booke as from his owne mouth who in the beginning thereof doth not assume to himselfe that honour which the Iesuite would conferre upon him for he acknowledgeth his owne weaknes and disability in translating it out of the Hebrew * In the Prologue which I thinke is not comely for that mind to doe which was assisted by the Spirit of God for when Moses said I am not eloquent God questions who made the tongue * Exod. 4. 10. 11 Besides this chap. 46. ver 23. it is not agreeable to the truth of sacred Scriptures which is there spoken of Samuels prophecying after his death and other things But I would know if your additions and traditions were not where would you finde that new Fabrick of the Roman Creed published by your infallible guide But saith our Iesuite Cyprian Ambrose August Clemens Alex. and other holy Fathers account Ecclesiasticus to be holy Scripture p Reply pag. 33 If this were proofe sufficient a small authority would suffice to prove the Canon for we may as well confirme the booke Pastor and divers others from Bellarmines q Bellarm. de script Ecclesâ— pag. 34. See this testimony cited before pag. 163. testimony as the booke of Ecclesiasticus c. for any thing he urgeth from these Fathers to determine it within the Canon in regard he acknowledgeth that it hath the same Epithites from many Fathers as he professeth this to have So that if this be the Iesuites best Apologie for Ecclesiasticus it is much beholding to his free will but nothing to his industry This manner of proceeding saith the Iesuite Tertullian doth discover in those Heretickes of his time and withall will teach us how we are to proceed with those of our dayes who tread so right the steppes of their forefathers The conflict saith he with the Scriptures is good for nothing but to turne either the stomacke or the brayne This heresie receiveth not certaine Scriptures and that which it receiveth it draweth to her owne purpose by additions and substractions and if it receive the whole Scriptures it depraveth them by divers expositions Where as the adulterous sence doth no lesse destroy the truth then doth the corrupted letter What wilt thou gaine that â—â—â— cunning in Scriptures when that which thou defendest is denyed and that which thou denyest is defended thou shalt indeed loose nothing but thy voyce with contending nor shalt thou gaine any thing but choler hearing blasphemies The Heretickes will say that â—◠〈◊〉 the Scripture and bring lyeing interpretations and that they defend the truth Therefore must not appeale be made to Scriptures nor must the conflict be in them by which the victory is either uncertaine or little certaine or none at all r Reply pag 3â— What Tertullian and other auncient Fathers thought of this rule hath beene formerly declared and this quotation doth not make Tertullian a despiser of the rule of Scriptures but proveth Hereticks to be shifters and forsakers of the same Whereby the Iesuite may espy the hereticke All that beareth any shew for the Iesuite is in the taile of his allegation Ergo non ad Scripturas as provocandum est therefore must not appeale be made to Scriptures but the Iesuite dare not put in the whole nec in ijs constituendum certamen in quibus nulla aut parum certu victoria which is as much as if I were to deale with a Papist in points of religion should urge the scripture to him it were in vain why because although they receive the Scriptures they accept them not as the rule of faith besides they adde detract and what they receive they must onely interpret They not onely corrupt the stile by a vulgar authenticke but the sence by a Papall violence and in this case what shall a man get from a Papist but cholerike blasphemie and licentious rayling Doth not the
ever received in the Church with more truth and faithfulnes then Hereticks have done Surely the Iesuite hath payed it here for he that every where dreameth of false logicke in others doth not here speake true sence himselfe Lyrinensis maketh 1. one generall sufficient rule for all things the sacred Scriptures f Lyrinens Duplici modo munire fidem suam Domino adjuvante deberet Primo scilicet divinae legis autoritaâ—e Cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique AD OMNIA satis superque sufficiat 2ly another usefull in some cases onely g Ibid. Tum deinde ecclesiae catholicae traditione Sed neque semper neque omnes haereâ—â—s hoc modo impugnandae sunt yet never to be used in those cases without Scriptures which is the tradition of the Universall Church h Ibid. Multum necesse est propter tantos tam varij erroris anfractus ut Propheticae Apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum Ecclesiastici Catholici sensus normam dirigaâ—ur In ipsa autem catholica Ecclesia magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est hoc est etenim verè proprièque catholicum The first was used by the auncient Church from the worth that is in it selfe i Ibid. Sibique ad omnia superque sufficiat the other from the perversnes of Hereticks that many times abuse the sacred rule k Ibid. Quia videlicet scripturam sacram pro ipsa sui altitudine non uno codâ—mque sensus universi accipiunt sed ejusdem eloquia aliter atque aliter alius atque alius interpretatur Aliter namque illam Novatianus aliter Sabeilius Bring us now one Scripture expounded according to Lyrinensiâ— his rule l Ibid. Quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est by the universall consent of the primitive Church to prove traditions confession Purgatory prayer to Saints image-worship Free-will c. in your sence and wee will receive it if you cannot confesse the truth that you deale like hereticks and acknowledge that we follow the practise of the auncient times And here I would have the Iesuite consider how many of their owne doe cry the Scripture m Sanders Rocke of the Church chap. 8. pag. 193. They have most plaine Scriptures in all points for the Catholicke faith and none at all against the same Bristo Mot. 48 Most certain it is that from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Apocalypse there is no text that maketh for you against us but all for us though it be more Iudeorum as they templum Domini and further with greater pretended reverence kisse antiquity not that they love either but because the one is not so light as the other to lay open their errours and detect their deformities Moreover whereas Christ made it a note of his sheepe to heare his voyce this good man would have it to bee the signe and token of an Hereticke but if Hereticks make use of Scriptures this confirmes the rule to be what God made it though it cannot justifie their practise that abuse the same And for brutish and wilde interpretations of Hereticks which this Father makes woolvish let the Iesuite cast an eye to their owne and who hath dealt so grossly as they have done †See before pag. 149 â—it b. And although they bragge of Unity and interpretations of good consent yet for any thing we see it is to be suspected when their Popes could not agree about the Text that he as his schollers may faile to accord in interpretation thereof Further I could wish it were examined whether we or they faile in the Rule of interpreting the Scriptures according to the universall tradition of the Church and analogie of faith and then it would easily appeare if this be a note of Heresie who the Hereticks are For the Fathers beleived but halfe the faith according to that you interpret and to make those points traditions of the universall Church which needed decrees to authorize them 1500 yeares after Christ must needes conclude egregious vanity But who knoweth not that you had rather be tried by the Moone and seven Starres which cannot so easily detect the workes of darknes then the Scriptures the fountain of light that will declare the least errour in your doctrine or practise n Clem. Alex Serom. l. 7. Sicut improbi oueri excludunt Paedagogum ita etiam hi arcent Prophetias a suâ Ecclesâ—â suspectas â—as habentes propter repâ—eh ensionem admonitionem Quamplerima certe consarciunt mendacia figmenta ut jure videantur non admittere Scripturas So that we disclaime not the Fathers but in your Phantasies for we allowe them at all times what they ought to have and when by an universall consent they declare what the Apostles delivered to the Church wee grant them a more centrouling authoritie Yet we are not ashamed to distinguish betwixt God and man though you blush not to equall them and to make Gods ipse diceit a convincing rule which we cannot grant to man or the best of men the Fathers and Bishops of the auncient Church where they come alone without the Scriptures Our Iesuite hath done much in this Chapter to wit proved that we preferre God before men and I have shewed that we deny not to men what God hath allowed to them SECT VI. AND least Vanitie should be absent for a little here the Iesuite proceedes to take a veiw How vainely our Answerer excuseth his disclaime from the Fathers a Reply pag. 36 But how vainely he chargeth the Answerers most learned observation will presently appeare Here saith the Iesuite our Answerer meeteth us with the same auncient Father Vincentius Lirinensis who though a great Commender of the methode of confuting Heresies by the consent of holy Fathers yet is carefull herein to give us this caveat that neither alwayes nor all kinde of Heresies are to be impugned after this manner but such onely as are now and lately sprung namely when they doe first arise while by straitnes of the time it selfe they be hindred from falsifying the rules of the auncient Faith and before the time that their poyson spreading farther they attempt to corrupt the writings of the auncient But far-spred and inveterate heresies are not to bee dealt withall this way for as much as by long continuance of time a long occasion hath lyon open unto them to steale away the truth Out of which saying our Answerer inferres that our Heresies being farre-spred and of long continuance have had time enough and place to coyne and clipp and wash the 〈◊〉 of Antiquitie wherein saith hee they have not bene wanting and therefore must not be impugned by consent of holy Fathers b Reply pag. 36 Here is little Vanitie to be seene as yet how the Iesuite will make it appeare remaineth to be done and this hee will accomplish by espying
a manifest contradiction in his words against himselfe for above he more then once saith the Iesuite 〈◊〉 our opinions prophane novelties and hereticall novelties If Novelties how are they now become Heresies farre spred and of so long continuance that we are bold to make duration the marke of our Church c Reply ibid. The Iesuite imagineth here Contradiction and why because â—â— opinion of long continuance cannot be stiled a Noveltie So that if we can manifest that a Noveltie may bee of long continuance our Iesuite is deceived in his slippery hopes And what will he make novum in Religion but that which is not antiquissimum Our Saviour when hee would declare Pharisaicall traditions to be Novelties did not respect their long continuance in the corrupt estate of the Church but saith ab initia non fuit sic * Mat. 19â—8 that they were not from the beginning delivered by God or practised by the Church So that if the duration and antiquitie of your opinions be but humane that is not Apostolicall neither from Apostolicall grounds It â—â—inke and justly that they may be esteemed new and novelties d Terrullianâ— de praescripâ— panlo ante medium Si haec iâ—â— sint constat proâ—â— de omnem doctrinam quâ— cum illis Ecclesijs Apostolicis matricibus originalibus sidei conspiret veritati deputandam id sinc dubio tenantum quod Ecclesiae ab Apostoli Apostoâ—â— Ã Christo Christus à Dâ—â— suscepit reljquam vero omnem doctrinam de mendacio praejudicandam quae sapiaâ— contra veritatem Ecclesiarum Apostolorum Christi Dei. for a point is 〈◊〉 in religion that did not proceed from God and his blessed Spirit either in terminis or by deduction from his word that is the Ancient of dayes whatsoever pretences of duâ—â—tion and continuance may be supposed 〈◊〉 was never generally received by the Roman faction themselves before the Councell of Lateran â—corus in 4. d. 11. q. 3. apud Bellarm. de Euchil 3. c. 23. ditis ante Lateranense concilium non fuisse Dogma fidei transubstantiationem â— Rhem. An not upon the 1. of Tim. 6. â—â— and yet wee are condemned for calling this a Noveltie whereas it crept in many hundred yeares after those words which they themselves account Novelties both in the Arrians which had their Similis substantiâ— and Christ to bee ex non existentibus and also other Hereticks that had their Christiparam and such like â— new coyned tearmes agreable to their sects Wherefore it is not enough to free your doctrines from being Novelties because they are of long continuance seeing the words of ancient hereticks being of more long continuance and auncienter in birth even many hundred yeares before them might better claime that priviledge and are neverthelesse stiled Novelties by your selves And as the Rhemists acknowledg of words so we say concerning points of doctrine that wee are to esteeme their newnes or oldnes by the agreeablenes or disagreeablenes they have to the true sence of Scriptures the forme of catholick faith and doctrine â—hem ibid. c. and not because it is long since they had their birth in the world So that you see Novelties are new doctrines which are neither delivered in Scriptures openly and in expressetermes or lye couchant in the same but had their births in aftertimes being framed by the phantasticke illusions of Sathan the producer of falshoods and heresies which is conformable to the Apostles doctrine for what 1. Tim. 6. 20. he tearmeth prophane novelties Gal. 1. 8. he expresseth to be new doctrine 〈◊〉 ibid. which is not the same but besides as the Rhemists â— or against that which the Apostle did deliver to the Church And therefore our Iesuite and his contradiction contradict his imagined Vanity and not prove or confirme the same For his other Collectaneas that if they be prophant Novelties then by the Rule of Lyrinensis they ought to bee impugned by producing and confirring the agreeing sentences of auncient Doctours Secondly that the consent of auncient Father is called the rule of the auncient Faith by Lirinensis in the place alledged k Reply pag. 36 1. Wee have shewed before l See before Sect. 5. prope finem that we dissent not from Lyrinensis being rightly understood For all kind of heresies are prophane Novelties howsoever they differ in extent or age Yet all kind of Heresies are not to be impugned though prophane Novelties after this manner in Vincentius Lirinensis his judgement Besides Lirinensis maketh not the Fathers rules absolutely but because they assisted at that time the Scriptures to rule unruly hereticks that would wrest the same so that when the Fathers cannot do the worke for which they were used that is stop the Hereticks mouthes because that having corrupted antiquity they will also pretend it then he thinketh such heresies though prophane Novelties are not to be dealt withall this way And for his second observation although the Iesuit collecteth untruly yet who will deny consent of Fathers to be the rule of faith according to that Fathers meaning For in the immediate quotation following out of the same Father we finde that it hath beene the custome of Catholicks to try their faith two manner of wayes FIRST by the authoritie of the Divine Canon next by the tradition of the Catholicke Church m Vineâ—â— Lirinens adv Profanas Novationes Primò scilicet divine legis auctoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione not for that the Scripture is not sufficient in it selfe but because very many interpreting the divine word at their pleasures do conceive varying opinions and errours n Ibid Hic forsitan requirat aliquis cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat quid opus est ut eiecclesiasticae intelligentiae iungatur autoritas Quia videlicet Scripturam sacraâ—â— pro ibsa sui altitudine non uno codemque sensu universi accipiunt quod â—â— Confideratio temporis 〈◊〉 Now in these words who doth not see that Lyrinesis doth make consent of Fathers not to be an absolute or sufficient rule of Faith as he doth the Scriptures but a directive rule to the right understanding of the absolute and sufficient rule of faith which is the holy Scriptures Neither can we otherwise confecture but that Lirinensis giveth this directive Rule for his owne time Ibid. Ad and not to all succeeding ages for by many particulars it is apparant that the foundation and ground of his whole discourse received being from those wise experiences which the present age hee lived in and precedent had afforded him Besides wee have many Mathematicall instruments which are rules in their kinde as the Globe Quadrant c and there are many bookes written to assist us in their use now I hope you will not say the rule to use the instrument is the absolute rule it selfe to draw a Conclusion in the Mathematickes And why likewise may
