of Scriptures as the divell used them in his allegations against our Saviour or Popes in their 〈◊〉 corruptly and 〈◊〉 and not according to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and true meaning of the text Yet that Scriptures are the onely sufficient rule was so generally a received truth that never any Hereticke denyed the same for although many of them denyed some Scriptures yet they confessed those which they acknowledged divine to bee delivered to the Church to reveale Gods will and to determine all doctrines in the Church and controversies of Faith by And whereas this wisest of his Brethren would perswade that we to cloake our errours with a shew of Pietie will not be subject to the sentence of any Iudge whatsoever but the sacred Scriptures Reply pag. 32 The Iesuite is here in a mist and sees nothing for wee refuse not the judgment of any whether Fathers Councels or consent of the Catholicke Church to judge us by the doctrine of Faith the sacred Scriptures but to be tryed without the Scriptures were to be tryed in the darke Tertullian calling Heretickes Flyers from the light of the sacred Scriptures Tertullian de resurrect carnis c. 47. Qualiter accipiunt Lucifugae isti scripturarum in his prescription against Heretickes he telleth us that they have a faith without Scriptures that they may believe against Scriptures c Idem praescript con Haeret cap. 23. Credunt fine scripturis ut credant adversus scripturas And what the Iesuite would make the note of an Heretick the contrary thereof did point them out in old Ireâ—â—us his time Hereticks were then known by the path wherein our Iesuite treades in rayling accusing the Scriptures when they are convinced by them as if they were not upright nor of authority and because they are ambigâ—â—â—â— and cannot afford the 〈◊〉 to them that are ignorant of Tradition d Irâ—â—eus lib. 3. cap. 2. Haeretici cùm ex scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum scripturarum quasi non reâ—â—e habeant neque sunt ex authoritate quia variae sunt dictas quia non possit ex his invenire veritas ab his qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You see Hereticks and their practises they hate the Scriptures because they beare witnesse of them that both their workes and doctrine are unsound and evill Now as if he would make it appeare to every weake eye that we submitting to Scriptures as the onely rocke whereon we build our faith doe thereby anoyde all tryall he prosequutes this with a simile For we see saith he in the temporall Courts besides the Law there must 〈◊〉 be a Iudge who must declare the true meaning of the Law and pronounce his sentence in matters of controversie according to the same e Reply pag. â—â— So likewise the same forme must be observed in the spirituall regencie of the Conscience if credit may be given to this Iesuite concerning the written Law of God If all this were true what maketh it against the sole rule of Scriptures Iudges doe not Ius dare but dicere and if they doe attempt more they usurpe which your controuling Iudge doth for he will declare what he pleaseth for Scriptures and will prove what he pleaseth by them nay our Iesuite himself can prove doctrines by Scriptures that were never knowne but by tradition f Reply Sect. x If a temporall Iudge trench against the law of Man as your infallible Guide doth against the Law of God his sentence may be disanulled revoked and the Iudge himselfe is not free from reproofe And wee know that the makers of a law may interprete it or give power to others to performe the same But Gods law is not made by man neither hath man received power to be such an infallible Iudge g August Confess l. 13. c. 23. Non enim oportet de tam sublimi autoritate judicaâ— neque enim de ipso libro tuo etiamsi quod ibi non lucet quoniam submittimus ci nostrum intellectum certumque habemus etiam quod clausium est aspectiâ—â—â— nostris rectè veraciterque dictum esse Siceâ—â—â— homo licet jam spiritualis renovâ—â—â—â— in 〈◊〉 Dei secundùm imaginem ejus qui creavit eum FACTOR tamen legis debet esse non IVDEX De his enim judicare nunc dicitur in quibus et corrigendi potestaâ—â—m habet Clemens Alexandrinus strom l. 7 Non enim absolutè eâ—â—â—ciantibus hominibus fidem habucrimus quibus licet etiam câ—â—tiare contrarium Sed oporteâ—etiam probare quod dictum est non expectamus testimonium quod datur ab hominibus sed voce Domini probamus quod quaeritur quae est magis side digâ—â— quam quaevis Demonstrationes Ibid. Hâc ergo ratione non sunt pij ut qui divinis praeceptis non acquiescant hoc est Spiritui sancto Quia est ergo ex scipso fidelis Dominicâ scripturâ voce est fide dignus quae per Dominum 〈◊〉 ad hominum beneficium Ipsa autem Iudice utimur ad res inâ— niendas Wadding Lâ—gat Philippi 3. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 multa sunt hujusmodi quae reâ—â—agantibus aut circâ—ca 〈◊〉 Doctor 〈◊〉 sunt à Pontificibus nec enim parvum Doctorum aggerem sed Dei sapientiam et spiritum pro regula etrectore veritatis habet â—â—â—cta haec 〈◊〉 quae falli non potest Mater Ecclesia That which God hath left his Church is the blessed Spirit in his word â— which Christ hath promised shall direct his owne in all at least fundamentall truth And what if some desperat men follow deceitfull guides must this of necessity make the true guiding of his Spirit contemptible Or must the Scriptures be uncertaine in their direction because we have men that will not see that will interpret by their owne passion not yeeld to the truth or absolute demonstration Besides how vaine is it 〈◊〉 to expect the Romane Iudge for our Determiner who â—â—y make us a new rule of faith as large as the Decretals pretending the Scriptures or tradition for it and yet never be an Heretick For if he might be an Hereticke it must be for denying some truth before defined but he cannot be â—◠〈◊〉 for defining any new matters saith your Cardinall Bellarmine for then hee doth not believe against any thing defined by the Church k Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 7. Nam Pontifex si possit esse Haereticus solum erit ne gando aliquam veritatem antea definitam non autem potest esse haereticus dum ipse aliquid novi definit tunc enim non senâ—it contra aliquid deâ—â—nitum ab Ecclesia And suppose he could not erre in expounding the Scriptures may not they which receive his exposition miâ—interpret the same and the people upon report be carried out of the Romane faith Our Iesuite proceedes It will be worth the marking also to observe how this manner of tryall by onely Scripture hath
ever received in the Church with more truth and faithfulnes then Hereticks have done Surely the Iesuite hath payed it here for he that every where dreameth of false logicke in others doth not here speake true sence himselfe Lyrinensis maketh 1. one generall sufficient rule for all things the sacred Scriptures f Lyrinens Duplici modo munire fidem suam Domino adjuvante deberet Primo scilicet divinae legis autoritaâ—e Cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique AD OMNIA satis superque sufficiat 2ly another usefull in some cases onely g Ibid. Tum deinde ecclesiae catholicae traditione Sed neque semper neque omnes haereâ—â—s hoc modo impugnandae sunt yet never to be used in those cases without Scriptures which is the tradition of the Universall Church h Ibid. Multum necesse est propter tantos tam varij erroris anfractus ut Propheticae Apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum Ecclesiastici Catholici sensus normam dirigaâ—ur In ipsa autem catholica Ecclesia magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est hoc est etenim verè proprièque catholicum The first was used by the auncient Church from the worth that is in it selfe i Ibid. Sibique ad omnia superque sufficiat the other from the perversnes of Hereticks that many times abuse the sacred rule k Ibid. Quia videlicet scripturam sacram pro ipsa sui altitudine non uno codâ—mque sensus universi accipiunt sed ejusdem eloquia aliter atque aliter alius atque alius interpretatur Aliter namque illam Novatianus aliter Sabeilius Bring us now one Scripture expounded according to Lyrinensiâ— his rule l Ibid. Quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est by the universall consent of the primitive Church to prove traditions confession Purgatory prayer to Saints image-worship Free-will c. in your sence and wee will receive it if you cannot confesse the truth that you deale like hereticks and acknowledge that we follow the practise of the auncient times And here I would have the Iesuite consider how many of their owne doe cry the Scripture m Sanders Rocke of the Church chap. 8. pag. 193. They have most plaine Scriptures in all points for the Catholicke faith and none at all against the same Bristo Mot. 48 Most certain it is that from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Apocalypse there is no text that maketh for you against us but all for us though it be more Iudeorum as they templum Domini and further with greater pretended reverence kisse antiquity not that they love either but because the one is not so light as the other to lay open their errours and detect their deformities Moreover whereas Christ made it a note of his sheepe to heare his voyce this good man would have it to bee the signe and token of an Hereticke but if Hereticks make use of Scriptures this confirmes the rule to be what God made it though it cannot justifie their practise that abuse the same And for brutish and wilde interpretations of Hereticks which this Father makes woolvish let the Iesuite cast an eye to their owne and who hath dealt so grossly as they have done †See before pag. 149 â—it b. And although they bragge of Unity and interpretations of good consent yet for any thing we see it is to be suspected when their Popes could not agree about the Text that he as his schollers may faile to accord in interpretation thereof Further I could wish it were examined whether we or they faile in the Rule of interpreting the Scriptures according to the universall tradition of the Church and analogie of faith and then it would easily appeare if this be a note of Heresie who the Hereticks are For the Fathers beleived but halfe the faith according to that you interpret and to make those points traditions of the universall Church which needed decrees to authorize them 1500 yeares after Christ must needes conclude egregious vanity But who knoweth not that you had rather be tried by the Moone and seven Starres which cannot so easily detect the workes of darknes then the Scriptures the fountain of light that will declare the least errour in your doctrine or practise n Clem. Alex Serom. l. 7. Sicut improbi oueri excludunt Paedagogum ita etiam hi arcent Prophetias a suâ Ecclesâ—â suspectas â—as habentes propter repâ—eh ensionem admonitionem Quamplerima certe consarciunt mendacia figmenta ut jure videantur non admittere Scripturas So that we disclaime not the Fathers but in your Phantasies for we allowe them at all times what they ought to have and when by an universall consent they declare what the Apostles delivered to the Church wee grant them a more centrouling authoritie Yet we are not ashamed to distinguish betwixt God and man though you blush not to equall them and to make Gods ipse diceit a convincing rule which we cannot grant to man or the best of men the Fathers and Bishops of the auncient Church where they come alone without the Scriptures Our Iesuite hath done much in this Chapter to wit proved that we preferre God before men and I have shewed that we deny not to men what God hath allowed to them SECT VI. AND least Vanitie should be absent for a little here the Iesuite proceedes to take a veiw How vainely our Answerer excuseth his disclaime from the Fathers a Reply pag. 36 But how vainely he chargeth the Answerers most learned observation will presently appeare Here saith the Iesuite our Answerer meeteth us with the same auncient Father Vincentius Lirinensis who though a great Commender of the methode of confuting Heresies by the consent of holy Fathers yet is carefull herein to give us this caveat that neither alwayes nor all kinde of Heresies are to be impugned after this manner but such onely as are now and lately sprung namely when they doe first arise while by straitnes of the time it selfe they be hindred from falsifying the rules of the auncient Faith and before the time that their poyson spreading farther they attempt to corrupt the writings of the auncient But far-spred and inveterate heresies are not to bee dealt withall this way for as much as by long continuance of time a long occasion hath lyon open unto them to steale away the truth Out of which saying our Answerer inferres that our Heresies being farre-spred and of long continuance have had time enough and place to coyne and clipp and wash the 〈◊〉 of Antiquitie wherein saith hee they have not bene wanting and therefore must not be impugned by consent of holy Fathers b Reply pag. 36 Here is little Vanitie to be seene as yet how the Iesuite will make it appeare remaineth to be done and this hee will accomplish by espying
not the Fathers that assist and direct in understanding of the Scriptures be Rules as Vincentius Lirinensis onely stileth them in their kind yet give place unto the word of God as the absolute and sufficient rule of faith Moreover Rules Measures are either originall which we call the Standard or those which are proportioned and fitted thereby and might not this Father make the Scriptures as the Standard the onely absolute rule sufficicient of it selfe as he tearmeth it to try points of Catholick Faith and yet graunt the generall consent of all Bishops and Preists of the Catholicke Church in a generall Councell to be a Rule proportioned fitted and squared thereby Who knoweth not also that the Standard is a most absolute and controuling Rule without doubt and exception when there are many things that may call in question the truth of the other so that it may need to bee corrected thereby Now what doth the most learned Primate say that crosseth Liriuensis This auncient Father acknowledgeth the authority of the divine Canon sufficient of it selfe to trye the Catholicke Faith His learned Penne confesseth Gods Word to be that rocke alone upon which wee build our Faith Lirinensis to avoyde jarring interpretations would likewise from the Custome of Catholicks have the Traditions of the Catholick Church to wit the generall consent of Fathers to be requisite at some times to the understanding of heavenly Scriptures And for any thing I can find the most reverend Primate doth not urge a syllable against it So that untill the Iesuite can shew further then he hath done Vanitie I thinke will turne Fryar and remaine with him And although this Iesuite doth make the Fathers upon Lirinensis his experiment the absolute rule yet a further experience perswadeth them to leave Lirinensis at sometimes which although they will not doe with open face yet by covered shifts they labour to avoyde what they pretend to be his direction For they make the Fathers doctors not judges to be followed for their reason not for their authority p Bellarm. de verbo Dei l. 3. c. 10. Aliud est interpretari legem more Doctoris aliud more judicis ad explanationem more Doctoris requiritur cruditio ad explicationem more judicis requiritur auctoritas Doctor enim non proponit sententiam suam ut necessario sequendam fed SOLVM quatenus ratio suadet which destroyes their judgship to be rejected where excogitato commento they cannot helpe q Vasquez Iesâ— l. 2. de Adora disp 3. c. 2. initio Recentiores aliqui pondere hujus Concilij Elibertini quasi oppressi tanquam optimum â—ffugium elegerunt authoritatem Concilij negare quod Provinciale fuerit nec a Pontifice confirmatum c. Et sane si aliâ viâ Concilio satisfieri commodè non possit hoc nobis effugium sufficeret So Maldonate upon the xvi of Matthew r Maldonat in 16 Mat. Portae inferni non praevalebunt Quorum verborum sensus non videtur mihi esse quem omnes praeter Hilarium quos â—â—gisse mâ—mini authores putant Bellarmine upon the vi of Marke and the v. of Iames Å¿ Bellarm. de Extrem Vnct. c. z. Duae Scripturae proseâ—â—tur ab omnibus una ex cap. 6. Marci altera ex cap. 5. Iacobi De prioâ— non omnes conveniunt an cum Apostoli ungebant oleo infirmes curabant illa fuerit unctio Sacramentalis de quâ nunc disputamus an solum fuerit figura quaedam adumbratio hujus Sacramenti Qui tuentur Priorem sententiam ut Tho Waldens loco citate Alphons de castro l. de Haer verbo Extrema Vnctio ca ratione ducuntur quod Beda Theophilaâ—â—us OE cumenius in commentarijs Marci Iacobi videantur dicere eandem esse unctionem cujus fit mentio in utroque loco Sed profectò probabilior est sententia posterior que est Ruardi lansenij Dominici a Soto aliorum Et mihi certe eo etiam nomine graâ—â—â—or quod videam Lutherum Calvinum Chemnitium locis citatis esse in priore opinione existimant enim illi eandem esse unctionem Marci 6. luâ—â—â—i 5. reject the authorities of Fathers and any may tell me wherefore Besides the suspition of this rule is detected that when a wrangling Papist will question the true sence of the Fathers as it is easie to be done even where the minde is convinced how can the fathers be the assured touchstone to try all controversies when the Pope may order all matters as he pleaseth t Gregor 〈◊〉 Anal. Fidel l. 8. c 8. Quod si per sententiam Doctorum aliqua fidei controversia non 〈◊〉 commodè componi posset eo quod de illorum confensu non 〈◊〉 constareâ— â—â— tunc constat authoritas Pontifici But hereby we may see who feare the judgement of Antiquity you or our selves Wee receive them without appeale if true and not forged if cleare and not ambiguous in points that they were bound to beleive and teach from the sacred Scriptures upon paine of damnation You not at all unlesse when you please they will stoop unto and undergoe a Papall explanation Yet thirdly the Iesuite tels us Lirinensis as we see doth not so withdraw the tryall of inveterated Heresies from the consent of holy Fathers that he will have it brought to Scripture onely as our Answerer pretendeth but giveth us to understand that when they cannot sufficiently bee convinced by holy writ then the authoritie of generall Councells wherein by the consent of catholick Priests and Prelates of the Church they have beene condemned should suffice us to avoyde and detect them Reply pag. 37 Lirinensis maketh the sacred Scriptures the onelie absolute rule fit for all times and occasions x Vincen. Lirin adv profanas Novat Cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon â—â—â—ique ad omnia satis superâ—â—â— sufficiat but this directive helpe of Fathers he applieth to sometimes onely y Idem Sed noque semper neque omnes hae reses hoc mo â—â— impugnanâ—◠〈◊〉 But will the Iesuite perswade us that when Lirinensis doth withdraw the tryall of inveterated Heresies from the consent of holy Fathers it is left to other judgement on earth besides the Scriptures Surely the Iesuite did better adhere to the Fathers in his Epistle Dedicatory then in this place for there they were the assured touch stone to try all controversies betwixt us whether wee varie about the true sence of holy writ or about any Article of Christian beleife whatsoever but heere they may be suspended as hee acknowledgeth in Lirinensis his opinion and in some reserved cases neither Scriptures nor Fathers must be the rule but the authoritie of generall Councells c. So that you see their rule is that which best befreinds them The Fathers at one time shall helpe and bee the assured touchstone A generall Councell not auncient I hope but of the Popes calling when
he say of the ignorance or the folly of the Answerer when he upbraides him with a Creed of the new fashion compised by Pope 〈◊〉 the fourth o Reply pag. 91 Nullus sapienâ— admiratur M â— Malone and therfore take the foole with you And howsoever you thinke to defend Pins the fourth by the Practice of the Nicene Councell it will give you no shelter they did you say expresse and declare the ancient faith in a new fashion and forme of words p Reply ibid. So did Athanasius so others but this is not the thingâ— for which you are accused but it is for an Appendix of twelve new points many of which were never accounted of faith till Pius the fourth his time and therefore your ground from which you perswade us to embrace it is unsound viz â— that it was compiled after the like manner without any alteration or innovation of the auncient faith aâ— all q Reply pag. 92 The ancient faith was so necessary to be believed that Athanafius tells us Whosoever wil bee saved it is necessary that he hold the Catholicke faith but your Creed is propounded onely to schollars and cheifely to such as are to receive promotions unto Scholasticall or Ecclesiasticall dignities r Reply pag. 91. Secondly the Apostle S. Iude tells us that the Faith Catholicke was once delivered but all your Trent articles are not so but brought in in after-times by the authority and definition of your Church as Transubstantiation Å¿ 〈◊〉 4. disâ— 11. q. 3. 〈◊〉 in Can. 〈◊〉 â—ect 41. Thirdly in the unitie of the Catholicke faith layde downe t Irenaeus â— 1. â— 3. 3â— by Irenaeus all the founded Churches in Germany Spaine France the East Egypt Lybia and all the world did sweetly agree but upon many of the new articles in your Creed there have been continuall warres controversies betwixt those that you will acknowledge Catholickes as communicating in one kinde Purgatory Indulgences the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches So that these points must be additions or else the Church lost the unity of Faith for a long time together Fourthly 〈◊〉 Lirinensis u Vincen. Lirinen advers prophan novat Cùm sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat and other Fathers x S. Basil l. de vera pia fid Manifesta defectio fidei est importare quicquam â—orum quae scripta non sunt S. Hilar l. 2. ad Const Aug. fidem tandem secundum ea quae scripta sunt defiderantem hoc qui repudiat Antichristuâ— est qui simulaâ— Anathem a eâ—â— S. August l. 2. de doct Christ c. 9. In ijs quae apertè in scriptura posita sunt inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi and some Schoolemen y Scotuâ— Prolog in Sent. q. 2 Scriptura sufficienter continet doctrinaÌ„ necessariaÌ„ viatori Thom. 2. 2. q. 1. a 10. ad 1. In Doctrina Christi Apostolorum veritas fidei est sufficienter explicita make the Scripture sufficient to â—each all points of faith but many articles of this Creed are confessed by you to be delivered by tradition onely not by Scripture z Coster in compend orthodoxae fidei demonstr 〈◊〉 5. c. 2p 162. so that you see you have vainely sought your defence from the practise of the Nicene Fathers It had been better I thinke Mr Malone that you had taken another kind of defence that you had justified the Pope your Church that they make new Creedes defining verities by the infolded still revelation of GOD which determinations have the force of a certaine divine revelation in respect of us as one of the learnedst of your Fraternity hath said a Suaâ—es â—om 2. p. 93. or with Stapleton that the church may define a point of faith Etiamsi nullo scripturarum aut evidenti aut probabili testimonis confirmaretur although it bee not confirmed with any evident or probable testimony of the Scriptures b Stapleton Râ—lect Cont. 4. q. 1 ar â— or with Lâ—â— the X. in his Bull against Luther that it is heresie to say immanu Ecclesia aut prorsus non esse statuere articles fidei that it is not in the hand of the Church or Pope to make articles of faith c Art 27. not to have run to expressing declaring which the Councell Pope never intended but be it as it will the Iesuite tells us that the Laytie may bee well counted Catholickes though they never so much as heard of it therefore we need not to trouble our selves about so triviall a matter especially they accounting us of the Lay number But after charges of ignorance folly and wrangling the Iesuite accuseth the most milde modest nature of the most â—overend Primate that he sticketh not maliciously to slander Maldonate and others with the crime of Perjurie d Reply pag. 92. c. He that would answere this snarling Iesuite with equall currishnes must speake with his teeth and not with his tongue But passingby his language I will consider how impudently he chargeth that with slander the truth wherof he cannot cast off with all his shifts Their Trent Creede is Neither will I ever receive or expound it vizâ— the Scripture but according to the uniforme consent of Fathers e Bulla Pij IV. p. 478. Nec eam unquam nisi juxta unanimem consensum Patrum accipiam interpretabor Now to defend Maldonate and Pererius two of his brotherhood for not practising according to faith he first reviles after his accustomed manner the most reverend Primate Secondly he denyes that Maldonatâ— ever tooke his â—ath Thirdly he expounds the article of faith for the saving of the Iesuites credite f See the Iesuites Reply pag. 9â— First for his reviling let Rabshekah rayle for Maldonats oath he tels us that the most reverend Primate cannot tell whether Maldonate tooke the oath or not gives two reasons one in the Text because he supposeth he never did the other in the margent For he lived wrote in Paris where the Tridentine Councell is not received g Reply pag. 92 A Iesuite must beleive for the Popes advantage why should wee thinke his suppositions should prejudge his cause he that must beleive white blacke if the Church injoyne it h 〈◊〉 p. 247. can suppose any thing The other reason is as vaine might as well have been spared in the margent as in the text for though the Church of France receive not the Councell of Trent yet is there any Iesuite in France that doth not subscribe unto it to submit in any other maner then the Pope prescribes is not obedience but rebellion Besides this being made a part of the Papall Creed he cannot deny his Baptisme in that faith if their faith be as auncient as the Iesuite which is not done without a vow or oath But if
who being not justified doe dye are appointed for euerlasting punishments By which it is evident that the fiction of Purgatory is not to be admitted but in the truth it is determined that every one ought to repent in this life to obtaine remission of his sinnes by our Lord Iesus Christ if he will be saved And let this be the end This compendious and briefe Confession of vs we conjecture wil be a contradiction to them who are pleased to slander maliciously accuse vs and vnjustly persecute vs But we trust in our Lord Iesus Christ and hope that he will not relinquish the cause of his faithfull ones nor let the rod of wickednes lye vpon the lot of the righteous Dated in Constantinople in the Moneth of March 1629. CYRILL Patriarch of Constantinople OVr Iesuite is charged by the most reverend Primate Some things are maintained by you which have not beene delivered for Catholicke Doctrine in the primitive times but brought in afterwards your selves know not when The Iesuite pumping for an answere herevnto talketh of ambiguity doubtfull phrases fighting in a cloud As if a man could deale more plainely with the Roman faction then to tell them that there are many points held now of faith by them which the first times never received for Catholicke doctrine and that they themselves know not when many of them were first broached in the Roman Church But the Iesuite fearing least he should be espied in opposing so manifest a truth would here raife a myst or fogge that he might the better steale out of danger for he indeavoureth to perswade That by those words the Answerer goeth about to make his simple Reader beleive that we maintaine doctrine contrary to that of primitive times because forsooth we maintaine now somethings which were not expresly declared nor delivered as necessary articles of Christian faith c Reply pag. 11 He were a simple reader indeed that would beleive this Iesuite either in his faith or doctrine if it have no better support then the declaration of some of their late Councels to confirme it But he were more then simple that can pick the Iesuite his collection from the learned Answerer his words Simple men interprete the Bels as they imagine and imagination hath directed the Iesuite heere and not the truth For what hath the words of the most reverend Primate to doe with the species of opposition where chargeth he you with maintaining doctrine contrarie to that of primitive times where doth he insinuate so much He that discovered your intrufions to have been brought in vnder the name of Piety was not so forgetfull to judge those points contrary to the received doctrine of faith You teach new faith this is the charge You deny not the old professedly in any point this were too grosse and fit for the fooles your brethren open Heretickes and not for the wisest sonne that can promote his fathers kingdome by a more secret and mysticall fraud So that let his words be softer then oyle or sharper then darts I am sure heerein the Iesuite fayles when hee thinketh them to be shot at the innocent The Iesuite would speake more to purpose to free himselfe and his faction and to this end he delivereth to us two propositions 1. We maintaine some things as Articles of faith which were not in primitive times expressely determined declared delivered for such And 2. Wee maintaine some things as articles of our faith which are contrary to that which hath beene declared for Catholick doctrine in primitive times would have vs know that there is a great difference betwixt these two sayings d Ibid. But as the Iesuite granteth the former to be true of themselves so the most learned Answerer in this place doth not charge them with this latter at all For I doubt not but that the most reverend Primate will yeeld so farre vnto you that in shew at least you holde the Apostles Creed and with the Pharisees give it the first place of honour as they Moses law yet notwithstanding your additions have cast contumely many times vpon the ancient faith as Pharisaicall traditions vpon Moses law * Mat. 25. â— 9. That which Roffensis sayth may be acknowledged in a right sence that there were many points universally held by the Primitive Church in beleife and practise the which with explanation were defended against contradicting Hereticks that arose in after-times But what is this to new doctrine never universally received nor anciently knowne or what argument is heere perswading you to declare that for ancient faith which was never delivered from the Apostâ—â—s c. or received by the Primitive Church But the Iesuite that he might gaine credit to his first proposition tels vs. Before the Nicen Councell some books of Canonicall Scripture were doubted of yea and rejected from the Canon by some of the Ancient without any blame at all which after the said Councel could not lawfully be called in quèstioÌ„ e Reply pag. 11 And all to very little purpose For first the Nicene Councell did not declare doubtfull books for Canonical Scripture nor point out the Canon which the Catholick Church did universally receive neither doth it make at all against their universall receipt of those bookes that some privat men or Church doubted of or rejected them For the Iesuite will have his doctrine generally received if affirmed by ten or eleven Fathers †Valentia if by the choysest Why shall f Reply pag. 94 not Gods booke have equall priviledge with a Papall Indulgence when the first is acknowledged in a manner by most this never taken notice of nor acknowledged at all Besides suppose that some private men or some few Churches did not receive some booke of the Canon yet this can no way hinder the universal receipt of the whole more then a mountaine or a wave the Globes roâ—undity Secondly although they were not blame worthy as the Iesuite would have it which should not receive some bookes of the New Testament which is false yet they were not without blemish for if it were an honour to the Iewes especially to the tribes of Iudah Benjamin that to them wholly intirely were commended the Oracles of God * Rom. 3 2. it must needes bee a dishonour to the ten tribes to have rejected all but the five bookes of Moses Thirdly although those bookes were doubted of yet they were doubtingly received for you cannot finde them by any Church canonically rejected Fourthly it had bin as foule an errour to have decreed any thing against the authority of those books before the Nicen Councel as afterwards For if the Iesuit will take it to bee such a tye that all are bound to stand vnto the declaration of a Councel why did not the Councel of Laodicea f Carran in sum Concilâ— can 59. performe their obligatioÌ„ but in the repetition of the Canon leave the book of Iudith to be placed amoÌ„gst the Apocrypha not
convay those heavenly lampes into the most simple mans conceipt and understanding and in such a manner that they should alwayes stoope to the originall tongues wherein God delivereth theÌ„ to the people 2 dy we must make difference betwixt extreames of passion which did many times befall good men when they apprehended some small error with too much feircenes of conceit and their more selected judgments the one bursting froÌ„ them the other being a true birth Now if this bee truly apprehended what can the Churches of England and Ireland suffer who in proposing the Scriptures to the people have used all diligence viewing and amending those errours which time hath detected not defending them as the Romanists have doe their corruptest Latine g Praesatio Sixti Quinti praefixa Biblijs suiâ— Tanta per se est Vulgatae editionis auctoritas tamque excellens praestanâ—ia ut majorem desiderare penitus inane videatur It is far from the practise of ours to commit wilfull errors in translations and if any such are once found out be they never so light we are willing to amend and follow the truth If our late Soveraigne of ever blessed memory did find some errours in our translation amended them if the learned Dr Reynolds saw the same perswaded reformation what must this conclude that there was no truth in our Church no Scriptures there For his other citations some are passions others are of like nature with the first But esteeme them as you please your jealousies doe more bring your vulgar Latine into suspition then these testimonies can disgrace ours For you seeke to justify it because it commeth nearer the Hebrew then the Septuagint h Iacob Gordon Huntl Epit controvers contr 1. Deverbo Dei cap. 1â— Interpretatio septuaginta â—nterpretum longè magis recedit ab Haebrco textu qui jam extat quam nostra vulgata a muddie argument for him that chargeth the Hebrew text with corruption i Ibid. cap. 6. Hebraicus textus vitiatus sit depravatus Secondly they say that the best sence in the obscure places of the Scripture is not alwayes to be sought after for then there would be no end of translations k Ibidem cap. 15. Si interpres in manifestis apertis locis Scripturae omnia rectè interpretetur in obscuris aliquem sensum literae congruum exprimat etiamsi fortassis non assequatur optimum sensum sed posset alius melioâ— afferâ— non ob id censendus est errâsse aut officium boni Interpretis non implâ—sse 〈◊〉 si semper optimus sensus quaerendus esset nullus unquam erit finis interpretationum sed oportebit nos singulis ferè annis novam cudere interpretationem aut certè priorem â—mendare whereby they declare that all translations are subject to errour that the best interpretation is not alwayes to be reputed the authentick in the Church of Româ— And are they not driven in their defence of the vulgar to confesse errors l Ibid Hinc diluuntur omnia argumenta desumpta ex paâ—vis erratis vulgatae editioâ— is quae velex libraâ—iorum incuria aut aliunde irrepserunt though they would have them to be small and that that Church doth not erre which holdeth such a version of the Scriptures which may be corrected in some particulars when there is nothing to bee found that crosseth faith and good manners m Ibid. Consequitur Ecclesiam illam non errare quae reâ—inet versionem Scripturâ— quae in quibusdam corrigi possit dummodo nihil sit in ea quod fidei aut bonis moribuâ— adversetur Doe they not goe further telling us that translations of Scripture are not to be reprehended for their diversity in the manner of expression so they bee not contrary n Ibid. Non sunt reprehendendae translationes sacrae Scripturae ob id duntaxaâ— quod sint inter se diversae dummodo non sint contrariae to the truth If you for the justifying of the vulgar translation cast from you as corrupt the Greeke and Hebrew from which you differ in tenne thousand words o Vide Bellum Papal in append ad Lectorem Supersunt corrigenda â— doccâ— millia verborum in utroq testamento quae differre quantum ad sensum à Graecis Hebraeis fontibus Chaldaicoque Paraphraste observatum est annotatum jampridem à Lovaniensibus in notis marginalibus and all the Latine Copies that were found amongst your selves before that put forth by Sixtus 5. by which they should be amended p Praefatio Sixti Quinti praefixa Biblijs suis Auctoritate tenore praemissis mandamus ut Vulgatae editionis Biblia posthac non nisi uniformia imprimantur nec aliquid à textu diversum in margine scribatur Quae verò antehac quibuscunque in locis impressa sunt iuâ—ta hunc nostrum textum ad verbum ad literam corrigantur where will you find in the Roman Church the word of God for many ages together unlesse you be beholding to the corrupt Hebrew Greeke seeing your owne Pope presupposeth that your Latine Copies in some places can neither bee reconciled nor understood q Ibid. Nostri Codicesipsi perse aut conciliari aut intelligi non possunt And notwithstanding your vigilant Pastours were 22. yeares before they performed what was necessary by your Trent-Councell r Ibid. Per hosce jam 22. annos quia dicto Tâ—identini consilio decreâ—o ad nostri usque Pontificatus exordium interfluxerant licet hujusmodi opus aliquando coeptum fuerit tamen ob alias fortasse occupationes intermissum so carefull they were to bring the Word of God into your Church yet so poorely did Sixtus then performe his taske that Clement did afterwards put forth the same according to the Greeke and Hebrew fountaines Å¿ Praefatio ad Lecto ante Bibliam Sixti â—â— recognit atque edit per Clement In hac Bibliorum recognitione in codicibus manuscriptis Hebraeis Graecisque fontibus ipsis veterum Patrum commentarijs conâ—erendis non mediocre studium adhibiâ—â—m fuerir in hâc tamen pervulgatâ lectione nonnâ—lla consulâ—ò â—â—tata with many 1000. variances crossings and contradictings of Pope Sixtus his former edition I shall not need to lay downe any particulars seeing the whole catalogue of their discrepancies is made up by the labour and industry of Doctor Thomas Iames in his Bellum Papale So that the Iesuite may see what little reason they have to question our translations But what is all the Iesuites digression to the purpose the most learned Primates observation whereunto hee should have replyed is that all sorts of people had free libertie to read the holy Scriptures in the ancient Church that the contrary is now practised amongst Papists if the Iesuite confesse this we will presse him no further for this sufficeth to prove that although we cannot name the Pope
they list interpreting it according to the times how they pleasâ— d Epistola 2. Nich. de Cusa Card. de usu commu ad Boâ—emoâ— Ecclesia hodierna non ita ambulat in ritu communionis sicut ante ista tempora quando sanctissimi viri utriusque speciâ—i Sacramentum necessarium esse vi praecepti Christi et verbo opere aâ—â—â—uebant Poâ—â—â—â— ne tunc Ecclesia â—rrare Certè non Quod si non quomodo id â—â—diè verum non est quod tunc omnium opinione affirâ—abatur cùm non sit alia Ecclesia ista quam 〈◊〉 Ceâ—â—â— hoc te non movent quod diversis temporibus alius alius ritus sacrisiciorum at etiam 〈◊〉 stante veritate invenitur scripturasque esse ad tempus 〈◊〉 et vaâ—â—â— intellectas ita â—â—uno tempore secundùm currentem universalem 〈◊〉 â—â—poâ—â—rentur mutato 〈◊〉 iterum sententia mutaretur SECT V. How vainely our Answerer betaketh himselfe to the Scriptures againe IN all this Section we finde nothing but what the most learned Answerer before stiled a sleight a In his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge pag 11. for where will he manifest the most reverend Lord scared with the auncient Church whose testimonies he is assured afflict these worst and last times but that he might first give the sacred Scriptures the precedencie which is due to the word of God and that he might not erect a new faith which was never builded upon the foundatton of the Apostles and Prophest b Ibid. Now let us see to what purpose the Iesuite hath heere spent his paines He it should seem was willing to finde out a way whereby the true Religion might be knowne and first hee taketh it for graunted that the Primitive Church of Rome held the true Religion for the first 500. yeares Secondly that this true Church of Rome did generally hold the chiefe Articles of Religion pointed out by himselfe in his demaund and then would have men to judge of true points of Religion by the testimony of that Church c See the â—â—â—â—ites Reply pag. 29. The most learned Answerer in this place saith nothing to these things in particular but to the Iesuites whole frame which he maketh a rule to finde out true Religion by arguing it first as a needlesse labour secondly as a tedious rule in regard matters in controversie might be brought to a shorter tryall thirdly as derogating from the Word of God that Rocke upon which alone wee build our faith from which no sleight that they can devise saith he shall ever draw us d See the 〈◊〉 reverend Lord Primaâ—â— his Answer pag. 11 Vpon this the Iesuite hath almost spent a whole page to prove that the sayings and authorities of those auncient Fathers are sufficient to prove what their opinion was e Reply pag. 29. in the points controverted as if the most learned Answerer had denyed that which in the very place alledged by the Iesuite he undertaketh to make good viz r that the Fathers writings fortifie the Catholicke cause against the Pope his party And this we say saith the most learned Answerer not as if we feared that these men were able to produce better proofes out of the writings of the Fathers for the part of the Pope then we can doe for the Catholicke cause when we come to joyne in the particulars they shall find it far otherwise f In his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge â— Gregor de Valen. Analys Fidei l. 8. c. 8. Fatendum est raro accidere posse ut quae sit Doctorum omnium uno tempore viventium de religione sententia satis cognoscâ—tur Sunt enim Catholici Doctores in Ecclesia ubique diffusa plurimi qui proinde omnes nec facile congregari nec interrogari possunt quid senâ—iâ—nt Whereby it is cleare that the Iesuite hath altogether fought with his owne shadow or the Iesuite Valentiag having not assaulted either word or passage of the most learned Answerers For if this most reverend Lord had accepted the rule I doubt not but he would have acknowledged the Fathers able to relate their owne beliefe and would further have accepted them as sole Umpier but accompting this but a Iesuiticall shift to avoide the true touchstone or ground of faith the holy Scripture he tells him that alledge what authority you list without Scripture and it cannot suffice which the Iesuite did observe although he is unwilling to take notice of it in regard hee supposeth that the Answerer will not be satisfied herewith h Reply pag. 29 This dispute sheweth that the Iesuite hath not beene so well imployed as the Emperour for in all this his fishing ne musca quidem he hath not caught a Fly and therefore the good man is sleepie that thinketh the Answerer hath for got himselfe for although he should graunt the first that the primitive Church of Rome held the true Religion of Christ for the first 500. yeares it will not needes follow that whatsoever points the Fathers of that Church generally held without the Scriptures should be points of true Religion For then every point of Morality Philosophy Rhetorick 〈◊〉 should be points of true Religion and this is crossed in the Greeke Church which is a true one but yet notwithstanding may not bee justified in every particular that they generally handle Neither dare the Iesuite admit the consequent for then the points of the blessed Virgins conception in originall some k Canus â—oâ— Theol. l. 7. c. 1 n. 1. n. 3. receiving of the Sacrament by children l Rejoynder pag. 25. and the opinion of the Millenaries m Sixtus Senens Bibl. sancta l. 5. c. 233. of the vulgar reading of the Scriptures n Rejoynder p. 139. 14â— 145. communion in both kindes o Rejoynder pag. 116. that the bookes of Toâ—y Iudith and the Macchabees are Apocryphall p Rejoynder pag. 166. must be points of true Religion Nay further the Iesuite urgeth that the most learned Answerer elsewhere confesseth that those which dye in the communion of the Church of Rome at this day dye under the mercy of God q Reply pag. 5 which surely this most reverend Lord would not have granted to them if he had not beene perswaded that they beleived aright in the foundation of faith and yet he doth not take any Church since the Apostles times to have beene more corrupt or full of errour then your owne So that a particular Church as the Roman may in some of her members be true in the foundation of faith and yet tainted with many corruptions both of manners and doctrine Is not this plaine by many of S. Paul his Epistles by the Church of Pergaâ—â—s * Revel â— â—4 And therefore the Iesuite may consider how weake a rule hee would perswade us to follow as if this argument were concludent because we hold a particular Church a true Church therefore that Church
