at this day maintaine against the Catholicks all the world over out of their own Communion Is it not evident by St. Cyprian 63. Epist that the people received the Cup (z) Quorum quidem vel ignorantèr vel simplicitèr in calice Domino sanctificando plaebi administrando non hoc faciunt quod Iesus Christu◠Dominus Deus noster sacrificii hujus Author Doctor fecit docuit religiosum paritèr necestarium duxi de hoc ad vos literas facere Cipt. Ep. 63. ad Coecilum Because some either out of Ignorance or Simplicity doe not that in consecrating the Eucharisticall Cup and administring it to the people mark no halfe communion served the people in that holy Bishops dayes which Jesus Christ our Lord and God the Author and Teacher of this sacrifice did and taught therefore I accounted it both a matter of religion and necessity to write to them concerning this businesse And is it not as clear by St. Aug. that the opinion of Trans-substantiation was not own'd in his dayes heare him speaking against the corporall eating of Christ in the Sacrament now so shamefully defended by the Romanists in his Exposition of the 98. Psal for in treating of Christs words in the 6. Cap. of St. John and the mistake of such as tooke his Speech as the Trent-faith now doth he saith expounding Christs words in his own Person that spake them (a) Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum non hoc Corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis bibituri illum fanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi spiritualter intellectū vivificabit vos etsi necesse est illnd visibiliter celebrari oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi Aug. in Ps 98 pag. 1105. edit froben Understand spiritually that which I have spoken unto you you are not to eat the Body which you see nor to drink that Blood which they will shed who will crucifie me I have commended a certaine Sacrament unto you being spiritually understood it will quicken you though it be necessary that it be visibly celebrated yet it is behovefull that it be invisibly conceived Doth not St. Ambrose as plainly teach that what mutation is wrought by consecration is mysticall and not such as the Romanists fancy grosse and corpoporeall when speaking of the operative vertue of Christs words he saith (b) Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini lesu ut inciperent esse quae nō erant quātò magis operatorius est ut fint quae crant in aliud cōmutentur Ambr. l. 4. de Sacr. c. 4. If therefore there be so great efficacie in the speech of the Lord Jesus that those things which were not by vertue thereof should begin to be how much more effectuall is it to cause the things that were to be and yet to be changed into somewhat else id est to continue naturally what they were before the consecration and yet also after the consecration Mystically and Sacramentally to become the body and blood of Christ which place in St. Ambrose was so distastefull to those of the new faith in the Romish-communion that whereas some of them beat their brains in finding away how to make the Bread and Wire in the Sacrament like the beast in the Revelation * Revel 17.8 that was and is not and yet is others as the late reverend Primate of Ireland observ'd in his ans to the Jesuits challenge p. 14. tooke a ready course to untye the Gordian knot by paring cleane away in their Roman Edition followed also in that of Paris Anno 1603. those words that so much troubled them and letting the rest run smoothly after this manner * Quantò magis operatorius est ut quae erant in aliud commutentur how much more is the speech of the Lord powerfull to make that those things which were should be changed into another thing To this purpose also speaks St. Cyprian in the fore-cited Epistle (c) Invenimus calicem mix tū suiffe quem Dominus obtulit vinū suisse quod fanguinem fnum dixit Cyp. Epist 65. we find that the Cup was mixed the epistle was wri◠against the Aquarii that celebrated the Eucharist with water alone which the Lord offered and that it was Wine which he called his Blood St. Iraeneus lived not farre from the Apostolicke times and he clearly asserteth the substance of bread to continue in the Eucharist after the consecration for thus he writeth concerning that Mysterie (d) Quemadmodum qui est â terrâ panis percipiens vocationem Dei jam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrenâ coelesti sic corpora nostra spercipientia Eucharistiam jam non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis habentia Iren Lib. 4. C. 34. As the Earthly bread by the institution or command of God is not now common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an Earthly and an Heavenly so our Bodies receiving the Eucharist are not now corruptible having hope of the Resurrection When therefore we meet with expression in the Fathers that seem to imply a Trans-substantiation they are nothing but a Catachresis an abuse of words or hyperbolicall elevations familiar to all sorts of Writers not unusuall among the Ancients when they speak of the other Sacrament of Baptisme as hath been largely prov'd by the late learned and Reverend Bishop of Duresme If Justin and Iraeneus say of the Eucharist that it is no longer after the consecration common bread St. Chrissest and Greg Nussen say also of Baptisme Non est aqua communis it is not common water and Cyril of Alexandria expresly useth the word