the Pope had beene the Head and that all other Churches had held the Catholicke Faith of him in capite but I perceive the Romane Church is now presumed from the Ancients to have had this title Yet I thinke it will scarce be found what the Iesuite doth understand by the Roman Church For if by the Roman Church be comprehended all other Churches that are onely to be accounted Catholicke for the subordinate obeysance to Peter and other succeeding Bishops b See the Iesuits Reply pag. 49 then it is meere vanity to make an Head the Head of it selfe to make the Church all Head and no body If their particular Citie or Diocesse and Church therein then he cannot by the Roman Church understand the Roman Catholicke as hee confesseth in the last Section for saith he if the Roman Church be taken as it comprehendeth onely that Cleargie which maketh but one particular Bishopricke and Diocesse in tho Citie of Rome abstracting or as hee would say abstracted from that relation which it hath unto all other Christian Churches as the head unto the members then I say thâ—â— no man ever by the Church of Rome did understand the Vniversall Church c Reply 〈◊〉 Secondly if it be not the Roman Catholicke then all the testimonies produced make nothing for the Romane Catholicke Church but for the Roman Church that is not Catholicke But though hee doth not fully expresse himselfe herein yet he doth that which may give us a guesse of his meaning seeing the streame of his proofes is to set forth the eminencie of their Romane Pastor And to make this good hee cites some Fathers to prove the Pope to be the head of the faithfull d See S. Augustine cited by the Iesuite pag. â—1 head of Pastorall Honour e See Prosper ibid. pag. 52. so that notwithstanding he pleades for the Church Roman yet that which he laboureth to advance is the See and Pope Roman that is that they fight for this they desire Rome they would have the head of all Churches and the Pope the Head of her and their sleighting of Councels many times declare in their opinion the Pope to bee the onely Beasts head that must bee adored for the Councell maketh not the Pope infallible but the Pope the Councell f Wadding Legat. Phil. 3. c. Sect. 2 Non tribuit Concilium infallibilitatem Pontifici sed à Pontifice habeâ— Concilium ut fit ratum ac firmum For Peter and those that follow him in the faith of Peter not for a Councell did Christ pray g Ibid. Pro Pâ—tro in fide Petri succedentibus NON PRO CONCILIO oravit et exâ—ravit Well then let us see how wee shall answere what hee brings for the Roman Churches exaltation And first of all it seemeth a needlesse thing for this Iesuite to bring proofes to manifest the same It being so undoubted a truth if we may beleive this Iesuite that the very first Broachers of Protestancie when they speake without Passion doe not deny the same h Reply pag. 30 The Broachers of Protestancie were CHRIST his Apostles who gave us wine and oyle out of the Vessels of his Truth when such botchers as you have laboured to erect a phantastick frame of your owne His first instance is Martin Bucer whom he produceth confissing ingenuously that with the Fathers of the auncient Church the Romane Church obtained the Primacie before the rest for as much as shee hath S. Peters chaire and her Bishops almost ever still have beene held for Peters successors i Reply pag â—â— And what I pray you getteth your Church or Pope by this ingenuè confitemur Little I suppose to make Româ— caput infallibilitatis or the Pope the Pylot to guide thither For he saith that the Roman Church hath obtained the Primacie prae caeteris before other Churches not super not over all the rest and that the Bishops of Rome have beene held for Peters successors but not absolutely as an infallible truth but semper ferè almost ever not without doubts and jealousies as hee seemeth to expresse But if absolutely other Bishops nay all other Bishops have beene likewise so esteemed as is plaine by Chrysostomes exhortation to Basill Bishop of Caesarea who from the ground of Pasce oves exhorteth him to that duetie of Peters because it belongeth to his Successours as well as to himselfe k Chrâ—sost de Sacerdotio l. 2. â—â—tre amas me â—â—quit atque illo id conâ—iâ—ence adjungit Si amas me Pasâ—e ores meas Interrogat discipulum Praeceptor â—um ab eo non quo id ipse doâ—eatur â—erùm in NOS DOCEAâ— quanâ—ae sibi curae â—â— gregis hujus praefectura â—â— â—aulo cost Veâ—â—m hoc ille tum agebat ut Petrum caeterâ—s noâ— edoceret quantà beneâ—â—â—enâ—iâ— ac charitate erga suam ipse Ecclesiam afficeretur ut hac ratione NOS quoque ejusdem Ecclesiâ— studium curamque toto animo susciperemus 〈◊〉 item de causa Christus sanguinem effudit suum certe ut pecudes eâ—â— acquitereâ— quaâ—â—â—â— Petro â—um Petri successoribus gubernandas in manum 〈◊〉 whereunto agreeth Peter Lumbard lib. 4. Dist 18. We envie not the Bishop of the imperiall Cittie this Honour that in Procession hee shall goe last and in a Councell sit first If this will serve his turne let him put off his Crowne and assume his Myter and with an ingenuè confitemur wee will all acknowledge him the greatest Bishop first in place of all Peters Successours But for his Monarchie to make the whole Catholicke Church the Senate of Bishops and Preists a bare shadow this is too much to be allowed him Further whilst hee embraceth Peters faith wee will not deny him to have a part as the rest of the Catholicke bodie in Christs prayer Yet to thinke that Christ so prayed for Peter and his Successours Bishops of Rome that Hell might prevayle against all other his Successours the Bishops of the Catholicke Church this without extreame flatterie wee cannot graunt unto him So that Bucer hath not said much for this Head of Churches Yet he goeth not alone Luther himselfe saith the Iesuite doth confesse that the Bishop of Rome hath superiority over all other Bishops l Reply pag. â—â— This is no great matter for it was as the Iesuite confesseth when he made use of his bests wits m Ib â— that is when he did and said or at least submitted all to the determination of this Apollyon but afterwards in his raving pange of madnes hee spared not like madde-men and fooles to speake the truth and to call a spade a spade the Pope Antichrist and the Roman state the Whore of Babylon So that any may see this maketh little to the Producers purpose for if this were a good Testimonie why doth he not produce our Acts of Parliament in Queene Maries dayes and all those Testes which in the time of blindnes from men not well
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
Pont. l 4. c. 7 Cyprianus pertinaciter restitit Stephano Pontifici doâ—â—â—ienti haereticos non rebaprixandâ—â— ut patet ex Epistola ejusdem Cypriani ad Pompeiâ—â— tamen non solum non fuit haereticus sed neque mortaliter peccavit et tamen Ecâ—â—esia Cypriaâ—um ut sanctam colit qui non videtur unquam resipuisse ab illo suo error To the African Bishops in the cause of Appeales Å¿ Epist Bonifacii â— ad Alex. Episc Aurelius enim praefatae Carthaginensis Ecclesiae olim Episcopus cum câ—llegis suiâ— instigante Diabolo superbire temporibus praedecessorum noâ—â—â—orum Bonifacii atque Coelestiâ—i contra Romanam Ecclesiam coepit Sed videâ—s se modo peccatis Aurelij Eulalius à Romanae Ecclesiae communione segregatum humiliam recognovit se pacem communionem Romanae Ecclesiae petens subscribendo non cum collegis suiâ— damnavit Apostolica auctoritate omnes Scripturas quae adversus Romanae Ecclesiae privilegia factae quoquo ingenio fuerunt Must all Africa not afford one Bishop that is catholick or Lay-man that is a right Christian and true Catholicke How are they acknowledged Martyrs How Saints Besides I wonder that this truth never appeared in Canon of Councell nor was ever registred by the Fathers in the ages mentioned with generall consent For that phrase upon this rocke I know the Church is built meaning S. Peters chaire I dare say with reverence to S. Hierome that it was either upon Christ or Peters confession of Christ to bee the Sonne of God as the Fathers in multitudes doe interprete it or upon Peter himselfe whom your owne would have thâ— rocke and not upon Peters â—haire which was not of such an unmooveable stability â—s that rocke ought to bee upon which the Church is builded Further I thinke Mr Malone will not deâ—y that the foundation of the Church was layde before Peter had any chaire either at Antioch or at Rome and if hee say S. Hierome meant not his chaire but in relation to Peter then who can deny but all the Apostles are rockes as Peter was Petrae omnes Apostoli All the Apostles are rockes upon which the Church is built saith Origen t Origen in Mat. hom 1. The Iesuite proceedes and brings two places from St Augustine if we will believe him to bee the Author of the questions of the old and new testament For to make this other then a counterfeit he shall never bee able but what saith he that may procure such an universal preheminence to this onely Father Why hee is called caput fidelium Head of the faithfull u Reply pag. 51. So may every Preist in his Parish unlesse his flocke be Infidels And for the other title Pastor gregis Dominici Pastor of our Lords flock Reply ibid. What Bishop is not Pastor of the flocke of Christ but Papall Bishops who poore Delegates have not their institution from CHRIST but as poore hirelings from the Papacie In the second place the Iesuite tels us thot S. Augustiâ—â— giveth this testimonie of the Church of Rome that the Principalitie or supremacie of the See Apostolicke hath alwayes borne sway therein y Reply pag. 52 This Father will not serve the Iesuites turne without a glosse Principalitie Supremacie must be the same so the Iesuite would have it for if this be not true Augustine forsakes his engager But the Iesuite may know that principalitie is not Papall Dominion there was a primatuâ— or principalitie of the Church of Constantinople z Theodoret. l. 2 c 27. and a primatus or primacie of the Church of Hierusalem 〈◊〉 l. 7. â— 6. into which seates ascended none of these Monarcâ—s He commeth to the principalitie of a See or Bishoprick that entereth by orderly election as Augustine acknowledgeth the Bishop of Rome to have done And a man may get a principalitie in the Church by sedition and ambition as Leo expresseth himselfe to the Bishops of Africke Leo Epist 87. ad Episc Africanos Principatus autem quem seditio exâ—orfit auâ— ambitus occupavit etiam si â—oribus atque actibus non â—ssendâ—t ip 〈◊〉 tamen iniâ—â—â—â—ui est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What hee can picke out of the word Apostolicall hath beene answered before Next to the Master he produceth the Scholler Prosper in two places but to no more purpose or advantage then the former For who will deny the Church of Rome in Prospers time in regard of her outward eminencie to bee made the head of pastorall honour unto the world c Reply pag. 52 and that she was more conspicuous by being a towre to Religion in defending the faith against hereticks then by exercising any power not temporall * No such word in the originall quotation out of Prosper as the Iesuite addeth but Ecclesiasticall that was given him by Councels Whereby we may see the difference betwixt Rome now and then their eminencie their honour then was extended arce religionis by defâ—nding the true faith Your holy Fathers now seeke advancement solio potestatis by obtaining a Monarchie and bringing all powers but hell that must triumph over you * Revel 19. â—â— into subjection under their feete But the Iesuite confident of Prosper telleth us Therefore the holy Bishop 〈◊〉 doth testifie how in his dayes The whole world agreed with Pope Siricius in one and the same fellowship of communion d Reply pag. â—â— Here is a Logicall therefore Prosper telleth us that Rome the See of Peter is made the head of pastorall honour unto the world c. therefore Optaâ—â—â— that lived many Decades of years before him doth testifie how in his dayes the whole world agreed with Pope Siriâ—â—us in one and the same fellowship of communion We will leave the inference the evidence is nothing For was there not reason that they should doe as they did to wit agree in truth with the eminentest opposing Bishop for otherwise they should have beene Donatists Make your Popes as Siricius was and we will agree with them in communion not because Popes but because they â—defend the true Doctrine against Donatisticall and hereticall rashnes Doe you thinke Hierome thought himselfe bound to Liberius his Communion when he styled him an Arian e Hieroâ— Catalog Scrip. Eccles Fortunatianus Episcopus Liberium Romanae Vrbis Episcopum ad subscriptioâ—â—â— Haereseâ—â— compuiit Ambrose would not endure to give a stupide consent to the Church of Rome itselfe unlesse he saw reason for it lib. 3. de sacram cap. 1. In omnibus cupio sequi Romaâ—â—â— Ecclesiaâ— sed tamen nos omnes sensum habeâ—â—â— Id quod alibi rectius servatur nos custodimus Heere you may see how the Auncients did adhere to the Roman Bishop not in every thing from opinion of his authoritie infallibilitie mother-hood or mistresseship for they thought in other places something might be more rightly observâ—d but so farre as they might convince them of the truth of their doctrine and profession
accompted an Head How the Popes pastorall office was extended How little reason the Church of God had to depend upon the Popes Monarchie before he had a Crowne How vainly our Replyer tearmes oâ—â—r dissipation of their pride and vanitie the destroying of all true faith and doctrine Leâ— others conceive res acta non transacta est But as if he had said too little for the grand Impostor taking breath he gets into the CASTLE-CHAMBER where in-truth a Iesuite should be rather then in his Cloyster and primâfacie makes the STATE simple the most reverend Primate a Deluder and his Countreymen poore and afflicted Å¿ Reply pag. â—â— Heere is no meane man Totus Proteus totus Aristarchus many times flattering great ones alwayes censuring good ones Shall I defend their Wisedome that then were IVDGES in that honourable Court It were to dishonour them It may suffise that not onely those PATRES CONSCRIPTI wise Senatours but their wisest MASTER which could not at any time beedeluded by all the Sophisticall practices of Rome approved applauded the speech But who knowes not Delusus quia non delusus Every one is deluded by others in the Iesuites conjecture that is not deceived by themselves Yet how will hee make this most learned Lord a Deluder Hee hath said all and nothing something hee hath spoken without the compasse of the Virga that his Countreymen are poore and afflicted For how can they bee but poore when they live in an Egyptian dearth And affliâ—ted they will still remaine whilst such heards of frogges losusts Egyptian blessings prey upon them But let us see how wisely the Iesuite hath behaved himselfe In clearing the second maine branch of the oath the Answerer saith hee grounded himselfe altogether upon these â—wo fickle foundations First that S. Peter was not head of â—hâ— Church universall more then any other Apostle Secondly that the Bishop of Rome did not inherite by succession this same headship or universall Bishopricke which S. Peter had t Reply pag 53. The Iesuite distasted the first as well as the second but the opposall of that he supposeth not fit doctrine for the present time the second onely must endure a censure as grounded upon those two sickle foundations And be they as they shall appeare in tryall the Iesuit yet might have conceived if his eares had not failed him that the most reverend Primate did not so much question whether Peter was head of the Church universal as whether he had power in this kingdome his speech having relation to Peters power not over the Church absolutly but over us And what he saith is for the honor of S. Peter not to disrobe him For if S. Peter himselfe saith the most reverend Primate were now alive I should freely confesse that he ought to have spirituall authoritie and superiority within this kingdome But so would I say also if S. Andrew S. Bartholomew S. Thomas or any other of the Apostles were now aliue For I know that their Commission was very large to goe into all the world and to Preach the Gospel unto every creature so that in what part of the world soever they lived they could not be said to be out of their charge their Apostleship being a kinde of an universall Bishopricke u See the most reverend the Lord Primate his speech in the Castle-Chamber But the Iesuite telleth us that these two assertions before mentioned are manifestly contrary even by the confession of learned Protestants to the doctrin of the primitive Church x Reply pag. â—â— And to make this good Iohn Brereley is in the margent But I wonder the Iesuit will utter so grosse so deceiveable falshood For we know that in the sence the Iesuite would have Peter to be head neither Calvin Whitgift nor Musculus ever dreamed of it and to shew his precedency in order calling gifts abilities age or otherwise this maketh nothing either to the Iesuites purpose for Peters monarchy or the succeeding monarks So that the Iesuite as Brereley hath brought but ill advocates to plead for a Papall Monarchy from the headship of S. Peter But let the matter be examined for every government presupposeth not a Monarchy He might as in the schooles be the first in the head classe to dispose and order in some kindes the rest but this is far from being in Popish sence the head of the Church A poore wiseman might deliver a Citie * Ecclesi 9. 15. and an inferiour Priest remove a schisme and this they may do by their wisedome and government not Monarchy and power Besides if we grant the Iesuite that Peter excelled the other Apostles as one Angell excelleth another in glory he cannot conclude Peter the Apostles Monarch nor the Pope the Churches head unlesse he will have another Monarch in heaven besides God and an head over some of the Apostles whilst they lived upon earth that was not Peter The most grave Counsellor brought therefore no new doctrine into the Castle-Chamber If then you will have Peter head of the Apostles we yeeld it but we say withall that he was such an head that was neither adorned with Coronet or triple Crowne to declare a Papall supremacy over his brethren But to state the question as it ought to be let us enquire whether the Iesuite hath from the Fathers proved as he ought if he speake to the purpose viz. that S. Peter was so head of the Apostles and Church Universall that all were bound to acknowledge him as their Monarch You have seene all that he hath urged from Calvin Whitgift and Musculus prove no such matter and I doubt not but the Fathers will faile the Iesuite also First he urgeth S. Basill who saith That blessed Peter who was preferred before the rest of the disciples to whom the keyes of the kingdome of heaven were coÌ„mitted y Reply pag. â—4 And what makes this for a Monarchy That Peter was blessed so were the Apostles that he was preferred before the rest of the Apostles in many particulars is not denyed but every preferment is not Monarchicall neither do the keyes worke any more in Peter then the rest of the Apostles to whoÌ„ they were equally giveÌ„ So that Basil speakes not full for this headship His second instance is out of Hierome Therefore one Peter is chosen amongst twelue that a Head being ordained all occasion of schisme might be taken away z Reply ibid But what have we here that might not be found amongst equals For Bishops of the same dignitie may have among them a President Besides his Ambrose speaking of this Primacie maketh Peter to be that of the Circumcision that Paul was among the Gentiles a Ambros in ◠〈◊〉 Ab his itaque probatum dicit donum quod accepita Deo ut dignus esset habere Primatum in praedicatione gentium sicut et habebat Petrus in praedicatione circumcisionis that is a Primate of Order of Eminencie of Gifts