must be the measure and square of our faith Further you shall see he is taken in the traine whereby he thought to intrappe for in answering S. Augustine alleadged by the most learned Answerer he telleth us that the pretence of Scripture onely in such a matter of fact as this is 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 â—â—â—iâ—king from the question in hand r Reply pag. â—â— Indeed if the question in â—â—â—d were whether the Fathers of the primitive Church held these points or not then who would deny but it were a sâ—â—inking from the question in hand to fly to the scriptures But if the controâ—ersie heere bee concerning the rule whether the Iesuit hath rightly framed an invention to finde out true religion by then the producing of the true rule the sacred scriptures that a defective one framed by the Iesuit may be deâ—ected is neither from the matter or question in hand And if the points proposed by the Iesuite bee points of Doctrine as I doubt not but hee would have them yea doctrines of Faith and fundamentall also why should not hee try them by the Scriptures in regard hee confesseth that S. Augustine omitting the Fathers provoked the Donatists and Pelagians to the try all of Scripture for as much as he then disputed of a point of Doctrine onely Å¿ 〈…〉 29 But saith our Iesuite if it be demaunded to what pâ—â—pose then doth he fill up whole volumes with the Fathers saying if nothing but onely Scripture may suffice he answereth that he doth it to the end we should not thinks he is any whiâ—â— afraid of all whatsoeuer we can produce against him out of the Fathers and no wonder he should be so confident heerâ—â—â— when as he layeth this ground for himselfe No Father but God doe wee know upon whose bare credite wee may ground our consciences in things that are to bee beleived Reply pag. â—0 c. If the Reader please to consider he shall finde the most reverend Primate in answering the Iesuites demand to detect 2 things first the vanity of his invention in assigning a rule that God never instituted to find out points of true Religion by Secondly his foolish considence in that rule that layeth them open to heresie and shame Now by this they may know to what purpose the most learned Answâ—rer doth fill up whole volumes with the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with that sword which they 〈◊〉 to be their 〈◊〉 to wit the anncient Fathers 〈◊〉 might 〈…〉 those rayling Heresies that revile the 〈◊〉 of the â—â—â—â—ving God For although your rule be not 〈◊〉 of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherupon to ground our 〈…〉 of 〈◊〉 yet it wil be 〈◊〉 to shew that you are but 〈…〉 traditions reall 〈◊〉 prayer 〈◊〉 ◠〈◊〉 â—â—â—roso◠〈◊〉 heâ— 4. Ne mihi ca â—â—bi proferenâ—â— SIMPLICITER sidem adhibeâ—â— nisi de diviâ—â—â— Scripturis eorum quae â—â—cam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yoâ—â— Roman â—â—nce to be allowed by the 〈◊〉 Fathers And the most learned Answerer will never oppose the generall 〈◊〉 of the anncient Fathers in points of Faith which they have generally received out of the word of God but the Iesuite may consider that this is not to depend upon any authority without Scripture The Iesuite further revileth us for leaving the Fathers and cleaving to God although we most firmely adhere to them where they joyne in a generall consent with the saâ—red Scripture which is as much as the Fathers â— professe to do telling us that in appealing to scripture the most learned Answerer disagreeth with those of his own profession c. And to manifest this he bâ—â—geth in as he 〈◊〉 him Dr Hooker saying Of all things necessary the vâ—ry 〈◊〉 iâ— â—â— know what 〈◊〉 we 〈…〉 holy which 〈…〉 the Scripture i◠〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if any 〈◊〉 of Scripture did give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet still that Scripture which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the rest could require another Scripture to give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto it neither would we â—ver 〈◊〉 to any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our â—ssurance this may 〈◊〉 that unlesse 〈…〉 somthing which 〈…〉 we could not 〈◊〉 we do 〈◊〉 〈…〉 Scripture iâ— a 〈◊〉 and holy rule of 〈◊〉 This place of the learned Hooker presupposeth but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that historicall and what 〈◊〉 this against the 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉 of the Church or being a 〈◊〉 Umpier and sufficien◠〈◊〉 to square our â—aith and actions by For who knowes not that the Heavens cover all things and yet cover not themselves and what may hinder the Scriptures in like 〈◊〉 to teach all 〈◊〉 doctrines of faith and manners and yet not to point out themselves S. Augustines words are in every Papists mouth viz. that he would not beleâ—ve the scriptures unlesse the authority of the catholicke Church had moved him thereunto and yet he 〈◊〉 all things 〈◊〉 â—aith and 〈◊〉 to be 〈…〉 in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this necessary point of â—aith is a 〈◊〉 o◠〈…〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly the Iesuite abuseth his 〈◊〉 for the Churches testimony harely and alone begotteth but opinion in Hookers judgementâ— For saith â—o the more we bâ—stow 〈…〉 reading and learning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the more we 〈…〉 thing it 〈◊〉 â—â—th answere 〈◊〉 received 〈…〉 that the 〈…〉 with â—â— before 〈◊〉 â—â—w much more 〈◊〉 when the very thing 〈◊〉 ministred further 〈◊〉 And therefore Hookers words make â—â—thing against the 〈…〉 for 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 of Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 the way by 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which convinceth to beleive the scriptures to be the word of â— Lib. ◠〈◊〉 â— God 〈…〉 And thus Gods 〈…〉 give witnesse to his word doth not take 〈…〉 sâ—â—â—â—ciency to declare whose words they are and from what 〈◊〉 they 〈◊〉 any more then it doth the suffiâ—â—â—â—cy of their rule which consisteth of scripture and tradition also Whereby the 〈◊〉 may see he hath produced this worthy Author to no advantage â—â— being plaine that although there be something else to preparâ— the way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sid form dispâ— 3. sect 12. n. â—â—â— Admitti potest ex humâ—na authoritate geâ—â—rari quandam fidem humanam praeviaâ—â— ad fidem 〈◊〉 non â—â—â—quam 〈…〉 vel rationem 〈◊〉 ejus 〈◊〉 tanquam â—â—â—ditionem applicatiâ—â—â—â— objecâ—â—â— yet the minde is altogether 〈◊〉 by the â—â—ght oâ— the scriptures themselves the Church pointing 〈◊〉 ouâ— and they themselves 〈◊〉 the Churches 〈◊〉 So that the scriptures remaine the onely 〈◊〉 upon which a man 〈◊〉 his faith for any thing the Iesuite hath pickâ—â— out of this learned Divine â— D. Field 〈◊〉 his Appendiâ— to the booke of the 〈◊〉 par 2. §. ◠〈…〉 will 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â— any way 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where 〈…〉 I have in my Epistle 〈◊〉 That all mâ—◠〈◊〉 carefully 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the true 〈◊〉 that so they may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follow her directions and rest in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chargeth â—â— that â—â— my fourth 〈◊〉 following I 〈◊〉 her of almost all such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aâ— I 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto her so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 safely follow her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rest in her judgement in thâ—â— I say generall Counceâ—â— may 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church her selfe from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christian Religion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all This is a â—ad beginning being a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 him I lay down 〈…〉 first that the Church including in iâ— all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ appeared in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all those 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles times i◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 happily not from all ignorance Thirdly that the Church including 〈◊〉 the â—eleivers living 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 free not onely from 〈◊〉 in such things 〈…〉 to 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈…〉 thing that any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Christian 〈◊〉 and religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without all doubt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the judgement of the Church in 〈…〉 so â—â— to the thing◠〈◊〉 in Scripture or 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that â—ath beene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 or Rome but the Vniversâ—ll Church neither that Vniversall Church which 〈◊〉 be gathered together in a generall Councell which is 〈◊〉 sometimes to have erred but that which dispersed through the world from the Baptisme of Iohn continueth to 〈◊〉 times Sixtly that in the judgment of Waldensis the Fathers successively are more certaine judges in matters of faith then a Generall Councell of Bishops though it be in a sort the highest Court of the Church as the Treatisâ—r saith But saith the Iesuite if yet for all this our Answerer will not be brought to build his conscience upon any other authority d Reply pag. 32 I perceive a little thing will beget conâ—idence 〈◊〉 Iesuite that is so lifted up with producing two old objections to little purpose but what then why majora his agreat one of our owne shall schoole him a little better Pooâ—e â—edant in what manner By telling him out of Lyriâ—ensis that the auncient consent of godly Fathers is with great carâ— not onely to be searched but also to be followed of us cheifly in the rule of Faith Reply ibid. As if the consent of Fathers were the absolute rule of Faith without Scriptures when you yourselves dare not attribute to any Fathers authority power to expresse the rule of Faith by their bare consent For Durand saith that although the Church hath power of Gâ—â— on 〈◊〉 yet that doth not exceede thâ— limitation of the Scripturâ— f Durand â—â— Dist. 44. q. 3. â— 9. Ecclesia licet habet in terris dominationem Dei. illa tamen â—on excedit limitationem Scripturae Universall extent of Doctrine is a good directory to truth but the absolute foundation of Faith are the sacred Scriptures Neither are we at all to give credit saith the Author of the imperfect worke upon Matthew amongst the workes of Chrysostome unto the Churches themselves unlesse they teach or doe those things which are agreeable to the Scriptures g 〈◊〉 Commentar in Mat. homil 49. intes operâ— S. Chrys incerto auctore Nec ipsis ecclesijs omnino â—redendum est niâ—â—â—a dicant vel faciant quae convenientia sunt Scripturis No testimonies have any strength that walk without God his word The Fathers adhere to the Scriptures therfore we ought to adhere to them so are we to embrace the authority of the ancient Doctors Councels as those that embraced the holy Scriptures in their faith doctrin and for that cause this learned Bishop coupleth them together Wee rest saith he upon the scriptures of God upon the authority of the ancient Doctors and Councels Reply pag. 31 inferring thereby that those which fixe their faith have not onely divine testimonies but also the judgement and beliefe of the best men to declare the same as good subsidiarie helps to their convincing grounds which doth not conclude that any authority besides the Scripture is necessary but that it is a faire convenient rule to bridle mens fancies least the Scriptures should be wrested by them which are too much wedded to their owne conceits to patronage their errours And what Augustine gave to Bishops and Councels this learned Bishop assenteth unto but I am assured that the Iesuite will not bee able to prove that S. Augustine ever embraced such a thought as to believe that the receiving of humane testimonies should disable the Scriptures from being the onely concluding and sufficient rule for he is of a quite contrary opinion as is apparant in many places of his writings Aâ—g â— Donat. post collat c. 1â— Quâ—si Episcoporum Concilia Scripturis Canonicis fue â—int aliquandâ— comparata Neither will our Iesuite have us in our appâ—â—le to Scripture to betray our cause by our disagreement with our selves alone but also by our agreement with ancienâ— Heretickes and who are those Hereticks The Valentinians Ennomians Marcionists Arians and others whâ— as it is well knowne saith this Iesuite were wâ—nt to reject all other authorities and to â—â—nce with Scripture onely Reply pag. â—â— If this Iesuite be not a fencer judge by his weapons both edge and point being rebated for his most powerfull performance ends not so much as in a scratch or scarre And whereas he saith we fence with Scripture onely it seemeth he knoweth not the nature thereof otherwise he would repute it with the Apostle a sword for a â—ouldiâ—r yea sharper then a two-edged sword We acknowledge many subsidiarie helpes but indeed none sufficient to controule the conscience but Scriptures onely And herein we follow these ancient Hereticks 1. Augustâ—â—â— cited by the most learned Answerer and unanswered by the Iesuite Let humane writings be removed let Gods voice sound Aug. de Pastor c. 14. Aâ—ferantur chartae humanae sonâ—â—t voâ—â—s divinae ede mihi unam Scripturae â—ocem pro parte Donati and further in his booke of the Vnity of the Church hee saith Let them declare their Church if they be able not in the speech and rumours of the Africans not in Councels of their Bishops not in the passages of their disputes not in their â—ignes deceitfull wonders because even against these things the word of God hath perswaded us to be â—aâ—y but in the Law Prophets Psalmes the Pastors voyce the Evangelists preaching and labours that is in all the canonicall authority of holy Scriptures m Aug. de Vnit. Eccle. c. 88. Ecclesiam suam demonstrant si possunt non iâ— sermonibus rumoribus Afrorum non in concilijs Episcoporum suorum non in literis 〈◊〉 libet disputatorum non in signis prodigijs â—allaâ—ibus qui etiam contra ista verbo Domini prâ—parati cautiâ—â—ddiâ—i sumus
sed iâ— praescripto legis in prophetarum praedictis in psalmorum cantibus in ipsius pastoris vocibus in Evangeliâ—â—aâ—um praedicationâ—bus laboribus hoc est in omnibus Canonicis sanctâ—â—um librâ—â—â—m authoritatibus How fairely this Heretick Augustine opposeth this Catholicke Iesuite And further the same Father in a point of controversie openly professeth We ought not to depart from the authority of the divine Scriptures to which ALONE in this matter faith is to be given n Aug de Gen. ad liâ— l. 12. c. 33. Ab authoritate Divinarum Scripturarum quibus 〈◊〉 lis de hac râ— fides habenda est recedere non debemus And before this Heretick Irenaus a more auncient one in the same booke which the Iesuite directeth us to sâ—e agreeth with us We have by none others knowne saith he to obtaine salvation but by those that brought the Gospell to us for what first they preached that by the will of God they delivered to us in the Scripture that in aftertimes it might be the FOVNDATION and PILLAR of our FAITH o Irenaeus l. 3. â—â— Non per 〈◊〉 dispositionem nostrae salâ—tis cognovimus quam pereos per quos Evangelium perâ—â—nit ad â—oâ— quod quidem â—unâ— praeconiaveâ—â—nt postea 〈◊〉 per Dei 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 crunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By this which hath beene spoken we find our Appeale to Scriptures alone as the absolute rule of Faith not to bee the onely practice of Hereticks as the Iesuite would have it but of the most Catholick Fathers themselves indeed so uncontrouled a rule it was in points of faith to be judged by God in the Scriptures that never any Hereticke did deny the same till Papists tyrannizing over the truth brought in new faith which could not be justified by the old rule And as all acknowledged this rule most absolutes so Hereticks as well as Catholicks used to justifie their opinion by other meanes also It is probable that Eâ—nomius was more beholding to his Logick then Scriptures for he is painted out by Alphonsus de Castro as a most cunning Sophister p Alphons Castro adv Haer. l. 5. De Deo haer 10. Eunomius artis dialecticae callidissimus Besides the Montanists when they were overcome by force of argument fled for shift refuge unto Martyrs reporting themselves to have many q Eusebius Eccles hist l. 5. c. 14. Quando igitur in cunctis iftis redarguti argumentis destituuntâ—r admartyres confugere nituntur multos se martyres habere arque illud certum prophetici spiritus qui apud ipsos sit documentum esse dicentes Nay what practises have the Papists for the most part that Heretickes had not somtime they pleaded the Church r Opus imperf in Mat. hom 49. Nunc autem singulatim professores haeresium diversarum dicunt Ecce hic est Christus id est Ecclesia Et illic id est Ecclesia Quia jam non audiendo dogmatum verba sed videndo eorum Ecclesias Christiani scandalizantur infirmi somtime Fathers Å¿ See Dioscorus cited by the most reverend the Lord Primate pag. 24. Alanus Copus Dial. 6. c. 22. Veteres haeretici cum Patres ipsis apertissimè adversarentuâ— cos tamen à se stare magnâ contentione clamabâ—nt Baron Annal. an 431. num 170. Sed mirum dictu quam calumniose ad suam ipserum haeresim astruendam citare ijdem Nestoriani consueverint sanctos Patres quantâque mentiri jactantiâ universos fermè Orbis Episcopos secum sentire somtime Tradition t Euseb Eccl. â—ist l. 5. c. 25. Dicunt Samosateni Majores omnes etiam ipsos Apostolos â—a sensisse ac doâ—nisse quae ipsi nunc dicunt servatamque eam praedicationis veritatem usque ad tempora Victoris qui 13. â Petro Romanorum Episcopus fuit Irenaeus advers haer l 3. c. 2. Non enim per literas traditam illam sed per vivam vocem somtime Councels u Epiâ—tola quorundam 〈◊〉 ad Episcopum Rufuâ—â— apud Binnium inter Acta Conc. Ephesin O Ecumen Tom. 3. c. 13. Noâ— autem in sanctorum Patrum qui apud Nicaeam convenerant caeterorumque qui post illos in Ecclesia claruerunt Eustachij Antiocheni Basilij Caesariensis Gregorij Ioannis Athanaâ—â— Theophili Damasi Romani Ambrosij Mediclanensis reliquorumque qui cum memoraâ—is consentiunt doctrinâ perseveramus c. somtime Miracles x August in Iohan. tract 13. Pontius-fecit miraculum Donaâ—us oraâ—it respondit ei Deus decoelo somtime Visions y August ibid. de uniâ—at eccles c. 18. neither were they so naked but they had your great argument of succession z Aug. Epist 165. ad Generosum Synod Lateran apud Bin. Secretaâ—sive Consult 4. Haec piâ—tatis dogmata tradiderunt nobis qui ab initio praesentialiter viderunt ministri verbi facti sunt eorumque discipuli successores sequenter à Deo inspiraâ—i Ecclesiae Doctores id est sanctae universales quinque Synodi beaâ—orum à Dâ—â— inspiratorum Patrum qui in 〈◊〉 in hanc regiam civitatem nec non in Ephesium primùm in ChalcedonaÌ„ iterum in Constantinopolim in 5. congregati sunt concilioâ— also yet we must be Hereticks because we appeale to the Scriptures as â— most absolute rule of faith Vaenitas vaenitutuÌ„ I would have the Iesuit consider that although some of these blind wretches he nameth could not see God in the flesh yet none of them were so blind that they could not perceive light in the Sun the holy Ghost in the word in the sacred Scriptures they whose impudency durst deny any thing could not deny Gods rule to be the Scriptures For the heretick Maximus as he calleth him if he speake no worse then in defence of the sacred Scriptures we may give him the priviledge allowed to the Devill that sometime he may speake truth as the other acknowledged Christ to be the son of God And to agree with an hereticke in truth is not to be hereticall but as the Iesuite interpreteth his meaning not any whit to regard those sayings which are not Scripture and herein if the Iesuite did us right he would aâ—quit us for we give the auncient Church so much honour that we make her the greatest witnesse of Gods truth though we deny her to be the truth it selfe or rule of faith And whereas S. Hierome is brought answering the Lucifrians that they should not flatter themselves too much because they seemed to have Scripture for what they affirme for even the Devill hath alledged Scriptures which consist not in reading but in understanding * Reply pag. 3â— what is this to us nay with what corruption and falshood doth the Iesuite dragg this place of Hierome against the authors intent and meaning for the Iesuite urgeth it against the authoritie of the Scriptures and their determinative power when that Father presseth the same against a shew
Iesuite make this good in his owne particular calling Bibling Babling Å¿ Reply pag. â—â— We know in this sence every meane may be despised not onely Stephen * Acts 7. â—4 and Paul †Acts 28. 24. Socrates histe Eccles l. 1. c 6. Sabinus qui haerefis Macedonianâ—â— princeps est dediâ—â— operâ his refragatur immo vero cos qui Nicaeae coacti crant impetitos 〈◊〉 vocat 〈◊〉 de vita Constantini l. 2. c. 71. Magis magisque lis accrevit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 provincias mali illius imperus invaserâ—t but Christ himselfe What Councels ever choaked Hereticks but they croaked afterwards â— It is sufficient if the Scriptum est may stupifie a Devill * Math. 4. 4. 7. amaze a Pharisee †〈◊〉 17. ◠◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eccles l. 1. c. â— Cum amplius â—recenti Episcopi â—unam candemque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exquisitis legis devinâ—â— testimoniis vera fides esse confirmatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—◠〈◊〉 â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 victus ab â—â— peâ—ituâ— deâ—eiverit convict an Arian â— consume Antichrist * 2. Thess 2. 8. in the effect or judgement of others What they themselves conceive hereof is nothing to the purpose the Rule is the Rule though a perverse Hereticke cannot be made to acknowledge it Thus saith the Iesuite we may easily espy the reason why our Answerer refuseth to stand to the verdict of either Church Councell or Fatherâ— admitting onely Scriptures for the judge of his cause x Reply pag. 33 Indeed by this place of Tertullian we may easily espie it is the same reason that mooved the auncient Fathers to urge the generall tradition of the auncient Church against certaine Heretickes of their time which perswaded the most learned Answerer to make use of the like weapons against the Iesuite in regard Papists as ancient Heretickes shift off the Scriptures many times by additions substractions depravations adulterous sences corrupted stiles c But to charge this most reverend Lord with refusing to stand to the verdict of either Church Councells or Fathers c. is one of the Iesuites truths He refuseth them indeed as judges of our faith as the absolute rule seclusis sacris litaris so do your owne y Marsilius def Pa. pa. 2. c. 28. Quas vero ipsorum auctoritate propria prae ter Scripturam protulerunt sententias scripturae sive canoni consonas recipiam quas vero dissonas reverenter abjiciam Non tamen aliter quam auctoritate Scripturae cui semper innitar Aquinas 1. part sum q. 1. ar 8. Auctoritatibus autem canonicae scripturae utitur propriè ex necessitate argumentando Auctoritatibus autem aliorum doctorum Ecclesiae quasi arguendo ex proprijs sed probabi liter Innititur enim fides nostra revelationi Apostolis Prophetis factae qui canonicos libroâ— scripserunt non autem revelationi si qua fuit alijs Doctoribus facta that have any conscience but not as good testimonies to assent to the truth And so farre are they from patronizing the Popish cause that you dare not accept them nisi ex cogitato commento but with mentall reservation of a false comment or a worse interpretation z Index Expurg Belgic pag. 5. Quum igitur in Catholicis veteribus alijs plurimos feramus errores exâ—enuemus excusemus excogitato commenso persaepè negemus commodum â—â—â— sensum assingamus dum 〈◊〉 in disputationibus aut in confliction but cum adversarijs Reply pag. 33. What followes to wit that by the confession of his own forefathers masters fellow Protestants they the fathers were no better then meere Papists a is both falshood and froath for which of our accompt the fathers Papists if the Iesuite knowes them let him produce them but we beleive his weaknes wil be seene before his detection And surely he dreameth to thinke we esteeme the Fathers Papists and slaves to that Tyrant whose usurpations their writings alwayes resisted And how can this hang together Wee acknowledge that for the first 400. or 500. yeares the Church of Rome remained a true Church free from Papall impostures and yet as the Iesuit spareth not to accuse us charge the fathers of the primitive Church c. as Papists to favour of that leaven which they ever cast out and expelled But this the Iesuit hath referred to another place till which time we will leave it Yet whereas the Iesuite still insisteth upon the most learned Answerers words no other Father but God do we know upon whose bare credit we may ground our consciences in things that are to be beleived that rocke upon which alone we build our faith is the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets from which no sleight that they can devise shall ever draw us and thinketh the same are uttered for no other end but to cast by the fathers as little respecting their authority b Reply pag. 33 We take this but for a wizards surmise and a vain repetition we having shewen before that the most learned Answerer hath given the Fathers their due respect and if he should do more hee would deny to God his due reverence You that give too much to Saints and Angels dare not justifie but distinguish your worship How much better is it then to deale plainely and to give unto Fathers that which is theirs and to God and his word what belongeth to them Yea whether is it greater disparagement to the Fathers to make them stoop to God or man We doe the first you doe the last where you dare you purge them they shall not speake one word against Babylon but by inventing some device you will deny them c Vide lit â— and if such dealing will not serve then downe with their buildings giving them no honour at all d Index expurg Hispanâ—ard Quiâ—ogae edit Madilti ann 1584. in fine literae â— Deleatur tota Epistola Vdalrici Episcopi Augustini de â—â—libatu cleri Item totus liber Bertrami presbyteri de corpore sanguine Domini penitusauferatur Lastly the Iesuite saith we will now discover for conclusion of the whole how farre herein the Answerer differeth from those Fathers of the auncient Church of God with whom he pretendeth to have so great affinity And this we will declare by the expresse words of an auncient learned Father Vineâ—â—tius Lyrinensis e Reply pag. 34 c. How willingly the Iesuite would have the auncient Church to be as corrupt as themselves may appeare by this his strugling with one onely Lyrinensis whose words largely translated speake not any thing in effect to prove his intention for who is ignorant that heresies are novelties and that Hereticks would justifie their new follies by the auncient testimonies of the sacred Scriptures neither by them alone but the auncient Fathers also Yet must this prove the Answerer to differ from the Fathers of the auncient Church because with them he useth the rule that was
when with frivolous surmises he seekes to make his Reader beleive that the Monks of Wengart should have thrust somewhat out of Rabanus his penitentiall but such dribling objections are worthy to bee answered with laughter f Reply pag. 4â— What doe we finde heere but a rabble of words that carry no weight at all for they are not frivolous surmises that are used against the Monks of Weingart nor dribling objections that are urged against you Mr Malone First if there be a blanke in Rabanus his penitentiall set forth by Petrus Stuartius as is not denyed if Stuartius received a blanke Manuscript from the Monks of Weingart as is likewise acknowledged If Romanists may purge or blanke manuscripts as Possevine affirmeth g See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Answer to the Iesuites challenge pag. 15. 16. 17. If the words blanked or purged out make against the Popish carnall presence in the Sacrament and for the cause of the Protestants as the Iesuite that can now with the Answerers helpe make up the blanke out of Paschasius well knoweth though hee will not acknowledge so much How can hee with any modestie call it a fâ—â—volous surmise that the Monkes of Weingart did thrust those words out of Rabanus his Penitentiall and that a dribling objection a pettie instance which convinceth the altering of the complexions of the aunciâ—ut by fretting unlesse such rasures are not fretts and washing away the soundest part of their writings For it is well knowne how that blanke which hee observeth in the Penitentiall published by Steuartius is to bee supplyed out of Paschasius Radbertus whose Doctrine as it seemeth was there alledged b Reply pag. 42 I doubt not that it is well knowne how that blanke should be filled up now it is cleared to you by the most learned Answerer yet I suppose you never learned it by your owne paines out of Rabanus his penitentiall The Iesuite tels us if Paschafius were the first bringer in of the Carnal presence as our Answerer doth blindly avouch without doubt his saying could prejudice nothing our cause and consequently it is a foud imagination to thinke that the Monkes of Weingert should have clipped his words for any advantage in thiâ— matter i Reply pag. 43 Who doth thinke Paschasius his assertion could prejudice your cause It is the fretting of Rabanus not Paschasius that the Answerer complaineth of The words that declare Paschasius his Doctrine in his or your owne bookes we give you leave to raze at pleasure but to raze it in Rabanus where it is brought forth to receive a judgment to undergoe a censure this maketh I hope for the advantage of your cause For doth not your blanke and rasure hinder the Reader to see Rabanus in his words following cui errori quantum potuimus c. to condemne the Paschasian and Popish doctrine and there I hope you gained by it unlesse it were no losse for the most famous Doctor of his time the most glorious starre of Germanie k Barâ—n tom 10 a◠§. de Raban Fulgentissimum Germaniae sidus directly to pronounce your Doctrine erroneous But if our Answerer will allow others to build upon surmises but halfe as boldly as he presumeth to doe himselfe and upon grounds farre more likely also then he hath any it may very well be thought that Rabanus Maurus that famous Arch-bishop of Ments whose commentaries for the most part are in the ordinarie glosse upon the Scripture of so great request in the Church of God who also as it is well knowne was never yet â—oted by any writer before Waldensis to have maintained any point contrarie to the Catholicke faith of the then Roman Church l Reply pag. 4â— c. I feare the Iesuites surmises wil be according to the imagination that he hath had of his learned Answerers demonstratives frivolous and vaine But before we examine them observe in these words a false supposition that the Doctrine of the carnall presence was in Rabanus his time the generall received doctrine of the Roman Churcâ— Secondly a most untrue assertion for before the Waldenses William of Malmesbury reproached Rabanus as disputing against the doctrine of the carnall presence m Guil. Malmes in praef Epit Amalarij de divinis officijs ad fraâ— rem Robertum Mâ— in Bâ—bliothe Colleg. Omnium Animarum Oxon. Admonitum te volo ut unum exhis qui de talibus disputaverun fugiendum scias Rabanum nomine qui in libro de officijs Ecclesiasticis dicit Sacramenta Altaris proficere ad saginam corporis ac pro hoc corruptioni vel morbo vel aetati vel secessui vel postremo morti obnoâ—ia quae de Domini corpore dicere credere scribere quanâ—â— sit pâ—riculi vides which in all probabilitie the Iesuite having the learned Answerers booke De christianarum Ecclesiarum successione statu in his hand could not be ignorant of though here he wilfully dissemble the same Now let us see what his câ—ca insomnia his sleeping surmises will prove that are brought in with such untruths First because it is well knowne that Rabanus Maurus wrote one peuitentiall worke before this voide free from all such error therefore it is not likely that he should write another n Reply pag. 43 Here is a wise surmise a convincing reason as if it wereso unusall that men should write twice of the same generall subject especially occasion being offered by the propounding of a new question as it here fell out For this penitentiall was written in answere to certaine particular questions propounded by Bishop Heribaldus as the booke it selfe sheweth whereunto you may adde the expresse testimony of Sigebertus Genblacenâ—s de illustr Eccles scriptor cap. 90. that saith Rabanus did write de quâ—stionibus Canonum ad Heribaldum Episcopum librum unum ad Reginbaldum Coëpiscopum de eadem re librum unum one booke concerning the questions of the Canons to Bishop Heribladus and an other booke concerning the same matter to Regiâ—â—ld his Collegue Secondly many Authors saith the Iesuite as well Catholicks as others doe alledge that booke which Paschasius wrote de Corpore Domini as if it had beene composed by Rabanus whereby they declare that he was held to bee of the same minde with Paschasius in this point of the Eucharist o Reply pag. 43 Heere is a surmise indeed if this may moove a Iesuite surely he will make Hierome a Pelagian in regard many authors alledge the confession of faith and Epistle ad Deâ—etriadem framed by Pelagius as if they had beene composed by Hierome This then is no ground to prove Rabanus to be of the same minde with Paschasius and if without ground any held as the Iesuite perswadeth he may know they held an error induced therunto by the no clean dealing of those that coyned false titles to those bookes Now as if surmises had beene demonstratives our Iesuite telleth us
it be yet it being cleare that it is the Popes will that that course of interpreting shall hold their mancipiall vow oath makes them perjured that violate the same The Iesuite esteemes these but â—hifts therfore he will justifie his Fathers an other way to that end proceedeth in this maner But let us put the ease that Maldonate did â—â—kâ— that â—ath if you doe without a dispensation he must be perjured yet shall not our Answerer be able ever to shew that either he or any other Iesuite did once violat the same i Reply pag. 9â— I feare you wil be deceived for if your excuse faile Maldonate must get a learneder advocate or plead guilty and it seemes you are to seek when you flye from the words of the oath seeke reliefe from the extension of the intent thereof For I suppose he is not so ignorant saith the Iesuite but that he knoweth how the intent of that oath extends it selfe no further then to bind the taken never to interpret the word of God in matters of faith contrary to the consent of ancient Fathers k Reply pag. 9â— He should be as blind as Mr Malone if he should take his shifts for a fit glosse for this text who shal measure the exteÌ„t of this oath but they that first occasioned it the councell of Trent and wil their decree patronize his conceipt It will tell you that ad câ—â—rcenda petulantia ingonia to restrain petulans wits l Conc. Trid. sess 4. Decret 3 the Synode doth decree that Doctors shal not interpret the Scriptures contra eum sensum quem tenuit tonet sancta mater ecclesia aut contra unanimem consensum patrum against that sense which the holy mother Church hath doth hold or against the unanimous consent of Fathers m Ibid. But is this all if it were the Iesuite would think himselfe secure but we shal find that in the first place it inhibites â—t nemo prudentiae innxus sacram scripturaÌ„ ad suos sâ—nsus contorqueat that no man leaâ—ing to his own wisdome doe wrest the Scriptures to his own sense Ibid. which Maldonat doth confesse he hath don non nego me hujus interpretationis authoreÌ„ nemineÌ„ habere I do not deny saith he that I have no author of this interpretation Besides the councel condeÌ„nes interpretations contrary to the unanimous consent of fathers but the Iesuit will not have the oath bind so it be not contradictory in that point which is expounded whether the councell wants faith or the Iesuit let the Iesuit resolve The words of the oath excludes the Iesuits gloss are stricter then the Councels decree The councell condemnes interpretations that are private from a mans owne wisedome or 〈◊〉 against the Consent of Fathers o Ibid. though it be with many assistants but the oath inhibites the receiving and interpreting of the Scriptures not onely with glosses that are contra against the Fathers this were too little but with such that are not juxta unanimem consensum according to the uniforme consent of Fathers p Bulla Pij 4. Nec eam unquam nisi juxta c. So that the place of Augustine is produced to small purpose it neither shadowing nor salving the Iesuites credite for the question is not whether a Divine free and at libertie may use S. Augustines practise in the interpretation of Scripture but whether a Iesuite tyed to the oath nec eam unquam never to interpret nisi juxta unanimum consensum Patrum but according to the uniforme consent of Fathers â—ay without breach of faith enjoy this libertie this is the question But their Iesuite Pererius hath interpreted quite contrary to the consent of Fathers and this Iesuite onely affords him a good word but sweats not at all for his releife or defence So that all may see the most judicious Answerer is freed from malice slander ignorance and of bold and desperate forehead which the blistered tongue of the Iesuite would have cast upon him He wrongeth me in like sort q Reply pag. 92 saith the Iesuite If his learned pen hath done you wrong it hath beene by detecting your frauds as before the perjuries of your Order For wherein is the wrong but in shewing forth the wisedome of your insinuations For the truth is he indeavoureth not to make his Reader beleive that you should be so unreasonable as to say that a man might not dissent from the auncient Doctors so much as in an exposition of a text of Scripture without making himselfe more learned more pious and more holy then they were r See the Reply pag. 92. but shewes that you have done it enforcing the same from your reason of the Fathers learning pietie and holynes which lookes upon all points with like authoritie And suppose that according to your owne principles an interpreter should dissent from the Doctors in exposition of one text the most remoâ—est from the foundations of Faith as Tâ—bies dogge his wagging of his tayle I hope you cannot deny but by that Act if they bee not more pious and holy then the Fathers from whom they vary yet they make themselves more learned in that particular if your reason be true or sound For if the learning pietie and holinesse of the Fathers be an argument of truth in deducing points of doctrine from the Scripture they that vary from them in doctrine drawne from thence must make themselves more learned 〈◊〉 and holy then they were But upon revisall what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to confesse he doth labour to excuse and to this intent he refines his character and tels us a long story of his thoughts that he who in such points of faith as those be which I layde downe in my demaund would prefette his owne private interpretation of Scripture before the generall and uniforme agreement of holy Fathers therein could not be excused from the guilt of such like arrogancie Å¿ Reply pag. 93 Is it but arrogancie to deny the Fathers in a point of faith such as those be which you have layde downe It seemes your faith is of your owne making otherwise it would be heresie especially being perversâ—y done against so great a light and conjoyned testimonie but why more in these points that are named by you and such like then in others learning pietie and holinesse direct in every point of religiou as well as in these and therefore if it conclude arrogancie to those that oppose in these you must shew us a reason why it doth not in others also And so farre as I can see the Iesuite hath no reason against the currant of their whole Church to make learning pietie and religion causes of true interpretation of Scripture no not in points of faith when by their owne confession these three Graces were suspended from guyding the Romane faith for whole ages together t Stapl. Relect. cont 1. q. 5. A. 3. Vixullum peccatum solâ Haeresi
what fetches they use to drag the people to their opinion so they may sway in the Church of God and tyrannize with their Antichristian Scepter over the Kingdome of Saynts The Iesuite before hee leaves off would faine say something for himselfe and cause as first that wheresoever the Fathers doe professe them in their workes they never tell him that they hold them for opinions rather then for points of faith o Reply pag. 95 which wee acknowledge for indeede there is no such profession in the Fathers yet I thinke and upon good grounds if they had knowne of any such fundamentall points some would have declared them to the Church Secondly he confesseth that some of the said points were not declared by the Church in former ages to be necessary and cheife Articles of faith and Religion yet they were ever belonging to the substance of faith from the beginning and without doubt were held for such at least implicitly and virtually by the holy Fathers howsoever our Answerer upon no better ground then his divining humour doth give out the coÌ„trary p Reply pag. 9â— Surely it could not be faith at any time if not then for to the Church long before was declared the whole counsell of God so that indeed it may bee of the Popish faith which may be declared 1500. yeares after Christ but not that of the ancient Church which was once delivered to the Saints And if the Iesuite will have that of the Foundation which was never so declared or reputed till our last times let him proove ex re â—atâ— that it is so and not thinke himselfe able by his without doubt to perswade us that the Fathers held those points virtually and iâ—plicitely â—â— belonging to the substance of faith and then hee doth something for if the bare act of declaration may make an article of faith the Bishop of Rome with his â—â—â—ncell may make us an other beleife and turne Christianity into a new mould a thing much desired if more then probable grounds doe not deceive us But if these points were decreed in after-times from some inward and virtuall substance of faith which was inherent in them let him declare it and by some meanes or other helpe our eye-fight that can perceive no such thing in the points here mentioned And whereas the wisard thinkes every man of his own profession hee is deceived his conjectures are farre from the grounds that are followed by the most learned Answerer and how farre it is from divining to expresse a truth any wil apprehend that knowes that divining hath relation to things to come and not to things past But what he promiseth in the next Chapter we will examine whereby I thinke wee may come to more perfect knowledge of their Catholicke frâ—â—des though not of their 〈◊〉 as he would perswade SECT XII THe Iesuite having travailed in the defence of certaine points from the Fathers testimony that are not of the foundation of Faith and fearing to be censured by Lyrinensis who saith that the aunciâ—â—t consent of the holy Fathers is with great care to bee sâ—ught and followed by us not in every pettie question belonging to the Law of GOD but ONE 〈◊〉 at least principally in the Rule of Faith a See the testimony urged by the most reverend the Lord Primate in his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge pag. 26. doth in this Section enquire Hâ—â—â— a point of Faith may be discerned from an indifferent opinion in Religion b Reply p. 96. and declares the reason of his so doing Forasmuch saith he â—â— our Answerer affirmeth that all the points by me laid downe in my demaund be not cheife articles I thought it meet by this disputation to disproove him herein and to shâ—w that they be all such cheife articles of faith at the obstinate denyall of any of them depriveth a man of all true beleife and maketh him a faithlesse Hereticke For performance whereof we are first to enquire which is the way or certaine Rule to know an article of Faith from an indifferent opinion and that being found out by squaring the said points thereby we shall easily understand whether they be theife articles yea or â—â— c Reply pag. 96 Now in this passage the Iesuite meeteth not at all with the most learned Answerers observation For he denyes all the points propounded by the Iesuite to be cheife articles in regard of those which are more necessary fundamentall which onely are to be enquired of by consent of Fathers in Lirinensis his judgment d See above lit â— and not because in their owne nature they are indifferent for if he should conceite them such why should he style you Heretickes for your false declarations concerning them nay why should there be controversies at all betwixt us Secondly all that the Iesuite urgeth here satisfieth not the most learned Answerer in shew onely For unlesse he can prove that these points were according to his Rule declared by the Catholicke Romane Church for cheife Articles of Faith before those Fathers times which he urgeth in Lirinensis his judgment all his quotations of antiquitie in defence of them are to no purpose And I would willingly see where the Romane Catholicke Church by her declaration hath defined these points de fide before the Ages of those Fathers which the Iesuite produceth for confirmation of the same But notwithstanding hee goeth a by way and followeth not his Answerer yet I will not leave him but take some breife veiwe of this discourse also And first he excepts against the Scriptures These must bee no Rule whereby to discerne cheife Articles of Faith from indifferent opinions in Religion nay to make Scriptures the Rule is but to shake hands with all condemned Heretickes Reply pag. 96 And this hee telleth us he hath already discovered but fearing least it be in conceit and opinion onely hee is heere resolved further to prosequute the same and layeth this for his ground There be many confessed points of Faith which are not in any sort expressed or as much as once touched by the Scripture f Ibid. Sure they are of the Popish Creed or not at all for the Catholicke Church taught none as necessary to salvation but what were contained in the Scriptures g Bellarm. de verbo Dei non scripto l. 4. c. 11 Dico illa omnia scripta esse ab Apostolis quae sunt omnibus necessaria quae ipsi palam omnibus vulgo praedicaverant Yet hee will proove his proposition from Augustine The Apostles truly saith S. Augustine as he is urged by the Iesuite have not delivered any thing concerning this point but that custome which was alledged against Cyprian ought to be held to have beene derived from their tradition b Reply pag. 96 But what point is this Rebaptization a point as farre from the foundation as Rome from Heaven that only concernes the manner forâ—â— of 〈◊〉 Baptisme What points else
of our Faith be grounded some way or other in the Scripture yet the Rule to finde out which is a point of faith and which not must be taken from the Church Reply p. 100. Observe here what we gaine from the Iesuite and then we will attend his arguments First he that in the page before told us that there be many confessed points of Faith which are not in any sort expressed or as much as once touched by the Scriptures f Reply pag. â—â— in this place would perswade the gentle Reader that the articles of their Faith are some way or other grounded in the Scripture Secondly he makes the ground of Faith to be the Scripture yet the Rule to finde out which is a point of Faith and which not must be taken from the Church so that although hee make their Pope their Cater-Pillar yet Scripture is acknowledged the ground of Faith But to make this discourse an over-sight I would know how the Rule can measure without the ground or how Faith can remaine grounded in Scripture when their rule measures without it Now the Iesuite would make this knowne by the practise of the Primitive Church but before he begins he prepares his Reader Some points there are in which controversie arising 〈◊〉 the affirmative nor yet the negative part is by the Church declared to be true nor commanded to be so beleived professed by her followers in which saith S. Augustine that Faith whereby we are Christians remaining safe either we doe not know which part in true and â—â— suspend our definitive sentence or else by humane and weake suspicion we doe guesse otherwise then the truth is and consequently are deceived Reply p. 100 Wee know that Augustine in this place speaketh not of any matter of Faith that is or can be by declaration of the Church but telleth us that our beleife whereby wee are Christians remaining sure and setled our ignorance errour in other things which are far from being of faith will not be so dangerous And other sort of points there is saith the Iesuite wherein when controversie doth arise one part is already found declared for true and commaunded of necessity to be so beleived by all and in these if a man be advertised of the Churches declaration and notwithstanding will obstinately maintaine the contrary then is he said to hold against a point of Catholick faith and therefore accounted to be an hereticke Let us suppose saith S. Augustin that some man doth hold of CHRIST that errour which Photinus held which he thinketh to be the true Catholicke Faith I doe not yet account him for an Hereticke except when the doctrine of the Church is layde open unto him he yet maketh choise to continue in that errour which before he held Reply ibid. Was ever any man so mad to thinke that the Church could not point out an article of Faith This may be done by private Churches private Doctors but shew us if you can that Augustine made a point of Faith from the naked ground of the Churches declaration with Scriptures or without onely and for no other reason then because it is declared Augustine affordeth nothing here for this purpose he sheweth his charity that if some man by weaknes and infirmitie hold on hereticall opinion if it be not obstinately and pertinaciously he doth not accompt him an Heretick â—ut I aske you although 〈◊〉 with mercie the errant whether you are perswaded that he would doe so of the Heresie The point is whether S. Augustine would have accounted Photius his opinion denying CHRIST to be GOD an indifferent point of Religion as the Iesuite would perswade us before it was defined by the Church No the words of Augustine plainely declare that the doctrine of the Church taught from the Scriptures not defined by a Councel is sufficient to detect Heresie though he would have the obstinacie of the party appeare against the truth before he condemnes him for an Hereticke But this will appeare saith the Iesuite yet more manifest by the manner wherewith S. Augustine excused S. Cyprian c. for that his errour was not against any point as yet declared by the Church i Reply ibid. pag. 101. Surely S. Augustine doth not contest for that the Iesuite dreameth He excuseth Cyprian why Because the Roman Church had not condemned this opinion This is false for this opinion was condemned Cyprian excommunicated by the strength of Rome as is before shewed confessed by your own * See before Sect. 10. yet he adhered therunto But that which Augustine saith here may be interpreted by his words urged immediately before that though Cyprian held this opinion yet was it not with obstinacie as the 〈◊〉 maintained theirs but that he would have forsaken that errour if the falshood thereof had beene demonstrated unto him not by a Generall Councell onely as it was at Nice but as the Iesuite urgeth his words if any man had shewed the contrary unto him Now the Pope with his Councell did decree against it but this Augustine did not conceive as the Iesuite would collect to be a demonstration sufficient to convict S. Cyprian so that the Iesuit doth but trifle in urging this testimony Now saith the Iesuite although this point is made plaine 〈◊〉 by this holy Fathers authority k Reply p. 101. c. What hath the 〈◊〉 no more but one Fathers authoritie and as you perceive a poore one for his infallible Iudge Yes That I may leave it past all doubt saith hee or replication wee will give a glance to see how the practise of this Doctrine was performed and to this purpose hee telleth us that wee shall finde how 68. Bishops writing from Garthage to Pope Innocentius after having related unto his Holines what they had concluded themselves in the matter they say that they thought it convenient to intimate the same unto his Charitie to the end that unto the decrees of our mediacritie say they be annexed the authoritie of the See Apostolicke for the preservation of the health and good estate of many and also for the correction of the perversitie of some others And that the second Councell held at Milevitum sent an epistle to Pope Innocentius about the same matter beginning with these words Seeing our Lord God by the gift of his especiall grace hath placed you in the See Apostolicke c we beseech you to use your pastorall diligence in remedying the great dangers wherewith the weaker members of Christ are invironed l Reply p. 101. 102. Nowhere is nothing that may conclude the Roman Bishop to be this infallible rule it being manifest that other Bishops were sought unto and consulted as well as himselfe nay after hee had declared his judgement For in the point of Easter after the Bishops of Egypt had declared their mindes and the Church of Alexandria with the Bishop of the Roman Church had defined the matter yet They
