Feasts Images are otherwise now used than they were in the beginning I produced likewise Polydore Virgil Erasmus Scotus Agrippa Cassander Gregorie de Valentia in severall points against your new doctrine now let us heare your severall answers to them Touching Ferus he is a Frier say you in your Bookes but not in ours save onely in the Roman Index of forbidden Bookes Touching Polydore he saith as the Knight telleth us and as much as any Heretike can say but it booteth not for his Booke is forbidden Touching Erasmus he is no Authour for us to answer he is branded in the Roman Index Touching Scotus you neither condemne him nor answer him he tells you plainly that Transubstantiation was not received for a point of Faith till the Councell of Lateran above 1200. yeares after Christ but of this passage Ne gry quidem And yet you might have answered with Bellarmine this opinion of his is no way to be allowed or with Gregorie de Valentia for this saying he ought to be corrected As touching Agrippa and Cassander you will not vouchsafe them an answere but reject them inter damnatos authores as men to be cast out of your Synagogue Lastly touching Gregorie de Valentia you sav his authoritie doth make against the Knight why else should he corrupt and mangle it But whether I or you have corrupted it let the Reader judge my words were these The Communion in one kind when it got first footing in the Church minimè constat it doth not appeare saith Greg de Valentia Youto prove my corruption cite the words in this manner When that custome began in some Churches it appeareth not but that there hath been some use of one kind ever from the beginning I shewed before so Valentia and thus you But in truth this is none of Valentia's own period but one of your owne making who cunningly joyne the latter words which follow in Valentia 4. or 5. lines after to the former with a But which is none of Valentia's the former part of the period is notably mangled by you For thus it stands When that custome began in some Churches Augustana Confessio it appeares not as is acknowledged by the Augustane Confession Now in that Confession the words are these The custome of both kindes remained long in the Church neither doth it appeare when or by what Author it was changed so that he plainly speaketh of the Church in general sheweth the corruption here pretended by M. Floyd to be but a cavill viz. That Valentia saith this not of the Church in generall but of some particular Churches Thus either you blot prohibit all Authors that make forus although they be members of your own Church or else you vouch safethem no answer or else you quarrell without any just occasion offred and this wil prove an easie way for the weakest scholar in your Church to answer all that can be produced against your faith and doctrine Now as the Reader hath heard your answer in the generall so let him see your exceptions to the particulars For whereas I said with St. Paul Forbidding of marriage is a doctrine of Devils you answer as if you were angrie with St. Paul that he hath been answered more often than the Knight hath fingers and toes and it seems for that reason you will vouch safe him no answer at all This puts me in minde of the saying of Ludovicus Vives amember of your owne Church who assures us Lud. Vives de Civ Dei l. 13. c. 24. If St. Paul were living in these dayes he would be held either a mad man or an heretike And since you will not resolve me of St. Pauls meaning in that place I will appeale to St. Bernard an Abbot who was restrained from marriage by the law of your Church who speaking of that restraint gives us the true sense and exposition of St. Paul in these words All heresies have an heretike for their founder the Maniches had Manes Bernard in Cant. Serm. 66. the Sabellians had Sabellicus the Arrians had Arrius c. so that we know the Authors of those plagues but by what name will you terme the Author of those that forbid marriage Surely it is not of man or by man and far be it from the spirit-of God but it is foretold by the Apostle St. Paul to be the fraud doctrine of devils But marriage fay you is not a thing evil in it selfe but because it lesse agreeth with the holinesse which is required for the exercise of Priestly function I pray then what thinke you of a concubine Doth companie with her better agree for exercise of your sunction than with a wife Sure I am this is the doctrine of your Church nay more your Pope Siricius would inferre by authoritie of Scripture that martiage is unholy in it selfe for he cites the Text for it They that live in the flesh cannot please God Qui in carne sunt Deoplacere non possunt Now I pray you what difference is there betwixt the ancient heretikes and the members of your Church The Montanists the Tatiani the Eucratitae did not prohibite marriage to all no more than you doe but onely to their perfecti as being a disparagement to their perfect estate or as you interpret not agreeing to the holines of Priesthood Again whereas I proved out of Polydore that the marriage of Priests was not altogether forbidden till the time of Gregorie the 7. that is to say above a thousand yeares after Christ you answer that which Polydore cites is most evidently false as appeareth particularly by a Canon of the first Councell of Nice and the second Councell of Carthage Now if Polydore were mistaken it concernes not me for I cited him truly and he is a member of your Church but the truth is you are much mistaken touching those two Councels Sozom. l. 1. c. 22. For the Councell of Nice saith Sozomen commended Paphnutius judgement and touching this matter of mariage made to decree an all but left it to each mans owne will without any force of necessity And the Councell of Carthage forbiddeth not marriage in Priests but commandeth abstinence from marriage rites for a certaine time as St. Paul doth that they may more freely give themselves to prayer and the offices of their sacred function Which plainly shewes that both Priests were married in those dayes and consequently that those two Councels make flatly against you But Marius say you cannot find the beginning of this prohibition Polydore findeth it and yet both make for the Knights purpose And without doubt they doe for they contradict not one the other Polydore speaketh of publike absolute and reall prohibition Marius of the first condemning it in any Priest and these confessions may well stand together CHAP. VII The summe of his Answer to Sect. 7. 1. That the imputations of ancient Haeresies are false 2. That Succession besides Antiquity importeth continuance and perpetuity
our Saviour and much tending both to the confirmation of the Gospell in generall and that particular miracle of Christ for who would not beleeve that the woman was cured of her bloudy issue by touching the hemme of Christs garment when hee saw an unusuall kind of herbe growing at the foot of that Statua which as soone as it grew up so high as to touch the hemme of the brazen garment received a miraculous vertue from it to cure diseases of every kind notwithstanding all this faire weather Eusebius falleth fowle upon the Originall of this erecting statuaes to the memorie of the dead attributing it to a heathenish rite or custome Neither doth the Knight any way wrong Eusebius in the relation or translation of this passage For certaine it is that the people of God began not first to set up images or erect statuaes The first which wee ever read of was consecrated to Belus the successour of Ninus by the Assyrians who were Paynims and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ethnicus or gentilis signifieth Gentile or Heathen whatsoevr the Iesuit alledgeth out of Thomasius Dictionarie to the contrarie saying Looke in your Dictionarie of Thomas Thomasius whether amongst all the Englishes of Gentilis which are there set downe P. 300. you can find heathenish which I dare say you cannot The Greeke word in Eusebius text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latine gentilis signifieth the same thing to wit belonging to a countrey people stocke or family had the Iesuits and Seminarie Priests at Doway and Rhemes better studied Thomas Thomasius Dictionarie they would not have fraught their English translation of the Bible with so many affected harsh-sounding and uncoth words to English eares as announce archisynagogue azymes commessations depositum didrachme euroclydon exinanited holocaust hosts victimes paraclete pasche resuscitate neophyte superedified and the like Againe though Thomasius render not the word Heathenish yet he rendereth it gentile which is all one and let the Iesuit turne over all his Thomasius and Eliots and Riders and Coopers and Calepines and see whether hee can find any other proper Latine word answering to the English Heathen or heathenish then gentilis or ethnicus a word derived of the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very word used by Eusebius in this place When so often in the holy Scriptures of the old Testament the word gentes occurreth as in the 2 Psal v. 1. the 9. v. 5. and the 10. v. 16. and the 44. v. 2. and the 98. v. 1. and the 135. v. 15. and else-where what can the Iesuit meane by it but Gentile Orat. de obit Theodos regem adoravit non lignum utique quia bic gentilis error est vanit as impiorum or how can he translate it in pure and proper English but heathen or heathenish nations according to the meaning of the holy Ghost in those texts What will hee say to the words of S. Ambrose When Helena read the title upon the Crosse then newly found shee fell downe and worshipped what or whom The King saith that Father to wit Christ there entitled the King of the Iewes not verily the wood for that is a heathenish errour and a vanity of ungodly men Doth not gentilis here signifie prophane Pagan and heathenish therefore the Knights credit is salved in that his translation of Eusebius and the Iesuits credit and cause also lyeth a bleeding For though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke and gentilis in Latine sometimes in good authours signifieth no more then belonging to a countrie or nation Verisimile est quod majores nostri ad gentilis consuetudins similitudinem quà mprimùm accedentes eos qui tanquam servatores illis fuissent apud se honore ad hunc modum afficere consueverunt be it Christian or heathenish yet in this place of Eusebius it cannot be other wayes taken then for heathen for Eusebius a little before saith it is not to be wondered that those who are sprung of the Gentiles or came of heathenish parents and received benefits of our Saviour where he lived did thus unto him adding it is very likely that our ancestours herein followed the custome of the heathen who honoured all such with Statuaes who had been as saviours unto them preserving their lives To the twelfth The Councell of Eliberis is as a thorne in the Iesuits eyes and therefore he hath many plucks at it yet he plucks it not out but pricketh his owne fingerse First he saith it was an obscure Councell Vid suprà verba Agobardi without any certainty of the time when it was held As obscure as he maketh it it is a Councell of reverend antiquity cited by S. Agobardus and approved by him and honourably mentioned by all Writers who impugne idolatrous innovations corruptions in the Church As for the time Baronius and the best Chronologers affirme that it was held in the yeare of our Lord 305. in the time of Marcellus the first and was consequently more ancient then the first most famous Councell at Nice if to this Councell the Iesuit oppose one of Constantinople the other at Rome under Gregory the third and the third at Nice in favour of images we in like manner oppose to those idolatrous and hereticall many Councels of better note condemning image-worship as namely the Councell of Constantinople held in the yeare 754. and another celebrated there in the yeare 814. and a third at Frankford in the yeare 794. and a fourth at Paris under Ludovicus in the yeare 824. together with the book of Charles the great and the Epistle of the English Bishops penned by Alcuinus and mentioned by Houeden in his storie of England and many other tractates of famous writers of England France who professedly impugned and refuted the Decrees of the second Councel at Nice establishing image-worship Yea but saith the Iesuit the Canon of Eliberis shooteth not home to the point in question for it forbiddeth not pictures absolutely in Churches but only painting them on the walls I reply first that the Councell forbiddeth pictures in Churches absolutely the expresse words of the Canon are placuit in ecclesiâ pictur as esse non debere it seemed good to the Councell that pictures should not be in Churches Whereof the 19. Fathers present at that Synod render this reason ne quod collitur in parietibus depingatur lest that which is worshipped should be painted on the walls Secondly I reply if the Councell of Elliberis as the Iesuit granteth forbiddeth any image to be painted on the Church-walls why doe Papists every where in their Churches at this day paint images on the walls Yea but the Iesuit addeth who is best at a dead lift that we are besides the matter in producing the Canon of this Councell against images which was made in honour of them si crederefas est For the Councell saith the Iesuit forbad painting images on