not of an excellencie of Power Neither did Peter take away schisme by absolute definition as your Pope assumeth authoritie to doe but by orderly disposition with Apostolicall consent His third instance is Nazianzen b Reply ibid. But doth he give Peter what will satisfie the Iesuite a monarchy The Church cannot endure two universall Bishops two Monarchs Had Peter it by Nazianzens testimony Surely how could Iames Iohn inherite that blessing yet Nazianzen puts them together Petrus Ioannes Iacobus qui prae alijs erant numerabantur Peter and Iohn and Iames who both were and are reckoned before others c Nazianzen de moderat in disput servanda Here Nazianzen his prae alijs is not Papall not Pontificall neither then could Peters advancement be a Monarchy In like manner all that the Iesuite urgeth is nothing to the point that he ought to prove That Peter was Captaine or cheife of the Disciples as Epiphanius styles him the most excellent Prince of the Apostles in Cyrils judgement d these Reply pag 54 are but titles of excellency which were given him for his personall gifts and endowments Paul in this manner compares himselfe to the very cheife Apostles * 1. Cor. 11. v. 5. and Eusebius Emissenus or whosoever was the Author of the Homilie De Natal utriusque speaking of Peter and Paul tearmeth them Princes of Christians from their order and gifts and further saith si ille primus iste precipuus if the one was the first the other was the cheife It was familiar to give termes of excelleÌ„cy of power to those that exceeded in gifts Nicodemus is stiled Prince of the Iewes e Cyrillus l 2. In Iohannem cap. 41. Nicodemus Iudaeorum Princeps and who knowes not that Aristotle is ever mentioned as Prince of Philosophers So likewise his supposititious Ambrose speakes not of any other Primacie but of personall eminencie For he maketh Paul from his owne words to be no lesse then the first Apostles in dignitie and other excellent performances though he were after them in time which that Author presumes cannot weaken the Apostles testimonie of himselfe in regard Iohn preached before Christ and baptized CHRIST Andrew followed CHRIST before Peter who notwithstanding received the Primacie f Ambros in 12 cap. post ad Corinthios Hocerant quod Apostolus Paulus Hoc ergo dicit quia minor non est neque in praedicatione neque in signis faciendis Apostolis praecessoribus suis non dignitate sed tempore Nam si de tempore praescriben dum putatur ante coepit Ieannes praedicare quam Christus non Christus Ioannem sed Ioannes Christum baptizavit Num ergo sie judicat Deus Denique prior sequutus est Andreas Salvatorem quam Petrus tamen Primatum â—on accepit Andreas sed Petrus Heere the drift is that if Paul were as excellently qualified as the Apostles his afterbirth could not prejudge his equalitie and if Peter were more eminent in gifts then his brother Andrew Andrew his precedencie in time could not deprive Peter of his eminencie of gifts The Iesuite concludes not but bringeth Eusebius telling us Peter the Apostle by Nation a Galilean was the first Bishop of the Christians g Reply pag. 54. This the Iesuite perceived would conclude nothing and therefore added his ridiculous glosse Iames was Bishop of Hierusalem others of other places but Peter was Bishop of all the Christians h Reply ibid. Poore folly who deprived them of their Apostleships that their Bishoprickes were so contracted that they ceased to bee Bishops and Super-intendents of the Christian Church Paul professeth that the care of all Churches were upon him * 2. Cor. 11. 28. Pope Innocent called Chrysostome the great Doctour of the whole world i Canisius Fâ—com Patrum mitio Catechismi Innocentius primus pontifex in Epistola ad Arcadium Impera torem Ejecistie throno suo re non judicatâ magnum totius Orbis Doctorem and other Fathers have had these titles given them ordinarily whereby their esteeme in the Universall Church hath beene declared as Origen the next Master after the Apostles of the Church k Sixâ—us Senens l. 4 tit Origenes Didymus in primis appellat cum secundum post Apostolos Ecclesiarum magistrum so that he is preferred before your Popes Athanasius an agregious pillar of the Church whose Tenets were esteemed for the lawe of right faith l Nazianzea Orat. in laudem ejus Athanasius egregium Ecclesiae columen cujus dogmata pro orthodoxae fidei lege habebantur Basil the mouth of the Church m Greg. Nissen in vita S. Ephr. Syri Cesaream Cappadociae divino Spiritu ductus ipse Os Ecclesiae auream illam doctrinae lusciniam Basilium vidit and Hilary the Pillar of the Church of Christ n Bellarm. de Script Eccles De S. Hilario S. Hilarius Doctor maximus Ecclesiae Catholicae columna meritò habitus sit But to remove this title see whether Paul be inferior in Chrysostome judgment I lle alter Michael Christianorum Dux Alter Aaron totius mundi populis inunctus sacerdos He another Michael the Archangell or Captaine of Christians An other Aaron an annointed Preist to the people of the whole world o Chrys hom 8 de laudibus Pauli And Cyprian when he was sought for to be martyred was tearmed the Bishop of Christians p Cyprian Ep. 69. Siquis tenet vel possidet de bonis Caecilij Cypriani Episcopi Christianorum which is the same with Pontifex Christianorum so that this title gives not Peter this Universall Monarchie any more then others But the Iesuite may know those words cited by him are not truely the words of Eusebius for Scaliger delivering him truly to the world findes not there the Iesuites quotation there being neither in it natione Galilaeus nor Christianorum Pontifex wherby we see the Monarchy wil stoop to any corruptioÌ„s Neither are the Iesuites next following quotations any better For the two places cited from S. Augustine the first cited out of his 124 serm de tempore where S. Peter is termed the Head the very Crowne of the Church the second urged from the same Father or whosoever els was the Author of the questions upon the old new Testament For even as in Christ were found al the causes of mastership so after our Savior all are contained in Peter for Christ ordained him their head that he might be the Pastor of our Lords flock q Reply pag. 54 they are none of his the first being suspected by many the second rejected by all yea so despised by Bellarmine that he makes the Author no Catholick r Bellarm l. de gra primi hominis c. 3. Ex his intelligi potest auctorem quaestionum novi ac veteris testamenti non solum non esse S. Augustinum sed neque esse hominem Catholicum but an Heretick Å¿ Idem
as cheife in the calling of all Nations g Reply pag â—5 c. And we tell him that Pope Leo did speake more for Peter to advance himselfe then it is probable he would otherwise have done if his Chayre had not met with some opposition in those times for Leo maketh Christ Marke the tenth to reprehend the desire of that power which in the Iesuites quotation he seemeth to give to S. Peter h Leo Epist 55. ad Pulcher. Augustam de ambitu Anatolij Et ille vere crit magnus qui fucrit totius ambitionis alicâ—â—â— dicente Domino Quicunque voluerit inter vos major sicri sit vester minister Et quicunque voluerit inter vos primus esse erit vester servus Sicut filius hominis non venit ministrari sed ministrare although Maldonate the Iesuite would not have the words of the Evangelist so to be understood i Maldonat com in Marc. 9. 35. Non hic agi de prjma in gubernanda Ecclesia dignitate etsi co etiam sensuhunc locum alicubi apud Leonem magnum legi memini We have seene then saith the Iesuite how undoubtedly the auncient Fathers maintained S. Peters primacie as well ever all the Church of Christ as over the rest of the Apostles also k Reply pag. 55 But any may perceive with how false eyes his owne witnesses but little favouring his cause as we shall further shew hereafter So that any may conceive how poorely he hath layed the foundation of the Roman Catholicke Church vizt Peter his Monarchichall power over the Apostles Neither saith he will it be hard to shew the like uniforme consent of antiquitie in attestation of that other point denyed also by our Answerer in the Star-chamber concerning the same headship and Primacie which the Bishops of Rome doe inherite by lawfull succession l Reply pag. 55 And to manifest this he beginnes his entrance with a repetition of what hath beene said and answered before and then fixeth first of all upon the strong pillar of Popish height the Arabicke Canons of the Nicene Councell from whom hee doubteth not to bring us most plaine testimony in this point m Reply pag. 56 and who beleiveth him not for if these Canons speake not plainely for the purpose whereunto they were framed what device can helpe them But the Iesuite knowing his coyne counterfeit tels us that the Answerer doth soone rid himselfe of this and the like decrees of that holy Synode by averring them to be forged by certaine well-willers of the Roman Church in the name of the good Fathers that never dreamed saith he of such a busines n Reply ibid. And is not this a truth that the Iesuite cannot resist though he playes the Baby in telling us that if you desire to heare him prove this his saying you must have 〈◊〉 â—â— other proofe you are like to get none of him besides his owne rash affirmation o Reply ibid. For the matter is so cleare from all antiquity that there were but twenty Canons in the Nicent Councell all which we have that it were but the mis-spending of time to prove that which all acknowledge q See them repeated in the sixt Councell of Carthage apud 〈◊〉 um Besides could the famous lights of the world at that time be ignorant of these Canons as S. Augustine r Concil Carthag 6. c. 7. Augustinus Ecclesiae Hiâ—ponis Regiensis Legatus Provinciae Numidiae with 〈◊〉 and more 〈◊〉 Bishops Å¿ Epistola Aphricani Concil ad Bonifacium Papam 1. Aurelius caeteri qui praesentes affuimus numero ducenti decem septem ex omni Concilio Aphricae Were they so little esteemed that they were clofetted at Rome or so unknowne in the East that the Patriarches of Constantinople and Alexandria could make no returne of them t Epistola Concil Aphric ad Coelestinum Quia illud quod pridem per cundem co episcopum nostrum Faustinum tanquam ex parte Nicaeni Concilij exinde transmiâ—â—â—â—is in Concilijs verioribus quae accipiuntur Ni aena à sancto Cyrillo coepiscopo nostro â—◠〈◊〉 Ecclesiae à venerabili Artico Constantino 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ac auther 〈◊〉 missis tale aliquid non poâ—uimus repeâ—â—e though the one sent them intirely as they were decreâ—d by the Fathers at Nice u Epistola Attici Episcopi Constantinopolitani ad Concilium Africanum Sicut staâ—â—ta suntin Nicaea civitam à Pauibus canoâ—â—â— in integro ut jussisus direx and the other â—â—nsm faithfull exemplars from the authenticke Coppie x escripta ad Conc. Aphrican Cyrilli Alexandrini Episcopi Necesse habus 〈◊〉 exemplaria ex authentica Synodo in Nâ—â—â—â— Bythiniae habito vestrae charitati dirigere quae in Ecclesiastica historia requirentes 〈◊〉 But if there were nothing else to disgrace them the Iesuite his endeavours to justifie them from farre-fetched and counterfeit grounds were alone sufficient to render them suspected of themselves For doe you thinke that a â—â—e from the 〈◊〉 of S. Thomas sent from some sleight Mercenarie of the Pope to his mancipated servants the Iesuites in a matter that concernes the Popes greatnes so neerely is to be received as an infallible Argument Neither if this Papall altitude could stand upon true grounds would it need â—uch counterfeit supporters as these two Epistles cited by the Iesuit in regard they declare theÌ„selves counterfeite and are acknowledged for no better by their owne For if this Epistle were written to Pope Marke after the Arians burnt their bookes at Alexandria surely it must be many yeares after Pope Marke was dead their burning being in the raigne of Constantius y Athanasius Epistol ad orthodoxos in persecut when â—â— Pope Marke died in the time of Constantines government z Hieron in Chron. Further how could this Epistle lye hid when the controversie was betwixt the African Church and the Roman Bishops Besides could Marke send to Athanasius in Egypt when it is apparant by Baronius that he was â—â— Exul in France a Baron â—om 3 ad anâ—um 336 â— 39 Exul ho 〈◊〉 agebat â—â— Galliâ—â— Could the Roman Coppie and that of Alexandria so farre differ as wee see they did if the Pope had sent a true Exemplar ex Romano scrinie And not to presse the Reader any further What trifling follies doe they impute to the Niceâ—â— Fathers as to publish these Canons halfe Latinâ— halfe Greeke perswading that fourtie were made by the Greeke Fathers fourtie by the Latine and to insert tenne Cannons amongst the rest in relation to the seaventie languages which they conceived to bee in the whole world or the seventie disciples and all this by the assistance of the Spirit of God b Epistola Athanasij Aegiptiorum Episcoporum ad Marcum Papam Saâ—e praesentibus nobis octoginta capitula in memorata tractaâ—â— sunt Synodo scilicet quadraginta à Latinis similiter Latinis
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
in the Acts viz. a Bisâ—opricke n Rhem 〈◊〉 upon Luk â— â—â— And although the Iesuite now seeth that Peter can be no Monarch by his Apostleship such extraordinary power being given to others yet it hath beene that which they ever pretended to exalt him whom they would have to be Peters Successour and the Monarch of the Church and therefore they have had their mouthes and rescripts full of Apostle and Apostleship calling his office Apostleship saying that he heareth causes with his Apostleship why should he not determine with it All his instruments of government are Apostolical as Letters Decrees Mandates Buls Pardons Dispensations nay what hath he that is not Apostolicke Whether messenger or Legate Whether Palace Chamber Chancery Seale o Sacraâ— ceâ—am Rom. eccles l 1. Reg. Canc. Apostol Extra do jurejur c. Ego c. Besides how many of the Iesuites counterfeits urged for the Primacy are thought to speake effectually when they attribute to the Pope to sit in the Apostolicall height to have his See Apostolicke his office an Apostleship his priviledges his eminencies Apostolicall Fourthly he would have told them that the auncient Fathers declare in plaine tearmes how Christ grounding his Church upon Peter Mat. 16. committing his flocke to Peter Ioh. 21. wishing Peter to confirme his Brethren and praying for Peters faith that it should not faile Luc. 22. constituted Peter head of his Church upon earth and consequently thereby made him Prince Cheife Captaine Head Leader and Prelate over the rest of the Apostles p Reply pag. 60 But whosoever will weigh his quotations shall perceive that the Fathers have beene onely pretended by him they disdaining any such Monarchie as from those texts the Iesuite laboureth to collect And first for the 16. of Mat. Although the Fathers doe sometimes give Peter the name of the rocke or foundation upon which the Church is builded or grounded yet their meaning is not that the Church is builded upon Peter absolutely and personally but relativelie and from his faith or Christ that hee confessed And therefore Hillary that calleth Peter the foundation of the Church q Hilar. in Mat. 16 Faelix Ecclesiae fundamentum telleth us that not onely to say but also to beleive that CHRIST is the Sonne of GOD this faith is the foundation of the Church r Hillar l. 6. De Trinitat Christum Dei silium non solum nuncupare sed etiam credere Haec fides Ecclesiae fundamentum and in another place hee saith This is the alone happie rocke of faith confessed with the mouth of Peter Thou art the Sonne of the everliving GOD Å¿ Idem l. 2. De Trinitat Vna â—â—aec est faelix fidei Petra Petri ore confessa Tu es filius Dei vivi S. Basill also saith that CHRIST is truely a Rocke unmoveable but Peter is so from the Rockâ— Christ t Basil serm de Pâ—niten Christus verè Petra est inconcussa Petrus vero propter Petram And S. Ambrose concludeth u Ambros ser â— Recte igitur qui Petra Christus Simon nuncupaâ—â—s est Petrus â—â— qui cum Domino fidei societatem habebat cum Domino haberet nominis Dominici unitatem ut siqut à Christo Christianus dicitur ita à Petra Christo Petrus Apostolus vocaretur that rightly therefore because CHRIST is the rocke was Simon called Peter that so he that had a society of faith with his Lord might also have the unitie of his name that as a Christian taketh his denomination from CHRIST so Peter the Apostle might â—â—ke his name from the rocke CHRIST So also saith Gregory Nissen The LORD is the rock of faith even the foundation as the LORD himselfe saith to the Prince of the Apostles Then art Peter and upon this rocke I will build my Church x Gregor Nissenus cap. postremo testimoniorum con Iudaeos Dominus est Peâ—â—â— fidei â—â—â—quam fundamentum ut ipse Dominus ait ad principe◠〈◊〉 Tu es Petrus super