observed if the Truth were not before knowne The declaration doth not make it Faith but sheweth that the faithfull doe adhere unto it as revealed by God for if the truth were not there the declaration of it were an Hersie or error at least Neither doth hee produce any thing afterwards to make the Church the rule of faith Whereas he tels us that S. Augustine writing to S. Hierome requesteth him that setting downe the Catalogue of Heretickes he would joyntly expresse in what points they had beene condemned by Catholicke authoritie and againe in his Preface to the above mentioned Catalogue of Heresies hee mentioneth himselfe what the Church holdeth against such Heresies without making any mention of the authority of Scripture z Reply p. 10. I thinke the Iesuite would have a Church embracing heresie What doth the Churches adherence to truth make her the Iudge or rule of it and because Catholicke authority condemneth Herefie must therefore the contrary truth have its life from the declaration thereof Faith must then follow the Church not leade it The Iesuit may conceive that this Father meanes not by the Churches authority a power inherent in their Roman Apollo excluding all other assistance but a lawfull determination according to the Scriptures by the Bishops Preists of the Catholick Church For otherwise he must acknowledge in the Church such a domination as was amongst the Gentiles Luke 22. But sure it is that S. Augustine dreamed no more of your Iudge then the blessed Apostle S. Paul who in the enumeration of the divers degrees of the ministery Ephes 1111. v. 11. left him out Besides the Iesuite by Apostolicall directions in matters that concerne faith may see a Rule not a Iudge pointed out as having authority to guide us Phil. 3. 16. Gal. 6. 16. by which rule as the Church receiveth strength so limitation Finally saith the Iesuite observe how all the points layde down by me in my demand being declared by the Catholicke Church for articles of faith are of necessity to be beleived and held for such the contrary for dâ—â—â—able Heresie Reply p. 104 What the Iesuite doth say for the expresse declaration of all his points of Faith wil be examined in their severall places here an induction he brings us a conclusion whereby he would prove that the onely Rule to know a point of faith from an indifferent opinion in Religion is the declared determined judgment of the Church by which all the points laid down in his demand being propounded unto them for such must of necessity be accounted cheife articles of Catholick beleife b Reply p. 105. 106. But from whence the Iesuite draweth this conclusion I cannot see for if the Church command by the expresse Scripture and sense agreed on in all ages the Church then doth judge at least with undependant authority but direct calling for obedience to a former judgment if it decree in points doubtfull the Churches declaration can bind us to peace and externall obedience but here no infallible judge is allowed to make matters that were doubtfull to be of faith or to create from uncertainties a new Creed That the Church by her particular ministers and body representative hath applied the Scriptures to severall heresies thereby detected condemned them we deny not but will this make every point decreed by a Councell wilfully from their owne ends without direction or limitation to be a cheife article of Faith Your Quartadecimani were convinced of heresie by the Scripture as Alphonsus de Castro telleth us c Alphons de Castro advers Haeâ— l. 12. de Pascha Istorum ergo sententia inde convincitur haerescos quòd supra in titulo de lege oâ—tendimus esse hâ—resim asserere caeremonias judicia legis veteris obligare tempore legis evangelicae Nam Paulus reprehendens Galats co quod caeremonias legis observandas putaâ—ent inter alia dicit Dies observatis menses tempora annos but where by the naked declaratioÌ„ of Pope Victor without this rule Neither did he excommunicate all the Bishops of Asia in this cause if Alphonsus speake truth but they escaped it by Irenâ—us his chyding of your Pope d Idem ibid. Fâ—cisset nisi illum Iraeneus ob hoc redarguisset Here you see that these hereticks of the East after the Pope had condemned them had one Catholick Bishop pleading for them In like manner the Novatians e Alphons de Castro adver haer l. 12. de â—â—â—n haeâ— 3 Cum non sit alia res pluries apertius in sacris condicibus pâ—odita quà m misâ—ricordia quam Deus erga peccatorâ—s maxime poenitentes exercet illis peccatorum suorum indulgentiam tribuens might be condeÌ„ned as the Arians f Socrates Hist Eccles l. 1. c. 7. Evangelici enim Apostolici libri nâ—â—non antiquorum Prophetarum ora cula planè instruunt nos inquit Constantinus Imperator in Nicaea Synodo sensu numinis Proinde hostili politâ discordiâ sumaâ—â—us ex dictis divini Spiritus explicationes quaestionum Haec his similia memorabat ille velut amans paterni nominis filius sacerdoâ—ibus tanquam patribuâ— cupions confiteri Apostolicorum dogmatum unitatem Quibus assensus maximae conventus partis acceâ—â—it Macedonians g Theodoret. Hist Eccles l. 5. c. 9. Iam enim semel formam protulimus ut qui se Christianum profiteatur server â—a quae ab Apostolis tradita sunt quum dicat Sanctus Paâ—lus Si quis vobis annunciat aliud quam accepistis anathema esto Nestorians h Epistola Cyrilli Synodi ad Nestorium tom 1. Act. Concil Ephes Occum c. 14 Haec tenere haec sapere cum à sanctis Apostolis Evangelistis tum ab universa quoque sacra divina Scriptura tum ex veraci denique sanctorum patrum confessione edocti sumus Eâ—tich i Euagrius Histor Eccles l. 2. c. 4. Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum confitemur c. siâ—ut antiquitùs Prophetae de â—o postille ipse Christus nos docâ—â—t idem ipsum nobis Patrum Symbolum tradidit Pelagians k Concil Milevit c. 2. the Monothelites l Concil Constant Vniversale VI. Act. 1. 2. Propositis in medio Sanctis intemeratis Evangelijs but was this done by the judgement of the Church onely and absolutely surely no but by the Scriptures And it is more then cleare that the reason why you distast the Scriptures is as Clemens Alexandrinus observeth because you hold not the rule of faith Clemens Alexandr Stromat l. 7. Necesse est enim labi in maximis cos qui res maximas aggrediuâ—tur nisâ— regâ—lam veritatis ab ipsa veritate acceptam tenuâ—rint Qui autem sâ—nt ejâ—smoâ—i ut qui à recta via excideâ—int meritò etiam falluntur in pluâ—imis singularibus propterea quòd non habeant verorum â—alsoâ—um judicium planâ— exercitatum
in ijs quae opoâ—â—et eligere Si â—â—im haberent paâ—erent Scripturis divinis But the Iesuite that will have the Church to have this absolute judgment that what is decreed must be a point of faith hath in his Catalogue left out the fift Generall Councell where he might have found the Pope confirming TRIA CAPITVLA the three Chapters n Baron an 553. nu 218. which are fraught with Heresie and the Councell detesting him and accursing his act n Ibid. nu 219. yet never was this Councell reputed Hereticall but with reverence received in all Succession o Ibid. nu 229. An. 869 nu 58. And let the Pope their Church declare what he pleased and let what he declares be faith yet no man is bound in Conscience to it unlesse that which he declares be agreeable to the law of God the sacred Scriptures for seeing the sentence hath not strength further then it is declarative of the law when he is not an interpreter of the right law his sentence is voyde in conscience p Sotus l. 3. de Iust Iure Quia cum sententia nullum habeat robur nisi quia est juris declarativa ubi non est recti â—uris interpres â—ulla est in Conâ—â—ienâ—ia and therefore your Iudge of Controversies was in the sixt Generall Councell and others also adjudged for declaring Monotholisme contrary to the Scriptures an Hereticke * See before pag. â—07 For those other that follow in your Catalogue most of them were condemned for the Truth and therefore the Popes sentence was no sentence when he declared his owne bloody disposition and not the Truth from the law of God against them And as at all times so especiallie ought we in the height of Antichristian tyranny to fly to the Scriptures The reason you may finde in the author of the imperfect worke upon Matthew amongst the workes of Chrysostome Then when you shall see the abomination of desitation standing in the holy place That is when you shall see wâ—â—ked Heresie which is the hast of Antichrist standing in the holy places of the Church in that time those which are in Iudea shall fly unto the mountaines that is those that are in Christianity shall betake themselves to the Scriptures q â—omil xlix Tunc cum videritis abominationeâ— desolationis stâ—â—tem in loco sancto Id est cum videritis haeresim impiam quae est exercitus Antichristi stanteâ— in locis sanctis Ecclesiae in illo tempore qui in Iudaea sunt fugiant ad montes id est qui sunt in Christianitatâ— conferant se ad Scripturas And wherefore doth Christ command all Christians at that time to betake themselves to the Scriptures Because at that time when heresie shall have prevailed over those Churches there can be no tryall of true Christianity nor other refuge of Christians willing to know the vâ—rity of faith but the divine Scriptures For before it was sundry wayes apparant which was the Church of Christ and which Gentilisâ—â— but now it is no way made knowne to those who desire to understand which is the true Church of Christ save onely by the Scriptures r Ibid Et quare juber in hoâ— tempore omnes Christianoâ— conferre se ad Scripturas Quia in tempore hoc ex quo obtiâ—uiâ— haeresis illas ecclesias nulla probatio poâ—est esse verae Christianitatis neque refugium potest esse Christianorum aliud volentium cognoscere fidei veritatem nisi Scripturae divinae Autea enim multis modis oâ—â—endebatur quâ— esset Ecclesia Christi et quae gentilitas nunc autem nullo modo cognoscitur volentibuâ— cognoscere quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi nisi tantummodo per Scripturas and Who therefore would know which is the true Church of Christ whence shall he know it but onely by the Scriptures For the Lord knowing that there would bee so great a confusion of things in the last dayes did therefore commaund that Christians who are in Christianitie willing to be confirmed in the true Faith should fly unto nothing but the Scriptures Otherwise if they shall have respect unto other things they shal bee scandalized and perisâ— not understanding which is the true Church Å¿ Ibid Qui ergo vult cognoscere quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi unde cognoscat nisi tanâ—â—mmodo per Scripturas Sciens ergo Dominus tantam confusionem rerum in novissimis diebus esse futuram ideo mandat ut Christiani qui sunt in Christianitate volentes firmitatem accipere fidei verae ad nullam rem fugiant nisi ad Scripturas Alâ—â—qui si ad alia respexâ—rint scandalizabuntur et peribunt non intelligentes quae sit veâ—a Ecclesia So that the Iesuite hath made a long transcription to little purpose it being plaine that Scriptures as I have shewed both here and elsewhere were ever the resolvers of all doubts and controversies Yet before this Section passe I pray the Iesuite that tearmes all these his points cheife Articles of Catholicke beleife to tell us what articles of their Faith ought not to be called Cheife Whereby I thinke we shall find that all are not cheife articles of faith which are declared by their Church or that something is of Faith with them that the Church never declared For his Coleworts that conclude this Section they have beene answered before * pag. 199. and the most learned Primate doth not thinke that Heresie can escape the judgement of God where men hold their peace Their owne thinke it inconvenient to stay for the determination of a Councell to make the denying of the immaculate conception an Heresie May not the breath of Gods mouth doe as much as the Popes Herefie is condemned when it is revealed what light shineth clearer then the lampe of divine truth If it shall destroy the whole glory and kingdome of Antichrist shall we thinke that the traine of his iniquity these points will escape as fugitives Ebion and Cerinthus were condemned by the Scripture to wit the Gospell according to S. Iohn t Alphons de castro advers Haer. tit de lege haer 1. B. Hieronimus in libro illustrium virotum dicit beatum Iohannem rogatum ab Asiae Episcopis scrip sisse Evangelium contra Ebionis dogma without a declarative sentence of the Church and so is Popery though the execution be suspended till the appointed time SECT XIII THe Iesuite telleth us that he must for a conclusion enquire How vainely our Answerer chargeth us with Noveltie a Reply p 106. and in his inquisition he proceedeth in this manner Notwithstanding that our Answerer sometimes affirmeth our opinions to hee farre spred Heresies and of so long continuance that the defenders of them are bold to make universalitie and duration the speciall markes of their Church yet forgetting himselfe in other places hee is not ashamed to tearme them prophane novelties and hereticall novelties b Reply
with that vglie Powder-plot which was impossible to have bene invented without the Divell or a Iesuite and enquire whether these be not sufficient to barre Iesuites from ever pretending faith or fidelitie to Princes and whether they doe not iustly occasion Iealousie in true affected mindes and require them to keepe backe such Vipers from their Masters presence Besides this doe Protestants feare Iesuiticall treachâ—ries alone do not your owne the same what made the court of Parliament of Paris vpon Iohn Chastells attempt to murder King HENRY the fourth to banish the Iesuites out of Paris within three dayes and out of France within fifteene after notice giuen but Garet the Iesuites trayterous lessons Was it the Iesuites Vnity and familiarity with God or in truth their confederacie with Hell that made your Catholickes of France vpon a Pillar r O E ibid 117. set vp in detestation of Chastells attempt to stile your holy Brethren mali Magistri their Colledges Scholae impiae and their Religion Nova malefica superstitio Was it an Argument of your awfull engagements to Gods holy annoynted that you brought your Catholick children to such a bloudie height in France that it was vulgarly received That Popes may tosse the French King his Throne like a Tennis-ball and that Killing of Kings is an act meritorious not in an inferiour degree but to purchase the Crowne of Martyrdome In so much that the Deputies for the third Estate desired the meanes whereby the People might be vnwitched of this pernicious opinion These are the words not of light report but of our sacred deceased King Å¿ King IAMES his remonstraÌ„ce against an Oration of the most illustrious Cardinall Perron in the preface who was a Star of the greatest magnitude in the Church of GOD. Can subiects want feare of these prodigies vnlesse they want faith to their Prince fidelitie to their Countrey He chargeth vs further with vpbrayding them with the vndeserved Epithites of treacherous and disloyall Papistes Againe that we haue altered our tune and by publicke attestations made it knowne vnto the world that their Religion doth not any way diminish or weaken the force of their obliged dutie to his Maiesties sacred Crowne no not though the Pope himselfe should attempt to with-draw them from the same Who knoweth not Papists haue their kindes there are Papists in faction Papists in devotion some deceiued by your Cheates others embracing your wiles That some wee tearme treacherous and disloyall their deserts merite it That others we acknowledge loyall and faithfull our experiences approve it What doe we acquit all because we iustifie some Or haue we altered our iudgments because we distinguish your persons Your Martyr Watson t In his Quodlibeâ— hath published Iesuites fidelity and some of your selues haue acted it And for your Cleargie the King u In the preface to his Remonstrance deceased conceiueth that they deny themselues the ranke of loyall Subiects among the French why should wee thinke the Clymate alters them The most reverend Primate giveth his deare Countrimen the Irish Gentrie of the Pale that which they deserve the honour of their former fidelitie and expresseth his hope of their future faithfulnesse The worthy Iustice acknowledgeth in temporall matters their present Conformitie and both of them I think could wish they were as tender of their owne soules as of the Kings safetie Must this iustifie your Religion in regard they will not generally embrace it And because their loyaltie wil not close with your doctrine Is there no Crown-shaving in your profession That they have not revolted from their obediâ—â—â—e we impute to their pious inclination natiue fidelitie not to Papal lines or Popish doctrines which in these particulars they haue scorned and abhorred Hee proceedes And I not onely for my selfe but in the name of all my fellow-labourers your Maiesties most humble and faithfull Subiects darâ— vndertake that not one of these his words shall euer fall to the ground but by GODS divine assistance you shall finde it dayly more and more aessured that the free exercise of our Religion is our strongest tye and vnion to your Crowne We feare not their loyaltie what needes a suretie if we did such knights of the Post were poore caution for a regall Crowne who teach doctrines of deposing Princes are they not your Brother-hood your fellow-labourers x Marian de Rege li. 1. ca. 6. Certè à republica vnde ortum habet regia potestas rebus exigentibus regem in Ius vocari posse et si sanitatem respuat principatâ— spoliari who wills and commands Subiects to be armed against Princes but your Holy Father y Vide Buil Pii 5. adver Elizab Regin You will not kill a King those Perron stiles Apostat cut-throats z King Iames his Remonstr pag. 2. but vn-king him first or make him a Tyrant a Suarez in defens fid â—â—th advers◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 errc lib 6. cap. 4. Rex haereticus statim per haeresin ipso facto privatur aliquo modo dominio et proprietate sui regni etc. At verò post sententiaÌ„ lataÌ„ omninò privatur regno ita vt non possit iusto titulo illud possidere ergo ex tunc poterâ— tanquam omninò tyrannus tractari et consequenter à quocunque privato poterit interfici this you shame not to commend b Marian lo â—o su cit Ab omni memoria in magna laude fuisse quocunque tyrannos opprimere aggressi sunt Parricide is a sinne this you grant but while you perswade the world you can pardon c Chreichton Iesuita ad Brusseum apud Hospinian Hist Ies lib 4 cap 4 Caede patratâ si ad se confessurus veniret tum se ipsum absoluturum esse it when it is acted what can Princes conceiue of this but as of an Invitation to their butchery His late Majestie demanded of Fisher what subiects should doe in case of Papall deposition of their Prince but dare a Iesuite resolve this in a Princes eare no his Generall inhibites him to deale in politicke matters and therefore he professeth he will pray for Peace that he will exhort others to suffer patiently and that he will dye himselfe rather then to be accessarie to his Maiesties death But for resolution of the question ne vox quidem he vtters not a syllable Now these vaine complements our Iesuite forsakes and openly professeth for him selfe and in the name of his fellow-labourers That the Pope himselfe shall not remoue them one whit from their allegiance and dutie which they owe vnto their King and Countrie This were worth commendation if a Iesuite could not equivocate †Doli non doli sunt nisi astu colas Plaut in Capt. Prov. 1. 17. but I feare hee thinkes the debt of alleagiance and dutie very small that hee dare where his Brethren at the best are tongue-tyed so easily engage himselfe vnto it And it is not to be
is not the only way and with Vincen Lyrin that heresies had euer their sproute vnder a certaine name in a certaine place and at a certaine time yet hee doth not say that they are ever knowne to after-times Nay we confesse further that before Valentinus there were no Valentinians and before the heretick Marcion no Marcionists But we are able to produce heresies whose heads they cannot find ouâ— g Alphon de Castr adv Haer lib 4. Acephali fie nominati quoniam simul insurgentes nullus repertus est qui illorum esset princeps atq magister and yet we doubt not but they had an head and some that they stile heretickes and yet by the confession of their owne cannot bee prooved so by this rule h Bernard in Cantic serm 65. 66. Apostolici Quaere ab illis suae sectae auctorem neminem dabunt Quae haeresis non ex hominibus habuit proprium haeresiarcham Manichaei Manem habuete principem praeceptorem Sabelliani Sabellium Ariani Arium Eunomiani Eunomium Nestoriani Nestorium Ita omnes caeterae huâ—â—smodi pestes singulae singulos magistros homines habuisse noscuntur à quibus origineÌ„ simul duxere nomen Quo nomine istos titulove censebis Nullo quoniam non est ab homine illorum haeresis neque per homineÌ„ illam acceperunt absit tamen vt per revelationem Iesu Christi sed absque dubio vti Spiritus sanctus praedixit peâ—immissionem fraudem daemoniorum in hypocrisi loquentium mendacium prohibentium nuoere Reiner cont haeret cap. 4. Interomnes sectas quae adhuc sunt vel fuerunt non est perniciossor Ecclesiae quam Leonistarum c. Aliqui enim dicunt quod duraverit à tempore Sylvestri aliqui à tempore Apostolorum Many bare false witnes but their witnesse agreed not together Mark 14. 5â— other heresies that are all head and yet the head of these heresies had a time for revelation * 2. Thess 2. 3. 6. 8. We confesse this Rule is not vaine in respect of those heresies that brought amazement in the Church at their first entrance and were full growne in their first appearance as that of Arius and the like as the most reverend Primate acknowledgeth yet it is vaine to finde out those guilded treacheries that stole in by deceipt Is there no difference betwixt open armes and secret fraud betwixt robbing at noon-day in the sight of the sun secret burglaries when the world is a sleepe Some like Cacus steale heresies into the Church as he oxâ—â— into his Cave backward perswading the world that heresie is driven from that place where it enters in others cut in sunder the Gordian knots of Vnitie of Faith Alexander-like with down-right blowes and professed opposition May not a carefull watchman sleepe with security and not feare the one when the other will waken him by his violence and noyse And to answere all this methode as before was confessed is good against violent intrusions which burst forth into loud cryes at their birth but for those conveyances which first appeare like an egge before the Serpent bee hatched it is a vaine simple and frivolous ground His second Argument to prove this demaund is not vaine is because the Answerer his forefathers masters and brethren have bestowed such labour and toyle in searching tossing vp antiquitie to shape if they could a wiser answere i. Reply pag. 2. This answeres it selfe with a non sequitur Pro 26. 5. Answere a foole in his follie least he be wise in his owne conceipt not in his wise interrogations that like Caiphas * Ioh. 18. 14. his Prophecies may come into his mouth by flashes but in his folly What if some of ours have thus far descended to your wisdome to answere this question I hope you would have conceived it to be rather ex abundanti to stoppe the fooles mouth then to satisfie his demaund Some questions are best answered by heeles as Ioseph answered his Mistresse †Gen 39. 12. as poore oppressed christians your Pandarismes by flying out of Babylon Some by sibeâ—ca as our Sauiour the high preists * Mat. 26-63 Some ironicaly as Micaiah Ahab †1. King 2â— 13 All this doth not justifie the Interrogation free it froÌ„ vanitie because in some sort or other it is answered It was vsuall with those that could not manifest the truth by solid proofes to be ever asking questions So those wretches that saw Christs workes when they were amazed at them yet could cry by what authoritie doest thou these things and who gaue thee this authority * Mat. 21. 23. Our Saviour answered these questions by asking an other †ibid. 25. what must this justify the cheife Preists and Elders doth this banish vâ—nitie from their lippes I but this Demaund hath troubled their braynes yea even to madnes sometime k Reply ibiâ— What then therefore no vaine demaund What is this but a Bedlaâ—s argument Is this question of such efficiencie and working that it turnes the brayne I should have expected it in their doctrines which like Henbane and Hemlocke prâ—â—â—ce worse operations but this question alas what hath it done It may be gathered out of their severall answers to the same in which they not onely contradict one another but even fight most strangely each man with himselfe l Reply ibid. This is no argument to proove them mad that answer the question if there be any neither to free the question that is proposed from Vanitie Humanum est errare it is mans weaknes that makes him erre not his madnes Madnes is never right how can it then erre That which is ever a wandring can never goe out of the way Give me libertie to aske whether contradiction either of ones selfe or of his owne profession be a symptome of madnes If it be not what doth he gather from his pretences herein If it be I dare vndertake to produce mad Popes mad Cardinals mad Bishops and Preists and fine Cloisters as full as Bedlam of such commodities And here I know not wherefore I should follow the Iesuite any further seeing that this which he produceth is nothing to the purpose being farre from concluding the question which he pretendeth to justify But he that hath vndertaken to waite vpon a mad man must not refuse to follow the wanderer over boggs and mountaines the high way being seldome his ordinary road And I pray you let vs see our contradictionâ— and selfe-fight from whence he concludes our madnes Surely this man was amazed and dreamed of warre where there is most true peace For Whitaker declareth plainely that the Holy Ghost hath fore-told in Scriptures such an Apostacie and defection and saith he we see it with our eyes but to inquire of the time when it invaded the Church non est laborandum est hâ—c curios◠〈…〉 quaestio m De eccle contr 1. quaest 3. And in like manner Iohn Cameron
n Cap 21. hath published a Booke in French translated into English whereby hee hath prooved it to bee an vnjust proceeding to deny the change happened to the Church vnder pâ—â—tence that the authors time and place of it cannot be specified And also Doctor Fulke o In his answer to a counterfite Catholick ar 11. â— 24 hereto agreeth that when the Scripture telleth vs that the Mysterie of iniquitie preparing for the generall defection and revelation of Antichrist wrought even in Saint Paules time 2. Thess 2. it is folly to aske whether suddenly and in one yeare all Religion was corrupted and if Mr Malone will have more hee shall not want numbers of our owne to witnes our consent heerein May not this shamelesse Iesuite blush then to produce Fulke and Whitaker and the rest to have answered this question when they conclude it vaine and of no necessity and never dreamed of answering the same For all the Quotations of the Iesuite out of our Authors doe not expresse one word of answere to his question Fulke speaketh of the time that the Pope began to blind the world Napier of the beginning of the Popes Papisticall and Antichristian raigne Brokard of the Popes falling from Christ Leigh sheweth his opinion how long the Popes have beene Divells Winckelman relates the different opinions touching the beginning of the 42. monethâ— in the 11. of the Revelation Whitaker coniectures at the last true and godlie Bishop of the Roman Church and so in like manner the rest of the learned men mentioned by him but there is not one of them whose words he expressely layeth downe that answeres the question What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion which you commend in them of the first 400 yeares or In what Popes dayes was the true religion over-throwne in Rome To this question from his owne words wee may proove a consent that this observation of times seasons doth often fayle and that they are not so easie to be discerned as fooleâ— are borne in hand they are For heerein with the learned Answerer doth Powell and the learned Whitaker agree yea so consonant are they in their resolutions that the learned Answererin this Iesuites observation seemeth to be spit out of Whitaker his mouth and Mr Powell hee confesseth agreeth with them The difference is not in answering this question In what Popes dayes was the true religion over throwne but In what Popes dayes did the revelation of the Antichristian tyrannie beginne The Iesuite may know there is a distance betwixt the blading of Antichrist his tyrannie whereby it became visible and the power of it the blading was but a preparation for evill the power and authoritie it got afterwards was that which brought these frauds and corruptions in whereby it appeareth that there is great difference in these questions and that worthy Whitaker was no weather-cock as this Buzard tearmeth him Yet notwithstanding we doe not deny that as Hectick agues whose beginnings are obscure declare themselves to Physitians by divers symptomes of the bodies decay waste whereby one Physitian at one time by one signe another by an other in a different houre may judge of the disease though from divers symptomes yet all aright So have our Divines done some perceiving the symptomes of Apostacie in the Church at one time some at another have declared the appearing of this defection fore-told some from one Popes tyrannie some from another Some saw this Apostacie by symptomes of notorious pride as in Boniface the third Others by out-daring impieties when Dagon images and idols were put vp in the Church of God Others by open vilenes and prophâ—nesse visible to Parasites p Plat. in Iohan 13. Onuph annot in Plat Iohan. â— themselves when your monstra and pertenta opened heaven gates But what is this to the Iesuites demaund the question that he is to exempt from vanity concerneth the time of the alteration or overthrowe of the true or the so much commended Religion of the first 400. or 500. yeares The Apostacie or defection began indeed in the Apostles time and the seedes of Antichristianisme were layde for the sixe following ages q See the most reverend Lord Primate in his book de Christ Eccl. success statu pag. 16. 17 18. and yet no Papist to bee found no such visible alteration that thereby religion should bee overthrowne About the sixt Centurie some of these tares began to blade and yet all the good grayne not vtterly choaked whereby the Iesuites question appeareth more vaine For consider this Apostacie in its beginning or inchoation then it not apparantly altered much lesse overthrew the Catholick faith consider it in the encrease although it assaulted Religion yet neither wholly or in any fundamentall part did it alter the same consider it when it came to more perfect ripenes if there be any perfection in Apostacie as in the latter Centuries doe not thinke that we conclude the Church of God overthrowne because that Antichrist playeth the Tyrant therein So that Mr Covell sayth nothing of the alteration or overthrow of catholick faith when he speaketh of the beginning of Apostacie His last objection is taken from S. Augustine his rule that whatsoever the vniversall Church vseth if no time can be found when that vse began it must necessarily be derived from the very Apostles themselves r Reply pag 4. We need not to question this ground although S. Augustine gave this rule not to discerne points of faith by for he knew they were in the divine word plenarily contained but ceremonies and matters belonging to Ecclesiasticall practise For can we thinke the Fathers in S. Augustine his dayes were so ignorant of the catholicke rule of faith that they must leane vpon such a conjecture as this for points fundamentall of necessary beleife Shew me one Councell that decreed any point of faith by the bare strength of this rule if you can I can shew you a point of practise that had all that this rule could give it as Childrens necessary eating the Eucharist Å¿ Maldon in 6. Iohan. Aug. de peccator merit remiss lib. 1. c. 24. and yet is rejected both by the doctrine practise of your Traditiondefenders Yet may we iustly reproove this Iesuites assertion that dare affirme those points vniversally held and practised by the Church at the time as he cals it of Luthers revolt then which nothing is more grosse for if he meane the very waiters of the Roman Mistresse Sylvester Prierias his representative Church the Pope and his Cardinalls they will not be found to agree in the points mentioned but did differ amongst themselves And for the Catholicke Church let him proove it if hee bee able for bare words will not sway it Yet if this will serve their turne we shal be able to proove that in the Catholicke Church these points were never generally received take the Church for the vniversall body of the
faithfull and not for a handfull of Donatisticall Romanists Nay this may bee manifested by Romanists themselves who although they yeelded outward conformitie to the practise and held communion with the Roman Church have yet notwithstanding loathed the burden and complained of the tyrannie t In Rhemensi Concilio coram Innocentio II. anno 1131. Bernard Etsi reddenda est ratio de his quae quisque gessit in corpore suo heu quid fiet de his quae quisque gessit in corpore Christi quod est Ecclesia Ecclesia Deâ— vobisâ—â—mmissa est dicimini 〈◊〉 sitis raptores Et paticos habemus heu pastores multos autem excommunicatores Et vtinam sufficeret vobis lana lac sititis enim sanguinem Ioh Sarithur in Poly cratic lib. 6. cap 24. Romana ecclesia quae mater omnium ecclesiarum est se non tam matrem exhibet aliis quà m norercam c. Sed ipse Romanus Pontifex omnibus gravis ferè intolerabilis est c. Petr. Aliac de Reformat Eccles ad hanc statum venit Romana Ecclesia vt non esset digna regi nisi pâ—â—reprobos thereof as they have expressed in their best and most selected thoughts Secondly where he saith that we have all 〈◊〉 Records common amongst our selves the lives the names the nations tymes actes and deeds both good and bad of all Popes so carefully registred that the least Ceremonies have beene observed by whom and when they were first ordained u Reply pag. 4. We have some God be praised preserved by his gracious providence contrary to the desire of their politick Consistory yet we make no question that many were lost which would have pleaded for vs and confounded them and not a few concealed by them who were never so vnwise vnlesse by escape to publish their owne frauds for their enemies advantage Further it is improbable that the true Registers of Papall filth which could not preserve their persons from fire or tyrannie should exempt their bookes and registries from the flame So that there might be crosse-legged Popes and contradicting councels in the midst of the Roman Monarchy and yet not delivered to posterity For they themselves will perswade that things that are registred in Councels were not done and why might not we conceive with more truth and probabilitie that many things were done in Councels which were never registred Thirdly he vrgeth that not-withstanding all our curious prying into all sortes of bookes scroules papers c. yet never to this day could any one instance be brought of any Pope that defined any point of religion contrary to what his predecessors had before declared nor of any lawfull generall Councell that ever condemned any article of faith formerly established by others or yet established any that had beene before lawfully condemned Reply ibid. Who doth not see that this is a silly shift of the Iesuite to confound the vnderstanding of his Reader For to excuse Liberius their Pope that subscribed to Arianisme he puts in defined 2ly to excuse all the rest he addes contrary to what his predecessors had before declared as if any Pope in the time of lawfull generall Conncels did either decree or declare any matters of faith in this Iesuites sence And therefore casting from him and his the ragged mantle by which they would conceale their attempts and presumptions we first charge them and justly for decreeing new additionall articles of faith which were at first made practicall in the Roman Church onely and there but by degrees Secondly they obtained the opinion of customes yet no further but of the Church of Rome and afterwards were crowned as of faith by your non-erring decrees and by this meanes many came to be of faith in the Roman Church as it is declared in your whole dozen by the most learned Answerer which is sufficient I thinke to shew that you have corrupted the rule of faith Who knoweth not that never any additionall point of Popery got strength in a day in a session of Councell in a Popes tyrannie neither in a whole age For these supercilious Masters minding themselves and their temporall monarchy not that which concerned the glory of God the successor began where his predecessor ended never attempting to decree any point for doctrine till by secret and mysticall deceite those false grounds by the generality Wadding sect 2 Nec coÌ„sultum tunc putavit vltimâ sententiâ rem definire aut pro pia opinione definitionis ferre iudicium quando adhuc 〈◊〉 egregios habuit affirmative faâ—tores noluit immodicè vel amplius Adversarios exulcerare c. of the factious parasites y See the same practise of their Popes at this day in the point of immaculate conception of the blessed virgin had bene presented to and received by some of the sincerer cleargy Further we charge you not for determining against those catholicke fundamentall truthes which were originally and vniversally received for this had bene too grosse for the bringers in of the mystery of iniquity such a worke would have bene espied the person time and place by whom where and when this had bene acted would not have bene hid But this is not the thing that you are charged with neither will we say in terminis that you are guiltie of it yet although you have not bene so openly impudent your practises have not beene altogether exempted from filth though effected by more secret frauds We know it is impossible that any councels could decree contrary to these new articles of faith vnlesse they would determine negationem rei before the thing it selfe were knowne or vnderstood For doe you not charge vs that our heresies consist in the denyall of many principall points of faith calling them negative refutes z A. C. his true Relations of sundry Conferences pag. 62. c how then can that be denied by an antecedent Pope or Councell the affirmative whereof never had birth but afterwards received life by customes and decrees of men Shew mee a Canon in terminis against Aarons calfe before it was made and worshipped or against the doctrine of Balaam before it was published and we will shewe you Popes and Councels decreeing against traditions of faith carnall presence Images c. before they were ever heard of in the catholicke church So that this is but a meere device to save their credits for although the Roman Apostacy be seene aâ—well in the corruption of the doctrine of faith as manners yet this corruption is by addition which may be without any such crosse opposition as the Iesuite doth suppose For faith being like gold it may be defyled by addition or corrupt mixtures but all the tyranny of the world or gates of hell by crosse opposition cannot destroy it Yet letting those points which are specified by himselfe passe it will not be so hard a thing to proove that councels which you have accounted lawful and generall with your Pope
also have defined contrarie to generall practise and custome of the Church though not in fundamentals yet in points of great consequence as your Councell of Constance * sess 13. against Communion in both kinds and your Trent Synode for private masse against the practise of primitive times a De consecr distinct â— cap peracta Peracta consecratione communicent omnes qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus sic enim Apostoli statueruntet sancta Romana tenet Ecclesia not of one particular Roman but of the vniversall body of the Catholicke Church so that there might be as good Musicke made of an emptie vessel as the impregâ—able harmonie you boast of and though there were no crosse definition against the foundation of faith yet that Pope is not hid and Councell which have made that faith from such an interpretation of scripture b Scot 4. â— 11. q 3. which Scotus could see no reason or authoritie for but what was in the sic volo sic jubeâ— of the Roman Church But further this Argument may bee retorted in their teeth if these points were not ab initio but got footing in the Church of Rome by Papall violence and decrees of Councels which were his owne then they have not the birth of Apostolicall traditions neither can they bee accounted cheife Articles c Suarez Ies dâ—trip â—iâ—t disput 5. § 4. num 4. Cum non sit vniversalis in tempore non potest per se fidem facere catholicam quae debet esse 〈◊〉 pore vniversalis but some of the points mentioned are by your owne thought to be put Iuris positivi which I thinke you will not stretch vp to the Apostles times as confession c all the rest have bene declared quibus gradibus they got footing in the church by the most learned Answerer against which the Iesuite hath in the point of Free will spoken little to all the rest materially nothing as wil be declared in the examination of them Now the Iesuite thinking hee hath performed some brave exployt concludes he hopes with triumph If we presse them to name those Popes who so 〈◊〉 from faith to infidelitie or brought in but one onely article of religion contrary to that of fore-going ages because they cannot satisfie our demaund herein it must be shuffled vp vnder the tearme of a vaine demaund d Reply pag 4. First we charge them not with decreeing contrary to the foundation interminis as that there is not one God three Persons c. but that they have added to the faith delivered by the Spirit of God many articles of their owne Neither do we say that they have forsaken the faithabsolutly for they professe it but the purity of it not contenting themselves with the auncient rule without mixtures of their own Such corruptioÌ„ such alteration of the faith they cannot deny therefore have laboured to excuse it that it is not new faith but a declaration of the old the birth of some of which â—aith was 1500. yeares after CHRIST and his Apostles had delivered the whole councell of God So that the Iesuite â—â—th marched valiantly and with Balaâ—m hath expressed his desire to curse Israell but all his hope is declared vpon which he founds his confidence that because we cannot satisfie his demaund hee is therefore secure that his demaund is not vaine when as the vanitie there of maketh it vnanswerable S â— Augustine thought it a vaine demaund to aske what God did before the creation of the world and therefore turnes it off with a menacing answere The most learned Answerer hath the same thoughts of the Iesuites Quare and casteth it off by just exception and both most rightly Yet the Iesuite inviteth vs to see SECT II. * Reply pag. 5. How vaynelie our Answerer proveth my Demaund to bee vayne IN this discourse the Iesuite is blinded and wanting reason to justifie his Demaund he will not want his good friend Frons ahenea to give some releife vnto his desperate cause The Answerer saith our Iesuite by a smooth and wylie sleight shrinketh from the Question a Reply ibid. c. But how proveth he this why in this manner Whereas I demaunded saith he What Bishop of Rome did first alter or corrupt the right faith He answereth that it is a vaine demaund to require the name of any one Bishop of Rome by whom or vnder whom this Babylonish Confusion was brought in And againe That it is a fond imagination to suppose that all such changes must be made by some Bishop or any one certaine Author And laying downe this he 〈◊〉 the 〈…〉 how wide this is from that which â—e demaunded b Reply ibid. Which I thinke the learned Answerer will not refuse for although the Iesuite would have this question which now in his iudgment is vnreasonable to have beene fâ—rged by the most reverend Primate yet it evidently appeares that it is an vnproportioned birth a deformed Embryo of his owne conceipt and that the Iesuite herein is driven not to smooth and â—ylie slâ—ights for his defence but to perverse boldnes and open outfacing For first in repeating his owne question and demaund What Bishop of Rome did first alter he not onely addes or corrupt the right faith but shamelesly omits that which woundeth him to the quicke In what Pope his dayes was the true Religion overthrowne in Rome d See the Iesuites demaund Now I would have this Iesuite to declare the difference betweene the bringing in of Babylonish Confusion and the altering the true Religion He proceedeth For saith he had he pointed vs out â—ny one Pope that had changed but one onely article of religion or true faith or brought in any one errour then had hee satisfied my demaund e Reply pag. â— That which the Iesuite here supposeth containeth two particulars first that we cannot assigne any one Pope which hath changed one onely article of Religion or true faith Secondly that we cannot assigne a Pope that hath brought any one error into the Church The first hath received answere in the precedent section The second the most learned Answerer hath satisfied in all the Demaundants particulars shewing how this Iesuites holy points of Doctrine and faith are such as the Apostles never knew the fathers scarce espied good men alwayes resisted and which came to receive authoritie amongst Papalines but were alwayes rejected by the Catholicke Church And notwithstanding the Iesuite braves it there are many other articles pretended by them to be of true Religion which are at the best but superstitious and grosse errors brought in by their holy Father or his children in after-ages to the disgrace of the true received doctrine of the Church in the first times But that which the Iesuite doth conclude herevpon is most chyldish that the pointing out any one Pope which had brought into the Church any one errour would satisfie his demand f Reply pag.
