which was left vs by the Apostles and which to this day is conserued in the Romane Church This moued S. Ambrose to obserue that as long as Constantinople did nourish the poyson of the Arians in her breast her walls were coÌ„tinually inuironed with the armyes of her enemyes and that hauing once imbraced the Catholike faith she was deliuered from them with triumphe The tragidies which are represented vpon the French stage proceeds not from the contempt of your religion but from the contempt which the professours of it shew to the law of God the authoritie of his Church and their dutie to their kings Heresie hath alwayes occasioned greatest calamities in the states wherin it hath gotten footing and the kings that haue abbandoned the Romane faith haue ordinarily bene vnfortunate Christiernus king of Denmarke the first king that was imbued with your errours was deposed from his kingdome put in an iron cage and finally according to the opinion of the tymes poysoned as I haue alreadie mentioned The Electour of Saxonie nephew to the first Abbettour of Luther was taken prisoner by the Emperour condemned to death and in the end by commutation of punishment lost his Electourshipe and the moictie of his estate in sequall wher of his sonne dyed in prison The Lantgraue of Hesse who sustayned the same cause remayned for a long tyme prisoner Of 28. hereticall Emperours of Constantinople thirteene were slayne Of the rest some had their eyes pulled out some were deposed all dyed most miserably Hist Vvand Of seauen Vvandall kinges subiect to the same errours three were miserably murthered Of thirteene which the Visigots had Annal. Hist twelue did violently dy Of seauen of the Ostrogots two onely escaped the enemys sword Hist Ital. Of seauen which were in Lonbardie one onely escaped an vntymly death So manifest it is that heresie is the source of all mischeife and that he that forsakes the Romane Church is ordinarily oppressed with miseries and misfortunes Vvherfore hauing â—ust occasion to feare that you might be vtterly ruined therby if you continue in your errours I thought good hoping to reclame you and to reduce you to the bosome of the Church hauing alreadie refuted your writing to propose vnto you some reasons which obliging all the world to hate your religion might administer you iust occasion to forsake it I could easily produce a great number yet I will content my selfe with fiue onely which doe conuince that your beliefe is worthy of horrour because it doth introduce schisme into the Church reuiues the old heresies which were condemned in the primitiue Church banisheth all vertue authoriseth all vice and will haue no law whether of the Churche or of Princes to haue power to oblige in conscience THE RELIGION PREtended to be reformed is vvorthy of hatred because it makes a schisme in the Church CHAP. XV. SInce we are diuided and seperated in communion wheras before we were vnited in one body it is euident that you or we haue made a schisme It rests to be examined who is guiltie of this crime wherof I assure my selfe that by the iudgement of the whole world and of your owne consciences you remayne conuinced by vndenyable proofes since they are the same by which the Fathers of old did conuince those whom you your selues accnowledge to be Schismatiques It is euident saith saint a Cypr. l. de vnit constat à Christo eius Euangelio seperari non enim nos ab illis sed illi 〈◊〉 nobis exieâ—unt Cyprian speaking of the Nouatians that they are seperated from Iesus Christ and his Gospell because we went not out from them but they from vs Caecilianus saith a Lib. cont Farmen non enim Cacilianus exiuit a Maiorino sed Maiorinus a Caeciliano vna erat Ecclesia antequaÌ„ diuideretur ab ordinationibus Maiorini videndum est quis in radice cum toto orbe manserit quis CathedraÌ„ sederit alteram quae ante non fuerat S. Optatus against the Donatists did not seperate himselfe from Maiorinus your greatgrand father but Maiorinus from Caecilianus nor did Caecilianus Sperate himselfe from the Chaire of S. Peter or of S. Cyprian but Maior in the chaire in which thou sittest a chaire which before Maiorinus had no origine And a litle after The Church was one till it was diuided by those who ordayned Maiorinus Vve must now see who remayned with the whole vniuers in its beliefe and in its roote who is seared vpon another chaire then that which was before These two passages doe shew that the Nouatians and Donatists were accompted Schismatiques both because they with drew themselues from the Catholikes not the Catholikes from them as also because they erected a new chaire and finally because they stayed not together with the vniuers in the roote whence they sprung Now all these things doe conuince you considering that you went out from Catholikes and not Catholikes from you that you set vp a Chaire at Vvitemberg and at Geneua which was not before your tyme and that you haue seperated yourselues from the roote which produced you in lieu of remayning together with the whole world in the Romane Church which brought you forth That you went out froÌ„ Catholikes is iustifyed by your owne confessions and it is euident in that you cannot name one of the first followers of Luthere who had not bene of ours That you your selues are the Architectes and Founders of your chaire it is cleare Confess Helueticac 16. Ecclesiae nostrae se à Romana separarunt Luther in c. 11. Gen. Nos sumus sancti Apostatae defecimus enim ab Antichristo Sathanae Ecclesia Calu. 4. Instit c. 2. §. 