â—anc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam 〈◊〉 And S. Augustine teacheth us that The Church is founded upon a rocke from whence even PETER took his name For the rocke tooke not its denomination from PETER but PETER from the rocke even as CHRIST taketh not his name from Christians but a Christian from CHRIST y August truâ—â— 124. in Iohan. Ecclesia fundata est super petram â—â— de Petrus nomen accepit Non enim à Petro petra siâ—â— Petrus à petra siâ—â— non Christus à Christianis sed Christianus à Christâ— vocatur Theodoret shall conclude for this particular who telleth us that Blessed PETER or rather the LORD himselfe layed the foundation for when PETER said thou art CHRIST the Sonne of the living GOD the LORD said upon this rocke I will build my Church Bee not you therefore denominated from man for CHRIST is the foundation z Theodoret. in 1. Cor. 3. Fundamenâ—â—â— jecit beatus Petrus vel pâ—tius ipse Dominus Cum enim dixisset Petrus Tu es Christuâ— filius Der viâ—â— dixir Domiâ—â— super hanc 〈◊〉 â—rarâ— aedificabo EcclesiammeaÌ„ Ne voâ—â—â— go denominaâ—â— ab hominibus Christus 〈◊〉 â—â—◠〈◊〉 So that the Iesuite may see how Peter was the rocke and foundation by confessing and preaching CHRIST the true rocke The latter of which duties to wit preaching CHRIST is so bitter â—nto their Popes that I thinke they had rather forsake their Rock-ship then be tyed thereunto And as the Church was no otherwise grounded upon Peter then you have heard from the Fathers so neither was the flocke of CHRIST Io. 21. committed to Peter in the Roman sence For feeding is not domineering that which before did point out a sheepheard must not now constitute a Prince or Monarch But not to descant upon this place in every particular the Iesuite may take notice that there want not Fathers that thinke the other Apostles had as much interest in feeding as Peter himselfe and that hee received no new power by his pasce oves this is cleare from the reasons that the Fathers give wherefore CHRIST spake onely to Peter As first not to give him a new power and Commission but to stirre him up to conâ—â—sse his LORD thrice as before hee denyed him So Augustine tract in Iohan 123. Cyrillus in Iohan. lib. 12. cap. 64. Secondly that hee might renewe the Apostle shippe for so saith Cyrill But CHRIST said fiede my Lambes renewing unto him the dignitie of his APOSTLESHIP least it might seeme to be lâ—st for his denyall which happened by humane informitie a Cyrillâ—â— in Io. l. 12. c 64. Dixit autem pasce agâ—â—◠〈◊〉 Apostolâ—â—â—s ei renovâ—â—â—â— dignitatem ne propter â—egatioâ—em quae human◠〈◊〉 accidit lâ—befactaâ—i videreâ—â—â— What new power is here given What ordinarie jurisdiction that ordinarily did not belong to the rest Here is the old Apostleship renewed to Peter which by denyall of his Master he
might feare he had lost This is all we finde by the Auncient in pasce oves And if the Iesuite will permit it with patience besides the places formerly cited their owne Counterfeit that hath a name of antiquity telleth us that the rest of the Apostles received honour power in equall fellowship with Peter b Anaâ—letus ad â—pisâ— Italiae Epist 2. dist 21. c. In â—oâ—o teâ—â—â—m â—â—eeti verò Apostoli â—â—m codem pâ—ri consortio honoâ—em potestatem acâ—â—â—erunt And Ambrose will not favour Rome so much though he ruled at Millaine but that he will acknowledge that Peter did not only receive the charge of them but himself and all Bishopâ— received it with Peter c Ambros de dignit sacerd â— â— Pasce oveâ—â—eat Quas oves quem â—â—â—gem noâ—â—â—lum tunc 〈◊〉 susceâ—it Petrâ—s fed et cum illo â—â—s noâ— susceâ—imus omnes And as they received the commission with Peter so likewise did they performe the worke for so say your Romane Cleargie CHRIST said thâ—â— unto Simon Lovest thou me hee answered I love thee hee saith unto him fâ—ede my lambes Wee know this word was performed by the very act of Peters obedience and the rest of the disciples did so likewise d Epist Cleri Rom. ad Clerum Carth. apud Cyprian epist 3. Sed et Simoni fie dicit Diligiâ— me â—â—spondit diligo â—â— ei Pasce oves hoâ— verbum factum ex actu ipso quo cessit cognoscimus eâ— eâ—teri discipuli similiter 〈◊〉 Yea this is acknowledged by Cyprian for a common dutie and no particular prerogative of Peter All the Apostles are Pasters but the flock is shewed to be one which is fed of all the Apostles with an unanimoâ—â— consent e Cyprian de Vnitate Eccles E◠〈◊〉 â—unt 〈◊〉 sed grex 〈◊〉 ostenditur qui ab Apostolis omnibus 〈◊〉 consensioâ—â— pascatur And therefore Gregory from this place doth argue that they faile of love to CHRIST that performe not this duty of feeding the flock Whosoever saith he being endued with gifts refuseth to â—eede the Lords flocke is convinced not to love the cheife Pastor f Gregor l. 1 de cura past c 5. Si diligis me paâ—ce oves meâ—â— Si ergo dilectionis est testimonium cura pastonis Quisque virâ—â—tibus pollâ—â— gregem Dei pascere 〈◊〉 it pastorem 〈◊〉 convincitur non aâ—â—râ— Neither doth the other place Luc. 22. in the â—â—dgment of the Ancient make S. Peter otherwise then the rest of the Apostles For saith Ignatius CHRIST prayed that the faith of the APOSTLES should not faile g Ignatius ad Smyrnen Epistola â— Dominus Iesus Châ—â—stus rogaviâ— ne deficâ—ret fidâ—â— a postolorum and Clemene telleth us that CHRIST euen now saith as in times â—ast when we were gathered together I have asked that TOVR faith should not faile h Clemens constitut l. 6. c. â— Hic dicet nunc sicut antea nobis in unum congregatis de nobis aiebat Rogavi ne deficiaâ—â—â—des vestra And Augustine readeth these words in that manner that it concludeth all the Apostles I have prayed for you that YOVR faith faile not i Augustin de verbis Domiâ—i in Luc. ser 36. Igo rogavi pâ—trem pro vobâ—â— ne deficiat â— des vestra Whereby the Iesuite may see that these texts in the judgment of the Ancient Fathers make not Peter to be as he would perswade constituted Head of the Church upon Earth and consequently neither Prince Cheife Captaine Head Leader and Prelate over the rest of the Apostles with such soveraigne power as is pretended What the Iesuite citeth out of Hierome and Leo have received answere before Nothing remaines in this Section but his more particular answere to the most reverend the Lord Primate his enquires and first saith he When our Answerer then made his first Inâ—uirie Whether the Apostleship was not ordained by our Saviour CHRIST as a speciall Commission which being personall onely was to determine with the death of the first Apostle Answere might soone have beene returned that the Apostleship indeed ended with the Apostles yet not that Apostolicall power of headship and Iurisdiction Reply pag. â—â— First here is poore forgetfulnes for but now Peter was Head of the Church not as he was an extraordinary Embassadour for therein the Apostles had equall iurisdiction with him over all Christian people but as the ordinary Pastor not onely over all nations but also over the very Apostles themselves and now in this place the Headship must bee Apostolicall power and not ordinarie Iurisdiction Secondly I desire the Iesuite to expound this riddle How the Apostleship ended with the Apostles yet not the Apostolicall Headship and Iurisdiction seeing the power Apostolicall iâ— whomsoever it be found doth make an Apostle they being so stiled for their Commission and power received and not for any other reason that the Iesuite can assigne Thirdly I would gladly know whether this Apostolicall Headship doth consist in infallibilitie of doctrine immediate calling extent of Iurisdiction in binding or loosing in punishing or pardoning teaching or ruling the Church of GOD See the Rhe mists annotations upon Luke 6. 13 for if it be found in these the Apostles enioyed it if out of these let the Iesuite seeke into what place this Saul is runne to hide it selfe But this Head of the Church that hath ever beene acconuted an Apostle hath now lost this title for the Iesuite tels us that the Apostleship ended with the Apostles yet not that Apostolicall power of Headship and Iurisdiction which CHRIST for the better government of his Church gave to S. Peter the which Apostolicall power although it doth not absolutely make the man upon whom it descendeth an Apostle yet it maketh him Apostolicall And this is all which is meant whensoever in the Lawyers yearsbookes or elsewhere the Pope is called by the name of Apostle m Reply pag. 60 What he assumes to bee given to Peter hath beene before plainely shewed to be a vapour and sume from a full stomacke That the Pope is no Apostle we easilie grant yet heereby we may learne that they have sometimes taken to themselves those titles that their evidence could not warrant for by the Iesuits confession the Pope hath been stiled what he is not to wit an Apostle Yet this will not satisfie them sometimes to be an Apostle barely in succession but Peter the Apostle himselfe for so Pope Stephen doth proclaime himselfe PETER saith he called an Apostle of IESVS CHRIST to you most excellent men Pipin Charles and Charlemaine three Kings and to all Bishops Abbots Preists Monks Dukes Earles and Generalls c PETER the Apostle called by CHRIST and ordained to be the enlightner of all the world to whom hee committed his 〈◊〉 saying 〈◊〉 my 〈◊〉 I the Apostle PETER whose adopted sinnes you are admonish you 〈◊〉 you presently come and define this 〈◊〉 from the hands of
adversaries because the 〈◊〉 Lamb andafflict and 〈◊〉 is c That I PETER the Apostle of GOD â—â— the 〈◊〉 day may yeeld you 〈◊〉 defence againe and prepare for you tubernacles in Heaven Baroniâ—â—â—â— annum 755. â— 17. PETRVS vâ—â—atus Apostolus à IESV CHRISTO c. Vobis vitis excellentissimis Pipino Carolo Carolomanno tribus Regibus atque sanctifimis Episcopis Abbatibus presbyterie vel cunctis religiosis monachis vernm â—â—iam Ducibus Comitibus cunctis generalibus c. Ego PETRVS Apostolus dum à Christo Dei vivi filio vocaâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clementâ—â—â— arbitâ—â—â—â— illuminator ab ejus potenâ—â—â— â—â—tius mundi â—um 〈◊〉 c. Ideoque ego Apostolus Dei PETRVS qui vos adoptivos habeo filios ad defendendum de manibus adversariorum hanc Romanam civitatem 〈◊〉 pro co quod maximas afflictiones oppressiones à pessima Longobâ—â—dorum gente patiuntur c. Vt â—â—â— PETRVS vocatus Dei Apostolus in hâ—c vitâ in die futuri exanimis vobis alterna impendens patrotiâ—â—â— in regno Dei 〈…〉 tabernacula 〈◊〉 parâ—n ad remp Venet. Paâ—â—â— igitur idemque Petrus vicem Christi agens in terâ—â—s And it is not long since Paul the 〈◊〉 was made PETER also by Cardinall Baronius â— So that we see it is not well agreed at Rome whether the POPE be PETER the Apostle or an Apostle by Succession or meerely Apostolicall But as the shining lampes of the Church of GOD have detected him to be farre from Peter and an Apostle So for all the Iesuites covers he will not appeare to be Apostolicall either Heere the Iesuite hath given us a riddleâ— no resolution to the first enquirie When he inquired secondly saith the Iesuite what sound evidence wee can produce to shew that one of the company was to hold the Apostlesius as it were in 〈◊〉 for him and his Successâ—ours for ever and that the other cleaven should have the same for 〈◊〉 of life onely Answere might soone have beene made out of what before hath beene declared that S. Peter had somewhat more then the rest of the Apostles to â—it his superiority and dignitie and this being given to him before the rest for the benefite of the Church must needes have continued after his death Reply pag. â—â— We see the Iesuite hath no more to say for S. Peter then he hath already uttered In the answere whereunto the Reader may see his pretences examined In 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he inquired thirdly saith the Iesuite how the state of perpetuîtie came to fall upon S. Peter rather then upon S. Iohn A child might have answered that it pleased CHRIST to make choyce of S. Peter rather then of S. Iohn and who is he thâ—â— will demaund of GOD why It seemes a Childe can doe more then a Iesuite for how will hee make it good that CHRIST made choyce of Peter rather then of S. Iohn to continue the state of perpetuitie in regard hee telleth us the Apostleship determined with him And wee demaund not of GOD why But wee aske the Iesuite why they will invent and establish a foundation for their Church that hath no better ground to depend uppon then 〈◊〉 tale-telling Finally saith the Iesuite when in the fourth place hee inquired why did not the inheritence rather descend upon the Church of Antioch whereof S. Peter was first Bishop then upon Rome Answere might hee made by 〈◊〉 pleasant demaund to the recreation of the whole Court to wit why should not our Answerers Childe be called 〈◊〉 her the Heire of a Parsin then of a Bishop seeing that his 〈◊〉 was the former before he came to be elected for the 〈◊〉 Truely I am sure that although the lad might happilie repine at either of both the names uet 〈…〉 of a Bishops sonne before that other of a Pâ—rson and with good reason too forasmuch as his Father did willingly forsake the Parsinage to get the title of a Bishop Reply pag. â—â— Heere the Iesuite would turne Arsby if he wanted 〈◊〉 wit For who sees not the Couse layed aside and the guarded Habite girded on that hee might recreate the whole Court So that Iesuites we may know want not their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many times 〈◊〉 I would 〈◊〉 the â—â—â—inde to explaine himselfe and to shew in what purpose hee hath brought forth this 〈◊〉 for as it thus stands his Comedie will not bee understood â—â—ither answere the inquiries for hee will confesse the Bishop of Antioch to differ from the Bishop of Rome more then 〈◊〉 Persons forme from himselfe whose father is a Bishop 〈◊〉 he must acknowledge them to have the same head members commands prerogatives And upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not say that Petâ—â—â— was the poore Pâ—â—sâ—â— of Antioch and left his 〈◊〉 to get his universall Bishoppricke of Rome for if you doe it will destroy all your arguments from Tu es Petrus 〈◊〉 pro te Petre pasâ—e eves for if the Bishoppricke 〈◊〉 Peter a Monarch how â—â— their Monarchie bee founded in S. Peter or that Church get any thing by Peter his plaâ—ing his seate there And from hence you see the force of his reason that maketh the inheritance to defâ—â—â—d upon Rome rather then upon the Church of Antioch because the Roman Church is the Here of Peter the Bishop Antioch onely of Peter the Parson So that wee may easily perceive that what hee hath produced was not to answere the inquirie but to stoâ—ne the Children of Bishops and Preists â— Parsons as hee cals them But hee may take notice that the Children of Preists were never of base â—â—eeme till the base and filthie carriage of the Romish Cleargie acquired it for among the Preists wee finde some married to the blood ROYALL as Iâ—hojaâ—â— * 2. Châ— 22. 11. 〈◊〉 why should God take such strict care for the choyce of their wives * Lev. 2â— â—â— 14 if he contemned their generation Since our Saviours time was it infamie to Philips 〈◊〉 that their father was an Evangelist * Acts 21. â— â— Naâ—ianâ— Monoâ— in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 20 Did the Iesuite ever read that S. 〈◊〉 repined at the Bishop his Father Was Gregorie the great made the lesse that his great 〈…〉 a Pope Or did it 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Châ—yre that the 〈…〉 〈◊〉 the same â— No the children of Preists and 〈◊〉 lawfully married never dishonoured their 〈◊〉 neither were the children 〈◊〉 by their 〈◊〉 from a Priest But when 〈…〉 and Mac a Nâ—â—buiâ— and 〈…〉 their Popes and Cleargie with their 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 ◠〈◊〉 notâ—â— vitam Greâ—â—â—ij Papae 1. Factus est Pontifex â— Gregoâ—ius qui natus ATAVO FELICE PAPA ejus nominis tertio last filled the world full of their unlawfull 〈◊〉 This invented the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 and made many holy birthâ—◠〈◊〉 because their â—â—thers did forbeare to challenge them Indeed the Children of Bishops and Preists among you may well â—epiâ—e to be stiled