sim 4. 10 and others fall from heaven to earth and yet the Apostles and Diseiples adhere to their Master When the whole world in a manner communicated with the Arians were none safe but Athanasius Å¿ Athanas in epist ad solitaâ—â—am vitam agentes Christi standiosi vt magnus ille Pâ—pheta Elias abscondebantur in speluncas cavernas terrae sese abstrudebant aut in solitudine oberrantes commorabantur Hieronymâ—â—on Luciferian Ingemuerit totus Orbis Arianum se â—â—se miratus sit Gregorius Valent Analys l 6. cap. 4 § Probatio 4 Novimus c. cum Arianorum perfidia in orbe penè to to dominabatur c not those which were ignorant of their heresies who if they had knowne them would have abhorred their corruptions t Aug. epist 162. ad Donat Qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam perversam nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt 〈◊〉 quam non aâ—daciâ— praesumptionis 〈◊〉 pepererunt sed à seductis aâ—qâ—e in errorem lapsis parentibus acceperunt quaerunt autem cautâ soliciâ—udine veritatem corrigi parati cum invenerint nequaquam sunt inter Haereticoâ— reputandi Were all the Papists in Queene Elizabeths time damned which joyned in Communion with the Churches of England and Ireland The learned Primate is not so vncharitable as to judge perdition to everie one in the Roman Communion and yet hee doubteth not but that the Apostasie was there Who knowes not that the Roman Pale includeth a Church as well as a Faction and though at the best it bee but a Pest-house as the most reverend Primate fitlie styles it yet hee doth not thinke it impossible but that some poore Soules which had more love to Christ then knowledge of the Doctrine of Popish faith might through the mercy of God u Cypr. Epist 63 13. Si quis de anteeessoribus nostris vel ignorantèr vel simplicitèr non hoc observavit tenuit quod nos Dominus facere exemplo magiâ—â—erio 〈◊〉 docuit potest simplicitati ejus de indulgentia Domini venia concedi nobis verò â—â—â—â—â—terit ignosci qui nunc à Domino admoniti instructi simus escape such infection and contagion which is deadly and mortall whereas the poyson of Apostasie will never leave the grand Masters till it hath brought them to confusion and ruine And this is all he speaketh for the Iesuite's Religion But hoping wee will not charge them with an vtter Revolt he enquires whether wee by Apostasie vnderstand Heresies which doe not so openly oppose the foundation of Christian faith but come cloked with Hypocrisie and vnder the name of Pietie for if wee acknowledge this then howsoever some Heresies doe oppose the foundation of Christian faith more openly then others yet all of them doe still come cloked with the name of Pietie and have beene alwayes observed by the diligent watchmen of Gods house in their very beginnings Reply pag. 6. How doth this take away the learned Primate's just exception For while he distinguisheth of Heresies that oppose the foundation some more and some lesse openly and all cloked with Pietie and vrgeth that all these open heresies were observed in their beginnings what doth hee proove but that which was confessed before For wee acknowledge that Heresie whether more or lesse openly opposite to the foundation hath beene more or lesse observed 〈◊〉 by the Pastors of the Church but yours are of an other nature they were not Heresies at the first but seedes onely or at least appeared not to be so but came in as Pietie when Heresie was closed and sealed vp in a Mysterie and not seene at all Besides this there is nothing vrged by the Iesuite of any weight to take away this Answere He sayth that all Heresies came cloked with the name of Piety and for this he bring three examples to proove his generall conclusion The first of Origen for the salvation of Divels The second he imputeth to Tertullian which was begunne by Montanus y Alphons de Castro adver Haer lib 11. De nuptiis Hujus haeresis authores sunt Cataphryges quo rum princeps fuit Montanus Eundem errorem postea docuit Tertullianusqui ersâ— prius contra Cataphryges pro hae re pugna verat posteatamen ad Caâ—aphryges iediit eorum defendens errorem Bzovius ann 172. Porro quod dogmata Montani attinet sunt haec deâ—inia quae docebat Secundas nuptias velut forâ—â—cationem damnabat c. against second Marriage The third Montanus his rigorous fasts z Pag. 6. Which kinde of arguing as it is not concludent for how followeth it that because three heresies have a shew of Pietie therefore all So the same makes nothing against the Answerer it being granted For who doubteth that Heretickes have alwayes pretended Pietie and that their birthes have beene so presented to the world that they have borne some shew of truth and further that judgments not divinely enlightened have received them many times with religious applause and yet they have beene resisted and opposed by those which had more cleare eyes and could see aright But doth it therefore follow that the bundle of Heresies included in the grand Apostasie wrought by the man of Sinne at different times in a mysterie which must expect a time for Revelation * 2. Thess 2â— 6. 7. should be detected in the first houre of their birth by circumstances of person time and place Many heresies have carried a shew of Pietie but some have beene so mystically delivered that they have received her name Some with their shewe cannot hide their substance their expresse contradiction of Scripture as those of Origen and Montanus which displeased every weake eye and therefore in these circumstances required might easily be detected But these mysticall a Anselmâ— in â— Thess 2. Mysterium quia viderur occultum quia tales operarii ostendunt se velut ministros aut famulos Christi cùm revera sint ministri Antichristi Nam iniquitas â—orum est mystica id est pictatis nomine palliâ—ta ones are of another nature so cloaked that their impietie was hid so presented to the world that they are accompted Piety if you demaund their mother as the Saracens Sarah they dare cry the Church if their Father as the Pharisees to Abraham * Ioh. 8. 39. they dare looke to heaven if you question their Antiquity they like the Gibeonites †Iosh 9. 3. â—â— pretend the Apostles and plead the Apocrypha if Vniuersalitie they are travaylers and as they say throughout the world yet this is but Orbis Romanus the Roman Church Doe you thinke these Vagrants and Wanderers which can bush and brake for their owne safetie are so easily detected as those down-right youths which in their first appearance tell what they are by their face and compleâ—â—â—â— Is there no difference betweene a face muffled with pretences barely and painted with equivocall colours It is not pretending Pietie in heresie neither
muffling in part that can give it libertie to keep station in the Church of God without controule but when Piety is pretended and Heresie getteth in by protection thereof closed vp and vnespied this is Iniquitie in a Mysterie * 2. Thess â— 7. Whereby we see that the Iesuite hath not touched the most learned Primate his answer who for open heresies which like Edom cry out against the Church of God at their birth downe with it downe with it even to the ground †Psal 137. 7. confesseth that the impietie thereof is so notorious that at the very first appearance it is manifestly discerned c The most reverend the Lord Primate his Answere pag. 2. And whereas he dare challenge his Adversaries to give true instance so much as but of any one knowne and confessed Heresie which was not at it first divulging contradicted by some one or other Pastor of Gods Church how cunningly soever it came muffled in the mantle of Pietie d Page 6. making it as a thing impossible to be performed Heereby every man may perceive that the Iesuite is willing to close his owne eyes vpon condition he may pull out other mens For otherwise daâ—â— he be so bold as that hee should deny this Apostasie to have come into the Church without resistance when the spirit of God doth declare that the bringers in of it must have a time for detection not being opposed in the beginning but revealed and consumed * Thess 2. 6. 2. afterwards But leaving this what the Iesuite desires here was performed to him by the Testimony of Bernard and Reinerâ—us in the Answer to the first Section concerning the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 whom they have accounted condemâ—â—â—â— for Heretickes Yet because this point may bee morefully answered I will out of their owne authors gratifie him further in this particular And first from Prâ—teolus c Prateolus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Aquarij are knowne and confessed Her 〈◊〉 and yet quiâ— hujus 〈…〉 fuit ex quo tempore caeperit nemo est qui indicat Here the Iesuite must send for Saint Bridget for he will neede a Revelation in regard that as Prateolus acknowledgeth their first beginning is vnknowne So Alphonsus de Castro f Alphon de Castro adv haere lib 6. DeEuchaâ—istia Adversus hunc errorem tres Evangelistae pugnant Mathaeus scilicet Marcus Lucas cannot finde any throughout all the Ecclesiasticall History which opposed their Heresie at its first divulging and therefore runneth vp to the institution of the Sacrament and makes Mathew Marke and Luke the opposers A strange thing that this heresie concerning the Sacrament should have birth before the Sacrament was instituted or the institution thereof published by the Evangelists The Praedestinati are reputed by your owne for Heretickes yet Alphonsus de Castro g Idem lib. 12. de Praedestinatio Quis autem suerit hujus haeresis princeps Sigibertus subticuit nec egoapud aliquem alium reperi notwithstanding his search cannot finde their Author and Prateolus h Prateolus Elench Haeret. Quis eorum Dux institutor fuerit nescitur telleth vs their Captaine is not knowne So also the Abstinentes were taken for no better then Hereticks and yet you are so far from discovering the time of their birth that their spreading is not remembred as your Prateolus i Ibid Abstinentes quo tempore viguere non meminit Philastrius observeth Multitudes of this kinde might be produced but these shall for the present suffice in answer to the Iesuites challenge Hee secondlie observes that the most reverend Primate his distinction of such like Heresies and that Apostasie serve his turne nothing at all forasmuch as it hath no ground nor foundation which doth not proove more stronglie against his part then against vs. This distinction will presage as ill to Rome as a Comet if you faile to proove what you so confident he affirme But to make it good First he demaunds what can he infeâ—ta out of these sayings of the Apostle which we may not with farre more probabilitie apply to himselfe and to his Revolting Religion c rather then those auncient Fathers and holy Doctours of the Primitive Church whom he himselfe though else where hee confesseth them to â—â—ve beene godly 〈◊〉 yet in this place would have vs to thinke that they were of those who spake lyâ—â— in Hypocrisie and had a hand in bringing in of damnable Apostasie Secondly he saith That our Answerer and his mates did in their foreleaders Luther and Galvin revolt and depart from the Roman Church yea from all the world is voluntarily acknowledged by Calvin himselfe For which cause wee thinke that wee may with reason hold them guiltie of Apostasie indeed k Reply pag. 6. In all which observation wee finde him to charge vs first to further that mysticall iniquitie rather then those auncient Fathers of the Primitive Church Secondly that wee did revolt and depart from the Roman Church and are guiltie of this Apostasie But if all this were as true faith as the Iesuite professeth how maketh it to the overthrow of the exception A deepe charge but nothing to the purpose For the question in controversie is not who brought in the Apostasie but whether there bee such an Apostasie that concludeth within it many Heresies like terra filij begotten wee know not by whom borne wee know not where nor when The learned Answerer saith there are such and the Iesuite saith nothing materiall to the contrary and therefore the demaund to finde out all heresies onely by person time and place must remaine vaine and ill-grounded still But whereas the Iesuite by wrastling and strugling thinketh his demaund is made good if he can cast this Apostasie from themselves and Rome it maketh nothing for him but altereth the question as if his demaund excepting these mysticall iniquities had desired by circumstance of person time and place to have pointed out all other heresies onelie And who doth not see this defence erected by the most learned Answerer for the Catholicke faith impregnable and so far without his shot that he would fasten falshoods which are ridiculous vpon his learned pen that hee might with some shew and advantage fight against the same For who chargeth the Fathers that they speake lyes in hypocrisie let him point out the place if hee can in which the most reverend Primate would have them thinke that they were of those or such kinde of men Hee telleth vs indeed that when the seeds of mysticall iniquitie were a sowing they the Fathers that kept watch and ward against the one open heresies that oppose the foundation might sleepe yea peradventure might at vnawares themselves have some hand in bringing in this Trojan horse commended vnder the name of Religion l Page â— c. But is heere any thing that attempts to perswade you that the fathers speake lyes in Hypocrisie or doth crosse that testimony which elsewhere hee hath
mil lib 3. cap. 5. Neminem posse etiamsi velit subesse Christo communicare cum Ecclesia coelesti qui nen subest Pontifici non communicat cum Ecclesia militante viz Romana So that we can justly say that wee have beene forced to depart from your particular Communion you declaring your selves schismaticks and enemies to the Catholicke Church and that wee doe adhere to the vniversall body it selfe in which Salvation will be found notwithstanding all your desperate Decrees cast out against the members thereof But our Iesuite sayth that we are so far from discovering any such thing that a prime Doctour †Doctour Feild in his Treatise of the Church lib. 3. cap. 13. cited Reply pag. 7. of ours confesseth that the Roman Church held still Communion with those other Churches that never fell into error We find not this in the place alledged but allowing it to be so why might not a perverse company hold Communion outward Conformitie with the true Church You make Iudas an Hereticke wee thinke hee was scarce so good and yet how long in this Hypocrisie did hee keepe Communion with the Apostles Arius was worse if it were possible for as the first would have dissolved his humanity this attempted with grosse conceits against his Divinity and yet his Communion was Catholicke and in outward appearance he a Socrat. eccl hist lib. 1. and his consorts b Carron in sum Concil pag. 39 Vndeâ—â—â— consilio inter se habito acquiescunt ad subscribendum manu solâ non mente subscribed to the Nicene Creed If this be all that you can say for your faith that you have held outward Communion with the faithfull it doth little avayle For a theife may be with true men and Heretickes with them that professe the faith and the Divell himselfe among the sonnes of God nay present himselfe before the Lord * Iob 2. 1 But an other †Master Bunny in his treatise tending to pacification sect 14. pag. 89. of the same ranke telleth vs that the Church of Rome hath ever continued after a sort in profession of the faith since the time that by the Apostles it was delivered to them c. And hath also in some manner preserved c. the word and Sacraments that Christ himselfe did leave vnto vs All this will not make Rome Catholicke or free her from Apostasie backsliding which surely is a very speciciall blessing of God and an evident worke of the holy Ghost from which confession our Iesuite inferrs that the Church of Rome her enemies being Iudges is cleerely freed from all suspition of Apostasie and is confessed to have held faithfull Communion with the true Church of God c Reply pag. 7 But all this foolishly and without ground even by the judgment of as cunning an Arguer as himselfe Parsons the Iesuite for hee doth not thinke Mr Bunny so kinde d Parsons Resolution in the second part of his Preface to the Reader It is such a PacificatioÌ„ as the high Preists of the Iewes wold have made with the Apostles after they had whipt and beaten them vpon condition they should neither teach nor preach any more the Doctrine of Christ as the Iesuite would have him neither doth he pick out of those words any such conclusion as heere is pointed out vnto vs which I have no cause to thinke hee would have omitted if the words would have afforded any such thing Yet we must consider that Mr Bunny was a Pacificator and would speake as much as possibly he could if not more then was fit for perswading vnion betwixt Rome and other Churches Moreover all the good he speaketh of the Romish church is that after a sort they continued in the profession of the faith which might have beene spoken of the Arians Nestorians Pelagians the most heretickes that did not vtterly cast of the name profession of Christianity for which of them after a sort did not professe CHRIST to be the Messias the Saviour of the world Further in some manner it preserued the word and sacraments but in such a maner that may stand with Apostasie The word they acknowledge but with Additions traditionall written the Câ—â—on so corrupted must not speak but with a tongue of the Pope's making The Sacraments they reject not but deny the People in the Eucharist the cup the other they have corrupted with many mixtures whereby it appeareth plainely that they have fallen from the auncient puritie embraced by the Roman church and that after a sort and in some manner onely they have had Communion with other Churches the word and sacraments being preserved not from their desire so much as from the blessing of God For if they might have done all at pleasure the word of God had beene changed for Evangelium aternum e Vide hist explica reverendis simi dom Primar de success stat Eccl cap â— and what doe you thinke would have become of the Sacraments So that the Answerer his worke neither totters nor wants a supporter as yet His third observation is that the most learned Primate will not have those opinions wherein we differ from him to be Heresies but onely a kind of still creeping in Apostasie hooded with the name of Religion and semblance of Devotion and therefore pretendeth himselfe to be excused from discovering vnto vs the author time of their beginnings f Reply pag. 7. Againe he chargeth the learned Answerer page 12. to denounce their opinions Heresies far spread and of long continuance which he imputeth to forgetfulnes till hee remembreth himselfe that they are not exempted from being Heresies by the Answerer but from being such as doe openly oppose the foundation of our faith g Ibid. So that these sayings may stand well together notwithstanding any thing he hath as yet vttered But he telleth vs if the differing points be heresies that never any did more openly oppose the foundation of faith then they And to prove this hee produceth the point of adoration of the hoste in the Sacrament of which he maketh no question but every man will easily vnderstand that if Hell were raked vp a more notorious Heresie could not be found c. and therefore it seemeth impossible in this Iesuites iudgment that any Bishop of Rome could be able to perswade such an impietie c. without being manifestly discerned h ibid. That this grosse and idolatrous Practise of Adoration of the Host is founded vpon a grosse and hereticall foundation is not denyed by the most learned Answerer Neither doe I thinke any man will otherwise conceipt thereof and yet by this concession the Iesuite getteth no ground for his inference therein For suppose this doth fight against Gods divine truth and in as violent a manner as the gates of Hell or power of darknes it followeth not that every man will easily espy i Rhem annota upon the 2. Thess cap 2.
Å¿ See Bern cited before in the 1. Section Besides iâ— iâ— a good Consequent Some Heresies have beene detected in their beginnings with the circuÌ„stances of person time place therefore those which have not in like manner beene maâ—e knowne are notheresies Are not false doctrines many times like false Christians like Hypocrites who are often accounted the best of those which professe righteousnes whenas afterwards Iudas is detected their fraud is apparant were all the Iewish corruptions before our Sauiours time vnvailed was the curtain of painted appearance drawne aside among the Pharisees were not many good men deceived by theÌ„ as Nicâ—◠〈◊〉 â— Iohn 3. 1. that entred their order who espied their painted Hypocrisies till Christ layd them open in their colours making them appeare to every pur-blinde eye what they truely were Our Iesuite to prove his demaund hath produced two t Reply pag. 8. places first Isaiah 62. 2. And what saith the Prophet there The Iesuite I thinke suspects the strength of his quotation or otherwise he would have layde downe the words nakedly and not with his glosse I have set watchmen vpon thy walles O Ierusalem which shall never hold their peace day or night These are the words but not one syllable that they should cry out still vpon every arising errour or Heresie Nay what is here to confirme that which he would prove God giveth his Church faithfull watchmen that will neither day or night be idle and keepe cloyster but will labour to build vp Ierusalem till GOD make it a prayse of the earth But alas what is this to the roote of Heresies to the circumstance of their espyall The birth of every Prodigy is not observed in the shepheards Calendar but of Comets those which are of like nature neither is every Heresie detected by the Iesuite's rule but such as in their first appearing shew themselves to be against faith and good life as Augustine u epist 119. cap. 19. saith in the words alledged Who knoweth not that little clouds may end in stormes which without an Elias * 1. King 18. 44 cannot be suspected Yet must God faile in his promise for his servants not espying the taresower The Apostle that could cry * 2. Cor 2. 16. quis idoneus ad hâ—c did not thinke the perfection of Pastors such that compleatly they might performe every circumstance which their Office doth require If God give faithfull watchmen that will not be tongue-tyed in Gods service nor cease to sound when the enemie approacheth this is sufficient to repute the watchmen faithfull to free their soules For God requires not the trumpet to be vsed before the enemie be espied when your cunnings appeared trechery they have not wanted opposers in all ages so that herein God hath no wayes failed his word For the other place Ephe 4. 11. it maketh no better to his purpose for who denyeth but Christ gave some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers but to what purpose to espy the person time place of hereticall beginnings no but for the perfecting of the Saints for the works of the ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ * Eph 4. â—â— which might be effected by the faithfull resisting of heresies by scriptures although their beginning time and place should be vnknowne For St Augustines words they are true make nothing against the Answerer for if every Pastor ought not to passe ever in silence their manners and doctrine which be against faith and good life but should labour to disgrace and condemne the same much more this will be required of the Church in generall but they must appeare first to be so Paul did not bitterly enveigh against Elimas till he appeared the child of the divell * Aâ—â—â—â—3 â— 10 resisted the streight wayes of the Lord Neither are mens opinions resisted till they appeare hereticall for otherwise every Pastor should be Iohannes ad opposituÌ„ fighting with his own shadow It is for Christ that knoweth the secret of hearts to say that Iudas is a divel * Iohn 6. â—0 And to as much purpose is Dr Fulks confession That the true Church hath resisted all false opinions with open reprehension This no man denyes but first they did appeare to befalse opinioÌ„s Besides cannot heresies be resisted with out naming their beginning time place Yes nodoubt as openly as Luther Fulke have resisted your errors whose beginnings you say they know not or you the Leoniste whose genealogy your great Inquisitor Reinerius x See this alledged in the â— Section could not find out So that the Iesuite may perceive it is no gross assertion to avouch such horrible errours as their opinions are to have assaulted the Church with most secret mysticall fraud although the beginnings of many of them may bee obscured hid But that ever we said they conquered the whole Church that they obtained vniversall estimation of true faith without being either contradicted or asmuch as once observed by any Watchman whatsoever this is no better then Iesuiticall jugling there remaining no truth in the same And now as the learned Answerer hath prooved this question or demaund to be vaine so here he goeth further to demonstrate the same by particular illustration shewing that the same things which they desire of vs cannot in the like case be performed by them And first saith the most reverend Primate We read that the Sadduces taught there were no Angels is any man able to declare vnto vs vnder what high Preist they first broached this errour To this he maketh a twofold Answere one of them is that if the certaine time of the beginning of this errour of the Saduces were not knowne at all little could that availe when as the like circumstance of time is vrged onely to finde out the truth of an â—â—ter in controversy c. which because you affirme we who deny the same doe vrge you to point vs out the time when c but that the Sadduces taught that errour there is no doubt nor controversy it being plainly testified by the scripture y Reply pag. â— Which is but a vaine simple straine of the Iesuite For how can it be but the reason must be alike in all even in those which be not declared expresly in scriptures as those that are And it is as plaine that you teach those particulars by your selfe proposed as the Sadduces did that there was no Angell So that if yours cannot be adjudged Heresies by GODS word vnlesse they be revealed by the circumstance of person time and place Why should this opinion of the Sadduces by strength of scriptures and other grounds be judge â—nd concluded to be so For otherwise if any Nathaniel in whom there was no guile * Iohn 1. 47. should have preached against the Sadduces before Christ revealed the same that they had beene Heretickes for denying
Angels and the Resurrection and convinced theÌ„ for such by the scriptures doe you think this tricke of Popish deceit would have exempted them from censure or preserved them for Saints Surely if this Iesuite â—nquired after truth he would not thus spend himselfe with vaine delayes and exceptions If a Sadduce should now appeare and teach the same doctrine as Pope Iohn z Concil Constan Sess 11. Item quod dictus Ioannes Papa vigesmus tertius â—apeè saepiùs coraâ— diverâ—â—â— praelatis alijs 〈◊〉 probis viriâ— pertinaâ—iter diabolo suadente dixit asservâ—â—â— dogmatiâ—avit adâ—â—â—uxit vitam aeternam non esse nequâ— aliam post hanc quin imo dixit pertinaciter 〈◊〉 animaâ—◠〈…〉 extingu◠〈…〉 dixitque 〈…〉 die 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contra articulum de resurrectione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de premissis fuit est dictus Ioannes Papa apud clerum populuae gravites diâ—â—aâ—atuâ— Sicque vt praediciâ—â—r fuit dictum tentum creditum reputatum diciâ—urque tenetur creditur reputatur palà m publicâ— notoriê the XXIIIth did how would hee stoppe his mouth Doe you thinke that he would be forced from necessitie to vrge the Scriptures Why the 〈◊〉 vrgeth them heere And I doubt not but hee could be content with them in other matters also if they would afford them the like â—â—elter But those that are strangled must needs make mouthes though they can speake nothing to the purpose and our Iesuite would seeme to defend that which he knoweth is impossible by his grounds to be made good So that you may hereby perceive that we can expect from him nothing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for his owne advantage for if he be not able to answere what is proposed then what is brought in against him is nothing to the purpose labouring to frame a pretence for vpholding of that which hee with no truth is able to justifie For his other answere viz Any man that hath read the thirteenth booke of Iosephus c. may easily declare how the Saduces brâ—ached both that and the rest of their errours vnder the high Priest Ionâ—â—has as Machabaeus who began his raigne about 163 yeeres before the birth of Christ and raigned twenty a Reply pag. 9. Whatsoever the Iesuite pretends there is not one word in Iosephus whereby he can proove the beginning of the Sadduces their opinion of denying Angels or indeede when they began to be a sect For in the place b Lib. 1â— antiâ—â—â—â— alledged by him Iosephus telleth vs that there were three Sects amongst the Iewes one of the Pharisees an other of the Sadduces the third of the Essenes who were accompted Sects not in their inchoation but perfection about 143. yeares before Christ in the time of this High Priest And the same Authour in an other place c 〈…〉 expressing things done some 11. yeares after Christ showeth that the Iewes were divided into sects a 〈◊〉 retrò 〈◊〉 which could not be if they began in the time assigned by the Iesuite Besides the Iesuite is so far from telling when the Sadduces or their Errours began that hee knoweth not when the High Priest 〈◊〉 vnder whom he would have vs beleive they 〈◊〉 that errour neither how long to vse his owne wordes he raigned For if hee had hee would not then have begun his raigne 163. yeares before Christ neither have extended his government to twentie yeares against the truth of Chronology in the manner that he hath done For 〈◊〉 his testimony I doe not need much to value it in regard his owne fellow-Iesuite Sâ—â—â—â—ius d In Triâ—haeres lib. 2. cap. 25. hath rejected and refuted his testimony in this particular So that this instance is not vainly brought nor so far wide as the Iesuite would have it but prest to purpose prooving strongly that to be an heresie the originall whereof he is no way able to demonstrate vnto vs which enervates cuts asunder the very heart-strings of his Argument The Grecians Câ—â—cassians Georgians Syrians Egyptians Habissines Muscovites Russians saith the most learned Primate dissâ—â—t at this day from the Church of Rome in many 〈◊〉 will you take vpon you to shew in what Bishops dayes these severall differences did first arise To this the Iesuite replyeth I will S â— and by Gods helpe performe it also out of the learned workes of our moderne Catholicke â—â—iters c Reply pag. â— But before this be performed the Iesuite must remember what their owne f A. C his true Relations of sundry Conferences pag. 11. 12. require of vs in this Quere that he may with the same strictnes satisfie vs in that which we desire of him First they desire vs to shew the point changed in the Roman Church from the auncient faith Secondly they â—rge vs to prove this change not by any reason of antiquity or the word of God but by the other circumstances of the Author 〈◊〉 place and who persisting in the former vnchanged faith opposed and continued opposition against is as against a Novelty and Heresie Besides this the Author time place of such novelties heresies must so be pointed out that no Papist may be â—ble to shew those points to have beene hold by more ancient approved authors in the same sence in which they are held by the Roman Church for if they are then they conclude that is able to convince that there was no such change â—ade Now if this Iesuite can performe what he hath promised in all the controversies betwixt the Roman the Greeke Church with that strictnes which is required of vs in the like kind theÌ„ may he have some colour for what he requireth at our hands but if he hath fayled herein the Reader will easily perceive that they are as little able to convince the Greek Church which yet notwithstanding they have rejected of Heresie by this rule as they thinke we are vnable to detect theÌ„ And seeing the Iesuit hath takeÌ„ vpoÌ„him the former task I will bestow the pains to give him a Catalogue of particulars wherin those Churches dissent froÌ„ the Roman to see out of what good authors he is able to lay me down the person time place by whom when where they were brought into those Churches with their opposers c. 1. For the Greciani they deny Purgatory fire and holde that the soules of holy men departed enjoy not the beatificall vision before the day of judgment g Concil Floren prope initium respons Graec. ad Cardinal Guisan q. 1. Thom. à Iesu de conv gen lib. 6 cap. 1. eit by Brere wood in his enquiries 2 The Habissenes have with them the practise of Circumcision not onely of males but females also h Zaga Zabo derel mor. Aethiop cit per cundem 3. They have a rule that no man must spit the same day that he hath received the Eucharist i Zago Zabo ibid cit per cundem 4. They teach that the soules
of the Greekes hee mixeth Papists and Protestants and yet both put together they are not able to shew the distinct time without a circum circa and turne about for so hee expresseth it The denyall of vnleavened bread in celebration of the Sacrament was begunne about anno Domini 1053. as appeareth by Leo the 9. in his Epistle to Michael Bishop of Constantinople y Reply pag. 10 The Iesuite hath produced nothing but vanity for the finding the beginning of this notorious heresie For Leo the 9. saith no such thing viz that Michael was the first that broached this errour neither doth he cite the first author of it For it cannot follow because Michael did oppose the Azymes used in the Latin Church about the yeare 1053. therefore about that age it did beginne For that Patriarch charged the Church of Rome with other practises quod Sabbat a quadrageâ—â—mâ— observâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 quod suffocata comederunt gentiliter quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantùm in Paschate nunquam vero in quadragesimali tempore decantarent Brovius in anno 1653. All which I thinke you will not say were first distasted by Michael at that time The Iesuitè runneth from his path and vainely without any relation to the thing in controversie telleth vs that the Greeke Church doth vehemently professe to detest the Protestants Religion a Reply pag 10 c. Wherein we have no reason to beleive him in regard he bringeth not any particular out of the Authors cited by himselfe to convince the same which I make no question but hee would have done if they had fairely offered it vnto his hands Secondly there would not be that freindly entercourse betwixt some of the Patriarchs of the Greeke Church and our Bishops as there is neither would they have sent their Preists to our Vniversities for instruction omitting yours which are nearer to them neither would the Grecians that are amongst vs frequent our Chappels Churches when they avoyd yours if they conceived them equally polluted or held vs in equall detestation b Concil Lateran 4. sub Inno 3. apud Bin. c. 4. In tantum Graeci coeperunt abominari Latinos quod inter alia quae in derogationem 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 committeâ—â—â—â— si quando sacerdotes Latini super corum celebrâssent altarianon prius ipsi sacrificare vo lebant in illis quam ea tanquam per hoc inquinata lavissent Baptiâ—atos etiam à Latinis ipsi Graeci rebaptizare ausu remerario praesumebant adhuc sicut accepimus quidam agere hoc non verentum with â—â—â—â—selves Neither doe they differ from vs in the fundamentall points of Doctrine we giving them as we ought a charitable interpretation although in some of the points in the Iesuites Catalogue taken from the Divines of Wittemberge they may be censured somewhat to savour of superstition and errour And that it may appeare whether the Greeke Church doth most favour Papists or Protestants I will insert here a Confession of faith of Cyrill Patriarch of Constantinople translated into English and published at London 1629. An other translation whereof I have seene vnder which is written This Copy hath beene translated out of the originall made * * done by the hands of the most reverend Patriarch Cyrill which I know well The writing it selfe being in my hands and having examined it my owne selfe I doe testifie that it doth agree with it word for word Corneille Hague Embassadour of the vnited Provinces of the Low-Countreyes at the gate of the Grand Seignour IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SONNE AND OF THE HOLY GHOST VEE beleive one God Almightie and infinite three in Persons the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost the Father vnbegotten the Sonne begotten of the Father before the World consubstantial with the Father the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father by the Sonne having the same ofsence with the Father and the Sonne wee call these three Persons in one essence the Holy Trinity ever to bee blessed glorified and to bee worshipped of every creature Wee beleive the Holy Scripture to bee given by God to have no other Authour but the Holy Ghost which wee ought vndoubtedly to beleive for it is written Wee have a mere sure word of Prophecy to the which â—ee doe well to take â—eede as to a light shining in a darke place Besides we beleive the authority thereof to be aboue the authority of the Church It is a farre different thing for the Holy Ghost to speake and the tongue of man for the tongue of man may through ignorance erre deceiue and bee deceiued but the Word of GOD neither deceiueth nor is deceiued nor can erre but is alwayes infallible and sure Wee beleiue that the best and greatest GOD hath predestinated his Elect vnto glorie before the beginning of the World without any respect vnto their workes and that there was no other impulsiue cause to this election but onely the good will and mercy of God In like manner before the world was made hee hath rejected whom hee would of which act of reprobation if you consider the absolute dealing of God his will is the cause but if you looke vpon Gods orderly proceeding his justice is the cause for God is mercifull and Iust Wee beleive that one GOD in Trinity the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost to bee the Creator of all things visible and invisible Inuisible things wee call the Angels visible things the Heauens and all things vnder them And because the Creator is good by nature hee hath created all things good and cannot doe any evill and if there bee any euill it proceedes from the Diuell and man for it ought to bee a certaine rule to vs that GOD is not the Author of evill neither can sinne by any just reason bee imputed to him Wee beleiue that all things are governed by GODS Prouidence which wee ought rather to adore then search into sith it is beyond our capacity neither can wee truely vnderstand the reason of it from the things themselves in which matter wee suppose it better to embrace silence in humilitie then to speake many things which doe not edifie Wee beleive that the first man created by God fell in Paradise because neglecting the Commaundement of God hee yeelded to the deceitfull counsell of the Serpent from thence sprung vp originall sinne to his posterity so that no man is borne according to the flesh who doeth not beare this burthen and feele the fruits of it in his life Wee beleive that IESVS CHRIST our Lord hath made himselfe of no accompt that is hath assumed mans nature into his owne Subsistence that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost that hee was made Man in the Wombe of Mary alwayes a Virgin was borne and suffered death was buryed and glorified by his resurrection that hee brought salvation and glory to all beleivers whom wee looke for to come to judge both quicke and dead Wee beleive that our Lord IESVS CHRIST sitteth