present Binius ibid. in his Annot. on the other side Peter Lombard and Gratian Pet. Lomb. l. 4. Sent. Dist 6. Grat. Can. Mulier de Consecr Dist 4. they have put in their exception nisi necessitate cogente except it be in case of necessitie so that in the absence of the Priest and in case of necessitie women may baptize by the authority of your Church notwithstanding the Councels decree And this is according to Bellarmines confession Although saith he those words of exception nisi necessitate cogente be not found in the Tomes of Councels Bell. de Baptis l. 1. c. 7. yet Peter Lombard and Gratian cite the Canon in that manner And thus by your owne Cardinals profession your Priests have added that exception to the Canon to dispense with women for Administration of the Sacrament which is not found in the Councell Againe the same Councell is razed both by the compiler of the decrees and publisher of the Councels for the Councell saith in the 44. Canon a Clericus nec comam nutriat nec barbam radat Concil Carth. Can 44. Let no Clerke weare long hayre nor shave his Beard The decretals and your late Councels published by Binius have left out the word Radat and have quite altered the sense of the decree and so your Church hath gone directly against the meaning of the Councell in shaving of Priests S. Austin Bishop of Hippo is both purged and falsified in favor of your doctrine First for the purging of him your own men make this declaration b Augustinus nuper Venetiis excusus in quo praeter multorum locorum restitutionem secundum collationem veterum exemplarium curavimus removeri illa omnia quae fideliū mentes haeretic â pravitate possent inficere aut a Catholica orthodoxa fide deviare Praefat Ind. lib. prohibit ad Lectorē Genevae impress an 1629. St. Austin was lately printed at Venice in which Edition as we have restored many places accerding to the ancient Copies so likewise we have taken care to remove all those things which might either infect the mindes of the faithfull with Heresies or cause them to wander from the Catholike faith This publike profession your men have made and accordingly the c In hunc modū est repurgatus ut in libri inscripsione testātur qui editioni praefuerunt Ibid. p. 6. Booke was purged as those who were present at that Edition doe witnesse in the Inscription of the Booke but let us returne to the corrupted Editions in our view St. d De Civitate Dci lib. 22. c. 24. Austin in his 22. booke of the Citie of God and 24. Chapter is cyted by e Bell. de Purg. l. 1. c. 4. Bellarmine for the proofe of Purgatory yet in that Chapter saith f Lud. Vives in lib de Civit. Dei c. 8. Vives in the ancient Manuscript Copies which are at Bruges and Colein those ten or twelve printed lines are not to be found And in the 22. booke and 8. Chapter he tells us there are many additions in that Chapter without question foysted in by such as make practise of depraving Authors of great Authority Touching forgeries and falsifications in particular The humane nature of Christ is destroyed if there be not given it after the manner of other bodies a certaine space wherein it may be contained In your Edition of Paris printed by Sebastian Nivelle An. 1571. this passage is wholly left out This is observed by Dr. Moulin but the Authour so printed I have not seene But when neither adding nor detracting could make good your Transubstantiation Fryer Walden thought it the surest way to forge a whole passage in the name of St. Austin which indeed strongly proves the very name and nature of it The words are these Wald. Tom. 2. de Sacram. c. 83. p. mihi 141. No man ought to doubt when Bread and Wine are consecrated into the substance of Christ so as the sabstance of bread and wine doe not remaine whereas we see many things in the workes of God no lesse marvellous A woman God changeth substantially into a stone as Lots wife and in the small workemanship of man hay and ferne into glasse Neither must we beleeve that the substance of bread and wine remaineth but the bread is turned into the Body of Christ and the wine into his bloud the qualities or accidents of bread and wine onely remaining This fo gery was judicially allowed by Pope Martin the fist and his Cardinals in their Consistorie and yet it savours rather of a Glasse-maker than an ancient Father but what answer maketh Walden to this invention * Egoenimreperi trāscripsi de vetustissimo exemplari scripto antiquā valdè manu formatâ Idem Ibid. I found it faith he and transcribed it out of a very ancient Copie written with a set hand Thus one while you adde another while you detract another while you falsifie the ancient Fathers if either they make for us or against you and yet you tell us that we are guiltie of corrupting the Fathers But above all Gratian hath most shamefully and lewdly falsified St. Austin whom he hath made to say Inter Canonicas Scriptur as decretales Epistolae connumerantur Dist 29. In Canonicis fol. 19. A. The decretall Epistles of the Popes are accounted in the number of Canonicall Scriptures The truth is St. Austin in his booke of Christian doctrine informes a Christian what Scripture hee should hold for Canonicall and thereupon bids him follow the greater part of the Catholike Church Amongst which those Churches are which had the happinesse to injoy the seates of the Apostles and to receive Epistles from them Gratian in the Canon Law altereth the words thus Amongst which Canonicall Scriptures those Epistles are which the Apostolicke See of Rome hath and which others have deserved to receive from her and accordingly the title of the Canon is Imer Canonicas Scripturas c. The decretall Epistles of Popes are counted by St. Austin for Canonicall Scriptures Now judge you what greater forgerie nay what greater blasphemie can be devised or uttered against Christ and his Spirit than that the Popes Epistles should bee termed canonicall Scriptures and held of equall authority with the Word of God especially since by your owne men they are censured as Apocryphall and counterfeit Epistles Your owne Bellarmine as a man ashamed of such grosse forgeries would seeme to excuse it Bell. de Concil Author l. 2. c. 12. Primo That Gratian was deceived by a corrupt copie of St. Austin which he had besides him and that the true and corrected copies have not the words as himselfe reporteth Thus Walden excuseth his forgerie by an ancient Manuscript the Cardinall by a corrupt copie and yet by your Cardinals leave this and many other such like forgeries stand printed in the Canon Law no Index Expurgatorius layes hold on them Idem de script Eccles An.
which is more your Non conficient Priests doe generally commit that Sacriledge by receiving the consecrated Bread without the Cup flat contrary to the decrees of the ancient Bishop of Rome In the sixth age the second Councell of Orange is falsified in the behalfe of your merits the words of the Councell are these Hoc etiam salubriter profitemur credimus quod in omni opere bono non nos incipimus posted per Dei misericordiam adjuvamur sed ipse nobis c. Concil Arausicanum Can. 25. Bin. Tom. 2. p. 639. We solemnely professe and beleeve that in every good worke wee our selves doe not first begin and are helped afterwards by the mercie of God but he Nullis praecedentibus bonis meritis no good merits of ours going before doth first of all inspire us with faith and love towards him This Councell condemned the Pelagians for their doctrine of Merits and Freewill and accordingly declared that we have neither free will of our selves to doe good neither any fore-going workes to merit any thing of our selves and this is a safe and humble confession both of our weaknesse and Gods good grace and mercy towards us But observe your Church-men for the defence of their merits they have falsified the Canon and quite perverted the sense and meaning of the Councell and in the place of nullis meritis no merits have inserted the word multis many merits so that the Fathers of the Councell are taught to reade a new lesson flat contrary to the ancient Doctrine of the Church viz. We solemnely professe that wee first beginne many of our owne merits going before c. than which assertion what can be more arrogant in assuming power to our selves and derogating from the goodnesse of our God In the seventh age Gregory the great Bishop of Rome is falsified his words be these The King of Pride is neare Greg. Ep. lib. 4. Indict 13. Ep. 38. p. mihi 146. b. Edit Antwerp 1515. Paris An. 1521. fol. 384. in Aedibus Francisci Regnault and which is a haynous thing to name Exercitus Sacerdotum a whole armie of Priests is provided to attend his comming In your Edition of Antwerpe and Paris for the word exercitus you thrust in exitus Sacerdotum so that whereas Antichrist comming it is observed that an host of Priests shall belong unto him now on the contrary it is read that at Antichrists comming there shall be an end of Priesthood Now as you have detracted from Pope Gregories doctrine in one place so likewise you have added to him in another for honour of his See and the Canons of your Church the words are these Let not the reverence due to the Apostolike See bee trouhled by any mans presumption Greg. l. 11. Indict 6. Ep. 42. Citatur à Bel. in Ep. ad Blackwell contra jus regium Vide Jacob. Regis ope a. p. 262. 279. for then the state of the members doth remaine sound when the head of the faith is not bruised by any injury and the authority of the Canons alwayes remaine safe and sound This was urged to Blackwell the Priest by your Cardinall Bellarmine as a principall testimonie Contra jus regium and yet as it is observed by a learned Divine M. Stephanus these and many such particular passages are inserted into the printed Gregory which are not to bee found in the ancient Manuscripts Againe in the former Epistle St. Gregorie is likewise falsified by Stapleton in behalfe of the Popes Supremacie the words of St. Gregorie are these Greg. Regist l. 4. Indict 13. Ep. 38. Certainly Peter is the first member of the universall Church Paul Andrew and John what are they but heads of particular people and notwithstanding they are all members of the Church under one head And lest any should apply the name of head to Peter in his 36. Epistle being the second Epistle before this he saith Omnia soli uni capiti cohaerent viz. Christo Ep. 36. Stapl. de princip doctrin l. 6. c. 7. All the members are joyned to one head Christ Now observe the addition and falsification of your learned Stapleton Andrew James and John saith he were heads of severall Congregations and all members of the Church under one head Peter And thus your Popes creature hath left out Peter in the first place where hee was made a member and added the name of Peter in the last place to make him a head Againe Gratian who was ever ready to supply all defects for the Popes title hath given us an inexcusable forgerie in the name of Gregorie for the Papall power the truth of it was this When Anatolius Deacon of Constantinople had written to Pope St. Gregory that the Emperour commanded another Bishop to be chosen in the place of the Bishop of Justiniana by reason of his head-ache St. Greory made this answer Greg l. 9. Ep. 41. Indict 4. p. 370. You wrote unto me that our most religious Lord the Emperour commanded another to be chosen in the place of our reverend Brother John Bishop of Justiniana because of the paine of his head by which tenour St. Gregory shewes that the Popes obeyed the Princes lawes so they were not against their Canons Now observe Gratian hee leaves out first the words Grat. causa 7. quest 1. fol. Mihi 186. our most religions Lord and in stead of the Emperours name he assumes the Popes person saying Your lovingnesse wrote to me that I should command another to be chosen whereas in those dayes by the confession of Pope Gregory the Emperors made Election of the Bishops and not the Popes The sixt Councell of Constantinople is falsified corrupted by Gratian in the 36. Canon of the said Councell it was thus decreed We determine that the See of Constantinople shall have equall priviledges and honour with the seat of elder Rome and in Ecclesiasticall matters be advanced as far forth as it being next unto it Gratian cites the former non tamē in Ecclesiasticis saith he but not in matters Ecclesiasticall which is flat cōtrary to the meaning of the Councel In the eight age venerable Bede was living The eight age An. 700. to 800. and taught our doctrine touching the Sacrament but was afterwards forged by Fryer Walden to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation against Wickliffe Ibi forma panis videtur ubi substantia panis non est nec est ibi inquit panis alius quam panis qui de coelo descendit Wald. Tom. 2. de sacr c. 82. fol. mihi 138. b. his words are these There the forme of Bread is seene where the substance of Bread is not neither is any other Bread there but that which descends from heaven This is alledged out of the Booke de mysteriis Missae in the name of Bede when as in all his 8. Tomes hee never wrote or mentioned any such worke The Councell of Franckford is likewise corrupted and falsified for the