trans-elementated by the efficacy of the spirit the sensible water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is changed into another element It appears hence that the Fathers condemned the present judgement of the roman-Roman-Church as to the above-named controversies between the Catholiques of the Reformed Churches and the Papists in the Roman separation who divided themselves from the Communion of the Primitive profession before the Protestants departed from them or rather were forced and driven from them As to my assertion schisme is theirs who cause it he thinkes to say only let that passe a valid confutation and excepts against my instance when I say when the Orthodox departed from the Arrians the heretiques made the schism◠This is contrary as he pretends to 1 Jo 2.19 who speaking of certain he retiques saith exierunt a nobis whic◠if true saith he then the Orthodox w 〈…〉 the Arrtans and Heretiques and t◠Arrians and the Heretiques were Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This acute Replyer is able to peirce the eye◠of a Jackdaw as infallibly as any on◠I ever heard of as if departure it sel◠did imply a crime without reference to the Society which a man leaveth b◠his departure Is departure from the blessed
that Liberius subscrib'd not to the ArriaÌ„ Confession which St. Hierome * in Catalogo saith he did compelled indeed by Fortunatianus but yet he did it Fortunatianus in hoc habetur detestabilis quod Liberium Romanae urbis Episcopum profide ad exilium pergentemprinius sollicitavit ac fregit ad subscriptionem haeresios compuin Let her vindicate also Anastatius secundus from Nestorianisme which is charged upon him by * apud Chamier lib 3. de Canone cap. 10. Luitprandus Tieinensis Platina who saith upon the credit of common fame that he dyed a strange death either as Arrius or by a suddain stroak from the Divine hand Albo floriacensis Anastasins Bibliot hecarius Let her make an Apology for * condemnatus in sexta Synodo Honorius who was condemned by a Councell a better Apology it should be then that of Saunders who though Honorâ—us taught heresie yet denies the Roman Church to have erred with him and adds that though he might confirme heresie as a man yet he did it not as a Pope 3. The Church of Rome is guilty of Schisme in that she doth not only depart from the communion of such Churches as were Orthodox in the judgement of prime and pure Antiquity but hath forced a departure of all the reformed Churches from her except they would communicate with her in her abominations Schisme is theirs who cause it when the Orthodox departed from the Arrians the Hereticks caused the Schisme a forced separation maketh not them that in such a case seperate themselves guilty of schisme such rather as teach doctrines to the Catholique faith repugnant are Schismaticks and this imputation lyeth strong upon the Church of Rome in forcing the Canons of the Trent-Councell if then it be demanded for the conviction of the Roman-church to be Schismaticall first Whose company did she leave secondly From what Body did she go forth thirdly Where was the true Church which she forsook 1. To the first question we reply that she left the company of the Orthodox when she obstinately pernsted in her false doctrines 2. She departed from their Body not by locall separation but by refusing to communicate with them that reformed themselves which particular Churches are bound to do when they cannot do it which were the best course by a generall Councell This advice God himselfe giveth unto Judah by the Prophet Hosea though the tenne Tribes should continue obstinate Though thou Israell play the Harlot Hosea 4.15 yet let not Judoh offend though there were but two Tribes in the one Kingdome and tenne in the other yet notwithstanding the paucity of the one Church and the multitude of the other comparatively they were to reforme themselves that were fewer in case the other should remain in their Idolatry 3. And if it be thirdly demanded Where was the true Church which the Roman-church forsock we reply first what we said before that the guilt of schisme may be incurred by forcing others except they will defile themselves by joyning with those that have espoused dangerous errors in their superstition and Idolatry to depart from us and then secondly it 's conspicuous enough that she left her selfe as one may say I mean that the Lattine-Church obstinate and peramtory in the perilous opinions of some of her own communion when she publikely owned those doctrines and would no longer endure them that would not comply with her therein forsook the rest of her Communion who misliked and detested the said errors in heart before they had by the concurrent assistance of Princes and Prelates opportunity to shake off the Tyrany of the Bishop of Rome whose ancient priviledge and Primacy of order were that the only quarrell we would not deny and when the good Providence of God gave a fair opportunity they openly rejected what with grief of heart they groaned under and tolerated before As for that enquiry 1. By what generall Councell 〈…〉 Fathers 3. By what other Authority hath the Church of Rome been condemned written against or reproved We answer that the present opinions and practice of the Church of Rome are dondemn'd by Generall Councells the Usurpation of unlimited Power challenged by the Pope is censured by the sixth Canon of the famous Councell of Nice which giveth like Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch within their respective limits and bounds as the Bishop of Rome did exercise within his Precincts the worshipping of Images censured about twenty years before the Councell of Nice by the 36 Canon of the Councell of Elâ—beris Placuit picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere c. 