at the right hand of his Father and there maketh intercession for us executing alone the office of a true and lawfull Preist and Mediator and from thence hee hath a care of his people and governeth his Church adorning and enriching her with many blessings Wee beleive that without Faith no man can bee saved but that wee call Faith which in CHRIST IESVS justifieth which the life and death of our Lord IESVS CHRIST procured the Gospell published and without which no man can please God Wee beleive that the Church which is called Catholicke containeth all true beleivers in Christ which being departed are in their Countrey in heaven or living on earth are yet travayling in the way the Head of which Church because a mortall man by no meanes can be Iesus Christ is the Head alone and he holdeth the stâ—rne of the Government of the Church in his owne 〈◊〉 but because on earth there bee particular Visible Churches and in order every one of them hath one cheife which cheife is not properly to bee called a Head of that particular Church but improperly because hee is the principall Member thereof Wee beleive that the Members of the Catholicke Church bee the Saints chosen vnto eternall life from the number and fellowshippe of whom Hypocrites are excluded though in particular visible Churches Tares may bee found amongst the Wheate Wee beleive that the Church on earth is sanctified and instructed by the Holy Ghost for hee is the true Comforter whom Christ sendeth from the Father to teach the truth and to expell darkenesse from the vnderstanding of the Faithfull For it is very certaine that the Church of God may erre taking falshood for truth from which errour the light and doctrine of the holy Spirit alone freeth us not of mortall man although by Mediation of the labours of the Churches Ministers this may bee done Wee beleive that a man is justified by Faith and not by workes but when wee say by Faith wee vnderstand the correlative or object of Faith which is the righteousnesse of Christ which Faith apprehends and applyeth unto us for our Salvation This may very well bee and yet without any prejudice to good workes for Truth it selfe teacheth us that workes must not bee neglected that they bee necessary meanes and testimonies of our Faith for confirmation of our calling but for workes to bee sufficient for our salvation and to make a man so to appeare before the Tribunall of Christ that of condignity or merit they conferre salvation humane frailty witnesseth to bee false but the righteousnesse of Christ being applyed to the penitent doth onely justifie and save the faithfull Wee beleive that free will is dead in the vnregenerate because they can doe no good thing and whatsoever they doe is sinne but in the regenerate by the grace of the Holy Spirit the will is excited and indeed worketh but not without the asistance of grace to effect that therefore which is good grace goeth before the will which will in the regenerate is wounded as hee by the theeues that came from Hierusalem so that of himselfe without the helpe of grace hee hath no power to doe any thing Wee beleive that there bee Evangelicall Sacraments in the Church which the Lord hath instituted in the Gospell and they be two wee have no larger number of Sacraments because the Ordayner thereof delivered no more Furthermore wee beleive that they consist of the Word and the Element that they bee seales of the promises of GOD and wee doubt not but doe conferre grace But that the Sacrament bee entire and whole it is requisite that an earthly substance and an externall action doe concurre with the vse of that element ordained by Christ our Lord and joyned with a true faith because the defect of faith doth prejudice the integritie of the Sacraments We beleive that Baptisme is a Sacrament instituted by the LORD which vnlesse a man hath receaued he hath not communion with Christ from whose death buriall and glorious Resurrection the whole vertue and efficacy of Baptisme doth proceed therefore in the same forme wherein our LORD hath commaunded in the Gospell wee are certaine that to those who bee Baptized both Originall and Actuall sinnes are pardoned so that whosoever haue beene washed In the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost are regenerate cleansed and justified But concerning the repetition of it wee haue no commaund to bee rebaptized therefore wee must absteine from this inconuenience Wee beleive that the other Sacrament was ordained of the LORD which wee call the Eucharist For in the Night wherein hee was betrayed taking bread and blessing it hee said to his Apostles Take yee cate this is my body and when hee had taken the Cuppe hee gaue thankes and said Drinke yee all of this this is my blood which was shed for many doe this in remembrance of mee And Paul addeth for as often as yee shall eate of this bread and drinke of this Cuppe yee doe shew the LORDS death this is the pure and lawfull institution of this wonderfull Sacrament in administration whereof wee confesse and professe a true and Reall presence of CHRIST our LORD but yet such a one as Faith offereth to vs not such as deuised transubstantiation teacheth For wee beleive the faithfull doe eate the body of CHRIST in the Supper of the Lord not by breaking it with the teeth of the body but by perceiuing it with the sence and feeling of the Soule sith the body of CHRIST is not that which is Visible in the Sacrament but that which Faith spiritually apprehendeth and offereth to vs from whence it is true that if wee beleive wee doe eate and partake if wee doe not beleive wee are destitute of all the fruite of it Wee beleive consequently that to drinke the Cuppe in the Sacrament is to bee partaker of the true blood of our Lord IESUS CHRIST in the same manner as wee affirmed of the body for as the Author of it commanded concerning his body so he did concerning his blood which commaundement ought neither to bee dismembred nor maymed according to the fancy of mans arbitrement yea rather the institution ought to bee kept as it was deliuered to vs when therefore wee have beene partakers of the body and blood of CHRIST worthily and haue communicated entirely wee acknowledge our selues to bee reconciled united to our Head of the same body with certaine hope to bee coheires in the Kingdome to come Wee beleive that the soules of the dead are either in blessâ—dnesse or in damnation according as every one hath done for assoone as they remoue out of the body they passe either to Christ or into hell for as a man is found at his death so he is judged and after this life there is neither power nor opportunity to repent in this life there is a time of Grace they therefore who be iustified heere shall suffer no punishment hereafter but they
were first brought in whether by Balaam or an Apostle though the Iesuite his fellowes could proâ—e it by Apocrypha to be as auncient as the towre of Babeâ—â— it wil be prophane and new in the opinion of any Christian iudgment and vnderstanding still And here it is not to be omitted how the Iesuite flyes to that which they coÌ„temne in us the sacred scriptures deserting the successioÌ„ of this article of glorious RomaÌ„ faith suspecting the fathers so much boasted of by him to prove it of universall beleife must we be urged then in reason to tell you at what time Purgatory and Indulgences were first brought into the Church wheÌ„as the Greeke Fathers seldome mentioned Purgatory never received it x Roâ—â—ens ar 18. Graecis ad hunc vsque diem non est creditum Purgatorium esse when some of the Latine apprehended it not y Ibid. Sed neque Latini simul omnes ac sensim huâ—us rei veritatem conceperunt when sometime it was vnknowne z Ibid. Aliquandiu Purgatorium in cognitum and but lately knowne to the Church a Ibid Sero cognitum ac receptum Ecclesiae fuerit vniversae when it got strength pedetentim by little little not from scriptures or fathers interpreting them onely but partly ex revelationibus b Ibid. by some whisperer in a trunke or a worse Gipsy But if these notable points in the opinioÌ„ of Valentia Caiâ—tan Fisher had their original froÌ„ Christ his Apostles the word of God why should the Iesuit desire any other medium to examine the truth of their report but their own levell The word of God is sufficient to canonize these of faith could you but finde them delivered there But we are sure of your disability herein vnlesse you fly vnto the ayde of your pro ratione voluntas your will-guiding Interpreter And the Iesuit might have forborn to charge the Answerer with untruth in regard he but only repeats Fisher Caietans opinions and the Iesuite himselfe thus farre jumpeth with them that there is some uncertainty when first their vse began Besides I would gladly know whether the word of God without succession be able to point us out the certaine original of the Doctrine of faith if it be what will become of his demaund if it be not where findeth he the vntruth that he doth falsly charge the Answerer withall Finally Because Fisher affirmeth that the knowledge of Purgatory came in pedetentim by little little therefore it ought not to be admitted nor esteemed For by the same Logick he may prove that S. Iames his epistle ought not to be admitted for Canonicall Scripture because as S. Hierome c Paulatim tempore procedente meruit authoritatem Hieron de vitis illust verbo Iecobus doth witnesse by little and little in processe of time it obtained authority credit d Reply pag. 13 This is another brat of the Iesuites begetting let him foster it the most learned Answerer concludeth no such thing but shewes that this profane Novelty crept pedetentim like a snaile to the height of Papall faith and therefore is not easy to be discerned But the Iesuite had a great mind to make vse of Ierome's words and without a forged preparation hee was not able to bring them in Yet as he vrgeth them there is great difference betweene these two instances For the Epistle of S. Iames was first received by the Catholike Church e Eusebius apud Sixt. Sâ—nens Bibl. Sanct lib. 7. haer 9. Noâ— tamen scimusistam epistolâ—m Iacobi cum caeteris ab omnibus Ecclesijs recipi though doubted of by some particular members thereof f Sixtuâ— Senens ibid. Nec ita perperà m sequentia verba Hieronymi interpretanda sunt ut ex his dedueamus Epistolam hanc vel temporum successu vel Ecclesiae diâ—â—imulatione divinam factam Iaâ—obo ascriptam cum tadis ipsa non esset hoc enim impossibile prorsus est sed sic potius juxta veram Hieron mi mentem exponenda sunt quod Epistolam hanc de qua primum inter ALIQVOS ambigebatur an divino spiritu aâ— ab Apostolo Iacobo scripta esset Ecclesia Christi paulatim tempore procedente â—â—mperit esse veram et canonicam etipsiâ—s Iacobi germanam But Purgatory was not received so far as they can manifest but by degrees in particular Churches only never at the best esteemed as of faith but among Romanists Secondly Purgatory partim ex revelationibus came to be beleived of some particular Churches when the Epistle of S. Iames from the worth divine light that was in it selfe meruit authoritatem got authority not in the Catholicke but amongst those doubting Churches which had not received it So that heere is the difference of paulatim and pedetentim S. Iames his Epistle was knowne and received by the Catholicke Church and did by degrees remove the jealousie of those particular Churches that suspected it Purgatory being vnknowne at sometime to the Catholick Church which must either be in the Apostles dayes or never vnlesse this point were more vnhappy then any other point of Doctrine got to be knowne afterwards in the Roman Church not from Scriptures which knew it not but by revelations and tales of a Ghost When our Answerer then c. doth demand of us whence tho foresaid points of Purgatorie Indulgences Communion in one kind have their Originals we can shew even out of the very authors alledged by himselfe that they have their Originals from the institution of our Lord howsoever it be granted that there is some uncertainty when first began their publique and frequent use g Reply pag. 13 What doth the Iesuite get by this he affordeth us matter sufficient to prove his Demaund idle For first what little reason hath he to aske What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion which wee commend in them of the first 400. yeares and In what Pope his dayes was the true Religion overthrowne in Rome when they themselves are forced to distinguish in regard of time the practise of their faith from the person that instituted the Doctrine thereof confining this vnto the age of Christ acknowledging the other to have beene brought into the Roman Church they know not when †〈◊〉 constat Secondly what ground hath the Iesuite the rest of his profession to require the circumstances of person time and place to find out heresies by but because the true auncient faith hath beene ever continued in the Church by perpetuall succession being beleived practised therein without interruption And yet here our Adversaries confesse that a doctrine may be taught by Christ yet never practised in the immediate following times but as a thing forgotten begin in particular Churches after the Apostolick times and from thence slyde into the Roman never into the Catholick at such a time which they are not able to designe
the Roman Church could not free that age from darkenes Thirdly that the Spirit which assisted Popes Princes in those times was the Spirit that worketh in the Children of disobedience * Eph. â— â— Fourthly that Heresies might have come into the Church of Rome for any care the Pope had to keepe them out if GODS divine providence had not prevented them Fiftly that the Divell aboundantly sowed his tares of vices in Princes Prelates yet Gods divine providence did so worke that no new Heresies did then arise Is not heere a brave defence to make the Answerer his argument to languish and sleepe for ever Surely the Iesuite was betwixt sleeping and waking that he said he knew not what But did the Divell thinke no ground fit for his tares but Princes and Prelates Surely we are able to demonstrate that this bad blinde sleepie age did give seed-time for innumerable corruptions in others also yea so flourishing were the blossomes and prodigious the fruite which sprung from that seed husbanded by the Divell that it infected the whole Roman Church in such a manner that Gerebertus in his Apologie for the Councell of Rhemes put his petition up to Christ in Heaven as having no hope for good in the Roman Church upon earth it being so far infected that loosing the nature of a mother shee cursed the good blessed the evill communicated with those whom shee ought not to salute bound them with excommunication whom Christ had freed being accepted of him and zealous of his lawe z Gereber Apolog pro Rhemens Concil post acta Concil Rhem. Sed una salus hominis ô Christe â—â—â—eâ— Ipsa Roma omnium Ecclesiarum hactenus habita mater bonis maledicere malis benedicere fer tur quibus nec Ave dicendum est comâ—â—â—icare tuamque legem zelantes damnare abutens ligandi solvendi potestate à te acceptâ And so corrupt was that age that all vertue was consumed both in head and members a Io. Stella in vitâ Benedicti â— Papae 122. Acciderat illi aetati quòd omnis virtus tam in capite quam in membris ex hominum ignaviâ consumpta suerit nay so farre was Religion out of date that Preists and Bishops durst not speake of Iustice or righteousnes in regard they neither loved nor practised it b Aâ—lfric serm ad Sacerdotes MS. in Biblioth Colleg. Benedict Cantabrig His diebus tanta negligentia est in Sacerdotibus Episcopis qui deberent esse â—oâ—umnae Ecclesiae ut 〈◊〉 non audent de justitia loqui qui justitiam nec faciunt nec diligunt But the Iesuite thinketh all is well if Princes and Prelates were defiled together Yet Wernerus their owne Carthusian may assure us that our Iesuite putteth Princes causelesly into a lewd company when as hee coupleth them with Popes for hee telleth us it was most apparant that Holines had left the Pope and fled to the Emperours c Werner Fascic tempâ—tat 6. circ an 944. Sanctitatem Papam dimisisse ad Imperatoreâ— accessisse hoc tempore clarâ— apparet which is cleare on the one side also by the testimony of their owne Baronius who saith that most sordide whooâ—es governed at Rome their lustfull mates ascending the Chayre d Baron tom 10. Annal. an 912. §. 8. Quae tunc facies sanctae Ecclesiae Romanae quà m foedissisima cùm Romae dominarentur potentiffimae ae què ac fordidissimae meretrices quarum arbitrio mutarenâ—â—r sedes darenâ—ur Episâ—opi quod auditu horrendum infandum est intruderentur in Sedem Petri earum amaâ—â—pâ—eudâ— pontifices Here first this Iesuite hath abused Princes as their usuall practise is in joyning them with such filthy and foul-lived wretches as their Popes are confessed and acknowledged to be when Princes have reprehended and loathed them labouring to bring them to reformation as Otto and the Roman Synode did Iohn the 12. or 13. for you agree not whether he is calling him to purge himselfe of most fearfull offences as Homicide Perjury Sacriledge Incest drinking the Divels health Dicing invocating Iupiter Venus and other Divels e â—uitprand Tiâ—inens Hister l. 6. c. 9. â— 10. Summo Pontifici et universali Papae Domino Iohanni Otto divinae respectu clementiae Imperator Augustus cum Archiepiscopis Liguriae Tusciae Saxoniae Franciae in Domino salutem Romam ob servitium Dei venientes dum filios vestros Romanos scilicet Episcopos Cardinales Presbyteros Diaconos et universam plebem de vestra absentia percontaremur et quid caussae esset quòd nos Ecclesiae vestrae vestrique defensores videre noluissetis talia de vobis tamque obâ—â—oena protulerunt ut si de hiâ—â— oâ—ibus dicerentur vobis verecundiam ingererent Quae ne magnitudinem vestram omnia lateant quaedam vobis sub brevitate dâ—scribimus quum si cuncta nominatim exprimere cuperemus dies nobis non sufficeret unus Noveritis itaque non à paucis sed ab omnibus tam vestri quam alterius ordinis vos homicidij perjurij sacrilegij et expropria cognatione atque ex duabus sororibus incesti crimine esse accusatoâ— Dicunt et aliud audâ—â—â— ipso horrendum Diaboli vos in amoreâ— viâ—um bibisse c. Neither let the Iesuite thinke that the Divell made them so evill men and yet left them good Bishops to preserve the purity of Catholicke doctrine this surely would bee a Paradoxe in all places but at Rome where they acknowledge doctrines were not as the auncient Prophesies delivered to the Church by holy men as the Spirit gave them utterance but brought in by such that were not able to rule their owne houses well and therefore farre unfit to be governours of the Church of God And as the Iesuite was deceived in the Divels arable land so with Bellarmine is he mistaken in the seede also For iâ— iâ— probable that he who did sowe seedes of Heresie in the slumbering age before this snorting nap would bee idle when hee was altogether without resistance If Image-worship got footing when their eyes were open may wee not expect that other heresies came in when they were fast asleepe In what primitive times durst an Image by rowling eyes and sweating knavery require adoration from the people Durst any godly Bishops decree for this idolatry in the first sixe ages No this Heresie was resisted by three hundred thirtie eight Bishops at Constantinople Anno 754. And though afterwards it got strength at Nice was defended by Rome and at last got to be Roman faith yet was the same disliked denyed opposed resisted by all the good men that lived in that after-times as Charles the great the Councell of Franckford Lewes his son the Synode of Paris Alcuinus the Church of England and the Waldenses c. Neither did the English distaste it as an ordinary folly and superstition onely but as contrary to true faith such an opinion which the Church
crutches For what are the Arguments hee contendeth with 1. That there was never any commandement given that the Cup should be given to the Laytie 2. That the use of celebration of the Cuppe was not sâ— generall in the Apostles time c. And for this hee cites a Iesuite and tells us that Cardinall Perâ—n in his Reply to the King of Great Brittaine hath undeâ—yabliâ— proved that uppon just cause the Church might change the Communion of both kindes into one that Cardinall Bellarmine hath most largely disputed heâ—reof and clearely prooveth That Christ in the Sacrament is wholly contained in one kinde and that under one kinde there is found the full substance and vertue of the Sacrament t Reply pag. 20. 21. c. Loe heere is the brave confirmation of his indifferent Chalice * If Christs Bloud how â—lightly is it valued when they fight to avoyde it which if allowable I wonder hee should take so much paines in his Reply but have referred all the Controversies to his Predecessors paines because nihil dictum est quod non â—â—it dictum priâ—â— But as hee prooves so shall his answere bee sutable His referments shall bee answered with referments For their Peron I referre him for answere to Mâ—â—lin And for Bellarmine I could name him an hoast But this sacriledge of theirs I will truely lay downe and breifly in a few wordes that the Reader may see the ground of our Churches practise and the base and simple shiftes that they are forced unto for their defending of the surreption of the Cuppe And although our Iesuite declareth himselfe to have beene borne in a full Moone or the Dogge-dayes by his folly and reviling calling our Cleargie the Cupping Ministery u Reply pag â—â— yet GOD bee thanked wee defire not the cuppe for our owne selves in that their appetite is seene but for the people also that all things may bee ordered in the Church according to Christs institution And heerein all may see that hee might as justly revile CHRIST and his Apostles as hee doth those whom hee styles the Câ—pping Ministery And I thinke a Papist and a Preist might best of all men let that scorne have passed seeing the Cuppe not of the New Testament might â—it them for their armes with a Poâ—uâ— non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their Motto For a man may be in the act of â—eriting with them that is none of the soberest x Less de Iustie â—uâ—e l. 4. cap. 2. dubitat â— nu 10 p. 718. 719. Si tantus â—it excessus ut peccet mortiserè amittit meritum â—â—junij sicut aliorum bonorum operum Si aâ—tem non peccet mortiferè non amittit absolutè sed solum ex parte Quia quâ parte voluntariè abstinet à cibâ—â— vetitis et à secundâ refectione propter Ecclesiae prâ—â—ceptum meretur quod meritum non eliditur etiamsi in usu cibi vel potus non seâ—â—â—â— dâ—â—iâ—am modeâ—â—tionem quâ â—amen parte excedit non â—eâ—eâ—â— nay a man may be drunke and yet fast truly y â—â—llarm lib. 2. de bonis operibus in partic cap. 1. Iejunium EcclesiasticuÌ„m est abâ—â—inâ—ntia cibi secundum Ecclesiae regulam assumpta paâ—le post Iejunium igitur Ecclesiasticum dicitur abstinentia cibi quoâ—iam hoc â—â—junium neque POTVS neque medicamentorum sed solius cibi absâ—â—â—â—nâ—iaâ— perâ—se râ—quiâ—iâ— if Bellarâ—ine his definition of a Fast be adequate to the thing that is defined But letting all this passe I will shew plainely that the Cuppe cannot be taken from the Sacrament but the perâ—eâ—tion and integritiâ— if not the substance thereof is utterly overthrowne And to deale with a Iesuite from Iesuiticall grounds we may observe that if it crosse the substance either of Christs institution or of his Sacrament â—r his precept or of the practise of the primitive Church a Reply to Iesuite Fisher by Dr Fran White pag. 466. 467 it can no lesse then vitiate the whole action That it crosseth these what tongue can deny which impudencie hath not appropriated to its selfe For did CHRIST exhibite a double thing to the Apostles faythes and memories and did hee not likewise for the effecting thereof consecrate two materiall elements bread and wine was it not the practise of the primitive Church b Lyranâ—â— in 1. cor 11 Fit hic 1. Cor. 11. mentio de duplici specie nam in primitiva Ecclesia sic da â—atur â—idelibuâ— Cassander consult ar 22. pag. 168. Satis conâ—â—at occidentalem seâ— Romanaâ— mille à Christo â—nnis in â—olenni et ordinaria hâ—â—jus Sacramenti dispensatione â—tramque paâ—â—â— et â—iâ—â— specâ—em omnibus Ecclesiâ— Christi members eâ—hibuiâ—â—e iâ— quod ex in nuâ—â—â—iâ— veâ—â—rum scriptorum taâ— Grâ—coâ—um quam Latinorum testimoâ—â—â—s manifesâ—â—â— est atq ut ita facerent inductoâ— fuisse 〈◊〉 instituâ—â— exemploque Christi and of the Latine for a thousand or more yeares to administer it in the same manner not onely to the Cleargy but to the people also by the institution example of Christ â—ellarâ— De Euchar. l. 4. c. 24. Ecclesia autem vetus ministrabaâ—â—â—b duplici specie quando Christiani â—rant pâ—â—â—â—i 〈◊〉 Crescente aâ—tâ—m multiâ—â—â—â—ne magis â—â— magis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—t sic paâ—latiâ— defâ—â—â—â—sâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the contrary ever received by the Church deliberatly upon concluding grounds or did it stealedas the rest of the tares into the Romish Church by Custome If the Iesuite can shew us better grounds to acquite it from intrusion let him declare it this was the cheife reason the Councell of Constance e Concil Constantien Seâ—â— 13. Licet Christus post â—â—â—nam instiâ—â—erit suis discipulis administraverit sâ—b 〈◊〉 que specie panis vini hoc venerabile â—â—cramentum tamen hoc non obstante sacrorum Caâ—oâ—â—â—â—â—thoriâ—aâ— laâ—dabilis approbata coÌ„â—etudo ecclesiae servavit servat c. Et sicut haec consâ—â—â—â—do ad evitâ—â—dum aliqua pericula et scandala est rationabiliter introducta quod licet in primitiva ecclesia hujuâ—â—odi sacramentum reciperetur à fidelibus sub utraque specie posâ—â—à à confiâ—â—entâ—bus sub utraque et à laicis tantuâ—â—odo sub specie panis sâ—cipiâ—â—ur c. Vnde cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia sanctis patribus rationabiliter introducta diâ—â—issimè observata sit habenda est pro lege had for its defence and what strength it hath against Christs institution and the Primitive practise any may conceive What hath mooved the Roman Church to this surreption of the Cuppe from the people no man can without doubting imagine for if those wife motives repeated by Gerson should bee the cause wee may see how weake arguments will moove the Apostolicall power against CHRISTS institutions For first he telâ—ethus of the danger in the effusion 2. The inconvenience of the portation of it from place to place 3. The vessell might bee as filthâ—â— as Iudas his trunke 4. There
quo non semel Scripâ—â—ra 〈…〉 est ac si denotare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in sâ— ipsis 〈…〉 for who is so wilfull to affirme this confution to consist in the gift of new tongues but in making the former unâ—ntelligible as your Latine is now to the people 〈◊〉 formerly they vulgarly understood And yet uppon this confused foundation hee seeketh not onely to justifie their owne blindnes but hee would make us scattered wights and Babelists also May not Protestants saith hee bee rather tearmed Babelists whose diversity of languages and daylie jaâ—â—es amongst themselves give good testimony that their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 built against the true Church the Saints and Sacraments the tâ—ppe thereof ayming at heaven it selfe will 〈◊〉 bee dissipated and left â—â—â—â—lated t Reply pag. 24. May not Mr Malone bee rather tearmed a Babelist that so confusedly falleth upon us without any ground whence to force this conclusion For first our divers languages make no more confusion amongst us then the extraordinary gift of tongues did in the Apostles dayes in regard wee retaine your Latine unconfused and have many other languages which are 〈◊〉 acquainted with the faith of CHRIST Secondly our jarres are not equall to yours although they many times are passionately exprest neither are they of any other nature then those which have beene among the members of the Church of CHRIST neither destroying faith nor the foundation thereof Thirdly the Iesuite is vaine in his fâ—aunting tearmes 〈◊〉 towre of Protestancie the toppe whereof ayming against heaven it selfe when all the world is but gleabe-land sufficient for their towre of S. Angelo built against the true Church the Saints and Sacraments u Reply pag. 24 As if there were a true Church where CHRIST is not Monarch or that their Universal Master could make Saints as he hath done Sacraments But if wee consider all aright the ambitious towre of Protestancie will not be a mole-hill iâ— compared to your mountaines for the whole world cannot containe Popish ambition although the greatest honour uppon earth must stoope before it x Extra de Major Obed. cap. Vnam Sanctam Porrâ— subesse Romano Pontifici omni humaâ—â— creaturae declaramus dicimus diâ—â—â—imimus et 〈◊〉 omniâ—â—â—sse de necessitate 〈◊〉 No tearmes will suâ—â—ice the Papacie but those which wee expresse God withall as wee may see variously out of 〈◊〉 y De Patriarch Primat orig lâ—b 1. Exercitâ— 1. Vâ— quemaâ—modum Diâ—â—cesani iâ— Episcopâ— Episcopi in Metropolita Metropolitâ— in Patriarcha unum 〈◊〉 itâ— Triâ—â—taa Patriarcharum in Vnitate Pontificis coalesceret sicq sedis Principis Apostolonum esset in Trinitate VNITAS in Vnitate TRINITAS But this is little to that which followeth for you have made your Monarch after the manner of serpents to cast off his slough yea his nature it selfe z Alvae 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 Eccles lib. â— cap. 37. Papa igitur participatutraâ—â—que naturam cum Christo hee must not be barely man either you must take him for God and man or compounded of â—â—th a Clemens 〈◊〉 in gloss Papa 〈◊〉 mundi Qui maxima 〈◊〉 nec Deus â—â— nec homo quasi Neuter es inter Vtrumque Where will you finde his Preisthood when his Majestie is stiled divine b Ludou Luisius ab Alcaâ—ar in Apoc. in carmine ad 〈◊〉 Apost D◠〈◊〉 5. Quem numinis instar vera colit pietas which cannot stand with a miâ—â—steriall dutie Did he affect divinitie as the Emperour thought c Aventin lib. 7. The Pope will tell you that Peter and you may conceive for whose sake is assumed into the society of the individuall Vnitie d Nicol. 3. de Election cap. Fundamenta in 〈◊〉 Hunc enim in 〈◊〉 individuâ— unitatis 〈◊〉 c. and the Glâ—sse will give his succeâ—â—or the tittle of our Lord God the Pope e Extravag Ioan. 1â— de verb rum sign cap. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in gloss Credere auâ—â—m 〈◊〉 DEVM 〈◊〉 Papam c. and as if this were too little a Cardinall of their owne hath told us that Popes have been perswaded that they might doe unlawfull tâ—â—â—gs and so plus quam Deus more then God himselfe f Francisc Zabarel deschism Innoc. 7. Benedicti p. â—0 Now let the Iesuite consider what reason hee had to stile true Religion an ambitionâ—towre when as if he cast an eye upon themselves the towre of Papacie hath a foundation as low as Hell and an height more loftie then the towre of Babell it selfe For the Iesuites invectives of spirit of giddines severall sects varying opinions g Reply pag. â—4 c. His testimonies are not his freinds First he urgeth Lavatherus but as it seemeth from Genebrard and Staphylus h See the Margine ibid. men of excellent credite and repute no doubt suâ—ficient by their bare testimonie to divide all Protestancie but the Iesuites text is moderate if his margine truth it for the one divides Protestancie but into above 100. sects and varying opinions when the other maketh the sects 180. and both differ from Genebrard the author that he citeth who saith there are more then 200 but we see the Iesuite lest hee should be taken lisping placeth sects and varying opinions together Now in this sence who is there that is acquainted any thing in Popish writings but can point out many thousand varying opinions amongst the Papistes themselves which they condemne not as wee doe those follies mentioned by Genebrard and not goe out of the compasse of the Papall Creed And to give them a taste in their Hierarchie there hath beene eleven points of Popish Irish divinitie i Censura propositionum ad sacrae Theologiae facultatem allatae per Patricium Cahil Rectorem S. Michaelis Dublinensis c. condemned by above 60. Doctors of Sorbon lately k Actum apud Sorbonam in congregationibus publicis sacrae facultatis Theologiae Parisiensis habitis diebus secunda septima â—aâ—arij 1632. Et confirmatum in Coâ—itiis extraordinariis deciâ—â—â— quinti ejusdem mensis anni praesentibus sexaginta Doctoribus amplâ—â—â— with such tearmes as these lame l Censura In ista â— propositioneâ—numeratio membrorum Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae est manca false m â— Falsa contrary to common right n 4. Iuri communi contraria ambiguous o 2. Ambigua injurious p 7. Injuâ—iosa inept ridiculous against the sence and use of the Church q 6 Inepta ridicula contra communem Ecclesiâ— sensum â—sum contrary to divine naturall and positive law r 10. Iuri divino naturali positivo contraria seditious Å¿ 1â— Sediosa scandalous t 9. Scandalâ—sa schismaticall u â— Scâ—isâ—atica Hereticall c. x â— Haereticâ— But suppose there were as many sects as the Iesuite pretends to disturbe the peace of the Protestant Churches what concludeth he in reproach of us when he acknowledgeth that before
〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 â—all of the aâ—â—cient Fathers and the Councell of 〈◊〉 Canone 〈…〉 these bookes are omitted â—â—â—â— part of the 〈◊〉 Scripture Thirdly the reputed 47. Canon of the third Councell of Carthage which is their cheifest testimony by the indgemeÌ„t of their own was never determinâ—â—â—â— that Synode â—arclaij Paraenesis l. 1. c. â—1 Refertur â—ic canoâ— concil 3. Carthaginensi cui Augustinus interâ—â—it sed ex 〈◊〉 constat posterioris Concilij esse quod paulo post sub Boni â—â—cio convocaâ—â—m Fourthly in after ages they were by many rejected a never getting authority till the Trent decree Besides these bookes will by their owne light declare of what authority they are The 〈◊〉 I hope will grant that God is as true in his word as the Pope infallible in his decrees if upon this ground these bookes deserve credit let the Reader conclude first for Iudeth whether it were â—squam or ullâ—bi we cannot tell neither I thinke the Iesuite himselfe Again she honoureth that fact of Siâ—â—on * Caâ—â—s loco â—â—pra citat Constat auâ—em 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctisâ—imoâ— in contrariam sententiam 〈◊〉 qui tamen semper in Ecclesia Catholica sunt habiti Nich. Lyâ—an super 〈◊〉 â— 1. super Tobiâ—â— Abuleâ—â—â—s super Math. c. 1. D. Aâ—â—on 3. p. â— 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 loâ—â— tum maâ—ime in fine 〈◊〉 super 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etiam sex â—â—cros esse 〈◊〉 Gelaâ—â—â—â— Pâ—pa rejecit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Macha Diâ—â—â— autem Gregorius l. moral â—â— rejjoâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de Tâ—â—â—poribus Rich l. 2. Exceptioâ—â—â— c. 9. Ocham â—â— Diâ—◠〈◊〉 1. l. 3. 〈◊〉 Ac D. Aug docet aâ— Ecclesia esse quid em receptos seâ—â—â—â— certa side 〈◊〉 9. 2 and Levy which the Spirit of God abhorreth as appeares by Moses †Gen. 49. 5. And we may see that Iudeth fitting her selfe for lyes and deceit * 〈◊〉 9. 10 desireth God to give a blessing thereunto †Ver. 13. which action as it condemneth the person that doth the same so doth it disgrace this booke which speaketh â—â— directly opposite to the Apostolicall rule * Eph. 4. 25. And as Iudeth doth detect her selfe so doth Tâ—bit also by his vaine story of the Rivall Devill †Tob 6. 14. the driving away of a devill or an evill spirit which should trouble any with the smoke of the heart and the liver of a fish * Tâ—â— 6. 7 contrary to Christs doctrine that there are some devills which will not be cast out but by fasting and prayer †Mat. 17. 21. And wherefore should the Apostle Eph 6. 13. have left this out of his aâ—moury if it had bene of such forâ—â— eâ—â—icacy as is here expressed Further we have an Angell lyeing chap. 5. verse â—â— and a fish travailing on Land chap. 6. verse 2. The Maâ—chabees containe many things which declaâ—â— the author of them not to write with confidence of Godâ— Spirit asisting him as first that he was an Epitoâ—â—ist of â—â—son * 2. Maccà b 2. 23. Secondly he excuseth himselfe †2 Maccab. â—5 39. as if the holy Ghost might deserve a censure Thirdly it appeareth that his end is to delight his Reader * 2. Maccab. 2 25. 15. 40. and to get honour to himselfe †2. Maccab. 2 â—6 â—7 Lastly he justifieth Razis in killing himself * 2. Macâ—ab 14 41. 42. 43. a commendation fitter for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then the patient Marâ—â—rs of Christ as S. Augustine Aug. câ—n Gâ—ud l. c 31. Dictum est quod 〈◊〉 nobiliter merit meâ—us veller hâ—militer â—â—â— enim 〈◊〉 Illiâ—autem verbis historia gentium â—â—â—dare 〈◊〉 sed viros 〈◊〉 huius â—â—culi non martyrâ—â— Christi observeth To these many more may be added but this which hath bene spokeÌ„ will suffice to shew that they have dealt without all conscience in obtruding those bookes upon the church which were never as canonicall received from the Iewes unto whom were committed the oracles of God * Rom. 3. 2. never delivered to the primitive Church from the Apostles never aproved by any father of the church for almost 400 yeares never thought of when the Canon was repeated such which by their Physiognomy detect themselves Whence we may gather that the Church of Rome now hath varied in her judgment from the church of God then althogh we be not able to lay down the precise time when she thought her selfe wiser then her forefathers heerein Neither will his turning to the Epistles of Iames Iude the second of Peter c Reply pag. 2â— c any thing availe his cause in regard there is a great difference betwixt those Epistles these bookes of Iudeth Tâ—bit and the Macchabees for although some private men did doubt of the former yet the church in generall did receive and approve the fame * See before pag. â—5 whereas on the contrary the Iesuite after all his search cannot finde â—â—â— testimony either of Father or Councell that accounâ—â—â— the latter Canonicall for well-nigh 400 yeares after Christ And therefore most indiscreetly did the Iesuit vrge 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 to prove the like doubt to have bene held of these Epistles with those bookes which they absolutely call Apocrypha Secondly he abuseth his Reader when he would perswade that they were ouely particular Fathers that doubted of these bookes when the Iesuite cannot finde that they were received either of the Iewes or the Apostles or Primitive Fathers for certaine ages after Christ Thirdly to what thoughts of desperation is he and his fellowes driven to defend this adding to the Canon as first that doubtfull writings which have beene accompted Apocryphall for certaine hundred of yeares which our Iesuite calleth somtime may by the publick authority of the Church be declared Canonicall and secondly that particular Fathers which indeed are all the Fathers that lived in the first 300. almost 400. yeares the Iesuite citing none within that compasse but Cyprian and their bastard Calixtuâ— as hath beene formerly declared might doubt of the authority of those bookes without prejudice till the Church had declared them for Canonicall by publicke authority But if the Canon was not compleate in the first times I would know when it was made perfect and whether in those times tradition was enabled to declare the same or whether the Fathers were negligent to testifie this truth and also whether Canonicall and Apocryphall is a distinction lately invented All this the Iesuite must resolve or else acknowledge the Canon of the Church in the Primitive times to be certainely knowne and setled which will declare their vanity and change in these last times to adde unto the sacred Canon and rule of Faith upon pretence that the Church hath power to declare canonicall Scripture A Doctrine invented in after-ages by the Roman faction who as they looked for unlimited power so to defend their practises they desire an unrestrayned rule making Scriptures what
a manifest contradiction in his words against himselfe for above he more then once saith the Iesuite 〈◊〉 our opinions prophane novelties and hereticall novelties If Novelties how are they now become Heresies farre spred and of so long continuance that we are bold to make duration the marke of our Church c Reply ibid. The Iesuite imagineth here Contradiction and why because â—â— opinion of long continuance cannot be stiled a Noveltie So that if we can manifest that a Noveltie may bee of long continuance our Iesuite is deceived in his slippery hopes And what will he make novum in Religion but that which is not antiquissimum Our Saviour when hee would declare Pharisaicall traditions to be Novelties did not respect their long continuance in the corrupt estate of the Church but saith ab initia non fuit sic * Mat. 19â—8 that they were not from the beginning delivered by God or practised by the Church So that if the duration and antiquitie of your opinions be but humane that is not Apostolicall neither from Apostolicall grounds It â—â—inke and justly that they may be esteemed new and novelties d Terrullianâ— de praescripâ— panlo ante medium Si haec iâ—â— sint constat proâ—â— de omnem doctrinam quâ— cum illis Ecclesijs Apostolicis matricibus originalibus sidei conspiret veritati deputandam id sinc dubio tenantum quod Ecclesiae ab Apostoli Apostoâ—â— Ã Christo Christus à Dâ—â— suscepit reljquam vero omnem doctrinam de mendacio praejudicandam quae sapiaâ— contra veritatem Ecclesiarum Apostolorum Christi Dei. for a point is 〈◊〉 in religion that did not proceed from God and his blessed Spirit either in terminis or by deduction from his word that is the Ancient of dayes whatsoever pretences of duâ—â—tion and continuance may be supposed 〈◊〉 was never generally received by the Roman faction themselves before the Councell of Lateran â—corus in 4. d. 11. q. 3. apud Bellarm. de Euchil 3. c. 23. ditis ante Lateranense concilium non fuisse Dogma fidei transubstantiationem â— Rhem. An not upon the 1. of Tim. 6. â—â— and yet wee are condemned for calling this a Noveltie whereas it crept in many hundred yeares after those words which they themselves account Novelties both in the Arrians which had their Similis substantiâ— and Christ to bee ex non existentibus and also other Hereticks that had their Christiparam and such like â— new coyned tearmes agreable to their sects Wherefore it is not enough to free your doctrines from being Novelties because they are of long continuance seeing the words of ancient hereticks being of more long continuance and auncienter in birth even many hundred yeares before them might better claime that priviledge and are neverthelesse stiled Novelties by your selves And as the Rhemists acknowledg of words so we say concerning points of doctrine that wee are to esteeme their newnes or oldnes by the agreeablenes or disagreeablenes they have to the true sence of Scriptures the forme of catholick faith and doctrine â—hem ibid. c. and not because it is long since they had their birth in the world So that you see Novelties are new doctrines which are neither delivered in Scriptures openly and in expressetermes or lye couchant in the same but had their births in aftertimes being framed by the phantasticke illusions of Sathan the producer of falshoods and heresies which is conformable to the Apostles doctrine for what 1. Tim. 6. 20. he tearmeth prophane novelties Gal. 1. 8. he expresseth to be new doctrine 〈◊〉 ibid. which is not the same but besides as the Rhemists â— or against that which the Apostle did deliver to the Church And therefore our Iesuite and his contradiction contradict his imagined Vanity and not prove or confirme the same For his other Collectaneas that if they be prophant Novelties then by the Rule of Lyrinensis they ought to bee impugned by producing and confirring the agreeing sentences of auncient Doctours Secondly that the consent of auncient Father is called the rule of the auncient Faith by Lirinensis in the place alledged k Reply pag. 36 1. Wee have shewed before l See before Sect. 5. prope finem that we dissent not from Lyrinensis being rightly understood For all kind of heresies are prophane Novelties howsoever they differ in extent or age Yet all kind of Heresies are not to be impugned though prophane Novelties after this manner in Vincentius Lirinensis his judgement Besides Lirinensis maketh not the Fathers rules absolutely but because they assisted at that time the Scriptures to rule unruly hereticks that would wrest the same so that when the Fathers cannot do the worke for which they were used that is stop the Hereticks mouthes because that having corrupted antiquity they will also pretend it then he thinketh such heresies though prophane Novelties are not to be dealt withall this way And for his second observation although the Iesuit collecteth untruly yet who will deny consent of Fathers to be the rule of faith according to that Fathers meaning For in the immediate quotation following out of the same Father we finde that it hath beene the custome of Catholicks to try their faith two manner of wayes FIRST by the authoritie of the Divine Canon next by the tradition of the Catholicke Church m Vineâ—â— Lirinens adv Profanas Novationes Primò scilicet divine legis auctoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione not for that the Scripture is not sufficient in it selfe but because very many interpreting the divine word at their pleasures do conceive varying opinions and errours n Ibid Hic forsitan requirat aliquis cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat quid opus est ut eiecclesiasticae intelligentiae iungatur autoritas Quia videlicet Scripturam sacraâ—â— pro ibsa sui altitudine non uno codemque sensu universi accipiunt quod â—â— Confideratio temporis 〈◊〉 Now in these words who doth not see that Lyrinesis doth make consent of Fathers not to be an absolute or sufficient rule of Faith as he doth the Scriptures but a directive rule to the right understanding of the absolute and sufficient rule of faith which is the holy Scriptures Neither can we otherwise confecture but that Lirinensis giveth this directive Rule for his owne time Ibid. Ad and not to all succeeding ages for by many particulars it is apparant that the foundation and ground of his whole discourse received being from those wise experiences which the present age hee lived in and precedent had afforded him Besides wee have many Mathematicall instruments which are rules in their kinde as the Globe Quadrant c and there are many bookes written to assist us in their use now I hope you will not say the rule to use the instrument is the absolute rule it selfe to draw a Conclusion in the Mathematickes And why likewise may