6. Abeorum Ecclesia recessimus Et cap. 6. §. 1. ZaÌ„chius tract de Eccles c. 8. since none before the coming of Luthere did know at Vvitemberg nor at Geneua before Farell and Caluin the Chaire where your doctrine is preached and that you will not affirme that they which preceeded those personages in those places taught therin the same doctrine which you teach That you remayned not in the roote from whence you sprunge t' is manifest since you are no more in the Romane Church where you tooke your origine therfore it is vndoutable that the arguments of the said Fathers doe conuince you of schisme Nor doth it serue your turne to say that our abuses were the cause you withdrew your selues for without examining the cause of your seperation it sufficeth to know that you are separated there being no cause at all which can exempt a Church from schisme which comes intire out of another This is manifest in that the Church hauing drawen her beeing from no other but Iesus Christ cast into a sleepe vpon the Crosse like as Eue was drawen from no other place then from the side of Adam layd a sleepe in Paradise in that it preceded euerie false Christian societie euen as the Architype precedes that which is copied from
it in that it was established 1600. yeares agoe with promisse of a perpetuitie so assured that it cannot departe from its primitiue establishement that is to say from the body first instituted by lesus Christ while he was in the world there is none that doth not accnowledge that a Church like yours which a smale tyme since departed wholy out of another ChristiaÌ„ societie is at least Schismaticall And it will be as litle for your aduaÌ„tage to affirme that you were forced out from vs the Church by her excoÌ„munication compelling you therunto because as I haue said it is enough to know that you are gone out without searching the cause therof and againe that it is a cleare thing that the Church of Rome did neuer bannish you from her communion till after you had diuided your selues froÌ„ her beleife which is iustified in that the Pope did not excoÌ„municate Luther till after he had preached against the Faith of the Romane Church Thus you remayne attainted and coÌ„uicted of schisme nor are you able to purge your selues of it as I shall still make more and more appeare a S. Aug. lib. 2. cont litt Petil. c. 16. Obiicio schismatiscrimen quod tu negabis ego autem statim probabo neque enim commâ—nicas omnibus gentibus illis Ecclesiis Apostolico labcrefundatis S. Augustine saith to Petilian a Donatist I obiect vnto thee the crime of schisme thou lt deney it and I will presently conuince thee of it for thou art not in communion with all the people and Churches founded by the Apostles labour If S. Aug. conuinced Petilian of schisme because he was not in communion with the Church dispersed through all the world and founded by the Apostles can you your selues doubt but that you are conuinced of the same crime sith you haue no communion with the whole vniuerse no nor with the Apostolicall Church your owne consciences I dare assure my selfe will at once both accuse and coÌ„uince you Now if the argumeÌ„ts I haue vsed to conuince you of schisme haue not fully satisfied I will yet further lay before your eyes how the same Fathers and many others hauing condemned some of their tymes as schismatikes onely because they did diuide themselues from the Romane Church doe in that their fact condemne you also of the sam crime as hauing forsaken the said Church He saith S. a Cypr. lib. de vnit Eccles Qui CathedraÌ„ Petri super quod fundatâ— est Ecclesia deserit in Ecclesiaâ—se esse confidit Cyprian who forsakes the Chaire of S. Peter vpon which the Church is built doth he conceaue himselfe to be in the Church Vvhere this great S. doth not onely say that such as diuide themselues from the Chaire of S. Peter are out of the Church but withall renders the primitiue reason therof because they seperate themselues from the fundation of the Church The same b Cyp. epist 55. ad Petri CathedraÌ„ atque ad Ecclesiam principalem vnde vnitas Sacerdotalis exorta est he to acheth in another place where he saith that S. Peters Chaire is that from whence priestly vnitie tooke its origine Thou art not ignorant saith S. c Optat. l. 2. contra Parm. Igitur negare non potes scire te in vrbe Romana Petro primo EcclesiaÌ„ Episcopalem