'T is resolved that Pictures should not be in the Church lest that which is adored be painted on walls and whatsoever may be pleaded by the authority of the second Councell of Nice in the defence of Images yet it 's evident that the Canons thereof were not universally received because as soon as the newes of the Acts thereof came to the ears of the Fathers assembled by Charles the great two years afterward at Frankford they were rejected and refuted by those three hundred Bishops there convened If it should be demanded where is the Councell that hath condemned Rome since the seperation of the Protestants it is easy to reply that the obstinacy of the Pope and his Adhaerents obstruct the application of so good a Plaister to the wounds and breakings of the Church what fruit is like to come upon such a Convention as the Pope would agree to may appear by the transactions of the Trent-Assembly but the want of the sentence of a Generall Councell condemning the Church of Rome is no security to the Romanists that their Church is a safe Communion to those that are in it for dangerous errors and heresies arose in the Church before Constantine's time and such as were destructive to them that held them and yet they were not condemned by Generall Councells there having been no convenience for their meeting untill the Empire came into the Church 2. For the Fathers of the first five hundred years it is evident enough that they are against the present Church of Rome in all the Controversies disputed between the Romanists and the Protestants as might be quickly shown out of their writings were it seasonable to take the pains and then moreover to give an accompt to the third Enquiry where it is demanded By what other authority hath she been reproved We desire no more ample Authority than the Scriptures interpreted by the wisdome and constant consent of the Catholique Church The Romanists Reply to the Protestants Answer Sir YOu sent me some Catholique Quaeries with as you say Doctor Samwais's Answer to which take this brief Reply The Paper which you sent takes it for granted and the Dr. denies it not that the Church of Rome was once a most pure Church and proves her continuance thus This Church could not cease to be such but she must fall either by
Imprimatur Geo Parish S. T. P. Reverend ' in Christo Patri Archiepisc ' Ebor ' a sac ' Domest ' April 14. 1663. THE Church of ROME Not sufficiently defended from her Apostacy Heresie and Schisme As appears By an Answer to certain Quaeries Printed in a Book entituled Fiat Lux and sent transcribed as 't is suppos'd from thence by a Romanist to a Priest of the Church of England Whereunto are annexed The Romanist's Reply to the Protestant's Answer and the Protestant's Rejoynder to that Reply By P.S. D.D. Yorke Printed by A. Broade and are to be sold by R. Lambert at the Minster-Gates 1663. To the Right Honourable and Right Reverend Father in God JOHN Ld. Bishop Count Palatine of Duresme Right Reverend and my much Honoured Lord WHen I waited on your Lordship the last Summer at the time of your publique-Ordination I communicated to your Lordship the Papers that now are printed in this small Booke Your Lordship was pleased to give me incouragement to publish them and withall to advise me to forbear any future reciprocation of this Saw which some count their delight to draw and retort I should not have presumed to communicate these endeavours of mine in a contest so long managed by our learned Prelates and other worthy Men of our English Church but that I perceive that our ordinary sort of people have not the opportunity to procure nor leisure to peruse Books of larger Volumne and Reverend Bishop Jewel's Apology that might instruct them in the severall Questions in debate between the true and pretended Catholiques that is betwixt the Protestants and the Romanists is rarely perused by the people of this Age though it may possibly be found in some Churches What the Person is that sent me the Quaeries extant I perceive in the booke called Fiat Lux and who made the Reply to my Answer I know not but I perceived that the people might easily be amazed by them and disposed to judge the Church of Rome not at all changed from her primitive integrity and thereupon the better inclined to desert our Communion In the Parish where I live I perceive the Papists and there are severall Families there of the Romish-perswasion generally believe that we have set up a new Religion that we have no Priests amongst us and consequently no Sacrament except perhaps what their women in some cases by allowance do administer Baptisme What effect such opinions do produce is visible enough in the spreading of this error in this place within a few years by-past That we should do our best endeavours to acquaint the people that Rome is not such as sometimes she was that England is not a Church bearing date since Henry the eight's Reigne that our Divines are Priests duely ordained that we have no defects in our Discipline destructive