Crakenthorpe and accordingly there was an oath proposed severally to be taken in this manner I vow and sweare true obedience to the Bishop of Rome Bulla Pii 4. c. And all other things likewise doe I undoubtedly receive and confesse which are delivered defined and declared by the sacred Canons and generall Councels and especially the holy Councell of Trent and withall I condemne reject and accurse all things that are contrary hereunto and all Heresies whatsoever condemned rejected and accursed by the Church and that I will be carefull this true Catholike faith out of the which no man can be saved which at this time I willingly professe and truly hold be constantly with Gods helpe retained and confessed whole and inviolate to the last gaspe and by those that are under me or such as I shall have charge over in my calling holden taught and preached to the uttermost of my power I the said N. promise vow and sweare So God me helpe and his holy Gospels Now what good saith Dudithius could be done in that Councell Andr. Dudithius in Ep. ad Maximil 2. which onely numbred but never weighed suffrages Though our cause was never so good we could not come off with victory for to every one of us the Pope was able to oppose an hundred of his owne This Author was sent as Ambassador to the Councell from the state and Clergy of Hungarie and he consirmes what I have testified of their proceedings But observe the mysterie of iniquitie displayed in your Councell after it had continued eighteen years Sess 25. c. 1. Decreâ— de Refor p. 312. and during the lives of eight Popes in conclusion they declared in their last Session contrarie to their former decree of Reformation that the Synod was chiefly called for restoring of Ecclesiasticall discipline and hereby is plainly discovered their deceivablenesse of unrighteousnesse insomuch as I may truly say with that learned Gentleman and Translator of the Trent Historie The Bishops of Rome Sir Nathaniel Brent in Ep. to the Historie of Trent in stead of being Christs holy Vicars as they pretend have beene the greatest and most pernicious quacksalving Juglers that ever the earth did beare Those Bishops therefore that boast of the Law of God and make as it were a covenant with him to renew the ancient Faith and restore it to her first integritie as your Trent Bishops professed let them consider with themselves how neare that Prophesie of David doth concerne them who deny a Reformation For unto the ungodly said God why dost thou preach my Lawes Psal 50.16 17. and takest my Covenant in thy mouth whereas thou hatest to bee reformed and hast cast my words behinde thee CHAP. IV. The summe of his Answer to my Fourth Section TO this Section the title whereof is That many learned Romanists have falne from the Catholike Faith to be Protestants he saith the Catholike Faith is indivisible and they that renounce it in part renounce it in all Hee affirmeth that in Priests who cannot conteine to marry it is a greater sinne than to keepe a concubine This is the substance of his fourth Chapter in answer to my fourth Section The Reply I shewed in my fourth Section that many learned Romanists convicted by evidence of truth either in part or in whole renounced Poperie before their death Pag. 58. That some have renounced the same inpart say you is foolishly said for no man can renounce the Catholike Faith in part it being indivisible If I shall prove your assertion to bee a strange Paradoxe the foolishnesse will returne into your owne bosome For the better illustration therefore of your Tenet Oratio in laudem Athanasii heare what division Gregory Nazianzen makes upon that ground When one taketh up water in his hand saith he not onely that which he taketh not up but that also which runneth forth and findeth passage betweene his fingers is divided and separated from that which he holdeth and incloseth in his hand so not onely the open and professed enemies of the Catholike Faith but they also that seeme to be her best and greatest friends are sometimes divided one from another What thinke you of this ancient Father Is your Faith indivisible by his Doctrine or will you say it is foolishly spoken of him But say you he that ceaseth to beleeve one point ceaseth to beleeve any one as he should And is this wisely spoken thinke you Is not this your latter error greater than the first For proofe therefore of your assertion shew mee that man who before the Councell of Trent held all the points of your Faith as they are now taught and received in your Church I say give me but one since the Apostles time who within the compasse of fifteene hundred yeares beleeved all your doctrines of Faith entirely in all points and for that one mans sake I will confesse your Faith is indivisible and submit my obedience to your Church Your Index Expurgatorius discovers the weaknesse of your opinion I speake not of Authors which were condemned in your first and third Classis for Heretikes Propter suspectam doctrinam Ind. lib prohibit but of those Romanists who in the second Classis are purged for their suspected doctrine as you terme it and yet never forsooke your Church I dare confidently avow that there are above foure hundred of those Classicall Authors all members of the Roman Church never excommunicated never condemned for heresie in your Church and yet are commanded by your Inquisitors to be blotted out in some particular points of doctrine which make against your Trent Faith If these men therefore have renounced your Faith in part how is your Faith indivisible Or if they cease to beleeve one point why doth your Church cite their testimonies and allow their opinions in other doctrines consonant to your Church when as by your Tenet he that ceaseth to beleeve one point ceaseth to beleeve any one as he should If you should forsake all Authors that forsake your doctrine in part or in some particular points you will generally suffer a Recoverie against your owne Church I will give you but one instance It is the common Tenet of the Roman Church at this day that the blessed Virgin was conceived without originall sinne yet the contrarie Tenet is likewise maintained by the members of your owne Church Ludovicus Vives tells us that two orders of Friers Ludov Vives in lib. 20. de Civit Dei cap. 26. p. 828. both fierce and both led with undaunted Generals set this question a foote the Dominicans by Thomas Aquinas and the Franciscans by Duns Scotus the Councell of Basill decreed that shee was wholly pure without all touch of sinne but the Dominicans objected that it was no lawfull Councell and the Minorites of the other side avowed that it was true and holy and called the Dominicans Heretikes for slandering the power of the Church so that the matter had come to
advers Valent. c. 3. and in thrusting himselfe into dark and blinde holes Such is the nature of false teachers they seeke nothing more saith the same Author than to hide that which they preach Idem c. 1. if yet they may be said to preach that they hide But good Physicians say you use to enquire of the causes effects and circumstances Pag. 73. for upon these circumstances dependeth the knowledge whether it be a disease or no. It is most true that Physicians will enquire of the causes of the disease but will they deny the Patient to be sicke or refuse to minister Physicke to him unlesse he tell them precisely how or when he first tooke his disease or infection For this is our case and the point in question touching a reformation Neither doth the knowledge of the disease of the body depend upon the circumstances of time place and person I thinke you never read such Aphorismes either in Gallen or Hyppocrates neither doth your knowledge of errors and heresie in your Church depend on the circumstances of time place and persons For some Authors at the same time and in the same place might have broached truth when another set his heresie abroach as namely Saint Austin precisely in the time and place delivered the Orthodox Doctrine of grace when and where Pelagius spread his heresie From your Rules of Physicke you returne to the Rules of Divinity and tell us from Saint Austin that * Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi authoritate Apostolicâ traditū rectissimè creditur De Baptis contr Donat. l. 5. c 24. in initio Tom. 7. p. mihi 433. whatsoever the Catholike Church doth generally beleeve or practise so as there can be no time assigned when it began it is to be taken for an Apostolicall tradition This place of Austin you neither quoted in your Answer neither have you recited his words faithfully for hee speakes not of assigning the time when the Doctrine begins but whatsoever the universall Church doth hold not being ordained by Councels but hath beene ever held that is most rightly beleeved for an Apostolicall tradition This is his Tenet and this is ours but you have put in the word Catholike in your sense for universall you have added generall beleefe and practise you have thrust in these words so as no time can be assigned when it began and you have omitted the principall verb that hath been ever held which makes me suspect you omitted the citing of this place lest your fraud should be descried But I pardon you let us heare the rest P. 73. But such say you are all those things which you are pleased to call errors If this were as easily proved as spoken you should not neede to put us to the search of times and Authors for the first Founder of your Faith For if your Popish Doctrines were alwayes held by the universall Church and not ordained by Councels we should not need to looke into your Councell of Lateran for your Doctrine of Transubstantiation nor into your Councell of Constance for Communion in both kindes nor into your Councell of Florence for your seven Sacraments nor into your second Councell of Nice for your worship of Images for these and many such traditions were first ordained by Councels and were not the generall beliefe and practice of the Church Againe if the universall Church had alwayes held your Doctrines from the Apostles times why doe you your selfe confesse that your prayer in an unknowne tongue Pag. praecedenti your private Masse your halfe Communion were taught otherwise in the primitive Churches Nay if they be Apostolicall how comes it that they are flat contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles And thus much of your two rules of Physicke and Divinity let us he are the rest of your authorities Tertullian say you hath this Rule for discerning heresie from truth Tertul. praescrip 31. p. mihi 78. That which goeth before is truth and that which commeth after is errour This Rule is most true but these words you cite by the halves for hee saith expresly Id autem extraneum falsum quod sit posterius immissum Id Dominicum verum quod sit prius traditum That was first delivered which was true and came from the God of truth and this was the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles for that which commeth after saith he is sarre different where hee shewes likewise in these words following that after Christs time and in the dayes of the Apostles there might be heresies Ut aliquem ex Apostolicis viris qui tamen cum illis persever averint habent authorem Ibid. for the mystery of iniquitie began then to worke and therefore hee will not have it enough to derive a Doctrine from a man which lived with the Apostles unlesse it can be proved that he continued with them and the reason as I conceive was given by Nicephorus After the sacred company of the Apostles was come to an end Niceph. l. 3. c. 16. and that their generation was wholly spent which had heard with their eares the heavenly wisdome of the Sonne of God then that conspiracie of detestable errour through the deceipt of such as delivered strange Doctrine tooke rooting and because that none of the Apostles survived they published boldly with all might possible the doctrine of falshood and impugned the manifest and knowne truth But wee plead say you prescription from the beginning It is not sufficient to plead it you must prove it The Mahometists at this day assume the name of Saracens as your men doe the name of Catholikes as if they came from Sara the free woman Abrahams true and lawfull wife when in truth they tooke their first beginning from Agar the bond-woman neither can there be any prescription against the ancient Records and Evidences of the Word written by Christ and his Apostles Indeed you have found a right and easie way to claime a prescription from the time of the Apostles for you have razed many prime Evidences of the Fathers for the first 800. yeeres which make for our Doctrine and you have proscribed many learned Authors and their Records as I have shewed before for the last 800. yeeres which testified against your errors And now I come to your Churches apostacie or falling from the truth which occasioned these errors Apostacie say you is a defection or forsaking of the Name of Christ and profession of Christianity as all men understand it I shewed in this Section that in the primitive Church when any heresie did arise that indangered the foundation such as was the heresie of the Arrians of the Pelagians and the like the Authors were observed the times were knowne the place was pointed at and forthwith letters of Premonition were sent to all the sound members of the Catholike Church by which publike advertisement the steale-truth
properly a Communion but where some people are partakers of the same sacrifice with the Priest And lastly Iohannes Hoffmisterus not only speaketh plainly but cryeth out against your private Masses The thing it selfe doth speake and cry alowd that both in the Greeke and the Latine Church not only the sacrificing Priest but the other Priests and Deacons and the rest of the people or at least some part of the people did communicate together and how this custome ceased it is to bee wondered and wee ought to endeavour that it may bee restored againe in the Church Yea but saith the Iesuit Bellarmine and Durand prove by manifest authoritie that in the Easterne Church in the time of S. Ambrose S. Austine and Chrysostome the people did communicate but once a yeare and yet S. Chrysostome even there where hee complaineth of the peoples coldnesse saith of himselfe that hee celebrated every day though there were none to communicate with him I answer that the publike and solemne time at which all were bound to communicate in the Easterne Church was but once a yeare to wit at Easter yet did the people in those dayes both at other times and especially when they lay on their death-bed receive the Communion which was therefore called Viaticum morientium As for S. Chrysostome 't is true that he much complaineth of the backwardnesse of the people in comming to the Communion and professeth for his owne part that hee neglected not his dutie to celebrate the holy Sacrament though hee were much discouraged therein by the paucitie and raritie of those who presented themselves at the Lords Table yet I find not that he any where saith that he celebrated the Communion when there was none to participate with him For though it may bee at some time especially on the weeke dayes none of the people did communicate with him yet alwayes some of the Clergie who assisted that action communicated with him and therefore the Iesuits inference that by our doctrine the Priest must not say Masse once in seven yeares unlesse the people bee so devout as to receive with him is most absurd For in all Colledges and Cathedrall Churches the Priests and Deacons communicate every moneth at the least though none of the people sometimes receive with them But in parish Churches it were a prophanation and a meere mockerie to administer the Communion without some of the people to say Take eate and drinke you all of this when there is none to eate or drinke but the Priest himselfe none I say neither Layk nor Clergie man To the sixt The Canon of the Councell of Nants is mounted against solitarie Masses and what are solitarie Masses but private Masses