essecollatam 〈◊〉 his qua cathedra vnitas ab omnibus ser uaretur .... vt am schismaticus peccatoresset qui coÌ„trasingularem Carbedram alteram callen cares Optatus to Parmenian Donatist that the Episcopall Chaire was first coÌ„ferred vpon S. Peter in the Citie of Rome in which one chaire all should be so vnited that who soeuer is disunited and setts vp an other chaire against that is a Schismatike and a sinner Vvhence d Lib. 2. Vnde est ergo quod claues regni vobis vsurpare contenditis quicoÌ„tra CathedraÌ„ Petri vestris praesuÌ„tionibus audaciis sacri legio contenditis saith he in the same doe you then pretend to haue the keys of the kingdome of Heauen you that wage warre against Peters e l. 2. in qua vna Cathedra vnitas ab omnibus seruaretur Chaine in which alone the vnitie of the Church is conserued S. f Lib. 3. cap. 3 Ad hanc Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitateÌ„ necesse est omnem conuenire Ecclesiam hoc esteos qui sunt vndique fideles Ireneus grounds vpon the same fundation when he saith that it is necessarie that all the Church that is all the faithfull through the whole world agree with the Church of Rome in regard of her more powerfull principalitie It is also for this reason that g Deobitu Satyri vtrumnaÌ„ cum Catholicis hoc est cum Romana Ecclesia conueniret S. Ambrose relating that Satyrus demaÌ„ds of some one whether he did not accord with the Catholikes addes that is to say with the Romane Church taking the Catholike Church and Romane Churh for one and the same thing In fine this would h Ep. 57. Ego nulluÌ„ primum nisi Christnm sequens beatitudinis tuae id est Cathedrae Petri communione coÌ„socior super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio Quicunque extra bano domum agnum commederit profanus est non noui Vitalem Meletium respuo ignoro Paulinum Quicunque tecum non colligit spargit S. Hierome writing to Pope Damasus to say Following no other then Iesus-Christ for the first head I ioyne vnite my selfe in Communion with your Holines that is to say to the Chaire of S. Peter knowing that the Church is buillt vpon this Rocke Whosoeuer eates the lambe out of this house is profane Iaccnowledge not Vitalis I reiect Meletius who is Paulinus I am ignorant whesoeuer gathers not with thee disperseth After these so many and so conuincing authorities rests there any more te be said to force you to accnowledge your selues to be ouercome Is it not sufficient to haue shewen that you haue erected à chaire against the Chaire of S. Peter That you are not in communion with his successour That you are not in the vnitie of the Church of Rome That it is not in this house that you eate the Lambe That in the Person of Luther you accnowledge Vitalis and in Caluin you imbrace Meletius In fine that you follow Pauline in following the false Doctours seperated from the Church of Rome May not I say to you with the same S. Hierome a Apol. 1. aduersus Ruffin fidem suam quam Gocat eamue qua Romana pollet Ecclesia si Romanam responderit ergo Catholsci sumus if you professe the Romane Faith ergo you are Catholikes and consequently if you professe it not you are not in the communion of the Catholike Church What doe you answere to all this You will studie some euasion I know and happily say the fathers arguments were good because the Church of Rome being then the true Church à man could not seperate
and doth accnowledge it to be such that by good right it ought to be a Retinenâ—â—m esse eleationem hi vhi vt npiae prohieiur abolendam vbi vt ni cessaria prcipitur retayned and obserued where it is prohibited as impious There be also others of yours who place it amoÌ„gst the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are nether commanded nor prohibited finally others confesse that it was in vse in the primitiue Church as they make good by the testimonies of the Fathers Wher vpon b Vvitemberegenses refutationâ— Orthodoxi consensus p 101. Eleua tionem ren adiophoraâ— quaea Chris nec praecept nec prohibi sit omnes ir telligentes pios fateriâ—â— non dubium est Et Hospâ—â—nian par 1. Histo l. 2. fo 31. In primâ—tiua Ecclesisymbola Eucharistica paululum eleuata populo ostensa fuetunt we are moued diligently to defend and conserue it and the rather because as you affirme it was the counsell of your first father or if it please your worp that we should change it sith c Dionysj Ecclesiae Hierar cap. 3. Chrysostomihomil 36. in 1. Corinth hom 3. ad Ephes Basilij Lib. d sp s c. 27. c. Rom. 4. v. 15. S. Paule teacheth vs that where there is no law there is no transgression produce I beseech you one passage of the scripture which doth prohibite it which if you cannot performe confesse at least that the Church is indowed with sufficieÌ„t power to institute the same for d S. Augustine holds it to be a meere madnes to contende that that is not to be done which the Church is accustomed to doe through the vniuersall world Wherto e one of yours also doth assent in these words that any may be compelled and conuinced by the authoritie of the Church and that heretikes are not more forcibly and efficatiouly vrged by any externall argument SECT IV. OF MASSES WHERE THE ASSISTANTS DOE NOT COMMVNICATE BY this same rule you will loose this cause too I meane the question which you moue about priuate masses 〈◊〉 Epist. 