the Fathers fayle But for the Scriptures their confidence hath not beene so great therein as to make them alone a rule for the least article of their new faith And this Iesuite that even now would perswade others to beleive that we adhere to the Scriptures onely because we would not be subject to the sentence of any judge doth here detect himselfe what judge he will allow The Scriptures must be locked up Bibling is Babling and generall Councells must do the worke well why then doe they not confirme Constance and Basill If they dare not submit to them why do they vainly pretend their authority But it may be they are not confirmed by the Pope So that you may see by the Iesuit's wavering his aime is onely to have that Exlex who ought at this time principallie to be corrected for his heresies to be both the rule and the Iudge But we are as free saith the Iesuite from the imputation of Heresie as our Adversaries are farre from finding out any such generall Councell in which wee have beene condemned z Reply pag. 17 Have you no better Apologies then this to exempt you out of the Catalogue of Hereticks The Pelagians had as good and pleaded the same against S. Augustine who answered them with scorne Aut vero congregatione Synodi opus erat ut apertu pernicies damnaretur quasi nulla haeresis aliquando nisi Synodi congregatione damnata sit a Aug. con â— Epist Pelag 4 4 c. 12. What is it needfull to assemble a Synode that a manifest corruption should be condemned as if no Heresie hath at any time beene condemned without the calling of a Synode And they are as surely branded for Novelists and Sectaries saith this Loyolist as their opinions have beene certainely condemned by many the like generall Councells b Reply pag. 37 I wonder where the Iesuite will find them nay what have they besides the names of generall Councells that may honour the assembly of their so many Bishops Some of these you dare not confirme why then should they have generall faith and esteeme amongst us If you dare not subscribe to your Councels for what reason should they have power to condemne us Some against Faith given have martyred those which you acknowledge ours Your Trent Synode hath anathematized the Catholick Church Doctrine And I am perswaded if that faction had as much power as they give to their Head the Church Catholicke should not bee long from martyrdome also Besides whose opinions have Generall Councels condemned ours Surely then our pretended Heresies are ancienter then Luther he is not the first that taught our doctrine But where are your Councels Mr Malone that condemne the holy Scriptures the foure first Generall Councels the three Creeds These are ours to them wee subscribe If these are Noveltiâ—s we are Novelists if this be doctrine of Sectâ—ries the Hereticke hath justly stiled us But if the Iesuite cannot bring Councels that have condemned God in his Word the Primitive Church in her Decrees and the generall Confessions of Faith I hope hee will upon better thoughts except Noveltie from our Faith Schisme from our Persons Neither let the Iesuite runne about as in other-places he hath done to coyne us an other Faith when as he himselfe revileth us for adhering to the Scriptures c Reply Sect. â— when as our Lawes justifie our embracing the foure first Generall Councels and our Liturgie doth enclose the Creedes The Iesuite continueth his vaine discourse And as saith he they never yet assembled any Generall Councell of Catholick Preists and Prelates of that Church which is dispersed through many Nations neither by reason of their fatall discord amongst themselves will ever beâ— able to assemble the same so wee may for ever live secure d Reply pag. â—7 Every Iesuite is not a Prophet We may have a Coâ—â—â—â—ll such a one where your Papa shall not be Presidâ—nt â—or your Cloâ—ke-bagge carry the Spirit that shall direct iâ— when the Church of Rome it selfe shall be frâ—â—â— from that Factioâ— which now doth tyrannize over it and the true Bishops thereof shall enjoy that authoritie which most truely is their owne by divine institution and Fryars and Iesuites may turâ—e Turkes for any station that they shall have in the Hierarchiâ— of the Church of God e Censura â—â—â—positionum ad sacram Facultatem Theoâ—â—giae Parisiâ—â— sem allat c. Priâ—â—a Propositio Hierarchia Ecclesiastica constat ex Pontifice Cardinalibus Archiepiscopis Episcopis Regularibus Câ—â—sura In istâ primâ— proposâ—tiâ—â—◠〈◊〉 ratio memâ—â—â—rum Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae seu sacri Principatâ—â— divinâ ordinatione instituti est manca redundaâ—â— atque inducens in errorem Finally saith the Iesuite the reason of this his â—ergivâ—rsaâ—ion from the Fathers authority is vaine and idle when hee saith that we have coyned clipped and washed their monuments And why I pray you For though saith he he endeavour to proove this by severall instances yet not one doth he produce that will serve his turne and therefore tells the most learned Answerer that he is bound to bring forth â—â—und prooâ—â— of this his accusation under paine of incuâ—ring the brand of forgerie and spitefull calumnie himselfe f Reply pag. 38 We may perceive the Iesuite is unwilling to enter into dispute concerning these particulars and therefore â—â—sts them off as wanting proofe Yet indeed the matter is so notorious in many of the instances that your owne have espied the counterfeits and branded them with their Censures But the Iesuite might have forsaken his selfe flatterie and have taken notice that there is more proofe against the particulars then hee had answered unto For is it possible that there should bee little respect given to the Church of Rome before the Councell of Nice as their Cardinall and after-Pope urged by the most reverend the Lord Primate affirmeth when wee finde the first Bishops of that Church writing such controuling Epistles Councels before that of Nice giving such unlimited power and the Romane Emperour qualifying with such unmeasurable Principalitie their Romane Bishop But because the Iesuite desires a further manifestation of these Counterfeitâ— I will take them as they are layde downe in order by the most reverend the Lord Primate beginning with your Craftie Merchant Isidorus Mereator that is justly charged with counterfeiting Decretall Epistles c. Our Iesuite hath a minde to justifie these brattâ— and to make Isidorus his merchandize to passe for good wares yet Bellarmine confesseth that they are infected with Errour script into them g Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 14. Aliquos errores in eas irrepsisse non negaverim nec indubitatas esse affirmaâ—e audeam â— Cusanus de Concord cath l. 3. c. 2. Sunt meo judicio illa de Constantino apocrypha sicut fortassis etiam quaedam alia longa magna scripta Sanctiâ— Clementi Anacleto Papâ— attributa In quibus volentes Romanam
author neither any Apostle nor any man Apostolicall c See the Answere to the Iesuites Challenge pag. 7. The Iesuite boasteth if the Fathers authoritie will not suffice hee will produce good and certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures d See the Iesuites Challenge in fine The most learned Answerer tels him if he would change his order and give the sacred Scriptures the precedency he should therein doe more right to God the author of them who well deserveth to have audience in the first place and withall ease both himselfe and us of a needelesse labour in seeking any further authoritie to compose our differences And thereupon as St Augustine the Donatists so this most reverend Lord provoketh Papists Let humane writings be removed let Gods voyce sound Produce but one cleare testimonie of the sacred Scripture for the Popes part and it shall suffice alledge what authoritie you list without Scripture and it cannot suffice e Answere to the Iesuites Challenge pag. 10. And in the same page he further expresseth himselfe And this we say not as if we feared that these men were able to produce better proofes out of the writings of the Fathers for the part of the Pope then we can doe for the Catholicke cause when we come to joyne in the particulars they shall finde it farre otherwise but partly to bring the matter unto a shorter tryal partly to give the word of God his due to declare what that rocke is upon which alone we build our faith even the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets * Ephes â— â—0 from which no sleight that they can devise shall ever drawe us Here also in the place alledged he shewes that although by reason of their corrupt dealing with antiquitie it is high time for us to listen unto the advice of Vincentius Lirinenfis and not be so forward to commit the tryall of our controversies to the writings of the Fathers who have had the ill hap to fall unto such hucksters handling Yet that you may see saith the most reverend Primate f In his Answere to the Iesuitea Challenge pag 20. how confident we are in the goodnes of our cause we will not now stand upon our right nor refuse to enter with you into this field but give you leave for this time both to be the Challenger and the appointer of your owne weapons Now let all men judge whether there can bee a more plaine expression without fast and loose without tergiversation without inconstancie when as the most learned Answerer adhereth with the auncient Fathers to the true and absolute rule the sacred Scriptures and yet to satisfie the Iesuite is willing to try our faith according to the rule proposed by the Iesuit himselfe not that our doctrine had no other foundation or testimony besides the Fathers but that the Iesuites vaine pretences of Antiquitie might be detected and made knowne and that the world might see that their Doctrine and Church is not to bee justified by the testimonies of either God or man unlesse it bee that Man of sinne who in this cause would bee both party and Iudge and in matters which hee calleth faith would have his determinations to be received without dispute The Iesuite proceeds Although we have already shewen how little right you have to stand uppon in this case yet such thankes as this your courtesie doth deserve wee willingly returne g Reply pag. 48 Palmarium Facinus What have you shewen but your shame You have declared your distast of Scriptures and if the Fathers would performe the worke you expect from them why doe you muster in their ranke such hired Souldiers Epistles Canons Bookes swolne with forged titles corrupted depraved that they might deceive but that gladiatorio animo although neither God nor good men will plead for you yet you will not leave to plead for your selves Wee have heard you say ere while saith the Iesuite that we have had opportunitie enough of time and place to falsifie the Fathers writings and to teach them the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans and that we have performed it so well by clipping washing cankering c. that thereby their complexions being altered they appeare not to be the same men they were h Reply pag. 48 And where I pray you doth the most learned Answerer unsay it O but if this be true saith the Iesuite how can the goodnes of your cause be proved by them if not true what satisfaction can you make us for your uncharitable slaunders If the Fathers bee corrupted how dare you enter into this Field if not corrupted why did you charge us wrongfullie i Reply ibid. If the most learned Answerer had not detected your frauds you had never beene charged by him with those crimes If your clipping washing cankering had not beene espied or if he had bene so credulous as to have beleived all your impostors that you can stile Fathers of Councells then might you justly have demaunded How could the goodnes of his cause bee proved by them But whenas you dare not trust God in his owne meaning nor the true ancient Fathers or lawfull decrees of Councels without the assistance of your bastard authors to helpe in time of necessity this gives him ground sufficient to justifie our cause that hath no need of such treacheries and to detect yours even they being Iudges whom you appeale unto For in the point to bee handled afterwards whether Peters Primacie did descend to all succeeding Bishops of Rome what testimony bringeth the Iesuit but Arabick canons of the Nicene Councell proved to be according to the title by an experiment from the mountaines of S. Thomas 1605 k Reply pag. â—6 and confirmed by an epistle of Athanasius to Pope Marke l Reply pag. â—7 Here is one Counterfeit brought to justifie another and all for the counterfeite authoritie of the Roman Bishop This your corrupting of antiquitie would have hindred us if the same had not beene detected but this most reverend Lord can discerne betwixt the right hand and the left and point you out those witnesses that you onely dare commit your selves unto The Councell of Nice was corrupted by the Pope for to magnifie his Chaire and sea and to make the African Fathers beleive that he had that by positive law which now they challenge by divine right but did these Fathers trust the corrupters No they sent for the true coppie and then left the pretenders May not this be done in the like manner by the most learned Answerer True it is that Gibeonites with their pretences of antiquitie and outward mustines may sometime deceive a Ioshua yet we doubt not but time and experience may reveale the fraud Iacob was deceived by Laban but it was in the night Day declared who deceived him Whilst the world was no further learned then the Pope infallible what excellent testimonies were there for the Papall triple but when the Sunne the
sacred Scripture did burst forth of those libraries wherein it was ecclipsed and the most lucide starres the auncient Fathers waited upon that originall light then many of these poore meteors and fained appearances were quickely obscured and despised of some of your owne So that your Dilemma proves but a childish florish For although it is most true that you have done as much as you durst to pretend Fathers make Fathers detract from Fathers adde to Fathers forging clipping washing cankering them yet these things being detected and casheered the Fathers are restored to their authoritie they formerly had although they are not thought fit to bee used as a rule against those Hereticks that have not spared in this manner to abuse their writings Againe saith the Iesuite you have given us flatlie once to understand that the Scripture was the rocke upon which alone you build your faith and from which no sleight that wee could devise should ever drawe you and therefore you bade us to our face alledge what authoritie we list without Scripture and it could not suffice How is the winde now changed how come you now to falsifie this your former resolution m Reply pag. 49 Did ever any Iesuite trifle in this manner and speake more inconsequent The Scripture is the rocke upon which alone he will build his faith no authoritie can suffice without Scripture therefore the winde is changed hee falsifies his former resolution Doth not this rationall deserve to censure others for false Logicke that pleads with such a shape of reason himselfe The Iesuite promised in his Challenge to produce good and certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures if the Fathers authoritie will not suffice Did he cast off their rock of Fathers because he promised Scriptures I thinke hee will not acknowledge it and why should he vainely heere dreame that the Scriptures are rejected by the most reverend the Lord Primate when to stoppe the Iesuites boasting out of a well grounded confidence in the goodnes of his cause he will not in this place stand upon his right Besides let the Iesuite shew me the generall consent of Fathers in a matter of faith without the Scriptures if hee be able If he cannot his thoughts are confused when hee dreamed of their authoritie without Scripture if hee say he will let him produce them for surely it is hard to bee beleived Furthermore when the Lawyers urge Constantines denation for Papall possession I aske the Iesuite upon what authoritie he would build his title whether upon the donation it selfe or the Lawyers interpreting it If the Donation be sufficient why not the Scriptures If the interpreters must be added yet this is not to take away the power of the Charter Nay if they be added 〈◊〉 necessary testimonie the Charter were nothing without the Lawyers What followeth in the Iesuite hath received Answere in the fift Section only here he will not be perswaded that he chooseth his owne weapons n Reply pag. 49 but let the Reader judge for bibling in his judgment is but babling it is no other then fencing to fight with Scriptures and to appeale to sole Scripture is but to agree with auncient Heretickes So that Scriptures are none of his armorie and if the Fathers bee rejected also what remaineth further but ipse dixit assisted with pretended miracles lying wonders But let them be whose weapons they will Hee telleth us that hee will use them and the first encounter shal be concerning the dignity and preheminencie of the Church of Rome o Reply ibid. Indeed this is that fruitfull article of Faith that hath got all the new articles of the new Romane Creed This is the breast that nourisheth them that gives them strength The occasion wherefore he beginnes here is for as much as our Answerer taketh his first exception against him for styling all the auncient Doctors and martyrs of the Church universall with the name of the Saints and Fathers of the Primitive Church of Rome though he alledgeth heerein no more against me saith the Iesuite but this one bare Interrogaterie out of Albertus Pighius Who did ever yet by the Roman Church understand the universall Church p Reply pag. 49 What needes further proofe If neither the whole Roman Church neither your whole Roman world in the judgment of Albertus Pighius did ever take the Romane Church for the Church Vniversall is not this enough to lash the Iesuite for confounding Vrbem Orbem and mingling Heaven and earth together But he will take of Pighius by a Distinction If saith he the Roman Church be taken as it comprehendeth onely that Cleargie which maketh but one particular Bishoprick Diaces in the citie of Rome abstracting from that relation which it hath unto all other Christian Churches as the head unto the members then I say with Pighius who speaketh of it onely in this sense that no man ever by the Church of Rome did understand the Vniversall Church But if it bee taken as it is the Mother Church begunne in S. Peter under Christ and miraculously continued those of each one of the rest of the Apostles fayling by due succession of lawfull Bishops having a relation to all other Christian Churches as the head to the members then doe I say that it may rightly bee stiled with the name of the Vniversall Church And that all other Churches are to be accounted Catholick no further then they be linked in a subordinate obeysance thereunto q Reâ—â—â— pâ—g â—â— Here are many prettie things By this meanes the Church of Rome the Mother must bee borne after the daughter for many particular Churches had birth before Rome was a Church or the Roman Inhabitants received the Faith of Christ Secondly that the Catholicke Church must be in a subordinate obeysance to the Church of Rome before there was any Church there Besides the Catholick Church was never enclosed in any other place but the world never restrained to any other habitation To chaine it â—o any head out of Heaven or to confine it to any particular place on Earth were to make it schismaticall This Church concludes all Saints Noah's Arke was heere a Temple Christ delighted with this Church as in the Canticles before Rome was Rome or a Pontifex governed therein Some are in Heaven that never yeelded obedience to this Church or heard of Rome And it is more then probable some are in hell that were tearmed Holinesse it selfe whilst they remained in this Catholick here But what the Iesuite hath to make this Roman Church the Catholicke and mother of all other Churches in the next Section we shall examine SECT VIII THis Iesuite after hee hath obtained from the most learned Primate ex gratiâ libertie in his owne challenge to chuse his owne weapon would first use it to prove that The Auncient Fathers of the first Ages acknowledged the Roman Church to bee the head of all other Churches a Reply pag 40 I had thought
the Pope had beene the Head and that all other Churches had held the Catholicke Faith of him in capite but I perceive the Romane Church is now presumed from the Ancients to have had this title Yet I thinke it will scarce be found what the Iesuite doth understand by the Roman Church For if by the Roman Church be comprehended all other Churches that are onely to be accounted Catholicke for the subordinate obeysance to Peter and other succeeding Bishops b See the Iesuits Reply pag. 49 then it is meere vanity to make an Head the Head of it selfe to make the Church all Head and no body If their particular Citie or Diocesse and Church therein then he cannot by the Roman Church understand the Roman Catholicke as hee confesseth in the last Section for saith he if the Roman Church be taken as it comprehendeth onely that Cleargie which maketh but one particular Bishopricke and Diocesse in tho Citie of Rome abstracting or as hee would say abstracted from that relation which it hath unto all other Christian Churches as the head unto the members then I say thâ—â— no man ever by the Church of Rome did understand the Vniversall Church c Reply 〈◊〉 Secondly if it be not the Roman Catholicke then all the testimonies produced make nothing for the Romane Catholicke Church but for the Roman Church that is not Catholicke But though hee doth not fully expresse himselfe herein yet he doth that which may give us a guesse of his meaning seeing the streame of his proofes is to set forth the eminencie of their Romane Pastor And to make this good hee cites some Fathers to prove the Pope to be the head of the faithfull d See S. Augustine cited by the Iesuite pag. â—1 head of Pastorall Honour e See Prosper ibid. pag. 52. so that notwithstanding he pleades for the Church Roman yet that which he laboureth to advance is the See and Pope Roman that is that they fight for this they desire Rome they would have the head of all Churches and the Pope the Head of her and their sleighting of Councels many times declare in their opinion the Pope to bee the onely Beasts head that must bee adored for the Councell maketh not the Pope infallible but the Pope the Councell f Wadding Legat. Phil. 3. c. Sect. 2 Non tribuit Concilium infallibilitatem Pontifici sed à Pontifice habeâ— Concilium ut fit ratum ac firmum For Peter and those that follow him in the faith of Peter not for a Councell did Christ pray g Ibid. Pro Pâ—tro in fide Petri succedentibus NON PRO CONCILIO oravit et exâ—ravit Well then let us see how wee shall answere what hee brings for the Roman Churches exaltation And first of all it seemeth a needlesse thing for this Iesuite to bring proofes to manifest the same It being so undoubted a truth if we may beleive this Iesuite that the very first Broachers of Protestancie when they speake without Passion doe not deny the same h Reply pag. 30 The Broachers of Protestancie were CHRIST his Apostles who gave us wine and oyle out of the Vessels of his Truth when such botchers as you have laboured to erect a phantastick frame of your owne His first instance is Martin Bucer whom he produceth confissing ingenuously that with the Fathers of the auncient Church the Romane Church obtained the Primacie before the rest for as much as shee hath S. Peters chaire and her Bishops almost ever still have beene held for Peters successors i Reply pag â—â— And what I pray you getteth your Church or Pope by this ingenuè confitemur Little I suppose to make Româ— caput infallibilitatis or the Pope the Pylot to guide thither For he saith that the Roman Church hath obtained the Primacie prae caeteris before other Churches not super not over all the rest and that the Bishops of Rome have beene held for Peters successors but not absolutely as an infallible truth but semper ferè almost ever not without doubts and jealousies as hee seemeth to expresse But if absolutely other Bishops nay all other Bishops have beene likewise so esteemed as is plaine by Chrysostomes exhortation to Basill Bishop of Caesarea who from the ground of Pasce oves exhorteth him to that duetie of Peters because it belongeth to his Successours as well as to himselfe k Chrâ—sost de Sacerdotio l. 2. â—â—tre amas me â—â—quit atque illo id conâ—iâ—ence adjungit Si amas me Pasâ—e ores meas Interrogat discipulum Praeceptor â—um ab eo non quo id ipse doâ—eatur â—erùm in NOS DOCEAâ— quanâ—ae sibi curae â—â— gregis hujus praefectura â—â— â—aulo cost Veâ—â—m hoc ille tum agebat ut Petrum caeterâ—s noâ— edoceret quantà beneâ—â—â—enâ—iâ— ac charitate erga suam ipse Ecclesiam afficeretur ut hac ratione NOS quoque ejusdem Ecclesiâ— studium curamque toto animo susciperemus 〈◊〉 item de causa Christus sanguinem effudit suum certe ut pecudes eâ—â— acquitereâ— quaâ—â—â—â— Petro â—um Petri successoribus gubernandas in manum 〈◊〉 whereunto agreeth Peter Lumbard lib. 4. Dist 18. We envie not the Bishop of the imperiall Cittie this Honour that in Procession hee shall goe last and in a Councell sit first If this will serve his turne let him put off his Crowne and assume his Myter and with an ingenuè confitemur wee will all acknowledge him the greatest Bishop first in place of all Peters Successours But for his Monarchie to make the whole Catholicke Church the Senate of Bishops and Preists a bare shadow this is too much to be allowed him Further whilst hee embraceth Peters faith wee will not deny him to have a part as the rest of the Catholicke bodie in Christs prayer Yet to thinke that Christ so prayed for Peter and his Successours Bishops of Rome that Hell might prevayle against all other his Successours the Bishops of the Catholicke Church this without extreame flatterie wee cannot graunt unto him So that Bucer hath not said much for this Head of Churches Yet he goeth not alone Luther himselfe saith the Iesuite doth confesse that the Bishop of Rome hath superiority over all other Bishops l Reply pag. â—â— This is no great matter for it was as the Iesuite confesseth when he made use of his bests wits m Ib â— that is when he did and said or at least submitted all to the determination of this Apollyon but afterwards in his raving pange of madnes hee spared not like madde-men and fooles to speake the truth and to call a spade a spade the Pope Antichrist and the Roman state the Whore of Babylon So that any may see this maketh little to the Producers purpose for if this were a good Testimonie why doth he not produce our Acts of Parliament in Queene Maries dayes and all those Testes which in the time of blindnes from men not well
Head for that Church obtained this title by reason of the Cittie wherein the principall members of the Church remained and because it was an Apostolicall Church not for that all the other Apostolicall Churches were subordinate unto it in power The second hee urgeth is out of the Eight Epistle of his fourth booke where hee would have Cyprian to stile the Roman Church the roote and the mother of the Cathelicke Church x Reply pag 50 If this be true surely Cyprian had a conceipt that the branch might grow before the roote for who will say that Rome first received the Faith or the name of Christians or that there was no Catholicke Church before Peter preached there But Cyprian meant no such thing as this Iesuite would perswade him to affirme Hee findes a Schisme in Rome betwixt Novatianus and Cornelius Nevatianus being made Bishop the other living suspends his judgment in this matter untill hee had enquired the truth from the Romane Preists and Deacons y Cyprian Epistol 45. Omnia interim integra suspenderentur done end nos iidem collegae nostri rebus illic aut ad pacem aut pro veritate compertis redirent onely hee adviseth them that like good Navigators they should not separate themselves from the unity of the Catholicke Church z Ibid. Nos enim singulis navigantibus ne cum scandalo ullo navigarent rationem red sentes scimus nos hortatos cos esse ut Ecclesiae Catholiâ—â— radicem matricem pag 〈◊〉 at 〈◊〉 which he understandeth by this phrase taking the roote and mother of the Catholicke Church to bee the â—â—nitie of Faith and not as our Iesuâ—â— would collect that thereby is meant the Roman Congregation for wherefore then should he suspend his judgment till he heard the matter if his thoughts had concluded as this Iesuite would have it that Cornelius and his Adherents were the roote and mother of the Catholicke Church And that this is the meaning of S. Cyprian we may easily perceive in regard he taketh these wordes ad Catholicâ— Ecclesiae unitatem to the unity of the Catholicke Church and ad radicis matris sinum to the bosome of their roote and mother in his 42 Epistle to expresse the same thing Besides wee may further observe that the roote and mother of the Catholicke Church is not Cornelius and his Diocess in regard the Iesuite will not have the Pope and his Diocese to be the Catholicke Church a Reply pag. 49. which S. Cyprian Epist 43. makes to bee the Mother ad matrem suam id est Ecclesiam catholicam His third witnesse from Antiquity is Tertullian who even when hee was fallen otherwise â—nto heresi yet did he though he was an Hereticke acknowledge the Bishop of Rome to be Episcopus Episcoperum the Bishop of Bishops b Reply pag. 51. As if this were sufficient to make the Romane Church the head of all other Churches or the Pope the Father of all Bishops Well if it be not Rome hath lost one of her best Arguments for her triumphant Station over the Church of GOD. And who knoweth not that this title was given to all those that had Bishops under them as all Patriarches and Metropolitans had And what is more common then to give other Bishops the stile of Summus vel princeps Episcoporum Cheife or Prince of Bishops as Rabanus speakes of the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandria c Rabanus l. 1. de instit Cleric c. 5. Sicut Archiepiscopus Antiochenus Episcopus atque Alexandrinus Antistes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graeco â—ocabulo dicitur quod sit summus vel Princeps Episcoporum tenet enim vicem Apostolicam praesidet Episcopis caeteris Yea so common was this appellation that in the third Carthaginian Councell this title was inhibited to all the Metropolitans d Concilium Carthag 3. can 26. Vt primâ— sedis Episcopus non appeiletur princeps Sacerdotum aut summus sacerdos aut aliquid hujusmodi sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus But least the Iesuite should say that the stile of Prince of Bishops is not so concludent for an universall government as to be called Bishop of Bishops we shall finde Sidonius calling Lupus Pater Patrum Episcopus Episcoporum Father of Fathers and Bishop of Bishops Sidonius l. 6. Epist 1. Benedictus Spiritus sanctus Pater Dei omnipotentis quod tu Pater Patrum Episcopus Episcoporum and Athanasius was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arch-Preist of Preists f 〈◊〉 in orat â—â— de laudibus He ronis which is the same in effect whereby we may see upon how slender a foundation the Castle of S. Angelo is raised Yet if Tertullian be but observed by an eye that will not be blinde it will appeare that he speaketh onely in scorne and ironically when he cals your Roman Bishop cheife preist and Bishop of bishops Onely this Roman Fisher will forsake nothing that commeth to his hooke though it be but the scorne of an Hereticke He ceaseth not but brings in old Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. saying that with this Roman Church by reason of her more powerfull Principality or Supremacy it is necessary that all other Churches doe agree g Reply pag. 51. All this maketh little to give the Church of Rome the headship pretended For the question here is particular concerning the Canon of the Scriptures and the Church of Rome is commended for her truth as she then stood h Irenaeus l. â— c. 3. In qua semper ab his qui sunt undique consecratâ— est quae ab Apostolis traditio not for her infaâ—libilitie in ages after that she should remaine the same For were see Augustine forsakes the Roman Church in which some doubted of the Epistles to the Hebrewes and adhered unto the Greekes who received it into the Canoni Irenaeus also in another matter forall the powerfull principalitie that he gave unto the Roman Church reproved sharpely her Monarch and forsooke not in all probabilitie their Commuâ—ion whom hee had excommunicated k Eusebius hist Eccles l. 5. c. 23. Extant autem verba illorâ—â— qui Victorem acriter reprehenderunt equibus Irenae us Besides if all other Churches did agree with the Roman i Augustin l. â— de Peceat merit remissse 27. Ad Haebraeâ—â— quoque Epistola quan quam nonnullis incerta fit tamen magis me movet authoritas Ecclesiarum Orientalium quae hanc etiam in Canonicis habent propter potentiorem principalitatem by reason her more powerfull principalitie it were good our Iesuite would have interpreted what he had meant thereby for these are words that better fit an imperiall government then the rule of the Church And that people should come thither for this respect I thinke the Church of Rome hath little cause to triumph therein any more then other Patriarchall Seas because all men come up from all parts to the Metropoliticall
all Prelates d Reply pag. 51 Which of these words M. Malone prooves Rome to be above Hierusalem the Hils of Babylon to bee higher then the mountaines of the Lord Not the title of Cheife Bishop for this gives the Bishop no power but place no authoritie but precedency Is it the other that he sits in the Apostolicall eminencie Who doubts that the Apostleship is attributed to other Bishops aswell as Rome that dare not adventure to imagine the effect of this appellation to be a spirituall Monarchie As Sidonius to Lupus praeter officium quod incomparabiliter eminenti Apostolatui tuo sine fine debetur e 〈◊〉 l. 4. Epist 4. So likewise in the renunciation of the Metropoliticall Sea of Heraclea thus speakes Theodoret Chritâ—pulus Deprecor thronum principatum sacerdotium adhortorque eum qui vocatur quem Paracletus ad Apostolatum suum separabit And if we will give credit to Pacianus Episcopi Apostoli nominantur Bishops are called Apostles f 〈◊〉 Epist 1. so that it was no unusuall thing to give good Bishops titles that were indeed proper and peculiar to the Apostles of Christ as Prophets Apostles Evangelists and the like And therefore this can bee no rest for him to depend upon For the two places to prove Rome the head of all Churches cited out of Victor Vticensis Ennodius g Reply pag. 51 we have answered thereunto that this title is but an appellation that betokens honour and precedencie not power and superioritie Surely the Church of Rome got not this height by such arguments neither doe I thinke that it could bee maintained if it wanted other strength and defence So that any may see his capitall argument getteth no more then what we yeeld unto him in What his other endeavours will effect we may easily conjecture He bringeth in S. Ambrose next h Reply ibid. but with as little helpe for the Roman headship as the former from whom he expected assistance But here is no truth in this quotation all neither true Author true word true consequence For first how many can we finde that reject those commentaries upon Paules Epistles as being none of Ambroses some charging them as upon the Epistle to the Romans with Pelagianisme from which I thinke the Iesuite will defend this Father Secondly let the Author be who he will these words seeme to be inserted Cujus hodie rector est Damasuâ— for if it be he as by some of the learned of your side is supposed that wrot the booke of questions of the old and new testament i Bellarm de Script Eccles De Ambrosio M. credibile igitur est auctorem horum commentariorum esse Hilarium Diaconum Romanum qui Luciferi schisma propagavit he lived * Quaeâ—â— 43. 300 yeares after Christ and so could not speake these words of Damasus who was Bishop 367. Or if he were Remigias Lugdnnensis as Maldonat thinkes k Maldonat in Ioh. c. 12. v. 32. who lived about the yeare 870. I thinke you will say he spared the truth if he had said Hodie rector est Damasus And who doth not see the poore consequence that followeth hereupon Damasus is Rector of Gods house therefore the Roman Church is the head of all other Churches By this I dare say a man may prove any Church the Head of another for to what Bishop is not this style given Paul calleth himselfe and Timothie and others that were called to the regiment of the Church ministers of Christ stewards of the mysteries of God * 1 Cor. 4. v. 1 and himselfe a minister of the Church * Coloss 1â— 25. But let Gods word prevayle as the Iesuite is affected what hath heerein beene said of Damasus that hath not beene said and by Rome it selfe of Andrew the Apostle who I feare will not be admitted to enjoy the conclusion though the Roman Breviarie give him the premisses Majestatem tuam Domine suppliciter exoramus ut sicut Ecclesiae tuae beatus Andraeas Apostolus existit Praedicator Rector O Lord we humbly beseech thy Majestie that as blessed Andrew the Apostle is Preacher and Rector of thy Church l Cassander Prec Eccles De sancto Andreâ— I feare he would smell like Spalato that from hence should conclude that the Church which Andrew governed as a Bishop was the mother church of all others or that he were the universall Bishop from whom every man should receive his faith Nay Bellarmine will not exclude others from this title m Bellarm. de Rom. Pont l. c. 11. Omnes enim Apostoli fuerunt capita Rectores Pastores Ecclesiae universae and yet none shall have what the Iesuite infers thereupon but his owne Roman mistresse After Ambrose comes S. Hierome whom he bringeth in saying I following none as fiâ—st but Christ am united in one Communion to thy blessedneâ— that is to say to Petâ—rs Chaire Vpon this rocke I know the Church is builâ— Whosoever eateth the Lambe out of this house he is prophane He that gathereth not with thee doth scatter that is to say He that belongeth not to Christ standeth upon the side of Antichrist n Reply pag. 5â— What our Iesuite would have here is plaine that consent with the Roman Church makes a Catholicke and therefore it must be the Mother Church Is there no difference betwixt Rome now and then Who could then argue her of falshood or false beleife It were a poore reaâ—on to aâ—gue from her being pure to her corrupt defylings But wherein lyeth the strength of this Testimony Surely in side-â—â—king communion as if it were certaine that to commucate with Rome and her Bishop is suâ—ficient to declare a man catholicke and that non-union to that head were as much as not to be of the body of Christ Now what force hath this testimonie for confirmation hereof For we see Popish confession will not acknowledge Sergius a catholicke though he communicated with Honorius o Concil â— VI Oecum 〈◊〉 Act. 12. 1â— Neither doe the present Romanists embrace those Arrianâ— as Catholicke for Liberiâ—â— his familiarity nor condemne Athanasius though condemned by their Pope p Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4 c. 9. Nam ut colligitur ex Athanasij verbis ex Epistolis ipsius Liberij duo mala Liberius commisit Vnum quod subscripsit in damnationem Athanasij Altemâ—â— quod cum Haereticis communicavit Binnius Not. it Epist Liberij ad Episcopoâ— Orien extat tomo 1. Concil Quisquis innocentem Athanasium à Cathoâ—icorum communioâ—e arcet impioâ— verò Arianoâ— ad communionis vinculum admitti audeat 〈◊〉 non Catholicum sed Arianum esse oportet Will you accompt all for Hereticks that have not obeyed your Romane Bishop What say you to Irenaeus q Eusebius hist Eccles l. 5. c. 23. Extant autem verba illorum qâ—i Victorem acriter reprehenderunt Equibus Irenaeus To Cyprian r Bellarm. de Rom