the Fathers in that Councell account it a ridiculous superstition in a Priest to say the Lord bee with you and lift up your hearts and wee give thankes unto the Lord or let us pray when there is none to make answer Concil Nan. c. 30. Cassand p. 83. or present whom hee inviteth to pray with him and is it not altogether as absurd and ridiculous for the Priest to say as hee doth in all private Masses Take eate De myster missae c. 15. piè credendum est quòd Angeli dei comites assistant orantibus and drinke yee all of this when there is none to eate or drinke with him Neither will Innocentius evasion serve the turne that wee are piously to beleeve that though there are no men present yet that the Angels accompanie them that pray for neither can the Angels joyne in such formes of prayer as are used looke upon our infirmities and deliver us from fornication and other deadly sinnes neither is it agreeable to sound Divinitie or Philosophie to bid Angels that are spirits receive the body and bloud of our Saviour Here for want of better answer the Iesuit picketh a quarrell with the Knight for not citing the Councell of Nants out of any originall but out of Cassander Flood p. 197. beyond whom and one or two more such fellowes saith he it seemeth his learning did not stretch I will repay him in his owne coyne For the Iesuit himselfe citeth not the Councell of Nants out of any originall but out of Bellarmine and Burchard beyond whom P. 197 l. 27. and one or two more such fellowes it seemeth his learning did not stretch Is it no disparagement for Flood a professor in Divinitie and writer of Controversies to cite a Canon of a Councell out of Bellarmine his fellow-Iesuit and is it a disparagement for a Knight no professed Divine to cite a Canon of a Councell out of Cassander a most learned Doctour and great Antiquarie in high esteeme when hee lived in the Roman Church If the Iesuit answer that hee could not cite the originall because that Decree is not now extant in any Councell of Nants that wee have with one and the same answer hee justifieth the Knight as well as himselfe It is no argument of Ignorance but rather of faithfulnesse and sinceritie when a man cannot come to the sight of a record himselfe to transcribe it out of others verbatim who have seene it and avouch them for it To the seventh The Councell of Trent like Satyrus in the Poet bloweth out of the same mouth hot and cold 3. V. 11. or like the fountaine in S. Iames sendeth forth at the same place sweet water and bitter c. 6. can 8. optaret quidem sacro-sancta synodus ut populus qui astat communicaret quòd hujus sanctissimi sacrificij fructus uberior proveniret for the Councell accurseth them who say private Masses are unlawfull and yet wisheth that there might bee no private Masses It is true that it is one thing to wish that the people would communicate because to heare Masse and receive withall will bee more profitable another to say if there bee none to communicate the Priest must not say Masse or that such Masse is unlawfull yet there is such affinitie betweene these two sayings that a good argument may bee drawne from the one to the other For hee that wisheth a reformation in private Masses or which is all one that of private Masses they were made publike Communions consequently acknowledgeth that private Masses are faultie or defective and if faulty so farre as they are faulty unlawfull And thus the indifferent reader may see that the water of this Flood wants ashes and soap to bee mingled with it lavat enim non perluit for it washeth but scowreth not nor fetcheth out foule staines in the Masse-priests linnen Having refuted his sophismes Loemel spong feles unguentorum fragrantiâ Tigres pulsu tympanorum in rabiens aguntur I come now to retort his Sarcasmes Tigers if they heare a drum grow madde in this section the Knight sounded an alarum and caused the drum to beate hard at the sound whereof the Iesuit his adversarie after the manner of the Tiger groweth starke madde and snappeth at
all the Iesuit beareth us in hand that the Masse being the same continually the people understand it sufficiently for the exercise of their devotion though not to satisfie vaine curiositie which speech of his is partly sencelesse and partly blasphemous it is sencelesse to imagine that a man who never learned his Grammar nor ever was taught Greek or Latine by hearing onely the Masse read over though a thousand times should come to understand it secondly it is blasphemous to say that to desire to understand the particular contents of the Epistles and Gospels read in the Masse or the psalmes of David sung in the Church is vaine curiofitie or hereticall pride Loe here Flood his channell falleth againe into the Stygian lake To the fourteenth There is no contradiction at all in the Knights observations For though this story of the shepheards abusing the words of Consecration and strucke dead for it might peradventure occasion some alteration in those Churches where it was beleeved yet there was no generall command for the practise of the Latine Service in all Christian Churches before Vitalians time who in the yeare 666. verified the number of the name of the beast in himselfe which according to the interpretation of S. Irenaeus who flourished within two hundred yeares after Christ is lateinos as before I noted But for mine owne part I have no faith at all in that legendarie fable of the Sheepheards First because those that coyned it agree not in their tale for some say that the Bread and Wine were transubstantiated into flesh and bloud and the sheepeheards for their prophane abuse strucke dead others tell it otherwise Cassand liturg c. 28. Honorius in Gem. animae Bellar. l. 2. de Mis c. 22. that neither the Bread nor the Wine were transubstantiated but consumed by fire from heaven nor the sheepheards strucken dead but onely laid for dead As for the Authour of the booke called Pratum spirituale hee is of no credit at all For in his Spirituall meadow as hee tearmeth his worke there are many such Eutopian flowers as this is where I leave the Iesuit to gather him a nosegay till I have leisure to meete with him in the next Section Concerning worshiping of Images Spectacles Sect. 7. a pag. 283. usque ad 319. THe text of Scripture which the Knight quoteth maketh not any mention of Image-worship but Idoll-worship which hee could not but know to bee a different thing having beene so often told it It followeth not the Iewes might not adore Images Ergo wee may not for the Iewes might not eate bloud nor swines flesh nor many other things which wee may If the second Commandement were morall and now in force the Knight could not have his wives picture nor shee his without breach of that Commandement therefore in that sence hee cannot urge it more against our pictures then wee against his Cornelius Agrippa was a Magician and therefore no heed to be given to what he testifieth against the Roman Church Philo Iudaeus saith nothing but that the Iewes admitted no image into the Temple which is true for God cannot bee painted neither could they have the Image of any Saint for there was none as yet which might have that honour to have their images or pictures in the Temple themselves being not yet admitted into the heavenly Temple of God It is no marvaile that the Iewes hate crucifixes sith they could not indure Christ himselfe Notwithstanding the prohibition in the second Commandement were it Morall or Ceremoniall men did adore the Cherubins in the Temple and the Arke and the Temple it selfe There may in the New Testament bee some precept or example both of our Saviour and his Apopostles for the adoration of images though not written in Scripture because as S. Iohn saith that all is not written or rather a very small part is written as his words import Wee have the example of our Saviour and his Apostles testified by good authenticall histories many great and grave Authours make mention of two severall images made miraculously by our blessed Saviour himselfe one was that which hee sent to Abgarus King of Edessa who had a desire to see him the other was that of Veronica which hee made with wiping his face as hee was carrying his Crosse a third was one which Nicodemus gave to Gamaliel all which are testified not only by grave and learned Authours but by God himselfe though not in Scripture yet by great and wonderfull miracles S. Austine taketh not Simulachrum for an image as the Knight falsly translateth him but for an idoll and so commendeth Varro for comming neerer to the knowledge of the true God and going further from idolatrie then other Gentiles Eusebius saith not that images sprang from an heathenish custome but hee meaneth by mos gentilis the fashion of their owne people and kindred who were wont to honour such that had done them any benefit or helpe by erecting statues in memorie of them Moreover Eusebius relateth this storie of the womans statua with approbation upon the basis or foot thereof there grew a certaine strange and unusuall kind of herbe which as soone as it grew up so high as to touch the hemme of the brazen garment it had vertue to cure diseases of every kind The Councell of Elliberis was an obscure provinciall Synod of 19. Bishops onely without any certaintie of the time when it was held to which we oppose one of Constantinople another at Rome under Gregorie the third and a third at Nice of 350. Bishops Moreover this Councell forbiddeth not pictures absolutely but painting on walls and soleaving them to the furie and scorne of the Gentiles and it is plaine that the Councell made the Decree out of honour to images because they thought not the walls a place convenient because the plaster breaking off in some places they might become deformed and so contemptible Valens and Theodosius whom the Knight joyneth in making a law against images were not alive together Valens being killed 23. yeares before Theodofius was borne besides Valens was a wicked Arrian heretique upon whom God did shew his judgement by a disasterous end and the law made by him cited by the Knight is fowly corrupted and the meaning wholly perverted for the law was made in honour of the Crosse towit thus wee command that it shall not bee lawfull for any to carve or paint the signe of our Saviour Christ either on the ground or in any stone or marble lying on it Nicolaus Clemanges was himselfe a Wiclefian heretique Cassander Erasmus and Wicelius are of no account in the Roman Church The Councell of Nice held under Constantine and Irene was not condemned at Frankford Nay in that very Councell an Anathema is said to all such as deface Images Polidore Virgill in saying the ancient Fathers condemned the worship of images for feare of Idolatrie speaketh not of the Fathers of the New Testament but those of the Old particularly naming Moses
ad Philadelph In your Edition printed at Colein you have quite altered the sense by a corrupt Translation saying One Cup is distributed for all and in the Margent Unus Calix qui pro omninibus nobis distributus est Bibl. Pp. Tom. 1. Colon Agripp An. 1618. p. 85. Bell. de Euch. l. 4. c. 26. Una Eucharistia utendum And that your corruption may not want an Advocate your Cardinall Bellarmine tells us There is not much credit to be given to the Greek Copies for the Latine reades it otherwise by which reason a man may appeale from the Originall to a Translation which is a thing unheard of Again whereas he saith in the same Epistle Ignat. ibid. ut suprà Oh yee Virgins in your prayers set Christ onely before your eyes and his Father being enlightened by his spirit hereby teaching that we ought to directour prayers to the Trinity only and not to Saints Angels your men in their late Edition printed at Lyons by their corrupt translation have left out the word Precibus Ignat. Lugdun impres An. 1572. and thrustin Animabus soules for prayers by which change of words the sense meaning of the Father is cleane perverted It followeth further in the same Page in speaking of Peter and Paul and other Apostles who betooke themselves to a married life Severinus Binius in his Annotations upon this place tells us that those words viz. Peter and Paul and other Apostles betook themselves to a married life ought to be razed out The third age An. 200. to 300. because saith he it is probable the Grecians in honour of Marriage corrupted the Text A faire warning for us to take notice that in after Editions that passage may also be cleane left out In the third Age Tertullian paraphrasing upon the words of Christ a Caro nihil prodest ad vivificandum scilicet Tert. de Resurrect carnis c. 37. Caro nihil prodest sed ad vivificandum Tertul. Parisiis apud Michaelem Julianum An. 1580. p. Mihi 47. The flesh profiteth nothing saith It is the Spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing namely to quicken your Tertullian printed at Paris hath quite perverted the meaning of the Father and causeth him to speake flat contrary both to himselfe and to the sense of Christ in these words The flesh profueth nothing but to quicken St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage is falsified and corrupted for the circumgestation of your Sacrament and the Popes Supremacie In his Tract of patience he tells us b Nec post gustatam Eucharistiam manus gladio cruore maculentur Sic Cypr. Parisiis apud PetruÌ„ Drovart in vico Jacobaeo An. 1541. fol. 89. Nec post gestatam Eucharistiam c. Cypr. de bono Patientiae Impress Partsiis apud Claudium Chapelet Via Jacobaet An. 1616. p. Mihi 316 Post gustatam Eucharistiam c. After the eating of the Eucharist the hands are not or ought not to be defiled with bloud In your Cyprian printed at Paris and Colein your men have wittingly altered the words saying Post gestatam Eucha ristiam and so by transmutation of one letter doe cite this place for the circumgestation of the Sacrament whereas the Ceremonie of carrying about the Eucharist was not knowne in many hundred yeares after Cyprians time But Pamelius a Canon of the Church of Bruges and Licentiate in Divinity returnes this answer in defence of it Cum manu non gustetur Eucharistia sed olim gestari consueta sit prorsus illud ex Cambrensi Codice