118. 〈◊〉 Vvhitat â—ontrou 1. q. 〈◊〉 cap. 5. â—â— ffateor â—os haereâ—â—cos cogi â—onuinci posâ—â— author â—taâ—e â—â—elesiae â—ec alto argumento exâ—e â—â—o vâ—â—â—diâ—s ac forâ—ius preâ—â—i â—areticos as you please to tearme them and communion vnder both kinds in both which kinds the Church did many yeares agoe practise what we now practise How beit I will briefely touch both those points hoping to make manifest that you are as ill grounded in those as in the others which we haue alreadie examined There is no man that doth not ingenuously confesse that the celebration of the Euchariste when the people doe communicate is more perfect then that where they communicate not common reason conuinceth that to all the world both because the fruits of the sacrifice are more fruitfully communicated when the hoste is consummated by the assistants worthyly disposed then when it is not receaued by them and also because this mysterie being both a sacrament and a sacryfice is more perfectly accomplished when it is not onely offered to God in sacryfice but also imparted to the people as a sacrament For these considerations the ancient canons and Fathers doe inuite exhort yea command christians to coÌ„municate at the masses which they hearè and the Councell of Trent doth expresly desire it Sess 2â— Wher for if you pretend no more but that it were better that the faithfull should communicate all at the masses they heare we doe loyne hands with you And in this cause in lieu of condemning the good and wholsome doctrine of the Church in this point as in all the rest you should complaine of the indeuotion of the people sith it is their coldnes that is cause of their not communicating not the Pastours fault But â—f your bent be to condemne the masses where the assistants communicate not to be vnlawfull we must oppose and with great reason in all mens iudgment since none are found who iustifie your pretentions and condemne ours If the masses where the people communicate not were vnlawfull it must needs be because the oblation of the Euchariste as it is a sacrifice should be necessarily annected to the participation of the people in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament which could onely come to passe two wayes other by reason of the nature of the sacrifice or because God would haue it so By reason of the sacrifice it cannot be since it is manifest that its beeing doth not depend of the participation of the assistants none did eate of the holocausts which were wholy coÌ„sumedâ— none did participate after the manner we speâ—ke of of that which was ordayned by Moyses for the remission of sinnes Leuit. 6. for as it is written preists alone had libertie to eate of it Nâ—y in the sacryfice of the Crosse which was offered for vs all none at all did participate in that manner in which our aduersaries would oblige vs to partake in the Eucharist Nether can one affirme that Iesus-Christ would haue no masses celebrated without communicants there nether being any formall law nor expresse word in all the scripture whence you will haue all the truthes of faith to be deriued wherby we may gather it You will happily say that Christ in his last supper communicated his Apostles and consequently that we are bound to imitate him by distributing the Eucharist to the people But this proues no more but that the people may communicate that it is to be desired that they would communicate and that when they will it should not be refused them but it imports not that we are bound to thrust the Eucharist vpon them against their will and that we are not to celebrate vnlesse they communicate For who is able to sustayne that in case the Apostles had not communicated our sauiour had not celebrated the Euchariste Who dare affirme that it was Gods will that so glorious à mysterie should haue depended vpon the will of another and that the indeuotion of the comon people should make the Pastour indeuoute But I would willingly aske you since you make our sauiours imitatioÌ„ an inuio lable law vnto you alwayes to communicate the people Cap. de Euchar. Ad rectam Eucharistiae actionem requiruntur ad minus duo â—idelices Minister bucharistiae benedicens â—s cui Eucharistiae Sacramertum dispensatur why doth it not oblige you also to communicate all the people Which yet you doe not for the Confession of Witemberg is content that one onely should coÌ„municate and againe many are present at your suppers who coÌ„municate not In à word seeing S. Paul doth tell vs that where there is no law there is no transgression and that sinne is à trangession of the law and seing you produce no place of scripture which condemnes vs you your selues stand guiltie of the fault not in this respect onely but in many others First by