Marcellini At 〈◊〉 Pontifex ad sacrificia gentium ductâ—â— cum 〈◊〉 instarent carnificeâ— ut thura dijs exhiberet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deos alienos adoravit others But it may be they will say a Pope may have spots of Paganisme yet not of Heresie but I thinke any man will conceive that if the Pope may practise against all the points of Christian Faith and turne Pagan he may well turne Hereticke and pleade against one and then farewell the blessed Prerogative of an invincible perpetuity of unspotted faith Not many yeares after Liberius was Pope and although some desire to mince it yet is it plaine that he was an Arian Hereticke subscribed to that heresie as Athanasius i Athanasius in Epistola ad solimariam vitam agentes Liberius deinde post exactum in exilio biennium inflexus est minisque mortis ad subscriptionem inductus est and S. Hierome k Hieronymus Catal Script Eccles â—ortunatianus Episcopus Liberium Romae urbis Episcopum ad subscriptionem Haereseos compulit Idem in Chronico Liberius taedio victus exilij in haeteticam pratitatem subscribenâ— testifie Yea so publicke was the report hereof even in our late ages that many eminent Papists as Cusâ—â—â—â— l Nich. de Cusa Candiâ—â—al l. 2 de Concord Cathol c 5. Et licet Liberius Papa tunc suit qui ut scribit Augustinus contra Crescentium Arianae sectae se subscripsit licet resisteret in principio propter hoc in exilium missus esset habetur elegans disputatio Constan â—ij Imperatoris Liberij rediit autem de exilio Victus consensit errori ut scribit S. Hieronymus in Chronicis Platina m Platina de vita Liberij I Constantius Liberium ab exilio terocat qui Imperatoris beneficio motus â—â—m haereticis in rebus omnibus ut quidam voâ—â—nt senticas Sabellicus n Anton. Sabellicus Ennead 7. l. 8. c. 36. Hiprecibus suis apud Constantinum in Felicis iâ— vidiam Liberio reditum ad urbem confecere quo ille beneficio 〈◊〉 ex consesso Arianus ut quidam scribunt est factus and others made no doubt from the testimony of antiquity to charge him with it Surely if an Arian Head be no spot to Roman infallibilitie what will besmeare it These may fuisse to shew their Popes in the â—est times not to have beene without spots And now if in the best times of rhe Roman Church when it was most pure this pretended head was bespotted with heresie how can we expect that he should be blessed with such a prerogative to be infallible to others And indeede Experience hath confirmed our judgments herein For in the seaventh age Honorius was a Monothelite condemned by the judgment of three Councels o Concil VI. Occumeâ—icum Act. 13. Concil VII Occumenicum Act. 7. Concil VIII Occumenicum Act. 7. his own Epistles witnessing against him p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epistolae Honoris ad Sergium una in VI. Synodo act 12. altera ibidem Act. 13. â—â—â—â—raque autem Honorius approbat doctrinam Sergij principis Monothelitarum jubet non debere dici Christum duas habere voluntates aut operationes Pope Leo the second execrating him q Leo II. ad 〈◊〉 Imperatorem Epist 2 Anathemaâ—izamus novi erroris Inventorâ—s id est Theodoâ—â—â— c necnon HONORIVM qui hanc Apostolicam Ecclesiam non Apostolicae traditionis doctrina lustravit sed prophanâ proditione immaculatam fidem 〈◊〉 conatus est In the XIIth age Alphonsus de Castro affirmes Celestine the III. no way to be excused of teaching Heresie to wit that Heresie so dissolves matrimonie that a partie may marrie againe r Alphons de Castro adv haer l. 1 c. 4. Coelestinum Papam etiam errâsse circa matrimonium fidelium quorum alter labitur in haeresim res est omnibus manifesta In the XIIIIth Age Iohn the XXIIth taught that the Saints departed saw not God before the Resurrection Å¿ Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c 14. Ioannes XXII Papa à multis reprehenditur ac praessertim à Galielmo Ocam in opere â—â— dierum ab Adriano in quaestione de confirmatione circa â—nem quid docucrit animas beato â—um non visuâ—as Deum ante resurrectionem Erasmus praefat one ad ad librum 5. Ireâ—aei idipsum cum additamento affirmat In the XVth Centurie Iohn the XXIIIth denyed the Resurrection and life eternall and was accused of pertinaciâ— therein t Concil Constâ—ntiâ— self â—â— See this at large before pag. 53 Bellarmine telleth us at that time there were three pretenders for the Papacie so that it could not easily bee discerned quis eorum verus ac legitimus esset Pontifex which of them was the true and lawfull Pope u Bellatâ—n de Rom Poâ—â— l 4. c 14. Erant enim co temporâ—tres qui Pontifices haberi volebant Gregorius XII Benedictus XIII et Ioannes XXIII nec poterat facilè indicaaâ—i quis eorum verâ—s ac legitimus esset Pontifeâ— cùm non decssent singulis doctissimi patroni So that it seemed the Councell of Constance did not adhere to the Pope nor the Pope to the faith Now let the Reader judge what great reason we have to be waile our selves that we want this pretended infallible rule of faith which cannot rule it selfe and free the adherents thereto from errour how farre these Puritans are from the Catholicke humilitie that defend their staines when the auncienâ— Fathers best men in their journeying towards heaven did bewaile their imperfect estate hungred for that righteousnes and perfection that was to come And what cause have we to blush that the particular Church of Ireland is lyable to errour when the best particular Churches in the world never assumed a better Condition But is the Iesuits inference concludent here because our Church is lyable to error therfore it cannot with reason challenge to it selfe the title of unspotted Here is not so much as silly Sophistry the Churches of Ephesus Thessalonica Philippi in the Apostles dayes were lyable to error therfore bespotted posse et esse are two distinct things A Iesuite may be a true subject but it doth not follow therefore in an instant he forsakes his order And a Pope may be a Saint but who will thinke it necessary that hee will without delay forsake his tyrannicall condition The Church of Ireland may erre in faith yet it doth not follow that it is now bespotted with heresie or hereafter will bee So that it may have alliance and affinitie with all true auncient Churches true members of the Catholicke for any thing the Iesuite hath yet produced Yet as if the Iesuite had dreamed all this while and did now awake he bolts out with a phantasticke flourish Let them take then saith the Iesuite if they will their erring Church unto themselves but let them not withall deny us leave to sticke unto that
amended which were scarse espyed in their times How doth every Councell disgrace the knowledge grace and courage of former Fathers and Bishops if the amending of things amisse might conclude the same m Augustin â— â—apt con Donat c. 3. Ipsaque plenaria saepè priora à posterioribâ—â— emeâ—dari sine 〈◊〉 typho sacrilegae superbiâ— sine â—lla inâ—â—â—tâ—cervice arrogantiae fine ulla coâ—â—entione lividae invidiâ— cum â—â—â—e catholick cum charitate 〈◊〉 Have not some of your bretâ—ren found out new thoughts concerning the blessed Virgins conception which will take away the harsh doctrine of the Fathers and Catholicks of former times Shall wee thinke that these tumultuoâ—â— upstarts have therefore more knowledge grace or courage then those ancient Fathers the whole Catholicke Church Litle honour was given to the Roman See before the Councell of Nice Aeneas Sylv. epist 301. must we conclude that your after Doctours had more knowledge grace or courage then the Apostles and Fathers before that Councell because they have washed and cured GODS Church of so notorious an errour I see the Iesuite is of the Cardinalis Matthee Langi Archbishop of Salzburg Hist con Triâ—en l. 1. minde that did thinke the Church should bee reformed but not by a Monke But they are Popish thoughts to have the reformation or government of the Church to depend upon men Wee have a Rule left by CHRIST which as it is the rule to governe so to reforme what by fraud or neglect hath crept into the Church amisse We acknowledge GOD hath many instruments in the Church but that which worketh reformation is the word of God and although the Instrument may have honour for the works sake yet it is the word not the instrument that effects the reformation Why the Iesuite should tearme those learned men tumultuous upstarts I cannot guesse for I am sure they were as auncient as there Order and for tumultuous practices who dare compare with Iesuites for grand supplanters Whereas the Iesuite thinkes to vilifie them by his heape of invectives they will appeare true friends to the Catholicke Church by grave and solide discourses pleading her cause and contesting for her right And I would know whether they have sinned in being impatient of the Churches sufferings any more then the Councels of Basill and ConÌ„stance who greived to see a Saracens head upon the Churches shoulders and therefore declared the Churches rights and the Popes usurpations condemning him with his foolish pretences p Concil Constane Sess 4. 10. Concil Basil sess 12. 33. Veritas de potestate concilij generalis universalem Ecclesiam repraesentantis supra Papam queâ—libet alterum declarata per constantiense hoc Basileense generalia Concilia est veritas fidei Catholicae veritatibus praedictis pertinaciter repugnans est confendus Haereticus Wherefore the Iesuite might have left this passion as being grounded upon distemper and fury and have taken his rabblement to himselfe and his to whom truely it belongs But this Iesuite will speake nothing without demonstration and therefore will shew ours to be a deforming rather then a reforming humour q Reply pag 73 and this he would prove because First of all the prime stirrer of this stone Martin Luther had the gift to see in his omne dayes such comfortable successe herein as was answerable to his labours r Reply 〈◊〉 What was that The shaking off the Roman Triple The emptying of the Fryars bellies The restrayning of the Cleargies luxurie No but from the time the pure Gospell was first restored and brought to light the world hath every day become worse and worse Å¿ Reply pag 73. Wee acknowledge that Luther and others complained of the disorders of men that communicated with them but will the Iesuite conclude that these were occasioned by bringing in the doctrine of CHRIST Were the Preachers of the Gospell filled with a deforming rather then a reforming humour because they could not tollerate stewes and prophanenesse where they preached but did inveigh with bitternesse against them If there were a Iesuite that had so much devotion as to reproach the sinnes of the Roman Court or Italie with Luthers courage and should upbrayde them with neglect of the Cleargies example the Popes holinesse and the lampe of divine light that proceedes from him and should crye out that Sodome and Gomorrha never abounded with sinne and Sodomie as Italy notwithstanding their helpes of devotion doth at this present or since Peter placed his seate there Should he therefore confesse that Peter planting his seat there should be the cause of those filthie sinnes and Sodomies or that the Cleargies lives Papall holinesse and determinations did bring prophanenesse into those states and countries Absit The Apostle saith of the Corinthians after they had received the Gospell that there was such fornication amongst them as was not once named amongst the Gentiles * 1. Cor. 〈◊〉 Must it follow that this is to be imputed to the Christian religion No this makes the offence the greater it doth no way cause it and this is the meaning of Luther and most of the others cited The word of God is compared to light in Scripture * II. Peter 1. 19 the light whereof might declare more to Luther a Preacher abroad then when hee remained darke and lazie in his Cloyster at home And we thinke that Luther might deceive himselfe in this particular for not distinguishing betwixt an evill and the detection thereof The Pharisees hypocrisies were not thought such before CHRISTS time His revealing of them brought them not in Luther espyed more mischeife abroad when he veiwed mens actions by the light of the word then he could before by a Roman Gloworme and this might make him thinke the world worse when his eyes had more light and his medium was more cleare When Grace entereth into a mans heart hee trembles at every thought of uncleanenesse that before the receipt thereof in regard of blindnesse could not see the odiousnesse of the filthiest crimes And man as he cannot esteeme vertue but by this light of grace so hee cannot apprehend the foulenesse of sinne So that Luther might get fruite by his preaching though he was bold to say of some that pretended to follow him They are and remaine swyne they beleive like swyne and like swyne they dye Reply pag. 73 But doth M. Malone urge this for the credite of the Swyneheard or the Swyne For the harlet or her lovers Poore Luther because the Swyne that Rome had bred in filthinesse would not leave their swynish condition for his preaching against their swynishnesse this is the thing hee bewayles And what great hurt comes thereby to Luthers cause or the cause of Religion whose complaints may be paralelled by the Prophets * 〈◊〉 49 4. and Apostles themselves And heere to satisfie the Reader I would have him to observe some things fit to bee taken notice of and it will over-throw all
reason was not because it was condemned by the Roman Bishop or his Roman Church but because out of the sacred Scripture by a lawfull Councell * Concil Nicen of the Catholick Church it was detected as erroneous and false But whilst our Adversaries doe not acknowledge any such superiour Church what wonder saith the Iesuite that they live forlorne consumed and confounded with â—dious discord and debate amongst themselves deprived of all true faith forasmuch as they refuse to listen unto her by whom God hath decreed all faith should be delivered unto his people throughout the world x Reply pag. 81. This is but fuming froth We acknowledge a Catholick Church as superiour to all particular Churches in the world But wee say your Roman is so farre from being it that it gaines well if it appeare a true member thereof when it comes to be examined What is there no God but at Dan and Bethel Must your Calves measure true worship or your Excommunicating the Levites make the Catholick to be no Church It is not your censuring of all others for Heretickes that can exempt you from being Schismatickes any more then the Donatists which did the like Being then aliens from this Church wherein no where else the right Christian faith is certaine to be found they must not wonder saith the Iesuite that we should thus bewayle them as perished and lost y Reply pag. â—â— For your bewayling us as perished and lost it is but a fetch of your Hypocrisie I could wish your teares if you shed any were bestowed upon your selves who need them We 〈◊〉 know the temper of your teares too well How bewayled you the French Massacre the Butchery of Princes but with teares of blood with groanes of applause z See the Oration of Pope Sixtus the fift upon the death of the French King Henry the third The places which you brought out of the Fathers against Schismatickes doe most properly point out your selves and therefore ill chosen to discredit us Take then your owne charge unto your selves who justly deserve it for howsoever you glory as if you onely had the Church of CHRIST which we doe not it will not therefore follow that you belong unto his consecration in regard you are separated from the body of CHRIST keeping neither Communion nor Unity with the whole being sequestred by your selves doe censure all that will not forsake the libertie of CHRIST and hold from you in villany and Vassalage Whereas the Iesuite thinketh to despise the Answerers Church by his frames of folly and falshood tearming it â— Church lurking in a corner of the earth obscure and in glorious that can neither obtaine friendship with any abroad nor yet maintaine agreement in itself at home a Reply pag. 8. Wee know the true Church many times doth lurke when the where sits as Queene and knowes no sorrow * Rev. 18. 2. Yet it is not so obscure but it hath enlightned the world that it can despise your outward glory and deride your lyes in Hypocrisie your tales of Hobgoblins your deceit from Purgatory your holinesse for gaine and new declarative doctrines Secondly we hold peace with the Catholick Church as hath beene manifested when you have and doe really excommunicate it And in fundamentalls both with them and amongst our selves wee are faithfully knit together although there be some differences in matters of nâ— absolute consequence which the purest Churches have been ever subject unto when you are not agreed who is onely able to teach uncontroulâ—ably an infallible point of doctrine whether a Councell or the Pope b Francise â—icus Theorem 16. Fuere qui diâ—erent Concilium in â—ausa fidei praeesse Pontifici fuêre qui Pontificem Concilio praeponerent alia etiam quaestio utrum sine Pontifice utrum â—o â—efragante convocari colligique possit Bellarm l. 2. de Conciliâ— cap. 13. § Sed dum Vsque ad hunc diem quaestio superest When your Church is so farre from holding freindship with other Churchâ—â— that it malitiously sets it selfe against the whole raiâ—ing warres and tumults against the true members thereof as lately against the Greekes and eveâ— against that part of the Latin Church that refused her command as the Monkes of Bangor the Waldenses c. can well witnesse And although you are continually speaking of dissentions yet the best judgments wisest eyes that our ages have afforded have found your peace to be but the outward effect of Policy not naturall from truth but forced from your bloody laweâ— and cruellest Inquisition What is further urged against Schismatickes out of the Fathers we assent unto Which the Iesuite well know and therefore telleth us I know our Answerer here will say that these heavy threats admonitions and exhortations of the ancient Fathers doe make nothing against him at all forasmuch as hee pretendeth himselfe to bee within the true Church alreadie c Reply pag â—5 Here wee may perceive the Iesuite hath taken a great deale of paines to little purpose For whereas hee should have proved us to have beene schismatickes before hee had given sentence against us hee as it seemes according to the practise of their Inquisition with Hallyfax-law condemneth first and enquires for the Schismatick afterward and so poorely that a Iurie of morall honest Papistâ— rightly informed would finde an Ignoramus upon his bill for he bringeth us no proofe but repeates what hee hath formerly done But howsoever saith the Iesuite hee is able with this â—ond conceipt to sâ—oth up and quiet his owne Conscience â— doubt not but otherâ— many wil be found who taking more tâ—â—eart the businesse of their salvation will ponder advisedly what Church the holy Fathers above produced doe point at and whether they declare it not plaine enough to bee the Roman Church embracing in her holy Communion all Christian Churches of the earth out of which our Adversaries are confessedly departed and have erected to themselves a new Congregation so farre unlike unto that Vniversâ—ll and Apostolicall Church designed by the Fathers that neither in other Nationâ— doth she find any other Churches to joyne in one sincere Communion with her nor yet is able to maintaine agreement amongst her owne at home it selfe as above hath beene abundantly declared d Reply pag â—â— Wee have shewed in answere to that which the Iesuite hath formerly produced that the Fathers never thought the Romane Church to be the Catholicke nor dreamed of necessary Communion with her any further then she communicated with the Catholicke Church teaching that Truth which was first delivered by the Apostles And that we have left your Romane schisme it is just as before is declared in regard you have gone out of the Catholicke Church and corrupted and depraved the Catholicke Faith The repetition of Lutheran and Puritan accusations might have beene spared seeing they have beene urged and answered before where the Reader may see not onely the Pope and