substituendum duxi pro eo quod erat gustatam Annot. in lib. de bono Patient pag. Mihi 321 Forasmuch as the Eucharist cannot be tasted with the hand but was wont anciently to be carried with the hand I thought it best to change the word Tasting into Carrying which I borrowed from an ancient Copie in Cambron Abbey The word then we see was changed by his owne Confession and the Cambron Copie is brought for the defence of this forgerie which differing from all other Copies may be justly suspected For his reason that we taste not with our hand it is frivolous For St. Cyprian saith not gustatam manu but simply gustatam which taste yet was not without taking the Sacrament into the hand You have heard Pamelius confession Now let us heare what Manutius hath done in publishing of St. Cyprian for Pamelius tells us that St. Cyprian printed at Rome by Paulus Manutius Indiculus Codicum in Cypriano in the yeare 1563. is a much more bettered and corrected Edition than any other and accordingly your learned Priest Mr. Hart assures us that Pope Pius the 4th Hart Raynolds c. 5. Divis 2. p. 167. being desirous that the Fathers should be set forth and corrected perfectly sent to Venice for Manutius a famous Printer that he should come to Rome to doe it and to furnish them the better with all things necessary he put foure Cardinals wise and vertuous in trust with the worke and for the correcting of Cyprian especially above the rest singular care was taken by Cardinal Baromaeus a Copie was gotten of great antiquity from Verona and the exquisite diligence of learned men was used in it These Testimonies make a faire shew of sincere and plaine dealing and no doubt if there were not double diligence used by them the Roman Cyprian doth exceed all the rest and is freest from corruption That the truth thereof may appeare let us looke into St. Cyprian in his booke touching the Unity of the Church De Veritate Ecclesiae Whereas the ancient and true Cyprian sayth The rest of the Apostles were equall unto Peter both in honour and power the Roman Cyprian printed by Manutius and your late Paris Cyprian Cypr. Parisiis apud Claudium Chapelet An. 1616. hath added these words The Primacie is given to Peter And whereas the ancient Cyprian saith Christ did dispose the Originall of unitie beginning from one the Roman and Paris have added Unam CathedraÌ„ constituit p. 254 He appointed one Chayre And whereas the ancient Cyprian sayth The Church of Christ may be shewed to be one the Roman and Paris have added Cathedra una constituitur ib. and the Chayre to bee one And because the Chayre may bee as well applyed to the Bishop of Carthage Cathedram Petri Ibid. as to the Bishop of Rome the Paris Cyprian hath added Peters chayre And whereas it was in Cyprian even in the Roman print too Hee who withstandeth and resisteth the Church doth he trust himselfe to be in the Church the Paris Cyprian addeth Qui Câ—thedram Petri supra quam fundata est Ecclesia deserit in Ecclesia se esse confidit ibid. He who forsaketh Peters chayre in which the Church was founded doth he trust himselfe to bee in the Church Now as you have heard that Manutius hath added and forged much in his Roman Edition for the Popes Supremacie so
all which are forbidden to be read wherein are contained the proceedings of the Councell of Constance against Hierome of Prague and John Husse where the decree is mentioned for the 19. Session of the Councell of Constance viz. a Sess 19. decernitur Haereticis non esse servandam fidem quam vocant Salvum conductum Paralip p. 378. That faith is not to bee kept with Heretikes which is wholly omitted and purged in your printed Councels Honorius Bishop of Anthum in France Anno 1220. Honorio Angustodunensi falso ut creditur adscriptus liber de praedestinatione libero arbitrio Ind. lib. prohib p. 47. wrote a Booke of Predestination and Free-will but so different from your doctrine that your Inquisitors forbid him to be read untill hee be purged What good soever the Elect doe it is God that workes it in them as it is written God doth worke in us both the will and the deed according to his good pleasure if therefore God doe worke in us what reward is imputed to man God doth worke and the Elect do worke God doth worke his Elect by his preventing Grace to be willing and by his subsequent Grace to bee able and both co-operate by Free-will by consenting with a good will this good will is rewarded in them as it is written We have received Grace for Grace wee have received Grace when God prevented us to be willing and followed us to make us able Looke into his forbidden Dialogues Turne thee saith he to the Citizens of Babylon consider the principall persons there and thou shalt finde the See of the Beast for they neglect the service of God pollute his Priesthood seduce his people and reject all Scriptures which belong unto salvation Vide Illyr p. 1426 in Dialog d. Praedestin lib. arbitrio For these and the like discoveries of the corruptions in your Church he is forbidden and under this pretence also that the Booke of Dialogues is falsely ascribed to him In the fourteenth age flourished William Ocham a Fryer Minorite and a learned man saith Bellarmine An. 1320. Bell. de script Eccl. p. 269. de Gulielmo Ocham but being too earnest a favourer of Ludovike the Emperour by that meanes hee fell into some errours and therefore deserved to have his name registred amongst the Bookes prohibited Now observe those errors Ocham Compend Error Joh. 22. He complained that many in his dayes perverted the holy Scriptures denyed the sayings of the holy Fathers and rejected the Canons of the Church and civill Constitutions of the Emperours He professed according to St. Hieromes and the doctrine of Gregory the Great that the Bookes of Judith Idem Dial. par 3. Tract 1. l. 3. c. 16. Tobit the Machabees Ecclesiasticus and the Booke of Wisdome were not to bee received for confirmation of any matter of faith He professed that the Pope and Cardinals were no rule of faith Idem Tract 2. part 2. c. 10. Dial. part 1. l. 5. c. 25. p. Mihi 494. He professed that a Generall Councell although it be a part of the militant universall Church yet is not the universall Church and consequently saith he It is rashnesse to say that a Generall Councell cannot erre against the faith Idem Dial. l. 3. prim Tract 3. part c. 8. He professeth that it cannot be proved manifestly by Scripture that Peter was Bishop of Rome or that he removed his seat from Antioch to Rome or that the Rishop of Rome succeeded St. Peter Idem Dial. part 1. l. 2. c. 3. p. 413. or that the Church of Rome hath the Primacie or that hee governed the Church of Rome or any thing touching the Papacie thereof He professeth with us Idem Dial. l. 2. c. 1. part 3. p. 788. that though it be expedient there should be one Bishop over some part of the Church and People of God yet there is not the same reason there should be one over the whole Christian world And lastly touching Pope John the 22. he reports from the mouthes of them that heard it that in the yeare 1333. on Munday being the third of January Idem 2. part proem p. 740. Guliel Ocham opus 90. dierum Item Dialogi script omnia contra Johannem 22. Ind. l. prohib p. 4. Pope John held a publike Consistorie wherein by word of mouth with great earnestnesse he indeavoured to prove that the soules of Saints being purged see not God face to face till after the day of judgement These are the supposed errors which caused his Dialogues and other of his workes to be prohibited In the fifteenth age Anno 1420. Nicholai Clemangis opera quamdiu expurgata non prodierint Ind. lib. proh p. 71. Clemangis de corrupto statu Ecclesiae Nicholas Clemangis Doctor of Paris Archdeacon of Bayeux so long as his works remaine unpurged saith your Index are forbidden Now observe the reasons why hee is put to silence The truth is he wrote a Booke Of the Corrupt estate of the Church he declared that the Pope was the cause of all the calamities and disorders of the Church he shewes that he was not contented with the fruits and profits of the Bishopricke of Rome and St. Peters Patrimonie Idem c. 4. though very great and Royall he layd his greedie hands on other mens flocks replenished with milke and wooll Cap. 5. 7. and usurped the right of bestowing Bishoprickes and livings Ecclesiasticall throughout all Christendome Cap. 5. and disannulled the lawfull elections of Pastors by his reservations provisions and advowsons Cap. 6. Cap. 7. Cap. 8. and oppressed Churches with first fruits of one yeere of two yeeres of three yeeres yea sometimes of foure yeeres with tithes with exactions with procurations with spoiles of Prelates and infinite other burthens Cap. 9. and ordained Collectors to seize upon these taxes and tributes throughout all Provinces with horrible abusing of suspensions interdictments and excommunications if any man refused to pay them Cap. 10. Cap. 11. Cap. 12. and used such merchandise with suites in his Court and rules of his Chancery that the house of God was a denne of Theeves Cap. 13. and raised his Cardinalls as complices of his pompe from Clergie men of low estate Cap. 14. to be the Peeres of Princes and enriched them with his dispensations to have and to hold Offices and Benefices not two or three or ten or twenty but a hundred or two hundred yea sometimes foure hundred or five hundred or more and those not small or leane ones but even the best and fattest To bee short in that he filled the Sanctuary of the Lord with dumbe dogges Cap. 19. 20. Cap. 7. 14. Cap. 29. Cap. 42. Cap. 18. Cap. 3.4.5.9 and evill beasts even from the highest Prelates to the basest hedge-Priests through usurpations exemptions compositions symony prostitution and fornication committed with Princes of the earth and all to maintaine the pride and
the time of which the blessed Apostle prophesied when men will not suffer wholesome doctrine is altogether fulfilled in our eares For behold there are many that pervert the holy Scriptures deny the sayings of the holy Fathers reject the Canons of the Church and civill Constitutions of the Emperors Looke into the age before him Matth. Paris p. 843. Grosthead Bishop of Lincolne complaines that there was a defection a revolt an Apostasie from the true Faith Looke into Bernards time and there you shall finde by his owne confession Bernard in Cant. Serm. 33. p. mihi 673. The wound of the Church was inward and past recoverie These former complaints and grievances in the Church did sound aloud in the eares of the later ages and she made great mourning and lamentation for her children because they were not such as she first bred them and accordingly no doubt they wished for a reformation of errors in doctrine as well as Discipline in the Church Looke after Pope Alexanders time and before the Councell of Trent and your Bishop of Bitonto will shew you the state and miserable condition of your Church as it were in a Glasse In Ep. ad Roman c. 6. Alas saith he how were the Scriptures neglected in the later Ages to the detriment of all peple Rivet Sum. Controv. p. mihi 98. There was then in request a tedious and crabbed Divinitie about Relations about quiddities and formalities and all those things were handled and wrested with Syllogismes and humane Sophistrie which without doubt by the same authority as they were received might be refelled The whole Age was spent about the decrees of men which were contradictory amongst themselves and irreconcilable and nourished perpetuall contention He was accounted the best Divine that knew best how to devise the greatest wonders for his Traditions It was a part of their honour and vaine glory to speake bigge words with great lookes among women not to be understood when they disputed of the Scriptures The Preachers of the word were all sworne to the word of their Masters and from hence sprung sixe hundred Sects as namely Thomists Scotists Occhamists Alexandrians c. O heinous wickednesse The Gosspels and Epistles of the Apostles were laid aside true Divinitie lay hid and was handled of very few but coldly I will not say unfaithfully In what state the Church remained in those dayes when Papall Traditions and cunning Sophistry prevailed against the sacred Scriptures let the Reader judge Onus Ecclesiae c. 16. p. mihi 79 Your owne St. Francis foretold that the times were at hand wherein many differences should arise in the Church when charitie should waxe cold iniquity should abound and the Divell should be let loose and that the purity of his Roman Religion should be depraved and accordingly saith my Author the Image of the Crosse in the Church of St. Damian spake unto him Vade repara domum meam quae ut cernis tota labitur Goe and repaire my house which you see is altogether decayed Thus Bishops and Friers and Images stocks and stones cried out of the falling away of your Church if we may credit your owne Authors and yet by no meanes you will assent to a reformation of doctrine or manners At Luthers first rising which was almost 30. yeares before the Councell of Trent your Guicciardine tells us Guicciard Hist lib. 13. that there were that yeare many meetings at Rome to consult what was best to be done The more wise and moderate sort wished the Pope to reforme things apparently amisse and not to persecute Luther Hieronymus Savanarola told the French King Charles the 8. he should have great prosperitie in his voyage into Italie to the end hee should reforme the state of the Church which if he did not reforme he should returne with dishonour and so saith he it fell out I come to the Councell of Trent it selfe where you may reade many decrees for reformation and yet neither doctrine nor manners reformed But let us heare your owne confession It is true the Councell indeed complaineth with great reason of the avarice of such whom the Knight calleth the Popes Collectors though the Councell speaketh not of the Pope but false it is which he saith that the Councell complaineth of Indulgences an Article of faith as his words are The Councell likewise complaineth of many things crept into the celebration of the Masse and the words of the Councell are right cited by him in Latin in the Margent but in the English he