the custome of the Church for a Hom 〈◊〉 in Ep. ad Ephes Frustrahabetur quotidiana oblatiâ— cum nemo sit qui simul participeâ— S. Chrysostome confesseth that in his tyme there was such à negligence amongst the people that there were many oblations made wherof none did partake and b Aâ—br 5. de Sacram. c. 4. S. Ambrose doth witnes the same speaking of the Grecians who he saith were wonte to communicate but once à yeare Secondly by the confession of your owne Authours for c Perkinsus in â—rohlem de Mis â—a priuata TeÌ„â—ore Walfridi â—iâ—â—entur caepisse soliteriae missae tempore Gregoriâ— Perkins doth accnowledge that the custome of saying masse wherin the people communiecated nor was obserued in the Church euen from the tyme of walfride and Gregorie the great that is à thousand yeares agoe whence it is manifest that it hath bene obserued in all tymes since none can shew the begining therof Thirdly by your men for d The historie of false Martyrs in â—n thelife of iohn Hus. The memorie of â—o Hus ought to bee in holy esteeme amongst all the faithfull Iohn Hus whose memorie is famous amongst you saith planly witnes e Luth. colloq conuâ—â—alibus Luthere that this custome is not vnlawfull SECT V. Of Communion vnder one kind TO improue and reiect the ancient customes of the Church as you doe without alleading any law for their condemnation is to condemne your selues You crye out Anathema against vs because we communicate vnder one kind onely which yet hath bene in all tymes practised in the Church you persuade the people that we doe them à great iniurie in not permitting them both the kinds wheras you produce no là w which prohibites as an vnlawfull thinge what we practise And that this many ages agoe was the custome of the Church a Ser. de Laepsis S. Cyprian S. b De obitu Satyri Ambrose and c Lib. 2. de vxore Euzeb l. 6. c. 39. Tertulian who liued in the second third and fourth age doe deliuer d Lib. de Lapsis witnessing that the primitiue Christians conserued the Euchariste in there houses vnder the onely species of bread to haue accesse to it at all houres vpon sundrie occasions whether it were in tyme of sicknes to prepare themselues to Martirdorne or for same other respecte Further it appears out of S. Cyprian who notes particularly that Children were communicated vnder the onely species of wine as also out of S. e Basil Epist ad Caesaream August Basile who witneseth that such as liued solitarily in the wildernes coÌ„municated vnder one kinde Manifest therfore it is by these authorities that the custome of communicating vnder one kind hath bene obseruerdin the Church aboue twelue hundred yeares and that which is worthy to be noted without all opposition ether of Geekes or latins till Iohn Hus his tyme. Nay further wheras in the a Actes of the Apostles where mention is made of the CoÌ„munion of the Church he speakes onely of the breaking of the bread we haue iust occasion to conceaue that this custome was not onely introduced in the tymes of the forenamed Auncients but euen in the Apostles tyme. Againe wheras the Fathers are of opinion that our sauiour after his resurrection gaue the Euchariste to his disciples in Emaus vnder the onely species of breade we haue reason to beleeue moued by their testimonie that it was the custome in the verie tyme of Iesus Christ Howbeit none can doubt but that the communion vnder one kind hath bene practised in the Church froÌ„ the second and third age If you did produce any law which did prohibite this vse we should doe amisse to transgresse it But you haue produced none nor are the authorities wheron you rely of any waight or momeÌ„t against vs. As for the passage of S. Iohn the 6. it auayles you not both because according to you it is not vnderstood of the Euchariste saue in the begining onely for in the end of the same Chapter Calu. â—n 6. Ioan. v. 53. Non recti Behâ—râ—â— cum hoc testimonâ—â— probarent vsum calic iâ— pr â—â—missum deâ—ere â—mnibus esse he mentiones that bread onely wherof it is said that it giues life euerlasting and also because that Caluin himfelfe blames the BohemiaÌ„s for indeuouring to proue out of that text that the Chalice is to be imparted to all men If you produce that of S. Paule where he speakes of the Euchariste 1. Corinth 11. it will no wayes aduantage your cause yea contrariwise it will preiudice it since after he had related the institution of Iesus Chr. speaking of the eating of the Euchariste he speakes of it with disiunction saying who shall eate or drinke whence it appeates that it is not necessarie to receaue both the knids together If you obiect our Sauiours example it will be in vaine since you your selues coÌ„fesse that it is not necessari to imitate him in eueri thing and place that it is another thing to instruct Preists as Preists what they are to doe Act. â— and another thing â—o teach theÌ„ what they ought to make the people practise and that the Apost theÌ„selues distributed this SacrameÌ„t without making meÌ„tion of any thing but bread You will alleadge without doubt that place of S. Mathew 26. Matth. 