Pont. l 4. c. 7 Cyprianus pertinaciter restitit Stephano Pontifici doâ—â—â—ienti haereticos non rebaprixandâ—â— ut patet ex Epistola ejusdem Cypriani ad Pompeiâ—â— tamen non solum non fuit haereticus sed neque mortaliter peccavit et tamen Ecâ—â—esia Cypriaâ—um ut sanctam colit qui non videtur unquam resipuisse ab illo suo error To the African Bishops in the cause of Appeales Å¿ Epist Bonifacii â— ad Alex. Episc Aurelius enim praefatae Carthaginensis Ecclesiae olim Episcopus cum câ—llegis suiâ— instigante Diabolo superbire temporibus praedecessorum noâ—â—â—orum Bonifacii atque Coelestiâ—i contra Romanam Ecclesiam coepit Sed videâ—s se modo peccatis Aurelij Eulalius à Romanae Ecclesiae communione segregatum humiliam recognovit se pacem communionem Romanae Ecclesiae petens subscribendo non cum collegis suiâ— damnavit Apostolica auctoritate omnes Scripturas quae adversus Romanae Ecclesiae privilegia factae quoquo ingenio fuerunt Must all Africa not afford one Bishop that is catholick or Lay-man that is a right Christian and true Catholicke How are they acknowledged Martyrs How Saints Besides I wonder that this truth never appeared in Canon of Councell nor was ever registred by the Fathers in the ages mentioned with generall consent For that phrase upon this rocke I know the Church is built meaning S. Peters chaire I dare say with reverence to S. Hierome that it was either upon Christ or Peters confession of Christ to bee the Sonne of God as the Fathers in multitudes doe interprete it or upon Peter himselfe whom your owne would have thâ— rocke and not upon Peters â—haire which was not of such an unmooveable stability â—s that rocke ought to bee upon which the Church is builded Further I thinke Mr Malone will not deâ—y that the foundation of the Church was layde before Peter had any chaire either at Antioch or at Rome and if hee say S. Hierome meant not his chaire but in relation to Peter then who can deny but all the Apostles are rockes as Peter was Petrae omnes Apostoli All the Apostles are rockes upon which the Church is built saith Origen t Origen in Mat. hom 1. The Iesuite proceedes and brings two places from St Augustine if we will believe him to bee the Author of the questions of the old and new testament For to make this other then a counterfeit he shall never bee able but what saith he that may procure such an universal preheminence to this onely Father Why hee is called caput fidelium Head of the faithfull u Reply pag. 51. So may every Preist in his Parish unlesse his flocke be Infidels And for the other title Pastor gregis Dominici Pastor of our Lords flock Reply ibid. What Bishop is not Pastor of the flocke of Christ but Papall Bishops who poore Delegates have not their institution from CHRIST but as poore hirelings from the Papacie In the second place the Iesuite tels us thot S. Augustiâ—â— giveth this testimonie of the Church of Rome that the Principalitie or supremacie of the See Apostolicke hath alwayes borne sway therein y Reply pag. 52 This Father will not serve the Iesuites turne without a glosse Principalitie Supremacie must be the same so the Iesuite would have it for if this be not true Augustine forsakes his engager But the Iesuite may know that principalitie is not Papall Dominion there was a primatuâ— or principalitie of the Church of Constantinople z Theodoret. l. 2 c 27. and a primatus or primacie of the Church of Hierusalem 〈◊〉 l. 7. â— 6. into which seates ascended none of these Monarcâ—s He commeth to the principalitie of a See or Bishoprick that entereth by orderly election as Augustine acknowledgeth the Bishop of Rome to have done And a man may get a principalitie in the Church by sedition and ambition as Leo expresseth himselfe to the Bishops of Africke Leo Epist 87. ad Episc Africanos Principatus autem quem seditio exâ—orfit auâ— ambitus occupavit etiam si â—oribus atque actibus non â—ssendâ—t ip 〈◊〉 tamen iniâ—â—â—â—ui est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What hee can picke out of the word Apostolicall hath beene answered before Next to the Master he produceth the Scholler Prosper in two places but to no more purpose or advantage then the former For who will deny the Church of Rome in Prospers time in regard of her outward eminencie to bee made the head of pastorall honour unto the world c Reply pag. 52 and that she was more conspicuous by being a towre to Religion in defending the faith against hereticks then by exercising any power not temporall * No such word in the originall quotation out of Prosper as the Iesuite addeth but Ecclesiasticall that was given him by Councels Whereby we may see the difference betwixt Rome now and then their eminencie their honour then was extended arce religionis by defâ—nding the true faith Your holy Fathers now seeke advancement solio potestatis by obtaining a Monarchie and bringing all powers but hell that must triumph over you * Revel 19. â—â— into subjection under their feete But the Iesuite confident of Prosper telleth us Therefore the holy Bishop 〈◊〉 doth testifie how in his dayes The whole world agreed with Pope Siricius in one and the same fellowship of communion d Reply pag. â—â— Here is a Logicall therefore Prosper telleth us that Rome the See of Peter is made the head of pastorall honour unto the world c. therefore Optaâ—â—â— that lived many Decades of years before him doth testifie how in his dayes the whole world agreed with Pope Siriâ—â—us in one and the same fellowship of communion We will leave the inference the evidence is nothing For was there not reason that they should doe as they did to wit agree in truth with the eminentest opposing Bishop for otherwise they should have beene Donatists Make your Popes as Siricius was and we will agree with them in communion not because Popes but because they â—defend the true Doctrine against Donatisticall and hereticall rashnes Doe you thinke Hierome thought himselfe bound to Liberius his Communion when he styled him an Arian e Hieroâ— Catalog Scrip. Eccles Fortunatianus Episcopus Liberium Romanae Vrbis Episcopum ad subscriptioâ—â—â— Haereseâ—â— compuiit Ambrose would not endure to give a stupide consent to the Church of Rome itselfe unlesse he saw reason for it lib. 3. de sacram cap. 1. In omnibus cupio sequi Romaâ—â—â— Ecclesiaâ— sed tamen nos omnes sensum habeâ—â—â— Id quod alibi rectius servatur nos custodimus Heere you may see how the Auncients did adhere to the Roman Bishop not in every thing from opinion of his authoritie infallibilitie mother-hood or mistresseship for they thought in other places something might be more rightly observâ—d but so farre as they might convince them of the truth of their doctrine and profession
otherwise Nâ—◠〈◊〉 sensum habemus they could espye errour there as well as in any other lesse eminent Church But he tells us This agreement in Communion with the Roman Church was in those primitive times held for an infallible marke of true faith aâ— appedreth most plainely by that which S. Ambrose relateth of his brother Satyrus f Reply pag. 52 It appeareth plainely that the Iesuite shootes at rovers not at the marke otherwise he would not produce a matter of fact knit to time and occasion to prove a thing absolutely and without dependance Satyrus would not communicate in the dread mysteries of the Eucharist but by the hand of a Catholicke Bishop opposite to the Luciferians who were Schismatickes at that time and to that purpose calling a certaine Bishop so him 〈◊〉 supposing that no true freindship could bee without true faith hee therefrre first of all enquired of him whethâ—â— hee did accord with the Catholicke Bishops that iâ— with the Romane Church g Reply ibid. Now the Iesuite would hereupon conclude that agreement in communion with the Romane Church was in those times held for an infallible marke of true faith h Reply ibid. In Satyrus his time the Romam Church was a good marke because by true doctrine it gave good aime but was it the same when Liberius Honorius were Romane Bishops Satyrus made not Bishops Catholicke because Romane but in regard they were opposite to Schismatickes Neither did Ambrose interprete Catholicke Bishops by the Romaâ—â— Church but because they were truely Catholick at that 〈◊〉 which were of the Roman cleargy About those times then they did choose Bishops by their agreement with the present Orthodoxall Bishops as Nectarius of Constantinople Timothieof Alexandria c. not because those Sees made their Bishops infallible and exempt from errour but because these men at that time by generall testimonie suis Ecclesijs religiose praessent did religiously governe their Churches i 〈◊〉 hist l. 7. c. 9. Hos enim imperator quo que visos cotam alloâ—â—â—tus approbavit de quibus et integra constabat fama quod suis Ecclesâ—â— religiosè praeessent The same reason made Satyrus call some Bishops Catholick and from the same ground Ambrose expoundeth Satyrus his Catholicke Bishops by the Romane Church The Iesuite commeth now to his last proofe from restaring of Bishops put out of their Bishopricks to conclude his Papall Monarchie and bringeth us onely one example and that but an attempt onely viz â— of Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria Paulus Arch-bishop of Constantinople Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra Asclepas Bishop of Gaza and Lucianus Bishop of Hadrianople who being all Patriarches and Prelates of the East Church and expelled from their places even by Councels of other Bishops came unto Rome complained unto Pope Iulius of their wrongs and were by him righted and restored As witnesse Sozomenus c k Reply pag â—â— The Bishop of Rome was a man of gâ—eat authority in regard of the Imperiall Citie whereof he was Bishop and much he might doe by perswasion advice and by the assistance of the Imperiall power yet all this will not conclude him the Monarch of the Catholicke Church And what did Iulius more then the Arch-Bishop of Canterbuâ—y ought to doe upon the like occasion Hee discussed the crimes of every one l Reply pag. â—â— And good reason for a good man ought to know the cause he would patronize much more a good Bishop Hee did receive them into his Communion finding that they all did agree to the Nicene Councell m Reply ibid. Could he have done otherwise without blame As one that had care of all by reason of the dignity of his See he did restore to every of them their owne Churches writing also to the Bishops of the East c. * Reply ibid. And what made him so confident of his power his Monarchie Surely no but because he was the Emperouâ—s Chaplaine and therefore might expect to bee graciously assisted by his Lord. And that this is not a conjecture you may conceive in regard the Bishops of the East made â— Reply pag. 53 light of his restitution returning him an answere full of scornes and threats o Sozomen Hist Eccles l 3. 2 7. Athanasi â—s autem Paulus ad suas sedes revertuntur literasque Iulit Episcopis Orientis mittunt Quibus illi graviter commoti conveniunt Antiochiae in unum epistolam verbis elegantibus ornatam disertè ut â—heto rum mos sert compositam ad Iulium scribunt eamque plenam ironiae minarum non expertem gravissimarum Neither was he ever able to bring to passe what he determined whilâ—st he used his owne power for they disdained that the greatnes of his Bishopprickâ— should make them his inferiors p Ibid-Indignati sunt se posteriores ideo ferre quòd magnitudine Ecclesiae superarentur Sozomen hist eccles l. 3. c. 9. At cum literis apud â—piscopos Orientis de rebus propter quas scripsisset nihil proficeret causam Aâ—hanasij Pauli ad Constantem retulit and therefore he sollicited his Lord by whose authoritie they were restored q Sozomen hist Eccles l. 3. c. 1â— Conâ—tans autem rebuâ— gestis in concilio Sardicensi cognitis scripsit ad fratrem Constantium literas uti Athanasio Paulo ecclesias suas redderet Vbi vâ—â—o intellexit fratrem diem de die ducere scripâ—iâ— denuo ut vel viros istos reciperet vel se ad bellum gerendum pararet Constantius igiâ—ur cùm de linere cum Episcopis Orientis communâ—casset stultum putavit obâ—eam causam bellum civile intestmum suscipere Quo quidem concilio inductus Athanasiuâ— ex Itaâ—â— acceâ—sit cap. 20. Imperator autem dimittit Athanasium in Aegyptum 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—â— literas cùm ad Episcopos et Presbytetos cujusque civitatis tùm ad populum Ecclesiae Alexandrinae quibus et vitam ejus piè actam et probitaâ—em morum commendavi◠〈◊〉 cohortatus est uti ei utpote suo antistiti pâ—rentâ— precibuses oraâ—ionibus 〈◊〉 reilgioâ—◠〈◊〉 And now the Iesuite having finished his testimonies concludes for the Papall Crowne How farre now may wee thinke doth our Answerer swarve from the auncient Fathere Pastors and Saints of the Primitive Church whilest hee by a separation from that Church which they acknowledged to bee their head and themselves to be members thereof faileth to be a member of the true body of Christ or one of his true flock forasmuch as he with-draweth himselfe from the true confessed Pastor And what wonder then that hee should dissipate and destroy all true faith and doctrine c r Reply pag. 53. It is cleare that the most learned Answerer hath with the Church that he by Gods providence governeth not swarved from the auncient Fathers Pastors and Saints of the primitive Church much lesse made a separation from the auncient Church How the Church of Rome was
accompted an Head How the Popes pastorall office was extended How little reason the Church of God had to depend upon the Popes Monarchie before he had a Crowne How vainly our Replyer tearmes oâ—â—r dissipation of their pride and vanitie the destroying of all true faith and doctrine Leâ— others conceive res acta non transacta est But as if he had said too little for the grand Impostor taking breath he gets into the CASTLE-CHAMBER where in-truth a Iesuite should be rather then in his Cloyster and primâfacie makes the STATE simple the most reverend Primate a Deluder and his Countreymen poore and afflicted Å¿ Reply pag. â—â— Heere is no meane man Totus Proteus totus Aristarchus many times flattering great ones alwayes censuring good ones Shall I defend their Wisedome that then were IVDGES in that honourable Court It were to dishonour them It may suffise that not onely those PATRES CONSCRIPTI wise Senatours but their wisest MASTER which could not at any time beedeluded by all the Sophisticall practices of Rome approved applauded the speech But who knowes not Delusus quia non delusus Every one is deluded by others in the Iesuites conjecture that is not deceived by themselves Yet how will hee make this most learned Lord a Deluder Hee hath said all and nothing something hee hath spoken without the compasse of the Virga that his Countreymen are poore and afflicted For how can they bee but poore when they live in an Egyptian dearth And affliâ—ted they will still remaine whilst such heards of frogges losusts Egyptian blessings prey upon them But let us see how wisely the Iesuite hath behaved himselfe In clearing the second maine branch of the oath the Answerer saith hee grounded himselfe altogether upon these â—wo fickle foundations First that S. Peter was not head of â—hâ— Church universall more then any other Apostle Secondly that the Bishop of Rome did not inherite by succession this same headship or universall Bishopricke which S. Peter had t Reply pag 53. The Iesuite distasted the first as well as the second but the opposall of that he supposeth not fit doctrine for the present time the second onely must endure a censure as grounded upon those two sickle foundations And be they as they shall appeare in tryall the Iesuit yet might have conceived if his eares had not failed him that the most reverend Primate did not so much question whether Peter was head of the Church universal as whether he had power in this kingdome his speech having relation to Peters power not over the Church absolutly but over us And what he saith is for the honor of S. Peter not to disrobe him For if S. Peter himselfe saith the most reverend Primate were now alive I should freely confesse that he ought to have spirituall authoritie and superiority within this kingdome But so would I say also if S. Andrew S. Bartholomew S. Thomas or any other of the Apostles were now aliue For I know that their Commission was very large to goe into all the world and to Preach the Gospel unto every creature so that in what part of the world soever they lived they could not be said to be out of their charge their Apostleship being a kinde of an universall Bishopricke u See the most reverend the Lord Primate his speech in the Castle-Chamber But the Iesuite telleth us that these two assertions before mentioned are manifestly contrary even by the confession of learned Protestants to the doctrin of the primitive Church x Reply pag. â—â— And to make this good Iohn Brereley is in the margent But I wonder the Iesuit will utter so grosse so deceiveable falshood For we know that in the sence the Iesuite would have Peter to be head neither Calvin Whitgift nor Musculus ever dreamed of it and to shew his precedency in order calling gifts abilities age or otherwise this maketh nothing either to the Iesuites purpose for Peters monarchy or the succeeding monarks So that the Iesuite as Brereley hath brought but ill advocates to plead for a Papall Monarchy from the headship of S. Peter But let the matter be examined for every government presupposeth not a Monarchy He might as in the schooles be the first in the head classe to dispose and order in some kindes the rest but this is far from being in Popish sence the head of the Church A poore wiseman might deliver a Citie * Ecclesi 9. 15. and an inferiour Priest remove a schisme and this they may do by their wisedome and government not Monarchy and power Besides if we grant the Iesuite that Peter excelled the other Apostles as one Angell excelleth another in glory he cannot conclude Peter the Apostles Monarch nor the Pope the Churches head unlesse he will have another Monarch in heaven besides God and an head over some of the Apostles whilst they lived upon earth that was not Peter The most grave Counsellor brought therefore no new doctrine into the Castle-Chamber If then you will have Peter head of the Apostles we yeeld it but we say withall that he was such an head that was neither adorned with Coronet or triple Crowne to declare a Papall supremacy over his brethren But to state the question as it ought to be let us enquire whether the Iesuite hath from the Fathers proved as he ought if he speake to the purpose viz. that S. Peter was so head of the Apostles and Church Universall that all were bound to acknowledge him as their Monarch You have seene all that he hath urged from Calvin Whitgift and Musculus prove no such matter and I doubt not but the Fathers will faile the Iesuite also First he urgeth S. Basill who saith That blessed Peter who was preferred before the rest of the disciples to whom the keyes of the kingdome of heaven were coÌ„mitted y Reply pag. â—4 And what makes this for a Monarchy That Peter was blessed so were the Apostles that he was preferred before the rest of the Apostles in many particulars is not denyed but every preferment is not Monarchicall neither do the keyes worke any more in Peter then the rest of the Apostles to whoÌ„ they were equally giveÌ„ So that Basil speakes not full for this headship His second instance is out of Hierome Therefore one Peter is chosen amongst twelue that a Head being ordained all occasion of schisme might be taken away z Reply ibid But what have we here that might not be found amongst equals For Bishops of the same dignitie may have among them a President Besides his Ambrose speaking of this Primacie maketh Peter to be that of the Circumcision that Paul was among the Gentiles a Ambros in ◠〈◊〉 Ab his itaque probatum dicit donum quod accepita Deo ut dignus esset habere Primatum in praedicatione gentium sicut et habebat Petrus in praedicatione circumcisionis that is a Primate of Order of Eminencie of Gifts
not of an excellencie of Power Neither did Peter take away schisme by absolute definition as your Pope assumeth authoritie to doe but by orderly disposition with Apostolicall consent His third instance is Nazianzen b Reply ibid. But doth he give Peter what will satisfie the Iesuite a monarchy The Church cannot endure two universall Bishops two Monarchs Had Peter it by Nazianzens testimony Surely how could Iames Iohn inherite that blessing yet Nazianzen puts them together Petrus Ioannes Iacobus qui prae alijs erant numerabantur Peter and Iohn and Iames who both were and are reckoned before others c Nazianzen de moderat in disput servanda Here Nazianzen his prae alijs is not Papall not Pontificall neither then could Peters advancement be a Monarchy In like manner all that the Iesuite urgeth is nothing to the point that he ought to prove That Peter was Captaine or cheife of the Disciples as Epiphanius styles him the most excellent Prince of the Apostles in Cyrils judgement d these Reply pag 54 are but titles of excellency which were given him for his personall gifts and endowments Paul in this manner compares himselfe to the very cheife Apostles * 1. Cor. 11. v. 5. and Eusebius Emissenus or whosoever was the Author of the Homilie De Natal utriusque speaking of Peter and Paul tearmeth them Princes of Christians from their order and gifts and further saith si ille primus iste precipuus if the one was the first the other was the cheife It was familiar to give termes of excelleÌ„cy of power to those that exceeded in gifts Nicodemus is stiled Prince of the Iewes e Cyrillus l 2. In Iohannem cap. 41. Nicodemus Iudaeorum Princeps and who knowes not that Aristotle is ever mentioned as Prince of Philosophers So likewise his supposititious Ambrose speakes not of any other Primacie but of personall eminencie For he maketh Paul from his owne words to be no lesse then the first Apostles in dignitie and other excellent performances though he were after them in time which that Author presumes cannot weaken the Apostles testimonie of himselfe in regard Iohn preached before Christ and baptized CHRIST Andrew followed CHRIST before Peter who notwithstanding received the Primacie f Ambros in 12 cap. post ad Corinthios Hocerant quod Apostolus Paulus Hoc ergo dicit quia minor non est neque in praedicatione neque in signis faciendis Apostolis praecessoribus suis non dignitate sed tempore Nam si de tempore praescriben dum putatur ante coepit Ieannes praedicare quam Christus non Christus Ioannem sed Ioannes Christum baptizavit Num ergo sie judicat Deus Denique prior sequutus est Andreas Salvatorem quam Petrus tamen Primatum â—on accepit Andreas sed Petrus Heere the drift is that if Paul were as excellently qualified as the Apostles his afterbirth could not prejudge his equalitie and if Peter were more eminent in gifts then his brother Andrew Andrew his precedencie in time could not deprive Peter of his eminencie of gifts The Iesuite concludes not but bringeth Eusebius telling us Peter the Apostle by Nation a Galilean was the first Bishop of the Christians g Reply pag. 54. This the Iesuite perceived would conclude nothing and therefore added his ridiculous glosse Iames was Bishop of Hierusalem others of other places but Peter was Bishop of all the Christians h Reply ibid. Poore folly who deprived them of their Apostleships that their Bishoprickes were so contracted that they ceased to bee Bishops and Super-intendents of the Christian Church Paul professeth that the care of all Churches were upon him * 2. Cor. 11. 28. Pope Innocent called Chrysostome the great Doctour of the whole world i Canisius Fâ—com Patrum mitio Catechismi Innocentius primus pontifex in Epistola ad Arcadium Impera torem Ejecistie throno suo re non judicatâ magnum totius Orbis Doctorem and other Fathers have had these titles given them ordinarily whereby their esteeme in the Universall Church hath beene declared as Origen the next Master after the Apostles of the Church k Sixâ—us Senens l. 4 tit Origenes Didymus in primis appellat cum secundum post Apostolos Ecclesiarum magistrum so that he is preferred before your Popes Athanasius an agregious pillar of the Church whose Tenets were esteemed for the lawe of right faith l Nazianzea Orat. in laudem ejus Athanasius egregium Ecclesiae columen cujus dogmata pro orthodoxae fidei lege habebantur Basil the mouth of the Church m Greg. Nissen in vita S. Ephr. Syri Cesaream Cappadociae divino Spiritu ductus ipse Os Ecclesiae auream illam doctrinae lusciniam Basilium vidit and Hilary the Pillar of the Church of Christ n Bellarm. de Script Eccles De S. Hilario S. Hilarius Doctor maximus Ecclesiae Catholicae columna meritò habitus sit But to remove this title see whether Paul be inferior in Chrysostome judgment I lle alter Michael Christianorum Dux Alter Aaron totius mundi populis inunctus sacerdos He another Michael the Archangell or Captaine of Christians An other Aaron an annointed Preist to the people of the whole world o Chrys hom 8 de laudibus Pauli And Cyprian when he was sought for to be martyred was tearmed the Bishop of Christians p Cyprian Ep. 69. Siquis tenet vel possidet de bonis Caecilij Cypriani Episcopi Christianorum which is the same with Pontifex Christianorum so that this title gives not Peter this Universall Monarchie any more then others But the Iesuite may know those words cited by him are not truely the words of Eusebius for Scaliger delivering him truly to the world findes not there the Iesuites quotation there being neither in it natione Galilaeus nor Christianorum Pontifex wherby we see the Monarchy wil stoop to any corruptioÌ„s Neither are the Iesuites next following quotations any better For the two places cited from S. Augustine the first cited out of his 124 serm de tempore where S. Peter is termed the Head the very Crowne of the Church the second urged from the same Father or whosoever els was the Author of the questions upon the old new Testament For even as in Christ were found al the causes of mastership so after our Savior all are contained in Peter for Christ ordained him their head that he might be the Pastor of our Lords flock q Reply pag. 54 they are none of his the first being suspected by many the second rejected by all yea so despised by Bellarmine that he makes the Author no Catholick r Bellarm l. de gra primi hominis c. 3. Ex his intelligi potest auctorem quaestionum novi ac veteris testamenti non solum non esse S. Augustinum sed neque esse hominem Catholicum but an Heretick Å¿ Idem
of Bishops in the Roman See that invincible rock upon which Christ built his Church For who will dreame that Father to esteeme that present seate or succession to be the rocke for any other reason then because they held the rocke confessed by Peter And in this sence not only Peters successors at Rome but all other successors of Peter the rest of the Apostles might bestiled rocks p Origen in Math hom 1. Petra est 〈◊〉 omnis qui imitator est Christi ex quo bibebant qui bibebant de spiritali consequenti petra Et super omni hujusmodi petra aedificatur ecclesia Dei In singulis enim quibuscunque perfectis qui habent in se congregationem verborum oâ—erum sensuum omnium qui hujusmodi beatitudinem operantur 〈◊〉 Eccelesia Dei cui portae non praevalent inserorum Si autem â—per unum illum Petrum arbitraris Vniversam Ecclesiam aedificari à Deo quid dicis de Iacobo Iohanne filijs tonitrui vel de singulis Apostolis Vere ergo ad Petrum quidem dictum est â—u es Petrus c. tamen omnibus Apostolis omnibus quibuscunque perfectis fidelibus dictum viâ—â— retor For why may not those churches that cleave fast to the rock of faith be called rocks to stay and adheare unto q Iranaeus l. 4. c. 43. Ijs qui in Ecclesijs sure presbyteris oporter obaudire qui successionem habent ab Apostolis quicunque cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundùm beneplacitum patris acceperunt Idem c. 44. Adherere his qui Apostoloâ—um doctrinam oustodiunt cum presbyterij ordine sermonem sanum conversatio nem sine offen sa praestant as well as the Roman her Bishops in regard Augustine saith in that very Psalme that if any man come full of the Catholicke faith wee are wont to give eare unto him as unto these men r August in Psalm contra partem Donati Talis si quis ad te veniat plenus Catholica side Quales illoâ— sanctos viros omâ—es solemus audire But what makes the former words to the Iesuites conclusion Doth S. Augustine here declare Roman Preists Successors to Peter in a Monarchicall estate or such unmoveable grounded rocks that all the Churches in time to come must be grounded upon them Surely the sesuite will never finde this to bee S. Augustines meaning but from what the Roman Preists had beene and from what for the present they were alluding to our Saviors words he doth stile them a rock that the gates of Hell did not at that time prevaile against making them a good directory to truth whilst they adheared to the Apostles doctrine For by the course of that Psalme we cannot conceive S. Augustine to have thought otherwise in regard he doth not give the Bishop of Rome power to end and determine that controversie but maketh Donatus his request to have his cause heard at Rome to be unjust telling us what the Emperour had ordained that divers Bishops Preists should heare the matter not the Roman Bishop alone Å¿ August ibid Nam Donatus cùm volebat Africam totam obtiâ—ere Tunc Iudices transmarinos petijt ab Imperatore Sed haectam unjust petitio non erat de charitate Hoe ipsa veritas clamaâ— quam vclo modo refeâ—e Nam consensit Impeâ—â—â—or â—â—â—â—t quae soderenâ— Romae Sacerdotes qui tunc possent Caeciliano cuâ— illâ— audite which he would not have done I suppose if the Bishop of Rome had had that Monarchy by Apostolicall succession which now they pretend by that title to enjoy But there is not a word of Augustine that proveth the Roman Bishops Successors of Peter in any office power or Bishoprick or so much as maketh him Bishop of Rome That he had his seate there where the Roman Preists had their Succession he insinuateth but in this place he telleth us no more nor so much as Eusebius who beginneth the Roman Bishop with Linus t Eusebius hist Eccles l. 3. c. â— Linus verò primum post Petri Pauli Martyrium Romanae Ecclesiae Episco patum sorâ—iâ—ut est for the words of Eusebius after the martyrdome of Peter and Paul can no more make Peter Bishop of Rome then Paul and I thinke they will not admit two Bishops at once in one Citie Much more might be urged to shew that the Iesuite hath produced S. Augustine to testifie that which hee never thought of But I will come to Chrysostome whom the Iesuite produceth expecting much from him because hee nameth Peters Successours Why saith he did Christ shed his bloud but to regaine those sheepe the care of whom he committed both to Peter and to Peters Successours u Reply pag. 59 I aske the Iesuite whether he thought the Apostles had no commission from Christ to have a care of his sheepe whether Goe ye into all the world and preach the Gospell to every creature * Marke 16. 15 did commaund no care of CHRISTS flocke or whether there be no successors of Peter but the Bishops of Rome Cardinall Cusanus cannot deny that all Bishops are the successours of Peter x Nich. de Cusa Card. l. 2. De concord cath c. 13. Non possumus negare omnes Episeopos esse ejusdem successores Scilicet Petri And S. Chrysostome in the very place cited by the Iesuite expresseth himselfe to be free from the conceit that the Bishops of Rome are S. Peters onely Successours For why should he perswade Basil to be minde full of his dutie hee being a Bishop from this reason because CHRIST said to Peter Lovest thou me Feede my sheepe and because the care of his sheepe are committed to Peter and his successours y See Chrysostomes testimony produced before in the beginning of the Section if hee had not beene one of them This title I have shewed before doth belong to other Bishops as well as Romane neither is it denyed by Bellarmine himselfe z Bellarm de Rom. Pont. l. â— c. 23. Respondeo in Apostlatu continâ—â— Episcopatum Episcopes succedere Apostolis and therefore I may forbeare here further to presse it The next is Leo but I shall not neede to speake to that which is urged from hâ—m here in regard I shall have more occasion in the next Section He loved to be great and to make Peter greater then he should be for his owne sake as I have in some things before declared shall hereafter more fully shew Yet all that hee desired I suppose was not so great licentiousnesse as the Bishop of Rome desireth and would have all to attribute unto himselfe Now commeth the Bishop of Ravenna Peter Chrysologus in his Epistle to Eutyches You are not much beholding to that See that you should bring a Bishop from thence to give testimony for you but what saith hee Wee desire thee honorable brother that thou wilt listen dutifully unto those things which
in the Acts viz. a Bisâ—opricke n Rhem 〈◊〉 upon Luk â— â—â— And although the Iesuite now seeth that Peter can be no Monarch by his Apostleship such extraordinary power being given to others yet it hath beene that which they ever pretended to exalt him whom they would have to be Peters Successour and the Monarch of the Church and therefore they have had their mouthes and rescripts full of Apostle and Apostleship calling his office Apostleship saying that he heareth causes with his Apostleship why should he not determine with it All his instruments of government are Apostolical as Letters Decrees Mandates Buls Pardons Dispensations nay what hath he that is not Apostolicke Whether messenger or Legate Whether Palace Chamber Chancery Seale o Sacraâ— ceâ—am Rom. eccles l 1. Reg. Canc. Apostol Extra do jurejur c. Ego c. Besides how many of the Iesuites counterfeits urged for the Primacy are thought to speake effectually when they attribute to the Pope to sit in the Apostolicall height to have his See Apostolicke his office an Apostleship his priviledges his eminencies Apostolicall Fourthly he would have told them that the auncient Fathers declare in plaine tearmes how Christ grounding his Church upon Peter Mat. 16. committing his flocke to Peter Ioh. 21. wishing Peter to confirme his Brethren and praying for Peters faith that it should not faile Luc. 22. constituted Peter head of his Church upon earth and consequently thereby made him Prince Cheife Captaine Head Leader and Prelate over the rest of the Apostles p Reply pag. 60 But whosoever will weigh his quotations shall perceive that the Fathers have beene onely pretended by him they disdaining any such Monarchie as from those texts the Iesuite laboureth to collect And first for the 16. of Mat. Although the Fathers doe sometimes give Peter the name of the rocke or foundation upon which the Church is builded or grounded yet their meaning is not that the Church is builded upon Peter absolutely and personally but relativelie and from his faith or Christ that hee confessed And therefore Hillary that calleth Peter the foundation of the Church q Hilar. in Mat. 16 Faelix Ecclesiae fundamentum telleth us that not onely to say but also to beleive that CHRIST is the Sonne of GOD this faith is the foundation of the Church r Hillar l. 6. De Trinitat Christum Dei silium non solum nuncupare sed etiam credere Haec fides Ecclesiae fundamentum and in another place hee saith This is the alone happie rocke of faith confessed with the mouth of Peter Thou art the Sonne of the everliving GOD Å¿ Idem l. 2. De Trinitat Vna â—â—aec est faelix fidei Petra Petri ore confessa Tu es filius Dei vivi S. Basill also saith that CHRIST is truely a Rocke unmoveable but Peter is so from the Rockâ— Christ t Basil serm de Pâ—niten Christus verè Petra est inconcussa Petrus vero propter Petram And S. Ambrose concludeth u Ambros ser â— Recte igitur qui Petra Christus Simon nuncupaâ—â—s est Petrus â—â— qui cum Domino fidei societatem habebat cum Domino haberet nominis Dominici unitatem ut siqut à Christo Christianus dicitur ita à Petra Christo Petrus Apostolus vocaretur that rightly therefore because CHRIST is the rocke was Simon called Peter that so he that had a society of faith with his Lord might also have the unitie of his name that as a Christian taketh his denomination from CHRIST so Peter the Apostle might â—â—ke his name from the rocke CHRIST So also saith Gregory Nissen The LORD is the rock of faith even the foundation as the LORD himselfe saith to the Prince of the Apostles Then art Peter and upon this rocke I will build my Church x Gregor Nissenus cap. postremo testimoniorum con Iudaeos Dominus est Peâ—â—â— fidei â—â—â—quam fundamentum ut ipse Dominus ait ad principe◠〈◊〉 Tu es Petrus super â—anc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam 〈◊〉 And S. Augustine teacheth us that The Church is founded upon a rocke from whence even PETER took his name For the rocke tooke not its denomination from PETER but PETER from the rocke even as CHRIST taketh not his name from Christians but a Christian from CHRIST y August truâ—â— 124. in Iohan. Ecclesia fundata est super petram â—â— de Petrus nomen accepit Non enim à Petro petra siâ—â— Petrus à petra siâ—â— non Christus à Christianis sed Christianus à Christâ— vocatur Theodoret shall conclude for this particular who telleth us that Blessed PETER or rather the LORD himselfe layed the foundation for when PETER said thou art CHRIST the Sonne of the living GOD the LORD said upon this rocke I will build my Church Bee not you therefore denominated from man for CHRIST is the foundation z Theodoret. in 1. Cor. 3. Fundamenâ—â—â— jecit beatus Petrus vel pâ—tius ipse Dominus Cum enim dixisset Petrus Tu es Christuâ— filius Der viâ—â— dixir Domiâ—â— super hanc 〈◊〉 â—rarâ— aedificabo EcclesiammeaÌ„ Ne voâ—â—â— go denominaâ—â— ab hominibus Christus 〈◊〉 â—â—◠〈◊〉 So that the Iesuite may see how Peter was the rocke and foundation by confessing and preaching CHRIST the true rocke The latter of which duties to wit preaching CHRIST is so bitter â—nto their Popes that I thinke they had rather forsake their Rock-ship then be tyed thereunto And as the Church was no otherwise grounded upon Peter then you have heard from the Fathers so neither was the flocke of CHRIST Io. 21. committed to Peter in the Roman sence For feeding is not domineering that which before did point out a sheepheard must not now constitute a Prince or Monarch But not to descant upon this place in every particular the Iesuite may take notice that there want not Fathers that thinke the other Apostles had as much interest in feeding as Peter himselfe and that hee received no new power by his pasce oves this is cleare from the reasons that the Fathers give wherefore CHRIST spake onely to Peter As first not to give him a new power and Commission but to stirre him up to conâ—â—sse his LORD thrice as before hee denyed him So Augustine tract in Iohan 123. Cyrillus in Iohan. lib. 12. cap. 64. Secondly that hee might renewe the Apostle shippe for so saith Cyrill But CHRIST said fiede my Lambes renewing unto him the dignitie of his APOSTLESHIP least it might seeme to be lâ—st for his denyall which happened by humane informitie a Cyrillâ—â— in Io. l. 12. c 64. Dixit autem pasce agâ—â—◠〈◊〉 Apostolâ—â—â—s ei renovâ—â—â—â— dignitatem ne propter â—egatioâ—em quae human◠〈◊〉 accidit lâ—befactaâ—i videreâ—â—â— What new power is here given What ordinarie jurisdiction that ordinarily did not belong to the rest Here is the old Apostleship renewed to Peter which by denyall of his Master he
non habentem maculam aut rugam non sie accipiendum est quasi jam sit sed quae prâ—paratur ut sit quando apparebit etiam gloriosa Nunc enim propter quasdam ignoranties in firmitates membrorum fuorum habet unde quotidie tota dicat Dimitte nobis debita nostra Neither was it the question in those times whether the Catholicke Church could bee spotted with Heresie but with sinne which was affirmed by the Catholicke Church against the Pelagians and this the Iesuite seemeth now to conceive and therefore telleth us that by reason of ignorant and infirmities of her members in other matters the Church hath dayly occasion to pray for the forgivenesse of sinnes n Reply pag. 43. Now the Iesuite giving the title â—â—spotted unto the Primitive Church of Rome which he accounteth the Catholicke how could the most learned Answerer understand the Iesuites tearme but according to the sence of the word as it was vulgarly taken in the primitive times Secondly it were not amisse to conceive that the Iesuite in his Challenge calleth the Primitive Church of Rome 〈◊〉 o In his Challenge in his enquirie in this section hee layeth downe the Roman Church without reâ—â—raynt of Primitive and lastly in his proofe hee thinketh hee hath got the day if from antiquitie he can prove that the Catholicke Church cannot faile So that you may easily â—spy who is guiltie of mingling one question with another But let us examine this new question as the Iesuite hath proposed it Whether the Church of Rome may rightly be tearmed Vnspotted or no p Reply pag â—â— That the auncient Roman Church was invincible never fundamentally erring in the foundation of faith in all her members for the first 400. or 500. yeares after Christ The Iesuite telleth us our Doctors and Masters grannt q In his Challenge So that the Controversie is not what the Primitive Church of Rome was in regard of Heresie but what the Roman Church is lyable unto in her succession which the Iesuite resolves and as he would make us beleive from Augustine and other anncient Fathers saying that in the truth and soundnes of her faith and doctrine shee is evermore invincible and not lyable to any spot or stayne r Reply pag. 43 But neither doth Augustine Origen Eusebius Alexander B. of Alexandria Athanasius Cyrill B. of Hierusalem or Philo Carpathius c. whom he urgeth Å¿ Reply pag 64 pag 650 say any thing for the Roman but for the Catholicke Church to which they beare testimony that it cannot faile So that our Iesuite falleth under Bellarmines Censure who affirmeth that they doe but trifle away the time who contend to prove that the Church cannot absolutely faile because it is graunted by the Protestants themselves t Bellarm. de Ecclesia mil l. 3. c. 13. Notandum autem est muluâ— ex nostris tempus 〈◊〉 dum probant absolute Ecclesiam non posse dâ—ficere 〈◊〉 Calâ—â—â—â— eâ—teri 〈◊〉 â—i id concedunt which the Iesuite knowing though dissembling after he hath produced S. Chrysostome for the perpetuitie of the Catholicke Church argueth fâ—r her But what Church doth this holy Father meane thinke you Surely none other then Peters Church u Reply pag. â—â— c. Peters Churchâ— proâ— nefâ—â— was the Church espoused to Peter purchased by Peter redeemed by Peter At Antioth the Church was first called Christian * Acts 1. v. 26. which name it hath retained and shall it loose its title and 〈◊〉 now and bee denominated from Peter The Spouse of Christ the mysticall body of Christ the house of God the Lords granary and 〈◊〉 Stapleâ— Relect cont 1. q. â— art 1. not 5 Vt est corpus Christi in uno sensu propter internam gratiam ita est domus magna Cheisti â—st area ager dominicus in alio sensu propter externam collectionem c. but Peters Church is somewhat harsh Chrysostome neere giveth the Church no such title onely their poore forged Cyrill hath Ecclesia Apostolica Petri an evidence answerable to the cause yet not convincing for the same title might be given to the Church of Antioch But can the wordes of Chrysostome stretch to the Roman Church â—et the Iesuite shew it if he be able That Church whereof Chrysostome speaketh is the Church of Christ not of Peter that Church whereof he is a Pastor y Chrys in Mat homâ—â—â— Ecclesiae futurae pastorem constituit not a Monarch the rock upon which it is builded is not Peter but Christ beleived confessed by Peter Ibid. Et super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam id est fidem atque confessionem Peter had no gift given him to preserve this Church from amidst â—â—erce assaults and raging flouds in this Fathers opinion though the Iesuite would perswade it but Peter was confirmed in his faith confessed by this promise made that the gates of hel should not prevaile against the Churchâ— Neither had Peter power given him to make the Church invincible but to declare it Ibid Petrus Ecclesiam per universum orbem amplificatam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 validiâ—â—â—â— monstravit And as the Fathers ground this priviledge of the unspotted â— Non enim turbari te con venâ—â— cùm audicris quia traâ—ar crucifiâ—â—â— integritie of the Roman Church upon the promise of Christ to Peter Matt 16. so also they oftentimes deduce the same from the vertue of that prayer which Christ made to his Father for Peters faith that it should never faile Luc 22. wherin doubtlesse he was heard for his reverence Heb. 5. 7. Reply pag. â—â— There is no ground why the Roman should enjoy this priviledge either from Christs promise or his prayer as the Iesuite hath failed in deducing any thing from the former so doth he shew his abilities in this latter at his first entrance For first he brings in forged Epistles under the name of Lucius d Bellarm. l. 2 de Rom. Pont. c. â— dare not affirme this Epistle to be undoubted it is dared Gallo Volusâ— ano Cosâ— when as they were not Consule at that time as appeareth by Baron Annal. to â— an â— and Felix e The Epistle is dated Claudio Paterno Coss when as there were none such in his time Baron ad aâ— 273. good Bishops who would have 〈◊〉 the pride that they are urged heere to 〈…〉 the rest he cites 〈◊〉 good Bishop we will not deny yet his goodnes did not declare itselfe at all times when he spake of S. Peter or the Roman Church but his infirmity For as the Bishops of Rome both before and after him desired more then was fit so it will be no difficulty to shew that they contended to justifie their desires by unfit meanes and especially by swelling wordâ—â— in the honour of S. Peter and their owne Seâ— and practises sutable thereunto Insomuch that they were esteemed smoâ—â—â— by some