foully corrupteth them For in stead of many things hee translated many errors which is a grosse errour and corruption in the Knight These be your grand exceptions to the grosse corruptions laid unto my charge but all this while you doe not discharge the accusations laid justly to your Church And in this I must needs say you play the Hypocrite who can discerne a mote in your Brothers eye and cannot see a beame in your owne First therfore cast the beame out of your own eye and then you shall easily disccrne without Spectacles that the Collectors of Indulgences are the Popes Collectors although the Pope is not mentioned in that place and Indulgences are an Article of Faith created by that Councell although the Councell proclaime it not an Article of Faith so that multa many things might well stand for many errors and corruptions since they were errors in practise Neither would I have set the Latin in the Margent if I had meant to corrupt them in English and withall if you had taken the last edition as you ought to have done you should have found them in another Character and then all your waste words of foule corruptions had beene needlesse But in this you resemble Palladius a lewd fellow who in like manner charged St. Hierome with falsifications and false translations He preacheth and publisheth abroad saith Hierome that I am a falsarie Hieron ad Pāmach de optimo genere interpret Tom. 2. that I have not precisely translated word for word that I in stead of the word Honourable have written these words Deerely beloved These things and such trifles saith he are laid unto my charge Now heare what Answer St. Hierome makes Whereas the Epistle it selfe declareth that there is no alteration made in the sense and that there is neither matter of substance added nor any doctrine devised by me verily by their great cunning they prove themselves fooles and seeking to reprove other mens unskilfulnesse they betray their owne Let us heare therefore the rest of your Things for so you will have me terme them which are crept into your Church and need a Reformation The Councell say you seemeth to acknowledge the avarice of Priests in saying Masse for mony was not farre from Symonie It speaketh of the use of Musicke wherewith some wantonnesse was mixed as also of certaine Masses or Candles used in certaine number proceeding rather from superstition than true
calling upon Angels These saith hee be the inchantments of the Devils though he be an Angell Chrys in 1. Cor. Homil. 1. though an Archangell though they be Cherubins endure it not For neither will those powers themselves admit it but reject it when they see their Lord dishonored I have favoured thee saith he and have said call upon me and dost thou dishonour him with calling upon others This agrees with the doctrine of Theodoret shewing Theod. in Coloss 3. that the Synod of Laodicea following that rule made a Law that they should not pray unto Angels nor forsake our Lord Iesus Christ and accordingly they decreed it with a curse Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God and depart aside Concil Lao. dic Can. 35. Anno 364. and invocate Angels and make meetings which are things forbidden If any man therefore be found to give himselfe to this priuie Idolatry let him be accursed Merlin Edit 1530. fol. 68. Crab Edit 1538. fol. 216. This Canon makes so plainely against your Church doctrine that both Merlin and Crabbe as I have shewed have turned the word Angelos into Angulos and so by transposition of a letter say we must not leave the Church of God and have recourse to Angles or corners Heiron Epist ad Riparium And St. Heirom at the same time opposed Vigilantius and professeth of himselfe and the Catholike Christians of his time Wee doe not adore or worship the Reliques of Martyrs no nor the Sunne nor Moone nor Angels nor Archangels nor Cherubins nor Se raphins nor any name that is named in this world or in the world to come lest we should serve the creature rather then the Creator who is blessed for ever You see then by these few observations that you are righth descended from the Haeretikes in this point and accordingly you have swerved with them from the Catholike faith by excesse Wherefore I will conclude this Invocation with that memorable passage of St. Austin August lib. Confess 10. c. 42. Whom should I finde that might reconcile me unto thee should I have gone unto the Angels with what prayer with what Sacraments Many endeavouring to returne unto thee and not being able to doe it by themselves as I heare have tried these things and have fallen into the desire of curious visions and were accounted worthy of illusions From your Angell-like or Angelicall predecessors you proceede to the Cathari or Puritans These were Novations say you who out of pride and selfe conceits as if they were more cleane and holy did condemne Catholikes And doe not your Cloister Monkes so conceive of themselves who beleeve they doe more then God commanded and that they can supererrogate and doe they not condemne the Reformed Catholikes as the Novatians did To come neerer to you is not the proud generation of Merit-mongers derived from the Catharists Epiph. haeres 59. But saith Epiphanius whilst these men call themselves Puritans by this very ground they prove themselves to be impure for whosoever pronounceth himselfe to be pure doth therein absolutely condemne himselfe to be impure Againe touching your Predecessors who for bad Marriage I cited out of Epiphanius and St. Austin the Haeretikes Tatiani and the Manichees But say you That they did disallow it especially in Priests I doe not finde it in Epiphanius It is true neither did I cite him for it but I cited Saint Austin in the Margent which you wittingly omitted Aug. ep 74. Yet both Authors declare the Haeretikes to bee founders of your doctrine Continentiam viro hic praedicat nuptias autem scortationem corruptionem putat Epiph. haeres 46. 47. p. mihi 93.95 Auditores eorum ex carnibus vescuntur si voluerint uxores habent quorum nihil faciunt qui vocantur electi Aug. ep 74. Qui cum uxore exercent carnale commercium in carne sunt Deo placere non pessunt sancti esse non possunt Dist 82. cap. Proposuisti Epiphanius shewes that the Tatiani had two proper markes of your Church for their first Leader Tatianus accounted of Marriage as whoredome and corruption and forbad the eating of meates St. Austin likewise tells us that the Manichees did permit their hearers to eate flesh to use husbandry and to marry wives but those which were called Elect did use none of those things Now if those Elect were not the hearers they must needs be their Teachers and consequently their Priests And thus you have two forts of Haeretikes to defend your Monasticke life the one viz. the Tatiani who agree with Pope Innocent saying They which live in the flesh cannot please God neither can they be holy The other viz. the Manichees who permit Marriage to all but to their Priests Lastly touching the Collyridian Haeretikes so called from the Collyrides or cakes which certaine women used to offer to the blessed Virgin I say againe they were your first Leaders and particularly for this reason which you alledge to excuse your selves Because they did exceede the measure of honor due to our blessed Lady Pag. 99. And as touching the Antidico-Marianitae with which haeresie you charge us they were such who out of malice to the blessed Virgin being puffed up with pride or envy saith Epiphanius would possesse men Epiph. haeres 78 p. mihi 244. that after the birth of our Saviour Ioseph knew Marie which never Protestant to my knowledge ever taught or thought Therefore by way of prevention you put this as a scandall upon our Church to excuse your owne But the truth is we ascribe honour of preheminence unto that glorious person before all other vessells of blessednesse we proclaime it with the Angel Gabriel that she was highly favoured and blessed among women Luke 1.28 but withall we testifie with Epiphanius Christ said unto her woman what have I to doe with thee my hower is not yet come lest any man should thinke our Lady was of greater excellency Epiph. l. 3. haeres 79. contr Collyridianos he called her woman as it were prophecying of the kinds and sects of haeresies that were to come into the world lest any man having too great an opinion of that Holy Saint should fall into this haeresie and into the dotage of the same And as touching her perpetuall virginity that golden saying of St. Hierome against Helvidius we unfainedly professe and testifie with heart and voice Hleron contrà Helvidium That God was borne of a Virgin we beleeve because we reade it That Mary had Matrimoniall company with her husband after her delivery we doe not beleeve because we reade it not And to make good my assertion that you tread in the steps of those haeretikes which did exceede the measure of honor due unto our Lady first looke upon Epiphanius who opposeth this haeresie he tells us Although Mary be beautifull Epiph. l. 3. haeres 79. and holy and honourable yet is shee not to be
receive but the Knight must prove that S. Paul would not say Masse unlesse others would communicate with him or that he teacheth that other Priests must not Where S. Paul 1 Cor. 11. commandeth the people to tarrie one for another when they came together to cate hee speaketh to the people who made the suppers called Agape as is plaine by the text wherein bee reprehendeth the Abuses that were committed as that some did exceed others did want some were drunke some went away hungry which could not pertaine to the blessed Sacrament besides the distribution of that belonged to the Priests not to the people who are here instructed and reprehended for their manner of making their suppers The cup of blessing is called a Communion because it uniteth us to Christ our head and also among our selves as members of the same body and though it doe this most perfectly when it is also received sacramentally yet not only so but it doth the same also in some measure being spiritually received and as this union may remaine among us members though every one among us doe not receive every day so it may also remaine betweene us and the Priest though hee say Masse and wee not receive If this argument of the Knight were good it would follow that not only some but that all the people must receive together with the Priest The Catholique Doctours cited by the Knight say indeed that it was the practise of the primitive Church to communicate every day with the Priest but they say not that it was of necessitie so to doe nay some of them as Bellarmine and Durand prove manifestly that there was no such necessitie or dependence of the Priests celebrating upon the peoples communicating that they might not celebrate unlesse the people did communicate For S. Chrysostome saith of himselfe that hee celebrated every day though there were no body to participate with him The Councell of Nants forbidding Priests to celebrate alone speaketh only of not saying Masse all alone without one or two to answer to whom the Priest may seeme to speake when hee saith Dominus vobiscum and the like but what 's this to saying Masse without some body to communicate with him The Councell of Trent doth not blesse and curse out of the same mouth or approve or condemne the same thing when it commendeth sacramentall communion of the people together with the Priest and yet condemneth those who say private Masses are unlawfull For it is one thing for the Councell to wish that the people would communicate because to heare Masse and receive withall will be more profitable an other to say that if there bee no body to communicate such a Masse is unlawfull or that the Priest must not say Masse The Hammer THe Iesuits answer to this Section of the Knight wherein hee impugneth private Masse by foure texts of Scripture two Canons of Councells and twelve pregnant Confessions of Romish Doctours consisteth partly of sophismes and partly of sarcasmes to both which I purpose to returne a short and smart answer first by refuting his sophismes and after by retorting his sarcasmes To the first sophisticall answer I replie That the words of our Saviour Take eat Mat. 26.26 this is my body were spoken to all future communicants as well as to the Apostles then present for they containe in them an institution of a Sacrament to bee celebrated in all Christian Churches till the end of the world as the Apostle teacheth us from the 23. to the 28. especially at the 26 verse 1 Cor. 11. as often as yee eate this bread and drinke this cup ye shew the Lords death till he come This the Apostles in their persons alone could not fulfill for they lived not till Christs second comming they must of necessitie therefore bee extended to all that in succeeding ages should bee present at the Lords Supper who are as much bound by this precept of Christ to communicate with the Priest or dispencer of the Sacrament as the Apostles were to communicate with Christ himselfe when hee first in his owne person administred it otherwise if the precepts Take eate doe this in remembrance of mee appertained to the Apostles only what warrant hath any Priest now to consecrate the elements or administer the Sacrament nay what command have any faithfull at all to receive the Communion Yea but saith the Iesuit if not only the Apostles and their successors but all the faithfull are here enjoyned to eate it would follow that whensoever the Sacrament is administred all must communicate that are in the Church at the same time It will follow that all who are bid to the Lords table and come prepared to whom the Priest in the person of Christ saith Take eate this is my body ought to communicate De eccles observ sciendum juxta antiquos patres quod soli cōmunicantes divinis mysterijs inter esse consueverint Orat. de consecrat dist 2. peractâ consecratione omnes communicent nisi malint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus and this was the custome of the ancient Church as Micrologus teacheth Wee must know saith he according to the ancient Fathers that none but Communicants were wont to be present at the mysteries and therefore before the Communion the Catechumenie and penitents which were not prepared to communicate were commanded to depart ite Missa est and wee find an ancient Canon of the Roman Church attributed to Gelasius enjoyning all under paine of excommunication that are present after the Consecrationis finished to participate of the blessed Sacrament To the second The precept of the Apostle bee ye followers of mee as I am of Christ 1 Co. 11.1 is generall and reacheth as well to acts of pietie as charitie As non est distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit so non est restringendum ubi lex non restringit as wee may not distinguish where the law doth not distinguish so we must not restraine where the law hath no restriction The Iesuite himselfe saith that S. Pauls imitation is directed to all if to all then to Priests and againe hee saith these words come in very fitly to prove that in all things that appertaine unto salvation wee should seeke to imitate S. Paul as hee doth Christ And I hope the Iesuit holdeth the worthy receiving of the Sacrament a matter of salvation I am sure the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 11. Hee that eateth and drinketh unwerthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himselfe But what need wee dispute this point any further sith the Apostle after hee had delivered this precept in the beginning of the chapter in pursuit thereof at the 23 verse instanceth in the Sacrament it selfe saying What I received of the Lord that I delivered unto you that the Lord Iesus the same night hee was betrayed tooke bread c. Surely if wee are to follow the Apostle in the performance of morall duties much more of religious and this the Iesuit in the end is compelled