26. Drinke ye all of this which Caluine extolls so much But that will make as litle to your pourpose as the rest because in that passage Iesus-Christ speakes tò his Apostles onely as S. Marke shewes Marc. 14. saying they all dranke of it which word all did plaÌ„ly designe the Apost only since they only draÌ„ke of it It may be you will obiect that if Iesus-Christ by these words Drinke ye all of this meane onely the Apostles then by paritie he speakes of them onely when he saith Eate ye all of this and coÌ„sequeÌ„tly the faithfull should not be obliged to communicate But your consequence is false 1. Corinh 11. v. 28 Probet autem seâ—psum homo sic de pane illo â—edat de calice bibat because albeit in that place this word eate was onely addressed to the Apostles yet is it sufficient that the coÌ„munion of the faithfull is coÌ„manded els wher to witt in the sixt of S. Iohn and in the first Epist of S. Paul to the Cor. We could sufficieÌ„tly defend our selues by the sole title of our possession and your weaknes which is so great that you cannot coÌ„uince vs though by condeÌ„ning vs you are obliged therunto But we will not insiste vpon this point it being an easie taske to manifest that we nether wrong the people nor yet iniure the Sacrament yea on the contrarie side that that which we teach is aduantagious to both and that your doctrine is iniurious to both as also to the institution of Iesus-Christ We doe no wrong to the people because the body and blood of
himselfe from it without schisme and without straying from the Pathes of saluation but now the tymes are changed the circunstances we are in are others corruption hath so crept into the Romane Church that she is no more to be tearmed à Church and hence it was that you both could and ought to depart out of it But this euasion will not serue your turne for the Fathers did not dispute of the truth of the Churches doctrine and thence inferred that the Donatists were scismatikes because they were seperated from the Church who had the true doctrine though indeede it was true but they disputed about the Chaire of S. Peter of Pastorall authoritie brought downe from him by an uninterrupted succession concluding the Donatists Schismatikes because they were diuided from this Chaire and from S. Peters successours sitting in the same No otherwise then one would conuince subiects to be rebelles who should seperate themselues from the Royall throne and from the successour of the first Instituters of this Throne and as in the old law the Samaritans may be concluded to haue bene heretikes because they withdrew themselues from the Chaire of Moyses or Aaron That the Principle whence the Fathers drew their arguments was pastorall authoritie and the Chaire of S. Peter and not the truth of the doctrine it doth manifestly appeare in that S. Cyprians a De Gnitat Eccles Ep. 55â— citat reason is because the Chaire of Peter is the fundation vpon which the Church is built and from whence preistly vnitie takes its origine And that of Optatus b lib. 2. Cisat because in this onely Chaire of S. Peter the vnitie of the Church is conserued And S. Ireneus c lib. 3.5.3 cis son that Peters Chaire enioyes the cheifest power S. Hierome d Epist 57. cit becaus the Chaire of S. Peter is that upon which the Church is built And to conclude because S. Augustin e Contrae Epist fundam c. 4. Tenet me ab ipsa sede Petri Gsque ad praesentem EpiscopataÌ„ successio Sacerdotum saith that the succession of Preists which descended from the Chaire of S. Peter held him in the Catholike Church and that this f In Psal contra partem Donati ipsa est Petra quam non Ginâ—uÌ„t superbia inferorum portae succession is the Rocke against which the Gates of Hell shall not preuayle Nor will your reply be any more to your purpose to witt that albeit the Fathers did indeed argue as we say yet had their argument force and efficacie from the truth of the doctrine which then was adioyned to this authoritie to this Chaire seeing that the Donatistes and Nouatians against whom they disputed did directly deney the truth of the doctrine to be in the Roman Church The a Ambr. lib cont Nouatian Nouatians improuing hir doctrine touching remission of sinns and the b August l. de hare haeres 69. Donatists condemning her opinion of baptising heretikes and admitting the wicked liuers into the Church Which makes à cleare demonstration that the Fathers did not make the truth of the doctrine the Principle of their arguments because that was as doubtfull both to the Donatists and Nouatians as the conclusion it selfe which they were to deduce from it for they deneyed both the one and