to the being of a sound Church and that salvation may be obtained better amongst us than in any Church in the world is the common duty of all intrusted with the charge of souls What I am able to contribute to so good a work I adventure to shew by this ensuing Discourse and how Zealous both myselfe and all others ought to be to have it done the danger of such as are misled from our Assemblies doth abundantly demonstrate That by Gods blessing this Skirmish may confirme some that stand establish some that stagger and raise up some that are fallen amongst us I hope the rather for that I have been encouraged thereunto by your Lordship who being so well skilled in the excellent structure of our settlement which were our Discipline advanced to the purity that our Church in the commination professeth is to be wished for would fall but little short of the Primitive-constitution hath alway been ready to maintain that the pretensions of Rome so far as she condemns and dissents from us in the substantiall parts of Religion are destitute of a solid foundation Your Lordships ability to defend and resolution to suffer for the Cause of our Church both at home and abroad are so well known that to speak anything of either of them is superfluous I crave your Lordships candid acceptance of this small work and withall I humbly returne my thanks for your Lordships patience in perusing these Papers and readiness to impart your Lordships direction and advice in severall particulars and with my prayers that your Lordship may enjoy that measure of health and length of life in your Diocesse that may enable you to settle it according to the pious and grave designe of your Articles of Visitation and compleat your Reparations of those Ruines that sacrilegious hands have made upon the Fabriques belonging to your Bishoprick in accomplishing which good Enterprize I have been an eye-witnesse that your Lordship forgetting your private concernes spareth neither for cost nor paines I rest My Lord Your Lorships humble and much obliged servant Peter Samwaies To my worthy friend Walter Lyster Esquire Sir THough you live among some of the Roman Religion yet you are better satisfied with the Constitution of that Church wherein you receiv'd your Baptisme than by the Quaeries that you gave me to be shaken from the truth of that Catholick Christianity which we professe since the Reformation in England When I returned to you the short Answer which you see now made publick it was received you know with as much scorne and disparagement as those of the new Religion for such I call the present Profession of Rome use to entertain the Reasons that either they understand not or know not how to answer But yet that somewhat might be retorted I know not what Champion amongst them let him answer it to his Superiours if he did it without their leave sent as you can witnesse a Reply closing it with an Appeal to an indifferent Judge I have joyned issue with him upon his own Termes and hope that whatsoever they may judge that are engaged never to approve any thing that shall convince them to be mistaken yet an indifferent Reader will acknowledge upon his perusall of our severall pleas that whatsoever Rome was in her primitive purity and splendor yet when we were forced to withdraw our selves from her Communion she had forfeited all just claim to her first excellency and cannot be excused from Apostacy Heresy and Schisme If any thing that hath been written upon the occasion of that Challenge which you brought me may contribute something to your further confirmation in the truth espoused already by you I shall not think my labour lost but if it shall conduce also to the better establishment of others I have reason as in the first place to glorify God for making me serviceable in the defence of his truth so in the next to give you thanks for engaging me in this Contest who being perhaps too much inclined to peace had not marched into this field had I not as you can witnesse first been challenged Wishing you all that felicity that none of the
and that but of 19 Bishops Hence the Replyer conceiveth it not pertinently urged because the Quaries demand the censure of a Generall Councell I know the Cardinall doth upon this account deminish the Authority of the Fathers there asseÌ„bled but yet it plainly hence appears that restore the Canon to its genuine sence and it declares the present practice of the Roman-Church not to have been universally received nay to have receiv'd a check by Men though fewer in number then have met in following Synods yet reverenced for their antiquity being assembled 20 years before the Generall Councell at Nice and therefore to be had in estimation for their age And though Baronius in passion had accused this Councell of seeming vicinity to Novatianisme yet considering that (o) Cùm quae ab illÃs de eâ resunt statuta ab innocentio Rom Pontifice excutentur nemo sit qui accusare praesumat Pope Innocent had acquitted them that met there he would have none to presume to accuse them upon which words Binius concludeth that Baroniues though * Eam synodum legitimaÌ„ esse ab omni ecrote liberam that this Synod was lawfull and free from error As for the impertinency of alledging a Provinciall when an Oecummenicall councell was demanded let not the Replyer forget what the Quaeries propound and the answer will be proper enough for it was not only