agree with us in any why dâ—â— you beleive one God three 〈◊〉 Christs incarnation crucifixion resurrection and his last comming to Iudgment c. Such as accord therewith in none at all are not heretickes or schismatickes but 〈◊〉 Atheists and Infidels and who 〈◊〉 not but every gâ—pe of the Iesuite is ad oppositum and crosse to himselfe And here wee shall see to what shifts this Iesuite flyes for shelter the question is whether wee agree with the ancient Fathers in points of Religion the Iesuite answeres sometimes in very few an other time in none at all here to justifie this lashing Hyperâ—ole he tells us That howsoever some few points might be assigned in the outward profession whereof you will say you doe not vary from the common faith of Primitive times yet whilst we can shew that in very many points you beleive contrary thereunto and that with all you hold not with the Church Vniversall but have departed from the same we may not yeeld unto you that your inward faith can bee true and sound in any one article whatsoever notwithstanding that from the teeth outward you make professioÌ„ of this your imaginary agreemeÌ„t never somuch g Reply pag. 9â— All which is sliding and beside the point for we speake here of doctrine as in truth of position it doth agree with the ancient Church and not as it respects the act of beleife in the sincere receiving and imbracing of it Suppose we have with us as great a dearth of Saints as you at Rome that Protestants were as bad as 〈◊〉 Popes h Geneb 〈◊〉 in ann Christi 901. Pontificâ—â— circiter â—0 à virtute majorum prorsus defecâ—runt Apotactici Apostaticive potius quà m Apostolici yet notwithstanding this will not make the Apostles Creed to be no ancient faith neither the ancient doctrin which we hold to be hereticall Who doubts that the denyall of one point of the foundation perversly or expresly atleast makes the beleife of all the rest uneffectuall but what will the Iesuite inferre from hence that therefore we have not in the confession of our Church one point of Religion that agreeth with antiquitie We might as well argue that Arius Nestorius a Iesuite had no true and sound inward faith therefore they agreed in no particular doctrines with the ancient Church Or would this consequent found well Many of your Popes have had no true inward faith being such monsters as you have painted them therfore they agreed in no point of faith with the Primitive Church if this conclude well what will become of Papists who are only Catholickes by dependance whose faithes are judged by their adherence to their Head The Iesuit now runs to another shift that of calumnie charging us that we make profession of the ancient faith with an imaginary agreement from the teeth outward i Reply pag. 90 I must confesse we are not so zealous for that doctrin the ancient Church hath taught us the rooting out of your innovations as we ought to be pardon us this but whether you or we embrace the faith of Christ practised and taught in the ancient Church with more sincerity it is not here to be judged but must be left to him that knoweth the secrets of hearts And now we may see how impertinent the Iesuites allegations are Augustin saith that Schismaticks separated from the body of the Church are not in the Church that hereticks schismaticks cannot be profâ—â—â— by the truth they hold with the Church being in their heresie schismâ— that those that keep not communion with the Church are hereticall antichristian according to Prosper k Reply pag. 90 Who denyes this wherin makes it against us If we acknowledge things in controversie that Rome were the Church our selves schismaticks heretiks it were somthing yet nothing to this purpose neither of strength sufficient to prove that we agree not with the ancient Church in any doctrin of faith or point of religion as he should here manifest so that we see his ouâ—facing cannot protect his impudency but that he speakes vainely in charging us that we agree with the primitive Church in very few articles of Religion and just none at all And here Augustine and Prospers wordes are their cut-throats who not only reject coÌ„munion with the Catholick Church but judge that Catholick body to be a schisme and hereticall because it will not joyne in communion with themselves if Augustines and Prospers words may convict a Pope they have force in them sufficient to performe it for though he hold all the doctrine of the primitive church in shew yet fayling in the point of the Church denying the authority thereof and preferring his simple power before the 〈◊〉 authoritie of all the preists of God against the streame of antiquity and the two 〈◊〉 generall Councels of Constance Basill Is it not sufficient to bring him within your capitall letters that his holines and others of like sanctity ARE NOT IN THE CATHOLICKE CHVRCH AT ALL. And thus you see that the Iesuite doth both deceive himselfe others when he would perswade that upon paine of eternall overthrow all mustadhere to the Pope who indeed is taken by them for the ancient Roman Catholick Church And also that the doctrine of the Church of Ireland is sincere and agreeable to the foundation neither by heresie forsaking the doctrine delivered by Christ his Apostles imbraced by the ancieÌ„t Church neither by schisme departing from the body of Christ making their faith uneffectuall But that rule of faith saith the most reverend Primate so much coÌ„mended by Irenaeus Tertullian the rest of the Fathers all the articles of the severall Cteedes that were ever received in the ancient Church as badges of the catholick profession to which we willingly subscribe is with this man almost nothing at all none must now be counted a catholick but he that can conforme his beleife unto the Creed of the new fashion compiled by Pope Pius the 4. some foure fifty yeares agoe l See the moâ—â— reverend the Lord Primate his Answere 〈◊〉 the Iesuitâ— challenge pag. 25. The Iesuit tels us that he hath already made it knowne how far we have strayed from that rule of faith m Reply pag. 91 and we tell him againe that he is deceived in the wanderer and that we have manifested it also and that we doe willinglie subscribe unto all the articles of the severall Creedes that were ever received in the auncient Church although the Iugler †Iesuita est omnis home is jealous we intend nothing lesse then what we say n Reply pag. 91 But it is Iesuitisme to remoove the tongue from the heart equivocating you defend we abhorre it why doe you suspect us but upon a sudden the Iesuite flying from this calumnie without one word to justifie it but his detraction or Iealousie is rapt up with admiration shall
he say of the ignorance or the folly of the Answerer when he upbraides him with a Creed of the new fashion compised by Pope 〈◊〉 the fourth o Reply pag. 91 Nullus sapienâ— admiratur M â— Malone and therfore take the foole with you And howsoever you thinke to defend Pins the fourth by the Practice of the Nicene Councell it will give you no shelter they did you say expresse and declare the ancient faith in a new fashion and forme of words p Reply ibid. So did Athanasius so others but this is not the thingâ— for which you are accused but it is for an Appendix of twelve new points many of which were never accounted of faith till Pius the fourth his time and therefore your ground from which you perswade us to embrace it is unsound viz â— that it was compiled after the like manner without any alteration or innovation of the auncient faith aâ— all q Reply pag. 92 The ancient faith was so necessary to be believed that Athanafius tells us Whosoever wil bee saved it is necessary that he hold the Catholicke faith but your Creed is propounded onely to schollars and cheifely to such as are to receive promotions unto Scholasticall or Ecclesiasticall dignities r Reply pag. 91. Secondly the Apostle S. Iude tells us that the Faith Catholicke was once delivered but all your Trent articles are not so but brought in in after-times by the authority and definition of your Church as Transubstantiation Å¿ 〈◊〉 4. disâ— 11. q. 3. 〈◊〉 in Can. 〈◊〉 â—ect 41. Thirdly in the unitie of the Catholicke faith layde downe t Irenaeus â— 1. â— 3. 3â— by Irenaeus all the founded Churches in Germany Spaine France the East Egypt Lybia and all the world did sweetly agree but upon many of the new articles in your Creed there have been continuall warres controversies betwixt those that you will acknowledge Catholickes as communicating in one kinde Purgatory Indulgences the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches So that these points must be additions or else the Church lost the unity of Faith for a long time together Fourthly 〈◊〉 Lirinensis u Vincen. Lirinen advers prophan novat Cùm sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat and other Fathers x S. Basil l. de vera pia fid Manifesta defectio fidei est importare quicquam â—orum quae scripta non sunt S. Hilar l. 2. ad Const Aug. fidem tandem secundum ea quae scripta sunt defiderantem hoc qui repudiat Antichristuâ— est qui simulaâ— Anathem a eâ—â— S. August l. 2. de doct Christ c. 9. In ijs quae apertè in scriptura posita sunt inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi and some Schoolemen y Scotuâ— Prolog in Sent. q. 2 Scriptura sufficienter continet doctrinaÌ„ necessariaÌ„ viatori Thom. 2. 2. q. 1. a 10. ad 1. In Doctrina Christi Apostolorum veritas fidei est sufficienter explicita make the Scripture sufficient to â—each all points of faith but many articles of this Creed are confessed by you to be delivered by tradition onely not by Scripture z Coster in compend orthodoxae fidei demonstr 〈◊〉 5. c. 2p 162. so that you see you have vainely sought your defence from the practise of the Nicene Fathers It had been better I thinke Mr Malone that you had taken another kind of defence that you had justified the Pope your Church that they make new Creedes defining verities by the infolded still revelation of GOD which determinations have the force of a certaine divine revelation in respect of us as one of the learnedst of your Fraternity hath said a Suaâ—es â—om 2. p. 93. or with Stapleton that the church may define a point of faith Etiamsi nullo scripturarum aut evidenti aut probabili testimonis confirmaretur although it bee not confirmed with any evident or probable testimony of the Scriptures b Stapleton Râ—lect Cont. 4. q. 1 ar â— or with Lâ—â— the X. in his Bull against Luther that it is heresie to say immanu Ecclesia aut prorsus non esse statuere articles fidei that it is not in the hand of the Church or Pope to make articles of faith c Art 27. not to have run to expressing declaring which the Councell Pope never intended but be it as it will the Iesuite tells us that the Laytie may bee well counted Catholickes though they never so much as heard of it therefore we need not to trouble our selves about so triviall a matter especially they accounting us of the Lay number But after charges of ignorance folly and wrangling the Iesuite accuseth the most milde modest nature of the most â—overend Primate that he sticketh not maliciously to slander Maldonate and others with the crime of Perjurie d Reply pag. 92. c. He that would answere this snarling Iesuite with equall currishnes must speake with his teeth and not with his tongue But passingby his language I will consider how impudently he chargeth that with slander the truth wherof he cannot cast off with all his shifts Their Trent Creede is Neither will I ever receive or expound it vizâ— the Scripture but according to the uniforme consent of Fathers e Bulla Pij IV. p. 478. Nec eam unquam nisi juxta unanimem consensum Patrum accipiam interpretabor Now to defend Maldonate and Pererius two of his brotherhood for not practising according to faith he first reviles after his accustomed manner the most reverend Primate Secondly he denyes that Maldonatâ— ever tooke his â—ath Thirdly he expounds the article of faith for the saving of the Iesuites credite f See the Iesuites Reply pag. 9â— First for his reviling let Rabshekah rayle for Maldonats oath he tels us that the most reverend Primate cannot tell whether Maldonate tooke the oath or not gives two reasons one in the Text because he supposeth he never did the other in the margent For he lived wrote in Paris where the Tridentine Councell is not received g Reply pag. 92 A Iesuite must beleive for the Popes advantage why should wee thinke his suppositions should prejudge his cause he that must beleive white blacke if the Church injoyne it h 〈◊〉 p. 247. can suppose any thing The other reason is as vaine might as well have been spared in the margent as in the text for though the Church of France receive not the Councell of Trent yet is there any Iesuite in France that doth not subscribe unto it to submit in any other maner then the Pope prescribes is not obedience but rebellion Besides this being made a part of the Papall Creed he cannot deny his Baptisme in that faith if their faith be as auncient as the Iesuite which is not done without a vow or oath But if
in resisting you making those articles of faith which were never of universall beleife in the Christian world But to whom doth hee tell these tales if to those of his owne profession it is idle and needlesse if to us it is most â—â—â—rue for saith hee it is well knowne that with us they bee cerâ—â—inely accounted cheife articles of faith being all of them declared for such by the sacred and infallible â—â—thâ—â—itie of the Church h Reply ibid. It is neither â—eedelesse for his owne nor untrue being delivered to your selves For the most reverend Father knowes it is his dutie dayly to perswade against faith-intrusions for the preservation of his owne neither can your Arguments make it untrue for are all things you accompt or the Trent Câ—â—ncell hath determined of so necessarie light that everie man must beleeve them You may perswade this in Peru or Mexico but your neighbours the Vâ—â—etians will not beleive you that dwell nearer home neither have all your Catholicke Children such opinion of that Councell as to receive it Now our Iesuite would have them of faith from our confession Neither can our Advâ—rsaries themselves saith hee deny that they appertaine to the substance of Faith and Religion sâ—â—ing that they condemne them for heresiâ— in us i Reply pag. 93. Heere the Iesuite will not have an Heresie to bee but in point of faith that the denyall thereof might exclude us from salvation if this be the rule by which the Iesuite will try Heresies I thinke these will not proove of that stampe in our opinions For first we deny not salvation to those which by ignorance communicate with them that imbrace these grosse follies Secondly we say not that they belong to any article of the Apostles faith but are additions that had nothing to glue them to the Creed but Babylonish Clement We take them for grosse corruptions but to make them errours in fundamentall points our Church hath not I thinke declared it Heresies of deeper errour and more elavated pride then are found in this Catalogue proclaime themselves among you those peâ—ces declare noâ— your greatest defection Who abhorres not your tyrannicall Hildebrandine insurrection whereby you trample upon Gods power the authority delegated to Kings and Bishops and the whole Preisthood of the Catholicke Church Secondly your Conscience Monarchy whereby you cast Christ out of his chaire and give the Pope Christs infallible office This Constance could not endure and k Sess 2 4 Basill l Sess â—3 thought Heresie never doubted of Who is ignorant that heresies have had their degrees which they could not have had in respect of faith if all did equally totter the foundation Augustine defines an hereticke otherwayes then from the foundation Hee is an Hereticke that for lâ—cre of any temporall commoditie aâ—d especially for his owne vaine-glory and preferments sake as your Courtiers doe doth beget or follow false or new opinions m August in libro de utilieredend caâ—s 2â— quest 3. c Haereticus 〈◊〉 qui alicujus teÌ„poralis commodi maâ—imae gloriae principatusque fui gratia falsos ac â—oâ—as opiniones vel gigniâ— vel sequitur and this may be done in points which are not fundamentall Besides how many are accounted Heretickes in this common course of appellation and yet free from denying the foundation of Faith For wee finde Leo the Xth. in his Bull against Luther * 4 Iâ—â—â—â— 1â—â—â— to style it Heresie for any man to say that the Church or himselfe hath not power statuere â—rticâ—lâ—s fidei to make new articles of faith as also that Luthers assertion was no lesse optima pâ—â—itâ—â—tia novâ— vita new lifâ— was the best repentance and yet I hope the Iesuite will reâ—oove these farre from the foundation And if the Pope may erre in his Buls to call that Heresie which is not fundamentall errour why may not you give leave to others to use the same Libertie seeing hee is the patterne of imitation unlesse you thinke the Pope above Angels and that hee may deliver what he pleaseth and make Heresie what hee list and the Anathema that thereby hee deserves himselfe by his verie pleasure should fall upon others Nay you have gone further De Consecrat dist 5. Cap. â—t jejun that hee will never bee a Christian qui confirmatione Episcopali non fuit Chrismatus Now if a man may bee counted an infidell and unbeleiver by you for omission of the Ceremonie of Confirmation why should you draw from the liberties of mens tongues an Argument that whosoever by you or our selves are styled Heretickes must needes in regard of those points erre in the foundation Doe you not know it often fals out as when you charge us that after the way which is called Heresie so doe many of the faithfull serve the Lord God of their Fathers Shall we condemne to eternall fire Irenaeus Iustine Martyr all the Millenaries and all those which consented to those points which Epiphanius Augustine or Alphâ—â—sus de Castro have styled Heresies it were too rigide a censure and more fit for the Iudges of Hell then the Preists of God So that this proves but a vaine ground to inferre these points to be of faith because they are accompted heresies and if we will observe it we may from his owne words finde that heresies have declared themselves not so much from the matter whether fundamentall or not as from the perverse manner of holding an opinion against any ones conscience being lawfully convicted of the same And therefore our Iesuite will not have them Hereticks that deny tradition Images c. simplie by a bare and naked negation but wilfully and perversly by obstinate denyall Yet will our Answerer say saith the Iesuite that by the Fathers they were held but onely as opinions and not as belonging to the substance of faith and this is but his owne opinion for wheresoever the Fathers doe professe them in their works they never tell him that they hold them for opinions rather then for points of faith Reply pag. 9â— The Iesuite speakes of the Answerers divining but here divines amisse himselfe indeed proves down-right a Deceiver for if the learned Answerer will say that the fathers held them as opinions why should he require the Iesuites proofe for their consent and therefore let him fasten this opinion upon whom he can the most reverend Primate knowes well enough that they neither held them generally as opinions or of faith neither is he so ignorant in antiquity but that he well understands those ancient Souldiers of the Catholicke Church were alwayes ignorant of the after invented marches under Roman Coloâ—â—s so that the Iesuit would perswade the reader by a trick of deceit that 〈◊〉 knowledge the Fathers generall consent in these points as opinions but not as of faith which was never dreamed of by the Church By this it will appeare that they care not by what meanes they establish their decrees nor