the other Wherfore S. Donatus doth sufficiently make appeare that he argued from their owne confessions and that which they could not deney to witt that the chaire of Rome was S. Peters chaire c Opt. lib. 2. contra Parmen titat Thou canst not deney vnto me saith he but that thou knowest that S. Peter was the first vpon whom in Rome the Episcopall chaire was conferred in which onely Chaire vnitie was to be obserued by all Furthermore you cannot affirme that they formed their argument from the truth of the doctrine because you doe not allow it to haue bene pure at that tyme which is manifest in that d Beza in Rom. 8. Witat l. 7. contra Durae scit 26. you doe condemne the doctrine of Pope Siricius touching celibate or imgle life as the doctrine of the diuell aÌ„d that yet the Donatists were reputed Schismatikes euen for seperating theÌ„selues from communion with him e Opt. l. 2. For the rest though to proue â man schismatique it were indeed necessarie to make good that he were seperated froÌ„ the Church as true Church yet should I not faile of my purpose being à most facile thing to conuince euen by the testimonies of your owne men that you accnowledge the Romane Church then to haue bene the true Church when you came out of it You accnowledge it both by the verie confession of a Caelu 4. instit c. 2. §. 11. 12. Epist 104. Du Plessis in the treatise of the Church c. 12. Osiander in Epito p. 2. your owne Authours and because b Du Plessis au trascté de l'Eglise chap. 81. Osiander loco citato you your selues deriue your authoritie from it whence it manifestly appeares thar you hold it to be true since otherwise you should deriue your power not from the Church of God but from à societie of the Diuell After all this there rests so litle for you to say that if your tongue would but faithfully interprete your conscience we should without doubt heare you condemne your selues the thing being so cleare and perspicuous that vnlesse you were more then blind or that seeing light you would not see it it were impossible but your soules casting the errour which they row professe should win their cause For if the Nouatians and Donatists vere by the Fathers sufficiently conuinced of schisme for that they were seperated from the Chaire of S. Peter and his successours therin you are also conuinced by the same argument since you are seperated from vs who haue alwayes keept the possession of the same Chaire without interruption of succession Your are certainly coÌ„uinced I speake to all your church and to you Ministers in particular who are not onely Schismatikes as are your flocke but withall Schismaticall Pastours for of your owne authoritie you haue established your selues Pastours not hauing receaued power froÌ„ those whose successours you should be Whence it followes that you are a Opt. l. 2. de â—ictore primo Episcopo DonatistaruÌ„ erat Filius sine Patre tyro sine Principe discipulus sine Magistro sequens sino antecedente Children without Fathers soldiers without Captaines successours without Predecessours Wherupon you shall giue meleaue to say vnto you with the Fathers b Tertul de praescript c. 32. Edant ergo Origines Ecclesiarum suaruÌ„ euoluant ordinem Episcoporum suorum c. Opt. l. 2. cont Parm. Vestrae Catbedrae Gos originem reddite c. Shew vs the origin of your chaire nor returne vs barely for answere that you are extraordinarily sent but bring à place of scripture to verifie your assertion You are obliged to produce such
clearely shew that they register none therin but those thatare taken properly since their designe was to gather together all the opinions which might seperate from communion with the Church to the end that being knowen without difficultie they might be auoyded with facilitie 3. that besids these generall profes S. Aug. who is one of them now in question giues particular testimonie that he put downe none but true heresies in his Catalogue For a Lib. de Haeresi Petis à me vt de Haeresibus aliquid scribam dignum lectione cupientium dogmata deuitare contraria fides Christianae he saith in the begining that he doth publish them for their instruction who desire to flie the opinions contratrarie to Christian faith Whence is apparant that he onely makes mention of true heresies and properly taken for such as he doth also afterwards confirme b lib. de Haeres Quid contra ista sentiat Catholica Ecclesia superfluoquaeritur cum propter hoc scire sufficiat eam contra ista sentire nec aliquid horum in fideÌ„ quenquam debere recipere Possunt hareses aliae quae hoc opere commemoratae non sunt vel esse vel fieri quaruÌ„ aliquam quisquis tâ—nuerit Christianus Catholicus non erit saying that the Church condemns all the points which he putts downe that none ought to receaue any of them for articles of faith for in so doing they shall not be Catholikes Wherfore notwithstanding all your euasions it is cleare that in the foure points by me alleaged you haue renewed the heresies condemned in the primitiue Church and consequently that in this consideration your doctrine is worthy of hatred and horrour The religion pretended to be reformed doth banish all vertue CHAP. XVII THat your Religion doth banish and abolish all vertue though shame forceth you to deney it yet will I force your owne authours confesse it who surely will gaine beleife no man being suspected in his owne cause Let man know saith a Luth. lib. de honis operibus sciat hemo omnem eius vitam actionem nihil aliud nisi damnabilia esse peecata in Dei iudicie Luther that all his life and all his actions is nothing els but sinne damnable in the iudgement of God Those saith b Calu 3. Instit 1.12 §. 