of the Apostle the cup of blessing which wee blesse 1 Cor. 10.16 is it not the Communion of the bloud of Christ the Bread which wee breake is it not the Communion of the body of Christ for wee being many are one bread and one body because wee are all partakers of that one bread is pertinently alledged by the Knight against private Masse which is a communion without communicants much like to Caesars monument Philippica 1. which the Oratour fitly tearmeth insepultam sepulturam an unburied buriall How is the cup of blessing a Communion if none pledge as it were the one the other in it how is the Bread a Communion if it bee communicated to none How are the people made one bread and one body by it if they partake not of it I grant the union betweene the head and members and Priest and people may remaine though the Priest say Masse and the people receive not as likewise it may remaine though the Priest say no Masse nor communicate himselfe because there are other meanes of this Communion besides the Sacrament yet because this Sacrament was ordained principally to confirme this union and communion and from thence taketh its name they who impropriate a common and of a publike communion make a private Masse destroy both the name and nature of this Sacrament Moreover as the worthy participation of the Sacrament wonderfully confirmeth so it was instituted by Christ to represent the union of the Priest with the people which cannot bee done in private Masses wherein the Priest communicateth alone For that representeth rather a distinction and separation of the Priest from the people then an union Yea but saith the Iesuit if this argument of the Knight were good it would follow that not only some but all the people must receive together with the Priest and that the people must not receive one without the other I answer that it followeth indeed that all the people that are solemnly invited by the Priest and come prepared ought to receive together and this the Apostles words strongly enforce wee being many are one bread and one body 1 Cor. 10.17 because wee are all partakers of that one bread marke it all partakers of one bread and therefore all one bread and one body How can Papists make this argument good out of their private Masses wherein none partaketh of the Bread or tasteth of the Cup but the Priest To the fifth By the Iurie of twelve men true and honest in the Iesuits account for they all lived and died in the communion of the Church of Rome all Priests that say I cannot say celebrate private Masses are cast as transgressours of the traditions and customes of the primitive Church Nay farther as novelists and innovators For they all testifie and that joyntly that the practise of the primitive Church is for our publike Communion and against their private Masses true saith the Iesuit they testifie concerning the practise of the primitive Church but they affirme not that the contrary practise was unlawfull the people then did communicate ordinarily with the Priest but there was no necessitie so to doe Admit this answer were true that the verdict of this Iurie passed for the practise and manner of the primitive Church not for any Canon or precept so to doe yet the Knight hath the better of the cause For they all prove that for which hee produceth them viz. that by the confession of our Adversaries antiquitie is for us in this point and that there was a Church celebrating the Lords Supper as we doe in the first and best ages when there was no Church extant in the world either maintaining or practising private Masses No man doubteth but that the constant and uniforme practise of the primitive Church ought to sway more with all religious Christians De sacrific Miss Dur. rat l. 4. c. 53. in primitivâ ecclesiâ omnes qui celebrationi missarum intererant communicabant Bellith in explicat can c. 50 Micro de eccles observat Tolos de Ritibus c. 38. Innocent 3. l. 6. myster mis c. 5 Odo in expos ean antiquitùs nullae missae sine collectâ hoc est caetu aliquo modò offerentium sacramenta participantiura agebantur Iustin in 1 Cor. 10. olim quod nunc etiam Graeci usurpant ex uno eodemque pane cōsecrato delibatae particulae singulis tribuebantur ut melius unio conjunctio cum Christo atque apertiùs significaretur then any novell constitution or practise of any later Church whatsoever If wee had nothing but their practise that alone were of great moment Yet wee have more I meane their judgement For sith whatsoever is not of faith is sinne especially in actions of this nature their constant and uniforme practise in this kind may serve as a demonstration to any sober-minded man that what they did they thought most agreeable to Christs institution But the Witnesses depose farther for some come home to the point of unlawfulnesse of private Masses Albeit Cocleus saith no more then that anciently the Priests and people did communicate together and Durandus that all that were present at the celebration of the Masse did every day communicate And Bellichus and Micrologus and Tholosanus and Innocentius the Third that in the infancie of the Church all that were present together at the Sacrament were wont to communicate Yet Odo Cameracensis goeth a step farther saying in the Primitive Church they never had Masses without the convention of the people to communicate together Iustinian addeth to the practise of the primitive Church the present practise of the Greeke Church backing them both with a good reason In ancient times saith hee which the Greeke Church useth at this day of one loafe of bread Consecrated divers parts were distributed to each communicant that by this their Communion their union with Christ might bee more plainly expressed Hugo de S. Vict. in spec eccles post baec dicitur communio quae sic appellatur ut omnes communicemus vel dicitur communio quia in primitivâ ecclesiâ populus communicabat quolibet die Cassand de solitar miss propriè communio dici non potest nisi plures de eodem sacrificio participant Ioan citat Cassand consult de solit miss res ipsa clamat tam in Graecâ quà m in Latinâ ecclesiâ non solùm sacerdotes sacrificantes sed reliques presbyteros diaconos nec non reliquam plebem aut saltem aliquam plebis partem communicà sse quod quomodo cessaverit mirandū est c. Bellar. li 2 de miss c 9 et 10 Durandus de hoeret l. 2. c. 4. and Hugo out strippeth him saying it is therefore called the Communion to teach us that we ought all to communicate of it or because the people in the primitive Church did communicate every day together Cassander enforceth the Argument drawne from the name of this Sacrament yet farther against private Masses it cannot bee said
other man to be present at a prayer which he understandeth not then for a Parish-Clarke whom alone hee will have here to be understood Who is very much beholding to him for bestowing the name of idiot upon him and truly such a Clarke as the Iesuit here defineth may very well take the idiot in the worst sence to himselfe For he requireth no more in a Clarke then that hee understand the Service so farre P. 265. as to bee able to answer Amen But it seemeth the Iesuit tooke his holy orders per saltum and skipt over the Clarke For if hee had well considered what belongs to the Clarkes office he should find that he hath more in his part then to say only Amen for in all ancient and later Liturgies that I have seene many short sentences or responds are to be said by him as namely Christe eleeson cumspiritn tuo habemus ad Dominum and the like neither can hee say Amen to any prayer in the Apostles sence unlesse hee perfectly understand it for to say Amen is not only to utter the word which a Parret or Popenjay may doe but to joyne in prayer with the Priest and to give his assent to every clause To the ninth The Iesuits answer to Iustinian is lame on both feet For whereas hee taxeth him for taking too much upon him it will appeare to any who peruseth the Code Digests that hee taketh no more upon him then God commendeth to Princes to wit the custodie of both tables he did no more then S. Austine affirmeth appertaineth to Christian Kings to command those things that are just and honest not only in civill affaires but also in matters of religion for what he did hee had many excellent presidents before him in David Salomon Hezekiah and Iosiah Kings of Iudah and Constantine and Theodosius and other Christian Emperours as is declared at large by B. Bilson in his defence of the oath of supremacre and Doctor Crakenthorpe in his most learned Apologie of this Emperour Next what hee saith that the Decree of this religious Emperour may well stand with the present practise of the Roman Church is most false Novel constit 123. For the words of the Emperour are generall commanding all Bishops and Priests to celebrate the sacred oblation of the Lords Supper and prayer used in Baptisme not in secret but with a lowd and cleare voyce that the mindes of the hearers might bee stirred up with more devotion to expresse the prayses of God Now I would faine know to what end all Bishops and Priests are commanded to pronounce their words clearely and distinctly both at the administration of Baptisme and the Lords Supper but that their hearers might undetstand what they say and bee affected with those things they heare which cannot beif the Priest speak to them in an unknown tong For how can the lowd pronouncing of words in a strange language stirre up the devotion of the people to praise God for his benefits which the Emperour here requireth under a great penaltie saying Let the Bishops and Priests know that if they neglect to doe according to our princely command they shall yeeld an account in the dreadfull judgement of the great God for it and wee having information of them will not leave them unpunished To the tenth After the Imperiall Decree the Knight alledgeth a text out of the Canon law not to shew his skill in both lawes as the Iesuit would have it but to demonstrate that the practise of the Roman Church in this point of prayer in an unknowne tongue is against all law both Ecclesiasticall and civill Tit. 3. de Offic. and that the walls of the Romish Babell are battered by her owne canons for though the Decree of Pope Gregorie were made upon a speciall occasion yet it is grounded upon this generall rule that Service and Sacraments must bee said and administred to the people in a language they understand which the Iesuit himselfe confesseth in part saying that it is a matter of necessitie in the administration of some Sacraments to use the vulgar tongue as in Mariage and Penance as for the Councell of Lateran and the Pope in his Decree they speake indefinitely of holy Service and Sacraments and the Logitians rule is that indefinite propositions in materia necessaria are to be taken for universals and by the same reason which the Iesuit alledgeth for Penance and Mariage to be celebrated in a knowne tongue wee may conclude that Baptisme also and the Lords Supper ought to bee so celebrated For in both questions are put to the people to the god fathers in the one and communicants in the other and answers are expected from them To the eleventh The Iesuit is like them taxed by the Apostle who knew not what they spake nor whereof they affirme Our question is not whether divine Service ought alwayes to bee said in the mother tongue for wee our selves doe other wayes in divers Colledges but the point in controversie is whether the service ought alwayes to besaid in a tongue understood by those that are present this all the Authours alledged by the Knight affirme and therefore they make for us and assuredly if for seven or 800 yeares the publike prayers of the Church were offered to God in a language understood by the people as is confessed questionlesse in many places the prayers were turned into vulgar languages For it cannot be imagined that all the people in the Christian world before Pope Vitalians time understood Hebrew Lyra in 1 Cor. 14. in primitiva ecclesia bene dictiones coetera fiebant in linguâ vulgari Gretz def Bel. l. 2. de verb. Dei linguâ auditoribus non ignotâ omnia peragebantur consuetudo tunc ferebat ut omnes psallerent Harding apud Iewel ia 3. art divis 28 Verely in the primitive Church prayers were made in a common tongue knowne to the people Liturg. canonicam precem in primis dominici corporis sanguinis consecrationem ita veteres legebant ut à populo intelligi Amen ucclamari possint Ioban Belit in sum de divin offic in primitiva ecclcsia prohibitum erat ne quis lo quereturling u is nisi esset qui inter pretaretur quid enim prodesset c. Wald. in doct art eccies tit 4. c. 31. fuit ergo ratio talis benediction is in ecclesiâ tempore Apostoli cui respondere solebat non tantùm clerus sed omnis populus Aquin as lect 4. ideò erat insania in primitivâ ecclesiâ quia erant rudes in ritu ecclesiastico Greeke or Latine neither is it a point much materiall whether the Authours alledged by the Knight speake of any Precept of praying in a knowne tongue or not it is sufficient that they confesse that it was the generall practice of the Primitive Church to performe their devotions in the vulgar tongue For certainly what they generally practised in their divine