praedestinatioâ—is quae quidem sententia in Pelagio damnata est Moreover Baronius hath slandred all the Historiographers of the fourth age with words as uncomely as any the Iesuite hath produced from any of ours charging some with obscuritie others with defect of â—rder diligence pietie truth and some with writing lyes for private affection b Baron Ann 395. n. 43. Licet tot historicis haec aeâ—as abundâsse videatur tamen adhuc iâ—opâ— harum facultâ—â—um remansit in noâ—nullis obscura quod ex his alij res multas brevitate nimia contra â—eâ—int alij intactas penitus reliquerâ—â—t desideretur auâ—â— in alijs ordo in alijs veâ—ò teâ—poâ—â— exactioâ— indagatio pericliâ—enturque alij veritatâ— aâ— pariter â—iâ—tate affectuque privato ducti pro arbâ—triâ— mendacia veris aâ—texuerint And in the point of the immaculatâ— conception although the affirmative point brought more Doctours then will make a consent in the Iesuites judgment yet the negative â—ast them off tell us that they are not tyed to so poore a number of the Fathers c Wadding Legat. de conâ—â—â—â— Virg Mâ—riâ— sect 2 orat 9 §. 6. Totidem scil 15. plures Doctores non ita potestatem Ecclesiâ— coarctent ligent ut si consultum rectum duxerit non possit contra â—os cum alijs dâ—fiâ—â—â—â— neither hath the Church the Fathers but the wisdome of GOD his Spirit for a rule and governour which cannot be deceived d Ibid Neâ— enim parvum Doctoâ—â—m aggâ—rem sed Dei sapientiam spiritum pro regula et rectore veritatis habet sancta haec nostra quae falli non poâ—â—â— Mâ—tâ—â— Ecclesia Further Alphonsus de Castre will beleive Anacletus a Merchant better then either Augustine or Hiâ—româ— Alfons de Castro adver haerverbo Episcop â—uic Anacle to â—oli magis credidâ—riâ— quam â—ille Wicleâ—itis imâ—o magis quam Hiâ—â—â—nymo aut Augustine Yet although they thus censure sometimes justly oft-times unjustly those Auncients I will not conclude against them that they utterly discard their opinions and doctrines Now as their owne affirme that although the writings of the Doctors are to be received with reverence yet they binde us not to beleive them in all their opinions but that we may justly contradict them when they speake against Scripture or truth g Turrecâ—em in cap. sanct Rom dist 15. n. 12. so the Fathers themselves professe the same as I have at large shewed in many places before h See before Sâ—ct 5. And S. Augustine as he could not please himselfe without the Scriptures so he feared to offend others and therefore presupposing as the most learned Answerer hath affirmed that without Scripture no certainty no satisfaction can be had he thus declareth himselfe That which I say brethren if I cannot avouch it as certaine you must not be offended I am but a man and what I am assured by the Scriptures that I dare affirme and of my selfe nothing Hell neither I have yet experience of neither you and perchance there shal be an other way and by heâ—â— it shall not be For these things are altogether uncertaine August in psal 85. Quod diciâ—â—â— fraâ—res hoc si non vobis tanquam certâ—â— exposuero â—e â—uccenseatis â—omo enim sum quaâ—tum conceditur de Scripturis â—anctis tantum aâ—deo dicâ—â—e nihil ex â—e Inâ—eâ—â—â—neâ— ego exper â—us â—um â—dhâ—c nec vos 〈◊〉 alia via erit non per inâ—erâ—um 〈◊〉 Iâ—cerâ—a â—â—nt enim haec So that we see the most learned Answerer his lesson Alledge what authority you list without Scripture and it shall not suffice is both Orthodoxe and ancient also But letting this passe as sufficiently urged already will our Answerer have the Forehead now saith the Iesuite to charge us any more with Novelty k Reply p. 10â— Truth needes not a brasen Forehead but where it is persecuted and then it hath defence little enough to have not onely her Forehead but face of brasse also For how doth the Iesuite out-face brow-beate triumph and tell every Passenger that hee hath beaten her against her nature into a Corner when there is no thing but a raging Sea and watery foame But the great ones of his owne profession teach him saith the Iesuite that the auncient Fathers did maintaine those points we now defend against him and therefore one of them calleth our Religion A patched Coverlet of the Fathers errors sowed together Although then our Religion did consist of errours as Whitaker doth affirme yet may our Answerer blush to call them novelties seeing they be confessedly as olde as the aâ—â—ncient Fathers themselves l Reply p. â—â—â— All this will not suffice to exempt the Iesuite and his party from Novelty For it being admitted by him that their Religion doth consist of errours notwithstanding that we in courtesie should graunt that they lay long lurking among those that were auncient they will yet deserve I doubt not obtaine of all men the title of Nâ—veltie For as I have before declared that is new in Religion which is not most aâ—â—cient Pag. 19â— 194 yet I will wayte upon his repetition a little and shew that if the Iesuite cannot derive his Religion further then from the Fathers the tradition whereupon it is builded is then but humane so a new thing even Novelty it selfe And therefore Tâ—rtullian telleth us That is most true which is most auncient that most auncient which was from the beginning that from the beginning which from the Apostles Teâ—â—â—l l. 4 aâ— Mâ—rc Id veriâ—â— quod â—râ—â—s id priâ—â— quod est ab initio ab initio quod ab Apostoliâ— How convincing an Argument then hath the Iesuite produced for his purpose Will he find a truth in Faith that was not from the beginning If CHRIST was alwayes and before all Truth is a thing equally auncient and from all eternitie saith the same Father Idem de Veland Virgin c. 1. Si â—emper Christus prior omnibuâ—â—què veritas sempiteâ—â—â— antiquâ— res And therefore whatsoever savoureth against the Truth this saith he is heresie though it be of long continâ—ance Ibid. Quodcunque adversâ—â— veâ—itatem sapiâ— hoâ— erit hâ—resis etiâ—â— veâ—us coâ—suâ—â—â—eâ— And although errours which are as auncient as some of the Fathers be not Novelties in the Iesuites judgment yet they are new and herefies also to him that hath received his Commission doctrine from CHRIST for which cause Tertullian adviseth those that measure Novelties as the Iesuite doth Viderint quibus novum est quod sibi vetus est Let them beholde to whome that is new which they apprehâ—nd as auncient q Tertul. loco vlt. cit supposing that present Hereticks many times conclude that for auncient which CHRIST and his Apostles distaste as Novelty Besides if the Iesuite collect aright the Church of Rome hath in many things defined for Noveltie against
antiquitie rejecting sundry points which the major and sounder part of the auncient Fathers did teach in the Church r Wadding legat de Concep Virg. Mariae Sect. 2. orat 9 §. 6. mâ—â— 31. â—lures sunt graviores ij quos supra retuli contra quos cum alijâ— definitum est circa animaâ—uâ— ante diâ—m Iudicij beatitudâ—â—em Plures gra viores contra quos docet ecclesia Aâ—gelos esse spirituales Plures graviores contra quos â—el quibus dubitantibus dâ— varijs libris Scripturis Canonicis â—oâ—umque editionibus plâ—tâ— sunt statuta ab Ecclesia Multi graves sunt quos quidam citant â—t volunt â—â—nsisse ipsissâ—â—am hanc Virginem actualitâ—r peccâ—sse contra quos tamen actualem ejus inâ—oâ—enâ—iam 〈◊〉 â—â—â—dit Ecclesia Aliaque multa sunt hâ—jusmodi And if his confidence in this kinde of reasoning be so strong why doth he after labour to manifest us for Novelists when Bristâ— acknowledgeth That some there have bene in many ages in some points of the Protestants opinions Å¿ Mot. preâ— et Mot. â—â— And Reinerius hath as before Pag. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Margin hath beene shewed derived our doctrine condemned by you in the Leonistâ— from the Apostolicall times Whereas he saith that the most learned Answerer may much more be ashamed to tearâ—e them prophane and Hereticall when he is not able to finde out as I said before saith the Iesuite that either by authoritie of Church Councell or Fathers they have beene condemned for such Reply p. 109 I have answered hereunto before x Pag 99. and but even now told him out of Tertullian that whatsoever savoureth against the Truth is Heresie y Aboue lit p. but if a point as Bellarmine affirmes may be defined usu ecclesiâ— z Bellarm. de Reliq sanct c. 6. 〈◊〉 determinata â—rat usu totius Ecclesiae why may not the precedent Non-use of the Church condemne their intrusion of those points which the Church in her best times never practised And if no points of Religion can be prophane and Hereticall but such as are condemned by authority of Church Councels and Fathers I desire the Iesuite that he would forbeare to style us either Heretickes or prophane untill he can produce one Article of those agreed upon in the Synode held at London in the yeare 1562. concerning which he and all his Complices have beene Challenged †In the Lord Primate his Prefacâ— to the Reader before the Answere to the Iesuites Challengâ— but have given no Answere thereunto that hath beene condemned by authority of Church Councels or Fathers within the first 500. yeares Now the Iesuite vainely conceiting that he hath freed themselves from the imputation of Novelty proceedeth in this manner Let us as heretofore we have often done retort his tearmes upon himselfe and make him swallow downe his throat the shamefull reproach of Novelisme a Reply p. 10â— Here is a Champion in campis Gurgustidonijs Hee tels strange things monsters of his owne labour yet very few I thinke will beleive him But how will he performe this Why by proving that Martin Luther was the first broacher of the Protestants Religion b Reply ibid The Iesuite I suppose knowes that the Apostles were first called Christians at Antioch though the Reformed Churches are mistyled by them after Luther began to Preach But let them prove the Doctrine as new as the name they have given it otherwise they vainely contend Whereas he is further of opinion that this same cannot be more strongly proved then by the open confession of the said Luther himselfe c Reply p. 109. c. To This I Answere that if Luther should speake as the Iesuite beareth us in hand yet this should sway no more with us then Tetzelius did with Luther when he preached for Indulgences But I know not how this Iesuite is turned out of the way for we finde him snarling at a Latine worke formerly set forth by the most reverend Primate but never answered by any Iesuite wherein he hath pointed out a continuall succession of his Church for many ages before Luther but with such unfortunate event as even his own if we might beleive the Iesuit have judged him ridiculous herein d Reply ibid. And for what reasons I pray you Because first of all saith the Iesuite he tooke upon himselfe a taske impossible to be performed when he went about to search and to finde out his Church in those times wherein by the confâ—ssion of his owne learned Fathers and Brâ—thren it was invisible and not able to be sâ—â—nâ— Reply p. 1â—â— This wil be be tryed in the examination when the Iesuite will entreate one of his Brethren to examine the same and answere it In the meane time he chargeth us falsly to hold the Church absolutely invisible For if the Church be considered as containing all of all ages that beleeved the truth this wee say is not totally visible the greatest part being in Heaven If wee take the Church for those which are sinâ—â—re in their profession and are true members of CHRIST 2. Tim. 2. 19. Then we say that an humane eye cannot behold any member thereof but by probability and conjecture If foâ— the people that professe and the Pastors that teach the faith of CHRIST in severall ages this we say was never totally invisible but was knowne to them that professed the same though to persecutors that contemned the faith 2. Cor. 4. 3. or sought to oppresse it Rev. 12. 14. it might many times be hidd So that all the places brought by the Iesuit may be answered by that which hath bin said for some speak coÌ„paratively in regard of the outward glory of the Roâ—an Synagogue some in regard of precedent times some in regard of the world that persecuted them But doth the Iesuite conjecture that the most reverâ—â—d Primate thought by that booke to declare the Church in her succession as outwardly visible and glorious as Râ—me This was not his inâ—ent but to declare that there were many that professed the truth of CHRIST in all ages though under persecution in the succession of the Babylonish tyrannie And this the Iesuit might have observed if he had read the same for by the place of Ambrose in the Title-page we may conceive that his intention was to shew that though the Church be in condition many times like the Mâ—â—ne at full decreasing increasing yet it euer doth remaine a Church and such a one whose motions may be discerned and described f Ambros Hâ—xâ—â—â—er l. 4. c. â— Ecclesia vide tuâ— sicut Luna dâ—ficere sed noâ— dâ—ficit obâ—â—â—â—ari poâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secoâ—dly saith the Iesuite he bringeth in for Pillarâ— of his successive Church Waldo Wicklife and Husse g Reply p. 110. Here is sufficient to shew that the Iesuite doth not care what he saith nor feareth to censure things that he never saw For it is câ—â—are