required by what General Councell hath Rome been condemned but also by what Authority was she otherwise reproved a Provinciall Synod hath authority inferior indeed to that of a Generall Councell but yet ample enough to checke the pretences of any new Doctrine that is defended as Catholique for what hath been censured though but by a provinciall Assembly so early in the Church cannot lay claime to that known Character of Chatholicisme in Vincentius Lyrinensis who admits not that to be such (p) In ipsà Catholicâ Ecclesiâ magnovere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper quod ad emnibus reditum est advers haeres c. 3. which was not taught in all places at all times and by all Christians and therefore that must needs be destitute of Universality Antiquity and Consent that was disapproved by the Fathers of the Councel of Eliberis which may be esteemed the more for Hosius's sake a constant man against Idolatry who sate afterwards in the first Councel of Nice and was as devout in his conversation as his (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phot. Ep. p. 3. name importeth as Phosius observeth keeping his confession undefiled from Idol-worship moreover what veneration Pope Innocent's approbation gave this Assembly the Replyer I suppose will not think that any censure of his can take away The Replyer complaineth that proof is not made that the secoÌ„d Nicene Councell was not universally received what proof more Authentique then the Authority of the Synods of Eliberis and Frankford alledged by me I have given an accompt of the first already and for that of Frankford this puisne Replyer presumes I suppose without the Lycense of his Superiors to say that it neither rejects nor refutes the Nicent Canons but concurrs with the Nicent Councel that gives though not Latriam yet honorariam adorationem an honorary adoration to Pictures Two things are to be rejoyn'd tâ— this reply 1. That the Replyer's mistaken in saying that the Frankford Fathers rejected not the Nicene Canonâ— concerning Image-worship and secondly that the Nicene Canons establishing an Inferiour adoration to be given to pictures were not Cathelique Sanctions As to the First it is evident that the Replyer opposeth the judgment alwell of Bellarmine as of Baronius when he saith That the Fathers at Frankford rejected not the Canons of Nice Let him turne to his Binius and there he shall find that they both were mistaken in thinking that these Councels clashed but yet that they thought so What strength the Reasons of Binius carry against these two Cardinals I shall not enquire Sure I am that if Baronius be mistaken in his Opinion in this case he deserves little credit in other of his assertions For he affirmeth himself so farre from doubting of it (r) Tantum abest ne negemus Nicaenam secundam Synodum eandemque septi 〈…〉 Oecnmenicam dictam damnatam dici in Franâ— of urdienci Concilio ut etiam augeamus numerum testium id profitentium quidem haud dubiae fidei aut autoritatis Baron Tom. 9. p. 539 An. Chr. 794. n. 27. That he solemnly professeth by undeniable testmonies to put it beyond all question and so he doth as hath been lately observed by reverend and learned Dr. Hammond out of Walafridus Strabo Amalarius Finimarus Aâ—astatius and many others If these two learned Romanists have not in this case reputation enough to satisfie the Replyer I could send him to better witnesses to the Annalls set forth by Pythaus (s) Synodus habitu in Franconofuâ—t in quâ haeresis foeliciana coram Episcopis Germanorum Germaniarum Gal liarum Italorumque praesente magno Principe Carolo missis Adriani Apostolini Thcophylacto Stephano Episcopis tertio danata est Pseudo Synodus Graecorum pro adorandis imaginibus habita falso septima vocata ab Episcopis daÌ„natur Chamler de imag To 2. lib. 21. c. 14. p. 855. where it is said that in the year 594 there was a Synod called at FraÌ„kford where Foelix was condemned and the Pseudo Synod of the Greeks that established Image-worship being falsely called the seventh is cersured by the Bishops So the life of Charles the Great published by the same Pythaeus so Ado and others G. Cassander in his 29 Epistle to John Molinaeuâ— gives him an ample account of the 4 Books written by the authority and under the name of Charles the French King the whole Councell of Frankford consenting to the contents of them which were sent to the Pope against the decrees of the Councell of Nice It were the best course for the Replyer to do as the rest of his Masters doe in this dispute I mean not to say that the Assemby of Frankforde did not oppose the Fathers of Nice but to under-value the Authority of that Councell as confronting without just Authority the Canons of the second Nicene which they say was a Generall whereas this of Frankford was but a Nationall Synod I come therefore to the second thing that I propounded above to prove I mean that the Canons of the 2d Nicene Councell were not Catholique Sanctions that is the Canons that give religious worship to images were not rules of sound and wholesome doctrine In this enquiry I question neither the number nor the power of such as either called this Assembly or came to it though there lye a great prejudice against Councell opposed by not a few of the Greeks and by almost all the West the Councell of Ariminum was subscribed by all the Patriarchs yea by the Pope himselfe yet was of no