the walls of the Church because they thought not the walls a place convenient lest the plaister breaking off in some places they might become deformed and so contemptible Where unto I rejoyne first that if the Councell did this out of honour to images Canus loc theol non modò imprudenter sed impiè decretum why doth their learned Bishop Canus so severely tax this Decree tearming it not only a foolish but an impious Canon Secondly if the Councell made this Deeree out of honour to images Why doe not all Papists who stand so much for the honour and worship of images obey this Decree and deface all images that are painted on Church-walls Thirdly if it bee an honour to images to be removed out of all Churches according to the purport of this Decree in the Iesuits understanding then the reformed Churches may justly be thought to have shewed the most respect and done the greatest honour to images of all other by casheering them out of their Churches prae amore excluserunt foras no doubt out of love they shut them out of doores Fourthly this reason taken from plaister breaking needeth a plaister to make it whole for if for this reason images may not bee painted on walls for feare of being defaced by weather or the plaister breaking by the like reason they should not bee painted in cloth or upon board because they are in like manner subject there to be soyled razed stolne away or many other wayes to be injured To the thirteenth The Iesuit sueth a Duplex querela against the Knight concerning Valence the Emperour first because hee stileth him a good Emperour next because hee ranketh him with Theodosius as Copartner with him in the Empire whereas Valence was killed twentie three yeares before Theodosius was borne Against his first quarrell I need plead nothing because Valence is not so styled by the Knight in the last corrected edition of Via tuta If the Knight had so styled him in any former edition Bapt. in Chrō he might have vouched a good authour for it namely Baptista Egnatius who speaking of Valence and his brother Valentinian saith Digni imperia fratres inter bonos referendi they were worthy the Empire and to bee ranked among good Princes saving that Valence was somewhat blemished by being seduced in judgement by the Arrians Invect in Iulian as also was Constantius the Emperour and yet Gregorie Nazianzen commendeth him for a religious Prince that much promoted the affaires of the Christians against the heathen and for the blotte of errour in his judgement hee layes the blame of it upon the subtile wits of the Arrian heretiques who put tricks upon that other-wayes good Emperour For the second quarrell hee pickes it is not worth a straw For though Valence and Theodosius lived not together yet they might both enact the same law Valence might first make it and after Theodosius confirme and revive it as King Iames hath revived many lawes made by Queene Elizabeth and other her predecessours though they never reigned together in this Kingdome howsoever if there were any error in relating this law out of the Coad as the Iesuit pretendeth Zanch in praec 2. Sed Petrus Crinitus scribit apertè se vidisse legem ipsam in antiquissimis codicib qaae simpliciter habebat ne pingeretur nulla mentione soli out marmorum humi positorum facta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he ought to plucke Petrus Crinitus by the beard for it for the Knight quoteth not the Coad or Digests for this law but Petrus Crinitus De honestâ disciplinâ l. 9. c. 9. where hee may find the precise words alledged by the Knight unlesse peradventure his Petrus Crinitus hath felt the razor of the Popish Inquisition and if so let him looke to more ancient editions of Crinitus quoted by the Authour of the English Homilies and Zanchius in his Comment upon the second Commandement where this golden locke of Petrus Crinitus is not cut off For what Timon spake concerning the Editions of Homer may bee said of Crinitus and other Romish Authours the most correct copyes are those that were never corrected To the foureteenth The Iesuit should have said a Paulian heretique for Clemanges and Wickliffe professe with Paul Acts 24.14 That after the way which they the Papists call heresie they so worship the God of their fathers in spirit and truth that they beleeve all things written in the Law and the Prophets and nothing as necessarie to salvation which is not written in them It is true Wickliffe was condemned for an heretique but it was many yeares after his death when hee could not plead for himselfe and the Councell which condemned him was a perjured and a condemned Councell not only in the judgements of Protestants but also ingenuous Papists for in that Councell three Popes were deposed and a fourth chosen Martin the fift Huz and Ierome of Prage contrary to the safe conduct sent them under the Seale of the Emperour Sigismund were burnt to death and their ashes throwne in the River Now as it is an honour laudari à laudato to bee commended by men that themselves deserve commendation so it is no disgrace or disparagement at all damnari à damnato to bee condemned by a Councell which is condemned and reproved it selfe even by the Roman Church at least in the first Sessions of it Bellar. de Concil c. 7. Concilium Constantiense quantum ad primas Sessiones ubi definit concilium esse supra Papam reprobatum est in concilio Florentino Laterananensi ultimo And such as are the first fruits such is the whole lumpe To the fifteenth All the Iesuits Geese are Swannes Multa Dircoeum levat aura Cygnum c. but our Dircaean Swannes with him are no better then geese antiquum obtinet this was just the fashion of the ancient hereretiques the Gnosticks and the Donatists if any came over to their side hee was presently cryed up for a man of singular parts and vertues but if hee returned to the bosome of the Church hee was cryed downe for a Weather-cocke or a tressis agaso It was well saith Saint Austine for Maximianus and Primianus that they fell to the Donatists sect whereby presently they gained the reputation of great Clarkes and prime men wher as other wayes if they had kept their old station Maximianus would have beene held Minimianus and Primianus Postremianus but let me tell the Iesuit that how much soever he sleighteth Cassander Erasmus and Wicelius that the worst of them in the time when he lived was of better account then I. R. or Leomelius or Daniel a Iesu As for gravitie and wisedome hee commeth farre short of Cassander for zeale and integritie of Wicelius so if wee speake of all kind of learning hee is not worthy to carry Erasmus bookes after him Dispeream si tu matulam praebere Mamurrae dignus es But I spare him in this kind because
the purpose that that Councell seemed to be an assembly not of Bishops but of Hobgoblins not of men but of Images moved like the statues of Daedalus by the sinewes of others What the Iesuit addeth of night owles not daring to appeare in the splendour of that Councell hath no colour of truth For it is no newes for owles to appeare at popish Councells At a Councell held at Rome by Pope Heldebrand Fascic rerum expetend sugiend Ortwhinus Gratius writeth there appeared an huge great Owle which could not be frayed away but scared all the Bishops As for Protestants whom this Blacke-bird of Antichrist termeth night Owles if they had flocked to that Councell they had shewed themselves not Owles by appearing in that twi-light at Trent but very Wood-cocks to trust any security offerd them by those who after publike faith given to Iohn Huz and Ierome of Prage notwithstanding the safe conduct of Sigismond the Emperour for their going to and comming from the Councell at Constance most cruelly burned them at a stake to ashes To the seventeenth Divine faith must be grounded upon divine authority and that cannot be the Catholike faith which wanteth consent of Fathers As for those Fathers whose authority Bellarmine draweth ob torto collo to testifie for unwritten traditions de verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 7. the Iesuit may see them fully answered in Iunius Whitaker Daniel Chamierus and Dr. Davenant Bishop of Sarum and a farre greater number of Fathers alleaged to the contrary by Robert Abbot in his answer to William Bishop cap. 7. Phillip Morney in his preface to his booke de sacrâ Eucharistiâ and Iacobus Laurentius in his singular tractate de Disputationibus and others To the eighteenth The assistance of the Holy ghost was more speciall in the times of the Apostles then in latter ages they could not erre in their writings others might yet we charge not the Catholike Church of Christ in any age with any fundamentall errour though we may the Roman Tertullian his rule may have still place and as well in one age as another if it be rightly taken and not misconstrued and misapplied for if it be taken generally that whatsoever is the same amongst many is no errour but tradition it is it selfe a great errour For the same opinion concerning the inequality of the Father and the Sonne is found amongst many to wit the Arrian Churches the same doctrine concerning the procession of the Sonne from the Father onely is found amongst many namely all the Greeke Churches at this day the same practise of administring the Eucharist to children was found amongst many namely all the Churches of Affrica in St. Austines time yea and in all Churches subject to the Bishop of Rome for many ages as Maldonat the Iesuit confesseth yet the above named Positions and this latter practise are confessed on all sides to be erroneous But Tertullian by many understandeth not the practise of some particular Churches Tertul. de prescrip Age nunc omnes ecclesiae erraverint verisimile est ut tot et tante in unam fidem erraverint much lesse of factious persons of one Sect but the generall and uniforme doctrine and practise of the whole Church as his words in the same Chapter quoted by the Iesuit declare Goe too now admit that all Churches have erred is it likely so many so great Churches should erringly conspire in one faith To the nineteenth We derogate nothing from any generall custome of the Catholike Church let the Iesuit produce out of good Authors any such custome for Indulgences to redeeme soules out of Purgatory flames by Papall Indulgences and this controversie will soone be at an end howsoever let me tell the Iesuit the way that this text of St. Paul is impertinently alleaged to prove this or any other article of the Trent faith For St. Paul in this place speaketh not of any Article of faith nor matter of manners necessary to salvation but of habits gestures fashions and indifferent rites in matter of which nature there is no question at all but that the custome of the Churches of God ought to sway as is abundantly proved by Dr. Andrewes late Bishop of Winchester in his printed Sermon upon that text To the twentieth Disputabamus de alliis respondet Iesuita de cepis we dispute of Indulgences the Iesuit answereth of Traditions in matter of Faith These are very distinct questions and so handled by all that deale Work-man-like in points of difference betweene the Reformed and the Romane Churches but the Jesuits common place of Indulgences was drawne drie and therefore hee setteth his cocke of Traditions on running which yeeldeth nothing but muddy water What though Faith be ancienter than Scriptures the Argument is inconsequent Ergo Scripture is not now the perfect rule of Faith Faith neither is nor can be more ancient than the Word of God upon which it is built this Word of God is now written and since the consigning and confirming the whole Canon of the written Word by Saint Iohn in the Apocalypse is become the perfect and as the Schooles speaketh the adequate rule of Faith It is true Christ and his Apostles first taught the Church by word of mouth Lib. 3. advers heres cap. 1. Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis nostrae cognovimus quam per eos per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos quod quidem tunc praeconiaverunt postea per dei voluntatem in scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futuram but afterwards that which they preached was by the commandment of God committed to writing to be the foundation and pillar of Faith as Irenaus testifieth in expresse words To the twentie one If the Iesuit could prove as undoubtedly any words of the Apostles that are not set downe in Scriptures to be their owne words as wee can prove the writings we have to be theirs wee would yeeld no lesse credit to them then to these but that neither can hee nor so much as undertaketh to doe And whereas he further faith that the credit of the Scripture depends upon Tradition unlesse hee qualifie the speech some way it is not onely erroneous but also blasphemous for it is all one as if hee should say that man gives credit and authority to God as Tertullian jeareth the Heathen In Apolloget not receiving Christ for God because the Romane Senate would not give their consent and approbation to make him one Iam homo deo propitius esse debet or that the credit and authority of Gods Word dependeth upon mans receiving it Whereas in truth Gods Word is not therefore of divine and infallible authoritie because the Church delivereth it to be so but on the contrary the Church delivereth it to be so because in it selfe it is so and the Church should erre damnably if shee should otherwise conceive of these inspired Writings then as of the undoubted Oracles of God