f Epistol Concil Aphricam ad Papam Caelestinum Executores etiam clericos vestros quibusque petentibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concedere ne fumosum typhum seculi in Ecclesiam Christi videamur inducere ambition by others g Hieron Epist 57. A Pastore praesidium ovis flagito facessaâ— invidia Romani culminis recedat ambitio their pride being hated their motions contemned And Leâ— was no more to be excused then some of his Predecessors in these particulars seeing he rejected the Catholick Church a Councell of 〈◊〉 and â—â—â— Bishops because they would make another Patrâ—arcke equall with him h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Concil Chalcedonenâ—â— Occumenicum sive Vniversale IV. approbat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—â—centi Triginta Episcopâ— Id vero quod instigante Anatolio Constantinopolitaâ—â— Antistite ambiciose absentibus possea contradicentibus segatis de primatur 〈◊〉 Constantinopolitanae contra decreta 〈…〉 dem secundum 〈…〉 quam S. Leo Rom. â—ex plane in probavit cassa vit atque irritum reddidiâ—â—â— â—eply pag. 66. Bellarm. de sacram conâ—â—â— l. 2. c. x. Epistolae 〈…〉 apud nonnullos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ve 〈◊〉 supposititiâ—◠〈◊〉 Non sit certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quorum nomina praeserunti So that if you have no better argument then Leo his appetite to magnify Rome and to free it from spots it is but a poore and tender 〈◊〉 For we deny not Christs care of Peter neither his prayer for Peter but that all were fortified in Peter any otherwise then by example the Iesuite must proove by better grounds then hee 〈◊〉 produceth or else hee is not halfe way at his journeyes end The next witnesse is the good counterfeit Eusebius from whose plaine dealing he beginnes his triumph Could any 〈◊〉 speake more plainely for us concerning the ever during 〈◊〉 of the Catholicke Roman Church â— There is no reasoÌ„ any should for if your forgtâ— y ◠〈◊〉 you who will expect truth to pleade your causeâ— But the Iesuite tells us that S. Cyprian affordeth 〈◊〉 like testimony for that speaking of certaine Hereticks of 〈◊〉 They are bold saith he to 〈◊〉 even to the chaire of Peter and to the principall Church from whence Preistly Vnitie draweth its originall neither doe they consider how they are those Romans whose faith is commended by the Apostle and to whom persidiousnes cannot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 k Reply pag â—â— But he fayles for first hee speaketh not of the same thing 〈◊〉 in Cyprian having relation to matter of fact in discipline not doctrine Secondly if Cyprian should speake in the Iesuites sense here surely he speaketh non-sense in his bitter charges against Stephen Cornelius his Successor who received these schismaticks whose 〈◊〉 in former Popes times could not have accesse thither l Cyprian epist ad 〈◊〉 Thirdly Cyprian speakes elegantly in this place as a Rhetoritian not positively but perswasively at the Roman Souldiers and the Spanish Navye were stiled invincible not because they were truly as they were stiled but that by a superlative and excessive praise their carriage valour might be lifted up and encreased and you call your Popes generally blessed not because they are but because they should be so For his other Citation out of Cyprian The spouse of Christ cannot be defiled she is unspotted and chast m Reply pag. 67 We acknowledge as that Father saith that the spouse of Christ is uncorrupt and chast but this prooves not the Romane Church free from Heresies neither that the same which you call Peters Church shall in her succession enjoy that priviledge And what the Ancient meant when they tearmed the Church uncorrupt I told you before and the same Father shall tell you againe that it is so stiled in relation to what it shal be not what actually it is August cont Pelag. de nâ—â— gra cap. 63. Hoc agitur â—tique nunc in haec seculo ut ad â—stam quam omnes sancti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 puritatem Ecclesia sancta pervenina quae in 〈◊〉 seculo neque aliquo malorum hominum sibi permixto neque aliqua in se lâ—go 〈◊〉 resistente legi mentis dicut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vitam in 〈◊〉 divinâ— The next testimony is the learned Priest S. Hierome but what saith this their supposed Cardinall surely he is not so full mouthed as the counterfeit Popes In his Epistle to Damasus thus he writeth Apud vos solos incorruptâ— Patrum servatur haereditus With you onely is the inheritance of the Fathers kept without corruption Reply pag. 6â— Which we beleive for which of ours taints the Roman Church as an hereticall Assembly in Damasus his dayes yet when hee was dead your owne witnesse stiles Rome BABYLON the PURPLE HARLOT the Bishop and Cleargie the Pharisâ—icall Senate p Hieron ad Paulinum in lib. Didymi de Spiritu Sancto Praefat. Cùm iâ— BABYLONE versarer PVRPVRATAE MERETRICIS essem colonus volui aliquid garrire de Spiritu sancto coeptum opusculum ejusdâ—urbis Pontifici dedicate Et ecce Pharisaeorum conclamavit Senatus nullus scriba vel doctus sed omnis quasi sibi indicto praelio DoctrinaruÌ„ adversus me imperitiae factio conjuravit Damasus qui me ad hoc opuspiluâ— impulerat jam dormit 〈◊〉 Christo But to what purpose doth the Iesuite urge the latter sentence Know that the Romane faith commended by the mouth of the Apostle cannot be deceived yea though an Angel should teach otherwise then hath already beene preached yet caâ— it not be changed being defended by the authority of the Apostle S. Paul q Reply pag. 67. Here we see it is Paul that defends the Romane saith not Peter And how doth Paul performe this but by his Epistle his doctrine Now if Pauls Doctrine can defend the faith that it cannot be changed what wil the Prophets and Apostles doe altogether This is a testimony for the Scriptures not for the Pope Paul anathematizeth * â—al 1. 8. 9. all whose doctrine sounds against that delivered by himself though Peter or his Vicar should define it Vincent Lirinen div prof Novatiâ—â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioannes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnis Apostolorum 〈…〉 but you will â—â—ve no heretickes or heresie before the definition of your Pope no not Arianisme it selfe Reply pag. 10â— 103. 104. Yet if Paul befriend you you are very ungratefull that in your solemne sermons in â—â—ly have censured S. Paul for a â—ote headed person who was so transported with his pangs of zeale and eagernesse beyond all compasse in most of his disputes That there was no great reckoning to bee made of his assertions yea he was dangerous to read â—◠〈◊〉 of â—â—resie in some places and bettâ—â— perhaps he had never written t S. Edwind Sâ—â—ds his relation of the state of Religion in the Westeâ—â— parts of the woâ—â—â— Pacianus bringeth up the reare who in his first Epistle to the Hereticke Symproâ—â—â—â— saith the Iesuite speaking of the Catholicke Church hath these words When as after the Apostles divers
Heresies did arise and with different names did end avour to teare in peices and devide Christ his dove and his queene or spouse was it not reason that the true Apostolicall Church should be called by her syrname of Catholicke thereby to discerne and distinguish her incorrupted unitie least that Vnspotted Virgin by other mens errors and mistaking might be devided u Reply pag. 6â— c. What have we here for the unspotted Roman Church Here is nothing to exempt her from present staines or after pollutions That there was a Catholicke Church and not â—espotted with the impurities of the auncient Herâ—ticks who doth deny yet this doth not prove Augustine over-shot in his retractation or the Iesuite justified in â—â—â— tearme Now as if hee had performed what he made us expect â—e swels Might not a man now bee bold to bee tryed by the judgment of our Answerers owne conscience whether hee had any reason to except against me for tearming the 〈◊〉 Catholicke Roman Church unspotted x Reply pag. â—â— And indiscreet man may be bould in an arme of flesh a â—eed of Egypt a broken tooth but vainely and to his losse The most learned Answerers Conscience may for any thing you have said commiserate your confidence not justifie it unlesse you would have him to be convicted with forged words and bare names When as I have saith the Iesuite this generall warrant from the holy Fathers and Doctours of this Primitive times for the same y Reply pag. 67 The most learned Answerer by excepting at your unspotted Church did not charge the â—niversall built upon the rocke confessed by Peter with desperate Heresie Particular members and Churches which have outwardly professed Christ have fallen into Heresie so may Rome z Frauciscus Picus Theo. 13 Iuxta Theoso gorumquotuâ—dam Iuris Interpretum aliquorum dogmata fieri possetut Romana Ecclesia quae particularis Ecclesia est contra universalem distincta infide aberraret but that the Catholick Church should forsake the foundation of faith this he well knew would crosse Christs promise and make the gates of Hell prevaile against his Church It would then be no rock upon which the Church was builded but the sand subject to wind weather The Iesuite in his Challenge did not stile the auncient Catholick Church which he here tearmeth Roman but the primitive Church of Rome unspotted in this sense it is there acknowledged by himselfe that the ancient Roman is by us confessed to be unspotted so that what he hath produced for their Catholick exemption from Heresie is nothing to his purpose But he proceedes in his Oratory The which being maturely pondered of thee Christian Reader thou mayest easily perceive how farre unlike our Answeters Church is unto that of the primitive confessed best times notwithstanding that he seemeth to claime so great affinitie therewith But wherein is this dissimilitude unliâ—enes In regard the Roman Church being head of all other Churches in earth c. thereupon rightly called the Vniversall or Catholick Church c is blessed with the prerogative of an inâ—incible perpetuity of an unspotted faith c. But our Adversaries Church saith the Iesuit forasmuch as by them it is confessed to want this infallible rule of faith to be lyable to error cannot with reason challenge unto it self the name of an unspotted Church therefore is rightly concluded to have no affiâ—ity or aliance with the true ancient catholick Church at al a Reply pag. 67 and 68. In answer to this we have told the Iesuit truly that the Roman Church is so far from being the head over all other churches that for all the Iesuits proofs if it were utterly destroyed the Catholick Church would not faile 2ly that in no sense the Roman Church can be truly called Catholick or Vniversall And here Godwilling I will shew that no Church in the world hath beene more besmeared with spots staines even of misbeliefe then the Roman in her successioÌ„ And if an heretical Pope can bespot the primitive church of Rome with heresy which indeed we beleive not though Papists must not deny the same it will appeare that the Primitive Church of Rome was not blessed with the Prerogative of an invincible perpetuity of unspotted faith And first if we believe their owne Rhenanus Pope Zephsrinus was defiled with spots of misbeleife Montanizing which is warranted by Tertullians testimony that was well acquainted with the Favourers of Montanus b Bellarm. de Rom Pont. l. 4. c. 8. Zepherinus Victoris successor videtur haeresim Montani approbasse Scribit enim Tertullianus in libro contra Praxeam Romanum Pontificem agnoscentem prophetias Montani ex eâ agnitione pacem Ecclesijs Asiae Phrygiae inferentem à Praxea fuisse persuasum literas pacis revocare quas jam emiserat Constat autem ex historijâ— to tempore Zepherinum fuisse Romae Pontificem Quare Rhenanus in annotationibus ad Tertâ—llianum ponit hoc loco in margine Episcopus Romanus Montanizat Neque dici potest eo tempore nondum fuisse damnatam ab Ecclesia haeresim Montani Nam ut ibidem Tertullianus dicit Praâ—eas persuasit Pontifici revocare literas pacis eâ praecipâ—rè ratione quia praedecessores ejus haeresim illam antea damnavissent neither hath Bellarmine any better shift to excuse this Pope then by telling us as if a Montanist knew not a Montanist that faith is not to be given to Tertullian c Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 8. Respondeo non esse omnino fidem habendam Tertulliano in hac parte quandoquidem ipse Montanista erat Some hundred yeares after we finde an other bespotted Pope Marcellinus acknowledged for an Idolater by Câ—sterus d Costerus Enchirid. c. 3. p. 137. Fatemur siquidem 〈◊〉 posse ut Petri successor Idola eolat quod beatum Marcellinum fecisse aiunt Bellarmine e Bellarm recognit l. de 〈◊〉 Pont. p. 20. Concessimus S. Marcellinum Idolâ—â— sacriâ—â—casse and reported by a Councell of their friends making Sinâ—essa f Concil Sinuessanum Ecce introierunt testes 14. qui dicebant se Marcellinum vidisse in temple Veâ—ta 〈◊〉 thuâ—ificantem Ibid. In sinu autem trecenrorum Episcoporum caputeinere convolutum Marcellinus Episcopus urbis Romae voce clarâ 〈◊〉 dicebat Peccavi coram vobis non possum in ordine sacerdotum esse quoniam 〈◊〉 me corrupit auro Subscripserunt autem in ejus damnationem damnaverunt â—â—â— exâ—â—â— civitatem by Pope Nicholas the first g Nicholaus â— ad Michael Imperator Epist â— Tempore Dioclesiam Maximiani Augustorum Marcellinus Episcopus urbiâ— Romae adeo 〈◊〉 est à Paganis ut in tempâ—â—â— eorum ingressus grana thuris super 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cujus nei gratia collecto numerosorum Concilio Episcoporum inquisitione facta hoc se idem Pontifex egisse confessus est Platina h Platina de vita
that building which the Iesuite hopes to erect by his collected Invectives First that the learned Divines in generall in reformed Churches by the auncient Fathers exampleâ— doe from their heart detest the pollutions and corruptions of the world insomuch that they cannot treate of them but with detestation denying all honour to them though their owne by communion that live not after the puritie of the doctrine of their profession which wee cannot finde among the Papisâ—es they commending sinne Baron aâ— 1100. n. 14. De 〈◊〉 â—â—liâ— Imperatoris Quis negare poterit summum fuisse hoc pietatis genus in hoc se exhibuisse crudelem Immo ex â—â— quod non firmioribus vinculis strinxerit c. nihil habes in quo damnes filiâ—â— magis quam si vehementi febre phrenetico delirenti infanienti furentique pius fiâ—â—â—s inâ—iciat vincula patri â—verè intuitu pietatis ut facere prae se tulit ea omnia praestitit collerating uncleanenesse x Espencâ—â—us in Epast ad Titum c. 1. p. 67. Prostat in quaestu pro meretrice sedet liber palam ac publicê hic impressus hodicque ut olim venalis Taxa Camorae seu Canceilariae Apostolicae inscriptus in quo plus scelerum diseas licet quam in omnibus omnium vitiorum summistis et summarijs et plurimis quidem licentiâ— omnibus autem absolutio â—â—pturientibus proposita protecting abominable wretches as lately in the Venetian State y Historia Interdicti Vencti lib 1. p. 7 8. â— Reply p. 74 and if any hath either declaimed against or abhorred the base lives of their Clergie which is but seldome they have beene suspected as no good Catholickes for the same Againe wee by his testimonies may see that Reformed Churches by doctrine or connivencie doe not tollerate those evills which they declaime against as the Papistes doe whereby it can cast no impeachment upon their doctrine Thirdly the cause of these evills is declared by Iacobus Andrâ—â— to bee because the severe discipline of the Church hath beene formerly disgraced by Conscience-tyrannie and oppression in the Romane Churchâ— so that there is no correction of sinne but the People feare a Papall tyrannie Fourthly the Iesuite hath taken advantage of some points in controversie betwixt those that they stile Lutherans and Calvinists making use of eithers passions to disgrace the good life and sincerity of both Now for his charge of Atheisme I feare we have cause to suspect there are some amongst us I meane in our Kingdomes All doe not beleive the Gospell and the Ministers of Sathan have their worke heerein But that which the Iesuite would lay to our charge may bee seene in every corner of Italy We have not nourished one Machiavel that the Iesuite can produce nor one Iohn that denyed the immortalitie of the soule He hath not espyed one amongst us that hath called the Gospell Fabulam de Christâ— Yet if there be any such as from the loose conversation of some may bee suspected I am sure they play their part in secret as the foole in the Psalmist that said in his heart There is no God * Psal 24. 1. These things duely considered and weighed may shew that the Reformation doth more detest and abhorre sinne then give any encouragement unto it Besides wee see that the exclamation against sinne is no argument that sinne is in the budde and flourish but in her ruine and decay So that all the Iesuite can saye from these testimonyes is this that as those pious men assaulted the Kingdome of Anti-Christ by the opposall of such corruptions of Doctrine as did get footing in their schisme of Rome so did they labour afterwardes to extirpate and roote out those fruites of Idolatrie and Superstition wicked life open prophanesse and all kinde of filthy and notorious demeanour But if wee should graunt all to bee true which the Iesuite urgeth hee argueth vainelie in labouring to disgrace the profession of the Gospell because some of their Communion are of dissolute lives For if this Argument were good wee should quickly make Rome the Synagogue of Sathan far from the Church of God For how many have shewed the cheife Pilots in your Church to have beene in many successions the most notorious wicked wretches that ever the earth did beare some of them for saking S. Peters wayes a Pâ—aâ—â—â—a in vit Iohan X Pontifices ipsi à Petri veâ—tigijs discessâ—runt others being monsters and unnaturall b Idem in vita Benedicti 4. Vbi cum ipsis opibus lasciâ—ire coepit Ecclesia Dei versis ejus cuâ—toribus à severitate ad lasâ—iviam peperit nobis tanta licentia peccandi haec portenta à quibus ambitione largitione sanctisâ—ma Petri sedes occupata est potius quam possessâ— Idem in vit Christopher 1. Ponâ—â—fices tanquam monstra quaedam è medio Deus sustulit Idem in vit Sergij III. Vide quaeso quantum isti degeneraverint à majoribus sâ—â—s yea prodigionsly wicked c Geneb Chron l. 4 Nihil mirum si isti Pontifices prodigiosi essent Sylvester the second giving himselfe to the Divell d Platina in vita Sylvestri II. Diabolum secutus curse totum tradiderat and doing him homage Martinus Polon ann 1007. Sylvester II. diabolo homagium fecit ut sibi omnia ad votum succederent Iohn the XIIIth abounded in all wickednes f See before pag. 107. no Catiline Nero or Heliogabalus like unto him so that if he was not a baptised Turk yet he was worse in the judgment of your owne for he died of a wound given him by the Divell in the act of adulterie as your owne report it g Luitprand Tiein l. 6. c. 11. Dum se cum câ—jusdam viri uxâ—â—â— obleâ—â—â—ret in temporibus adeò â— Diabolo est percussus ut intra dierum octâ— spatium â—odem sit vulnere mortuus What was Boniface the seaventh but a Villaine a Church-Robber a Theife a murderer of two Popes as good as Sylla and Cataline I rayle not it is Baronius his Rhetoricke h Baron ann 985. n. 1. Auâ—umerandum potius interfamâ— sos latrones et potentissimos grassâ—tores atque patriae perditores Syllas et Catâ—linas â—oâ—umque similes quos omnes superavit sacrilegus iste turpissima â—ecâ— duorum Pontificum Besides Alexander the VI. what vertues what holinesse did hee shine with I will speake no more of them as having shewed what they were before But for your Cardinals what holinesse was enclosed in their purple habites They were Pride it selfe and acted it yea the most excellent exemplars to paint it by By their Wickednesse horrible schisme was brought into the Church And for the unmeasurable and bottomlesse gulfe of their covetous desire who can by words sufficiently expresse it besides their Simoniacall intercessions to the Pope their selling of their favours for money their most shamefull and damnable â—orruptions the adulteries