4 Qui serio tanquam sub Dei conspectu de vera iustitiae regula quaerent illi certo coÌ„periens omnia heminum opera si suadignitate oeÌ„seantur nihil nisi inquinamenta esse sordes quae iustitia vulgo habetur eam apud DeuÌ„ meram esse iniquitatem Caluin who shall make à diligent search into the true rule of Iustice such as itis in the iudgment of God will certainly find that all the workes of men valued according to their waight and worth is no other thing but ordure and vncleanes and that which is commonly tearmed iustice is in the sight of God verie iniquitie If God saith c Beza Confess Fidei c. 4. art 19. Si summo iure inquireret Deus in ipsa quoque praestantissima hominum opera nihil aliud posset de ijs constitui quaÌ„ meras esse donorum Dei pollutiones Beza did rigorously sound the most excellent workes of men no other thing could be resolued vpon then that they were pollutions of the guiftes of God If workes be exactly examined saith d Paraeus lib. 4. de iustitific c. c. 15. Eadem opera bona si districtum ad legis rigorem examinentur à Deo mere erunt peccata Pareus one of your best moderne writers according to the rigour of Gods law they will be found pure sinns You say also in your e 2. Sunday Catechisme that there is alwayes some certaine infirmitie of the flesh mixed with our workes wherby they are defiled Whence it followes planely that all good workes are bad since the essence and beeing of Good proceeds from an intire cause as euill doth arise out of the least iefect Now if all our workes before God who according to the f 2. Corinth 6. Quae enim participatio iustitia cum iniquitate antquoe societas lucis ad tenebras Apostle to the Romains knoweth and iudgeth all things as they are in themselues are no other thing then damnable sinne then ordures vncleanesse pure iniquitie pure sinne pure pollution of the guiftes of God it is manifest that there is nor good worke nor vertue at all in the world being à thing altogether impossible that vertue and vice should subsist in the same subiect and yet far lesse can vertue accompanie an action which is meere iniquitie pure sinne and verie filth It appeares therfore that you banish and directly abolish all vertue and doe indirectly and in consequence diuert and seduce men from euery good action since all that is reputed good in the iudgement of men is pollution and damnable sinne in the sight of God So that such as both loue and feare God are to abstayne from it as from à thing which is disagreeable in his diuine presence But perhapps will you replie your doctrine doth not withdraw meÌ„ from good workes in that we teach that they are as many sinnes before God since it teacheth with all that those sinnes are not imputed to those that committ them But you shall not thus escape mo because one that hath à filiall feare doth not onely waigh wether the faults commetted shall be imputed or no or whether he shall sustayne the punishmeÌ„t therof but doth principally eye the offence of his father whom he nether ought nor will displease Wherupon he will abstayne from euery action which may be displeasing vnto him and moreouer that he is obliged ther vnto And it will be as litle to your purpose to alleadge that you doe not teach that workes are bad of their owne nature but onely by the corruption of man whence you inferre that à man is not obliged to flie them because besides that g Luth in Confut Latomi stat opus bonum natura sua esse immundum Et Assert art 32. Opus bonum optime factum est peccatum veniale non natura sua sed misericordia Dei whitak li. 2. de peccat orig c. 3. Docemus mortaliter semper peccari à tustis ex natura rei actionum ipsirum licet pro huiusmodi non reputentur some of yours doe sustayne that they are bad euen of their owne nature whither they be bad by nature or by accident it is enough to bring an obligation vpon vs to flie them seeing euen the light of nature doth teach vs that what soeuer is euill is to be eschewed without all exception and that God in no sort is to be offended nether by an action bad in its owne nature nor by accident Which I will manifest by à familiar example none being ignorant that though an almes be of its owne natute good and yet by accident euill as being giuen to an ill end