f Epistol Concil Aphricam ad Papam Caelestinum Executores etiam clericos vestros quibusque petentibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concedere ne fumosum typhum seculi in Ecclesiam Christi videamur inducere ambition by others g Hieron Epist 57. A Pastore praesidium ovis flagito facessaâ— invidia Romani culminis recedat ambitio their pride being hated their motions contemned And Leâ— was no more to be excused then some of his Predecessors in these particulars seeing he rejected the Catholick Church a Councell of 〈◊〉 and â—â—â— Bishops because they would make another Patrâ—arcke equall with him h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Concil Chalcedonenâ—â— Occumenicum sive Vniversale IV. approbat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—â—centi Triginta Episcopâ— Id vero quod instigante Anatolio Constantinopolitaâ—â— Antistite ambiciose absentibus possea contradicentibus segatis de primatur 〈◊〉 Constantinopolitanae contra decreta 〈…〉 dem secundum 〈…〉 quam S. Leo Rom. â—ex plane in probavit cassa vit atque irritum reddidiâ—â—â— â—eply pag. 66. Bellarm. de sacram conâ—â—â— l. 2. c. x. Epistolae 〈…〉 apud nonnullos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ve 〈◊〉 supposititiâ—◠〈◊〉 Non sit certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quorum nomina praeserunti So that if you have no better argument then Leo his appetite to magnify Rome and to free it from spots it is but a poore and tender 〈◊〉 For we deny not Christs care of Peter neither his prayer for Peter but that all were fortified in Peter any otherwise then by example the Iesuite must proove by better grounds then hee 〈◊〉 produceth or else hee is not halfe way at his journeyes end The next witnesse is the good counterfeit Eusebius from whose plaine dealing he beginnes his triumph Could any 〈◊〉 speake more plainely for us concerning the ever during 〈◊〉 of the Catholicke Roman Church â— There is no reasoÌ„ any should for if your forgtâ— y ◠〈◊〉 you who will expect truth to pleade your causeâ— But the Iesuite tells us that S. Cyprian affordeth 〈◊〉 like testimony for that speaking of certaine Hereticks of 〈◊〉 They are bold saith he to 〈◊〉 even to the chaire of Peter and to the principall Church from whence Preistly Vnitie draweth its originall neither doe they consider how they are those Romans whose faith is commended by the Apostle and to whom persidiousnes cannot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 k Reply pag â—â— But he fayles for first hee speaketh not of the same thing 〈◊〉 in Cyprian having relation to matter of fact in discipline not doctrine Secondly if Cyprian should speake in the Iesuites sense here surely he speaketh non-sense in his bitter charges against Stephen Cornelius his Successor who received these schismaticks whose 〈◊〉 in former Popes times could not have accesse thither l Cyprian epist ad 〈◊〉 Thirdly Cyprian speakes elegantly in this place as a Rhetoritian not positively but perswasively at the Roman Souldiers and the Spanish Navye were stiled invincible not because they were truly as they were stiled but that by a superlative and excessive praise their carriage valour might be lifted up and encreased and you call your Popes generally blessed not because they are but because they should be so For his other Citation out of Cyprian The spouse of Christ cannot be defiled she is unspotted and chast m Reply pag. 67 We acknowledge as that Father saith that the spouse of Christ is uncorrupt and chast but this prooves not the Romane Church free from Heresies neither that the same which you call Peters Church shall in her succession enjoy that priviledge And what the Ancient meant when they tearmed the Church uncorrupt I told you before and the same Father shall tell you againe that it is so stiled in relation to what it shal be not what actually it is August cont Pelag. de nâ—â— gra cap. 63. Hoc agitur â—tique nunc in haec seculo ut ad â—stam quam omnes sancti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 puritatem Ecclesia sancta pervenina quae in 〈◊〉 seculo neque aliquo malorum hominum sibi permixto neque aliqua in se lâ—go 〈◊〉 resistente legi mentis dicut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vitam in 〈◊〉 divinâ— The next testimony is the learned Priest S. Hierome but what saith this their supposed Cardinall surely he is not so full mouthed as the counterfeit Popes In his Epistle to Damasus thus he writeth Apud vos solos incorruptâ— Patrum servatur haereditus With you onely is the inheritance of the Fathers kept without corruption Reply pag. 6â— Which we beleive for which of ours taints the Roman Church as an hereticall Assembly in Damasus his dayes yet when hee was dead your owne witnesse stiles Rome BABYLON the PURPLE HARLOT the Bishop and Cleargie the Pharisâ—icall Senate p Hieron ad Paulinum in lib. Didymi de Spiritu Sancto Praefat. Cùm iâ— BABYLONE versarer PVRPVRATAE MERETRICIS essem colonus volui aliquid garrire de Spiritu sancto coeptum opusculum ejusdâ—urbis Pontifici dedicate Et ecce Pharisaeorum conclamavit Senatus nullus scriba vel doctus sed omnis quasi sibi indicto praelio DoctrinaruÌ„ adversus me imperitiae factio conjuravit Damasus qui me ad hoc opuspiluâ— impulerat jam dormit 〈◊〉 Christo But to what purpose doth the Iesuite urge the latter sentence Know that the Romane faith commended by the mouth of the Apostle cannot be deceived yea though an Angel should teach otherwise then hath already beene preached yet caâ— it not be changed being defended by the authority of the Apostle S. Paul q Reply pag. 67. Here we see it is Paul that defends the Romane saith not Peter And how doth Paul performe this but by his Epistle his doctrine Now if Pauls Doctrine can defend the faith that it cannot be changed what wil the Prophets and Apostles doe altogether This is a testimony for the Scriptures not for the Pope Paul anathematizeth * â—al 1. 8. 9. all whose doctrine sounds against that delivered by himself though Peter or his Vicar should define it Vincent Lirinen div prof Novatiâ—â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioannes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnis Apostolorum 〈…〉 but you will â—â—ve no heretickes or heresie before the definition of your Pope no not Arianisme it selfe Reply pag. 10â— 103. 104. Yet if Paul befriend you you are very ungratefull that in your solemne sermons in â—â—ly have censured S. Paul for a â—ote headed person who was so transported with his pangs of zeale and eagernesse beyond all compasse in most of his disputes That there was no great reckoning to bee made of his assertions yea he was dangerous to read â—◠〈◊〉 of â—â—resie in some places and bettâ—â— perhaps he had never written t S. Edwind Sâ—â—ds his relation of the state of Religion in the Westeâ—â— parts of the woâ—â—â— Pacianus bringeth up the reare who in his first Epistle to the Hereticke Symproâ—â—â—â— saith the Iesuite speaking of the Catholicke Church hath these words When as after the Apostles divers
Heresies did arise and with different names did end avour to teare in peices and devide Christ his dove and his queene or spouse was it not reason that the true Apostolicall Church should be called by her syrname of Catholicke thereby to discerne and distinguish her incorrupted unitie least that Vnspotted Virgin by other mens errors and mistaking might be devided u Reply pag. 6â— c. What have we here for the unspotted Roman Church Here is nothing to exempt her from present staines or after pollutions That there was a Catholicke Church and not â—espotted with the impurities of the auncient Herâ—ticks who doth deny yet this doth not prove Augustine over-shot in his retractation or the Iesuite justified in â—â—â— tearme Now as if hee had performed what he made us expect â—e swels Might not a man now bee bold to bee tryed by the judgment of our Answerers owne conscience whether hee had any reason to except against me for tearming the 〈◊〉 Catholicke Roman Church unspotted x Reply pag. â—â— And indiscreet man may be bould in an arme of flesh a â—eed of Egypt a broken tooth but vainely and to his losse The most learned Answerers Conscience may for any thing you have said commiserate your confidence not justifie it unlesse you would have him to be convicted with forged words and bare names When as I have saith the Iesuite this generall warrant from the holy Fathers and Doctours of this Primitive times for the same y Reply pag. 67 The most learned Answerer by excepting at your unspotted Church did not charge the â—niversall built upon the rocke confessed by Peter with desperate Heresie Particular members and Churches which have outwardly professed Christ have fallen into Heresie so may Rome z Frauciscus Picus Theo. 13 Iuxta Theoso gorumquotuâ—dam Iuris Interpretum aliquorum dogmata fieri possetut Romana Ecclesia quae particularis Ecclesia est contra universalem distincta infide aberraret but that the Catholick Church should forsake the foundation of faith this he well knew would crosse Christs promise and make the gates of Hell prevaile against his Church It would then be no rock upon which the Church was builded but the sand subject to wind weather The Iesuite in his Challenge did not stile the auncient Catholick Church which he here tearmeth Roman but the primitive Church of Rome unspotted in this sense it is there acknowledged by himselfe that the ancient Roman is by us confessed to be unspotted so that what he hath produced for their Catholick exemption from Heresie is nothing to his purpose But he proceedes in his Oratory The which being maturely pondered of thee Christian Reader thou mayest easily perceive how farre unlike our Answeters Church is unto that of the primitive confessed best times notwithstanding that he seemeth to claime so great affinitie therewith But wherein is this dissimilitude unliâ—enes In regard the Roman Church being head of all other Churches in earth c. thereupon rightly called the Vniversall or Catholick Church c is blessed with the prerogative of an inâ—incible perpetuity of an unspotted faith c. But our Adversaries Church saith the Iesuit forasmuch as by them it is confessed to want this infallible rule of faith to be lyable to error cannot with reason challenge unto it self the name of an unspotted Church therefore is rightly concluded to have no affiâ—ity or aliance with the true ancient catholick Church at al a Reply pag. 67 and 68. In answer to this we have told the Iesuit truly that the Roman Church is so far from being the head over all other churches that for all the Iesuits proofs if it were utterly destroyed the Catholick Church would not faile 2ly that in no sense the Roman Church can be truly called Catholick or Vniversall And here Godwilling I will shew that no Church in the world hath beene more besmeared with spots staines even of misbeliefe then the Roman in her successioÌ„ And if an heretical Pope can bespot the primitive church of Rome with heresy which indeed we beleive not though Papists must not deny the same it will appeare that the Primitive Church of Rome was not blessed with the Prerogative of an invincible perpetuity of unspotted faith And first if we believe their owne Rhenanus Pope Zephsrinus was defiled with spots of misbeleife Montanizing which is warranted by Tertullians testimony that was well acquainted with the Favourers of Montanus b Bellarm. de Rom Pont. l. 4. c. 8. Zepherinus Victoris successor videtur haeresim Montani approbasse Scribit enim Tertullianus in libro contra Praxeam Romanum Pontificem agnoscentem prophetias Montani ex eâ agnitione pacem Ecclesijs Asiae Phrygiae inferentem à Praxea fuisse persuasum literas pacis revocare quas jam emiserat Constat autem ex historijâ— to tempore Zepherinum fuisse Romae Pontificem Quare Rhenanus in annotationibus ad Tertâ—llianum ponit hoc loco in margine Episcopus Romanus Montanizat Neque dici potest eo tempore nondum fuisse damnatam ab Ecclesia haeresim Montani Nam ut ibidem Tertullianus dicit Praâ—eas persuasit Pontifici revocare literas pacis eâ praecipâ—rè ratione quia praedecessores ejus haeresim illam antea damnavissent neither hath Bellarmine any better shift to excuse this Pope then by telling us as if a Montanist knew not a Montanist that faith is not to be given to Tertullian c Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 8. Respondeo non esse omnino fidem habendam Tertulliano in hac parte quandoquidem ipse Montanista erat Some hundred yeares after we finde an other bespotted Pope Marcellinus acknowledged for an Idolater by Câ—sterus d Costerus Enchirid. c. 3. p. 137. Fatemur siquidem 〈◊〉 posse ut Petri successor Idola eolat quod beatum Marcellinum fecisse aiunt Bellarmine e Bellarm recognit l. de 〈◊〉 Pont. p. 20. Concessimus S. Marcellinum Idolâ—â— sacriâ—â—casse and reported by a Councell of their friends making Sinâ—essa f Concil Sinuessanum Ecce introierunt testes 14. qui dicebant se Marcellinum vidisse in temple Veâ—ta 〈◊〉 thuâ—ificantem Ibid. In sinu autem trecenrorum Episcoporum caputeinere convolutum Marcellinus Episcopus urbis Romae voce clarâ 〈◊〉 dicebat Peccavi coram vobis non possum in ordine sacerdotum esse quoniam 〈◊〉 me corrupit auro Subscripserunt autem in ejus damnationem damnaverunt â—â—â— exâ—â—â— civitatem by Pope Nicholas the first g Nicholaus â— ad Michael Imperator Epist â— Tempore Dioclesiam Maximiani Augustorum Marcellinus Episcopus urbiâ— Romae adeo 〈◊〉 est à Paganis ut in tempâ—â—â— eorum ingressus grana thuris super 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cujus nei gratia collecto numerosorum Concilio Episcoporum inquisitione facta hoc se idem Pontifex egisse confessus est Platina h Platina de vita
Marcellini At 〈◊〉 Pontifex ad sacrificia gentium ductâ—â— cum 〈◊〉 instarent carnificeâ— ut thura dijs exhiberet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deos alienos adoravit others But it may be they will say a Pope may have spots of Paganisme yet not of Heresie but I thinke any man will conceive that if the Pope may practise against all the points of Christian Faith and turne Pagan he may well turne Hereticke and pleade against one and then farewell the blessed Prerogative of an invincible perpetuity of unspotted faith Not many yeares after Liberius was Pope and although some desire to mince it yet is it plaine that he was an Arian Hereticke subscribed to that heresie as Athanasius i Athanasius in Epistola ad solimariam vitam agentes Liberius deinde post exactum in exilio biennium inflexus est minisque mortis ad subscriptionem inductus est and S. Hierome k Hieronymus Catal Script Eccles â—ortunatianus Episcopus Liberium Romae urbis Episcopum ad subscriptionem Haereseos compulit Idem in Chronico Liberius taedio victus exilij in haeteticam pratitatem subscribenâ— testifie Yea so publicke was the report hereof even in our late ages that many eminent Papists as Cusâ—â—â—â— l Nich. de Cusa Candiâ—â—al l. 2 de Concord Cathol c 5. Et licet Liberius Papa tunc suit qui ut scribit Augustinus contra Crescentium Arianae sectae se subscripsit licet resisteret in principio propter hoc in exilium missus esset habetur elegans disputatio Constan â—ij Imperatoris Liberij rediit autem de exilio Victus consensit errori ut scribit S. Hieronymus in Chronicis Platina m Platina de vita Liberij I Constantius Liberium ab exilio terocat qui Imperatoris beneficio motus â—â—m haereticis in rebus omnibus ut quidam voâ—â—nt senticas Sabellicus n Anton. Sabellicus Ennead 7. l. 8. c. 36. Hiprecibus suis apud Constantinum in Felicis iâ— vidiam Liberio reditum ad urbem confecere quo ille beneficio 〈◊〉 ex consesso Arianus ut quidam scribunt est factus and others made no doubt from the testimony of antiquity to charge him with it Surely if an Arian Head be no spot to Roman infallibilitie what will besmeare it These may fuisse to shew their Popes in the â—est times not to have beene without spots And now if in the best times of rhe Roman Church when it was most pure this pretended head was bespotted with heresie how can we expect that he should be blessed with such a prerogative to be infallible to others And indeede Experience hath confirmed our judgments herein For in the seaventh age Honorius was a Monothelite condemned by the judgment of three Councels o Concil VI. Occumeâ—icum Act. 13. Concil VII Occumenicum Act. 7. Concil VIII Occumenicum Act. 7. his own Epistles witnessing against him p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epistolae Honoris ad Sergium una in VI. Synodo act 12. altera ibidem Act. 13. â—â—â—â—raque autem Honorius approbat doctrinam Sergij principis Monothelitarum jubet non debere dici Christum duas habere voluntates aut operationes Pope Leo the second execrating him q Leo II. ad 〈◊〉 Imperatorem Epist 2 Anathemaâ—izamus novi erroris Inventorâ—s id est Theodoâ—â—â— c necnon HONORIVM qui hanc Apostolicam Ecclesiam non Apostolicae traditionis doctrina lustravit sed prophanâ proditione immaculatam fidem 〈◊〉 conatus est In the XIIth age Alphonsus de Castro affirmes Celestine the III. no way to be excused of teaching Heresie to wit that Heresie so dissolves matrimonie that a partie may marrie againe r Alphons de Castro adv haer l. 1 c. 4. Coelestinum Papam etiam errâsse circa matrimonium fidelium quorum alter labitur in haeresim res est omnibus manifesta In the XIIIIth Age Iohn the XXIIth taught that the Saints departed saw not God before the Resurrection Å¿ Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c 14. Ioannes XXII Papa à multis reprehenditur ac praessertim à Galielmo Ocam in opere â—â— dierum ab Adriano in quaestione de confirmatione circa â—nem quid docucrit animas beato â—um non visuâ—as Deum ante resurrectionem Erasmus praefat one ad ad librum 5. Ireâ—aei idipsum cum additamento affirmat In the XVth Centurie Iohn the XXIIIth denyed the Resurrection and life eternall and was accused of pertinaciâ— therein t Concil Constâ—ntiâ— self â—â— See this at large before pag. 53 Bellarmine telleth us at that time there were three pretenders for the Papacie so that it could not easily bee discerned quis eorum verus ac legitimus esset Pontifex which of them was the true and lawfull Pope u Bellatâ—n de Rom Poâ—â— l 4. c 14. Erant enim co temporâ—tres qui Pontifices haberi volebant Gregorius XII Benedictus XIII et Ioannes XXIII nec poterat facilè indicaaâ—i quis eorum verâ—s ac legitimus esset Pontifeâ— cùm non decssent singulis doctissimi patroni So that it seemed the Councell of Constance did not adhere to the Pope nor the Pope to the faith Now let the Reader judge what great reason we have to be waile our selves that we want this pretended infallible rule of faith which cannot rule it selfe and free the adherents thereto from errour how farre these Puritans are from the Catholicke humilitie that defend their staines when the auncienâ— Fathers best men in their journeying towards heaven did bewaile their imperfect estate hungred for that righteousnes and perfection that was to come And what cause have we to blush that the particular Church of Ireland is lyable to errour when the best particular Churches in the world never assumed a better Condition But is the Iesuits inference concludent here because our Church is lyable to error therfore it cannot with reason challenge to it selfe the title of unspotted Here is not so much as silly Sophistry the Churches of Ephesus Thessalonica Philippi in the Apostles dayes were lyable to error therfore bespotted posse et esse are two distinct things A Iesuite may be a true subject but it doth not follow therefore in an instant he forsakes his order And a Pope may be a Saint but who will thinke it necessary that hee will without delay forsake his tyrannicall condition The Church of Ireland may erre in faith yet it doth not follow that it is now bespotted with heresie or hereafter will bee So that it may have alliance and affinitie with all true auncient Churches true members of the Catholicke for any thing the Iesuite hath yet produced Yet as if the Iesuite had dreamed all this while and did now awake he bolts out with a phantasticke flourish Let them take then saith the Iesuite if they will their erring Church unto themselves but let them not withall deny us leave to sticke unto that
Church which by the testimonie of venerable Antiquitie wee finde approved to remaine ever free from all errour to that rocke against which the power of hell shall never prevaile to that foundation which Christ hath setled by his promise and made for ever immoveable by his obtained Prayer Reply pag. 6â— How non-erring a Church your Roman hath beene in her head is already declared How infallible a rule of faith your Cheife Pastor hath proved in the primitive times venerable Antiquitie by severall examples hath detected What a rocke Peters pretended Successours have beene when the divell was let loose to split so farre as possible the ship of the Church hath not been left you untold And who can beleive that CHRIST his prayer for Peters faith was effectuall for the POPES when against faith they day he desire to usurpe his kingdome This we Catholickes saith the Iesuite are exhorted to doe by S. Cyrill sayinâ— Let us remaine as members in our head the Apostolicke Throne of the Roman Bishops from whence it is our part to seeke what wee ought to believe This also all Protestants are advised to doe by a Doctour of their owne who as we heard before telleth them that they ought diligently to search out the spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the pillar and ground of truth having found her then setting aside all other questions they ought to embrace her communion follow her direction and rest in her judgment y Reply pag. 6â— What Doctor Feild advised Protestants to doe hath beene formerly declared And for what Catholickes are exhorted to doe he urgeth S. Cyrill but from whence From Aquinâ—s z Cyril Alleâ— in Thesauro alleadged by S. Thomas in opusc cont Graecoâ— Reply pag. 6â— who forged it For Cyrill hath no such words His Thesaurus hath no such filth He neither consented unto nor approved this tyranny Hee was one of them that sent the Copy of the Councell of Nice to curbe these pretences before they got head I wonder why the Iesuite added not the like forgery of the Councel of Chalcedon to the same end from the same Author Here wee may see that the best grounds he hath to prove their holy Father to be infallible and the Romane Mother without spots are but authorities taken from deceit But leaving Doctor Feild formerly urged and answered he presents us with these sentences of the Auncient in which saith he as in a pure mirrour they may if they list espy their enorâ—ions disagreement from the truth Reply pag 63 And the first Ancient Father that he produceth is Ireneus All they that are in the Church of God ought to obey saith he unto those Preists who have their succession from the Apostles who together with the succession of their Bishoprick have received the assured grace of truth according to the good will of the heavenly Father And we ought to have for suspected such as withdraw themselves from the like principall succession and joyne themselves together in any other place I say wee ought to hold them as hereticks of a perverse judgment or as schismatickes selfe-liking presumptuous fellowes And elsewhere saith the Iesuite he declareth how such like hereticks are to be conâ—â—â—ed confounded according to the practice of his times to wit in the second age after Christ We confound saith he al those who gather otherwise then they ought how by that Church which is the cheifest the most auncient best knowne unto all men which was established grounded in Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul pointing forth that Tradition and faith which this Roman Church holdeth from the Apostles by the succession of Bishops even unto our dayes After this manner also saith the Iesuite did Tertullian troâ—â—ce wrest those Heretickes whom hee had to deale withal Let them shew unto us if they can the original of their Churches let them rip up the order of their Bishops in â—ueâ—â—ort that by a succession derived from the beginning they prove their cheife Bishop to have some one of the Apostles or Apostolicall men for his author and Predecessour for by this meanes the Apostolicall Churches doe make up their accounts And because the Heretickes then were destitute of all such proofe as Tertullian exacted of them for the maintenance of their cause even as our Adversaries saith the Iesuite are as this day He therefore bringeth in the Catholicke Church upbrayding them with them all Protestants in this manner Who â— God 's name are yeâ— When from whence came yoâ— hither What doe you amongst mine being none of mine By what right O Marcion doest thou cut my â—ood what leave hast â—hâ—â— O Valentine to turne my streames fountaines another way By what authority doest thou remove my bounds O Apelles O Luther O Calvin O Zuiâ—glius The possession is mine I have it of old I enjoyed it before you c Reply pag 69 and 70. All that the Iesuite hath produced from Irenâ—us Tertullian will make little for justifying his pretences if the point be truly considered For there is a bare personall succession which may accompany a false Church as it did the Iewish when the Pharisees saâ—e in Moses Chaire and the Churches of the East when Heretickes invaded the chaires of Catholicke Bishops Secondly there is a Successâ—â—â— not only personall of Bishops Preists but where the Catholick Apostoliâ—all doctrine is continued also The people wee say where this is plaine are bound to receive the Doctrin from Timothie every succeeding Bishop as Timothie â— Tim 1. 14. from the Apostle that established and first published the same Now whatsoever the Iesuite hath brought from these Fathers is no way advantageous for the Church of Rome For first we can shew and have done as good personall succession as the Roman Bishops can claime any Secondly to this our orderly Succession we can and have proved by comparison and consanguinity of Apostolicall doctrin that we are true and Apostolicall Churches Thirdly the Roman certaintie upon which their Profelyres must depend is no firmer by these Fathers testimonies then Ephesus Smyrna Corinth Philippi Germany Spaine France Egypt Lybia Thessalonica c Irenaeus pag. 140 142. Disci te ab Apostoli cis Ecclesijs Habetis Romae Linum Polycarpum Smyrnae ab Apostolis edoctum Tertull. Praeser p. c. 37. Proximè est tibi Achaâ— habes Corinthum Si non longè es â— Macedonia habes Philippos habes Thessalonicenses Si potes in Asiam tendere habes Ephesum si autem Italiae adjaces haqes Romam unde nobis quoque authoritas praest ò est Rhenanus Argum in Tert. de praescript alibi Impress Basil 1521. Tertullianus Ecclesiam unam Apostolicam nulla loco affigit Romanum Ec lesiam ornat magnificae laudis elogio non tamen tantam illam facit quantum hodiè fieri videmus nam Apostolicis Ecclesijs numerat non
wheredomes and fornications wherewith they defiled the Court of Rome and usurie in the highest degree i Nâ—ch Cleâ—â—â—ng in lib de corrupto Ecclesiae stam c. 10. Cardinalium qui Papae assident spiritus verba tumenâ—ia gestus tam sunt insolentâ—s ut si aâ—tifex quisque vellet superbiae simulachâ—um effingere nullâ congruentius tatiâ—â—â—id facere â—osset quam Cardinalis effigiâ—â— oculis inâ—â—â—â—iâ—m objectaâ—â—o Idem c. 12. Quis â—esciâ—â— â—ctionis schismaticâ— horrend am pâ—â—â—â—m per nequitiam Cardiâ—alium in Ecclesiae grâ—mium injectam c. Idem c. tâ— Quis immensam iâ—â—â—tâ—icabiâ—em voraginem ipâ—orum concupiscentiâ— ver bis â—quare valeat c. Idem c. 12. Transâ—o Simoâ—â—â—câ—â— aâ—â—d Papaâ— intercessioneâ— patrocinia veâ—alia corruptiones aut promotioneâ—â—â—â—pisâ—imâ—â— damnaâ—isâ—â—â—s quae omnes ferè istis auctoribus suasoribus â—iâ—bant c. Neâ— enumâ—rare volo câ—rum adulteria flupra â—oâ—â—icâ—â—â—ones quibus Romanam Curiâ—â—â—â—â—am nuâ—â— incâ—â—â—ant c. Neâ— refero usuras c. quâ ex causa nâ—â—mularioâ— supreme 〈…〉 non incongruâ—nâ—er â—oâ— quidam vocant And for their Cleargie how are they esteemed amongst themselves Aventine tearmes them in his time great wolves lustfull per sons adulterers ravishers of Virgins and Nunnes theives and Vsurpers Drones leacherous perfidious perjured ignorant asses wolves hypocrites k Aveâ—iniâ— l. 6. Annal. 〈◊〉 Cuâ— Oâ—iâ—â—â—apâ—oâ— â—iâ—â—â—â— luâ—â—â— liâ—idinoâ—os adulteros virginum sacratâ—rum foeminarum â—â—upra 〈…〉 cocosâ—â—â—liâ—â—â—s latroâ—â—â— argeâ—tarioâ— numâ—xâ—â—rioâ— â—ucos pecuniarum aucupes â—uâ—â—â—â—â—ditos peâ—â—â—do◠〈◊〉 literarum omnium penitus rudes imponiâ— Non audita loquoâ— â—â— quae â—isâ—e oculis video narro c. Albertus expresseth the rulers of the Church by the messengers of Antichrist supplanters of the flocke of CHRIST l Albertus in Evangel Iohan. c. 10 And how long they have continued this good opinion amongst all men the complaints and greife of men that have had any modestie in severall ages will declare m Hoâ—oriâ—â— Aâ—gust Dial. de praedest lib. Arbit Verte te ad Cives Babyloniae vide quales sint c. Alvares Pelagiâ—s de planâ—â—â— Ecclesiae Nic. 〈◊〉 de coâ—â—â—pto Ecclesi◠〈◊〉 Neâ—â—â—â— Berâ—â—â—dâ—â— alij Neither doth this age minister unto us any hope that their Doctrine is now of better efficacie though the Papacie be honoured with more glorious titles then ever it was before in regard they doe not as Luther is by them pretended to have done tearme only some dissolure persons swyne but all their Cleargie and Laytie also for so our Irish Regulars would have the Irish Bishops to be swinâ—â—erds their flock swine this being their argumeÌ„t to prove the Provincials of the Regulars to be greater Prâ—lates then the Bishops because the Pastor is knowne by his flocke Opilio digâ—ior est sâ—bâ—â—câ— A sheephâ—â—rd is better then a sâ—yâ—eheard n Consuâ—a â—â—â—iâ—ien Proâ—â—â—â— Superiores Regularium digniores sâ—nt Episcopis siquidem digâ—â—tas Pastoris petenda est ex condition◠〈◊〉 gregiâ— quemadmodum â—â—iâ—â—o dignior â—â— â—â—bulâ—o So that if the Iesuite make loosenes of conversation in some particulars an Argument against the truth of Religion and doctrine in the reformation and would thereby take away our kinred with the Primitive Church What may we conclude from the universall leprosie that hath by their owne confession over-growne both head and members throughout the Papacie But iâ— this manner of arguing from corrupt manners to corrupt doctrines be of small force as is acknowledged by themselves in so much that no inward Vertue in Bellarmines judgment is required to make one a part of the true Church o Bellarm. de Eccles miliâ—â—â—â—â— l. 3. c. 3. Vt aliquis aliquâ— modo dici possit pars veâ—â— Ecclesiae de qua Scripturâ—â— loquâ—nâ—â—r â—on â—â—taâ—â—â—s requiri ullam internam virtâ—â—eâ— Yet I am sure it is able to moderate this Vaunter from triumphing like the Pharisee God I thanke thee I am not like other men Luke â—8 9. But here our Answerer domandeth of me saith the Iesuite whether I be able to shew one point wherein they have broken that Harmonie which Irenâ—â—s commendeth in the Catholicke Church of his time I answere that I can very easily show it and make good withall what I said in my demand and 〈◊〉 which he keepeth such a vaine stirre to wit that the â—rotestants agreewith that ancient holy Church in very few points of Religion or rather to say better that they agree not in any one point at all p Reply pag. 76 How well able the Iesuite is or hath beene to make good whaâ— he said in his demaund wil be examined in the XIth Section Here we expect what point of Doctrine hee â—an finde out held by us wherein it will appeare that we vary from that Harmony which Irenaeus commendeth in the Catholicke Church of his time And for his orderly â—andling of this matter he puts downe Irenaeus his words as his Major Proposiâ—ion That Church which is spread throughout the whole World presenteth her faith as â—â— were dwelling in one house and likewise beleiveth as it were having on soule and one heart and uniformely preacheth teacheth and delivereth this faith amongst all nations having as it were one mouth q Reply Ibid. And now as if this repetition were our confusion he telleth us Our Adversaries neither have nor beleive any such Church therefore they keepe no such Harmony The Minor he is willing to prove by a twofold Mediâ—m First by what hath beene heeretofore produced by him concerning our disagreement which I hope the Reader hath observed will not serve his turne Secondly by a farre greater dissention which happeneth saith the Iesuite betwixt them and those Protestants with whom they pretend this Harmony in other Nations r Reply ibid. So that it seemes the Iesuite will first attempt to prove that wee bee not of that Church which keepeth Irenaeus his harmony and that he will reserve unto the last place the point he should prove to wit that we deny the Catholicke Church His best argument to manifest the first is the testimonies of some Lutherans Brownists and Puritans who disâ—â—aime and discard our Answerer and his Church as the Iesuite tells us from all this pretended harmony and agreement with him Å¿ Reply Ibid. And we say if they charge us so deepely as the Iesuite affirmes that this is not sufficient to prove his undertakings seeing that Doctor Stapleton denyes the Fathers and especially S. Hieroâ—e the priviledge of testimony when they write contentiously and with passion Stapleton â—rinc Doctriâ—â—l l. 67. Distinctio de his 〈◊〉 à pâ—â—â—ibus 〈◊〉 â—â—ae coâ—tentio â— scribuntur in verbis Hiero 〈◊〉 locum 〈◊〉 and therefore these rigide Lutherans though they befriend a Iesuite cannot in their disputes be allowed an inâ—allible priviledge Besides these Lutherans which the Iesuite urgeth if their words be as hee layeth them downe for I cannot come by their bookes doe
speake without ground for the controversies betwixt the Lutherans and the Calvinists as they tearme us are but like a coale as Sr Edwin Sands well observeth which a wise man with a little moisture of his mouth might soone have quenched although their ministers with the winde of others have contrarywise enflamed the same Sr Edwin Sands his Relation 〈…〉 Neither doth it make against the peace of the Church in faith that some have rashly and passionatly urged our diffâ—rences against the judgment of their more moderate and well advised brethren who accompt no otherwise of the Calvinists then of erring brethren Ibid. And further the Iesuite cannot manifest that the points wherewith the Lutherans are offended be in their owne nature of the essence of faith which hee must doe before hee can proove us to bee no Church the quarrels mentioned by the Iesuite arising not from disunion of faith in the foundation but from some dislikes and jealousies which some indiscreet persons amongst them entertaine in points farre remote and therefore their rash censure can condemne us no more then the Popes Bulla câ—na unlesse wee condemne our selves by denying some part of the foundation of â—aith For the Brownists They condemne us with us the Catholick Church by their schisme and we also condemne them as the ancient Fathers did all the factious schismaticks in their ages But doth this make us no true members of the Catholicke Church Is our candlestick removed because an heard of schismaticks bark against us Did your Marrani baptized Iewes and Moores y S â— Edw. 〈◊〉 his Relat. 〈◊〉 44. make Spaine non-catholick Or did the Illuminati in Arragon the brood of your hypocriticall Preists by their pretences of Angelicall puritie z Ibid. banish that Church from the kingdome of grace This is neither Sophistrie nor Logicke For the words that he citeth froÌ„ the Puritans No man can deny but they are the fruit of distemper disobedience yet unable to drag with the Iesuite the conclusion which he aymeth at for their dissention is not in fundamentalls nay it is so far froÌ„ the foundation that it is no way doctrinall This youâ— Turne-about Spalato when he was in England perceived told it his brother Suares a Spal con Suar. c. ◠〈◊〉 30. 〈◊〉 qui vocantuâ— circa articuâ—â—s fidei non dissentiunt sed circa 〈◊〉 externam Ecclesiaâ—â—icam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though afterwards he fâ—amâ—d them a lying Catalogue b 〈◊〉 â—â— p. â—5 But it may be the Iesuite will bettet perceive the weaknes of his Argument If wee use the strength thereof against himselfe If I should bring before Sixtus the fourth his time the Franciscans and Dominicans bandying Heresie at each others Cloyster damning and condemning each other of heresie not by words alone but in writ also c will the Iesuite conclude that the Roman Church is o Sixt. IV. Decret de Concep Virg Matiae hereticall and keepes not Irenaus his harmony Surely if the Pillars be rotten the roofe is not safe Besides if the Franciscans and Dominicans did see those feirce gladiatâ—res the Iesuites and Seculars in England fight their late combate the Iesuites tearming the Seculars Calumniatorâ— factious turbulent seditious scandalous authors of schisme rebels betrayers of the Catholicke cause d Parson Apolog and the Seculars returning to them tearmes of Schismatickes Donatists Anabaptists Arians with detection of their Counsels Stratagems to be heathenisâ—â— tyrannicall Atheisticall Saâ—nicall to make them like Lucian and Machiavel and for impietie and Atheisme to overcome Lucifer himselfe Watson Quodâ— Would they use the Iesuites Logicke and confesse that the Catholicke Church is not Roman and that Irenaus his harmonie cannot be found there But let all the world veiw the Divell fighting with the Lambe anno 1255 or 56. when the Fryars published their eternall Ghospell and the Pope partaked with them If the Iesuite can finde amongst all the Heretickes that have ever troubled the Church such an essentiall and fundamentall dissention let him swell swagger and display Ignatius for ever for here we finde Fryars more perfect contemplatives then Christ and his Apostles f Henrie Exphurd Chron. c. 93. Eymeric Director Inquisitor part 2. quaest 9. §. 4. 〈◊〉 errores 4. libri 2. partis tractat 2. I Quod Christus Sancti Apostoli ejuse non fuerunt perfecti in vita contemplantium â— Quod activa viâ—a usquâ— ad tempus Abbatis Ioachim frâ—ctuosa fuit sed 〈◊〉 noâ— est contemplativâ— verò vita ab ipso Ioachim fructificarc coepit etamodò in perfect â— successoribusâ—psius perfectiâ—â— manebit of more dignitie and authoritie then the Apostles g Ibid. inter errores â— libri ejusdem partis in tractatu de Ioseph et 〈◊〉 cui somnium apparuit invenitur Quod prae diâ—a â—ores qui erant in ultimo statu mundi erunt dignitatis et auctoritatis majoris quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostoli the Ghospell of CHRIST disgraced as lesse excellent if compared to their eternall Gospell h Ibid. inter errores primae partis Primus est quod Evangelium aeternum quod idem est quod doctrina Abbatis Ioachim excellit doctrinam Christi that it must vanish i Ibid 3. Quod novum Testamentum est evacuandum and another in succession follow it k Ibid. 6. Quod Evangelio Christi aliud Evangelium succedet that it brings none to perfection l Ibid. inteâ— errores 2. libri partis 2. I. Quod Evangelium Christi â—eminem perducit ad perfectum that the Preisthood of CHRIST is not for ever after the order of Melchisedecke but must have an other Priesthood to succeede it m Ibid. intet errores 1. partis 6. Quod sacerdotio Christi aliud sacerdoâ—ium succedet These desperate blasphemies besides other impieties as opposite to the doctrine of CHRIST as the Turkish Alcoran being resisted by the Doctours of Paris What merited these Champions of CHRIST at his Vicars hand They were accompted malicious the Fryars innocent n Extravag Papae Alexandr ex speculo minorum tractat 1. fol. 10. b. edit Rothomagi anno 1509. Firmamento trium Ordiâ—um Francisci part 2. tractat 2. fol. 62. a. edit Paris an 1512. Cogitaverunt nuper malitiam magistri Paris contra innocentes rectos fcil. Fratres Praedicatores iniquitatem maximam sunt locuti they rebels the Fryars the beloved sonnes of the mother Church o Ibid. Surgentes adversus Fratres detraxerunt contra dilectos matris Ecclesiae filios scandalum posuere their defence of CHRIST and his Gospell a pernicious and detestable libell p Ibid. Prodiere inquam in prava commenâ—a ex nimio calore animi proruperunt libellum quendam valde perniciosum detestabilem temere componentes the Fryars excellent instruments working many spirituall proficienâ—es and fruite in the Church q Ibid. In ipso quaedam perversa reproba contra
the Schismes in the Romane Church were contentions for Iustice That Symony was her purchaser Shall we deeme that Iustice enthroned Cardinals above Bishops Fryars before Preists Will Iustice judge GOD'S rule to be dangerous and that man 's is able to lead to perfection Will Iustice inhibite marriage and open the Stewes VRBANVS nihil equi cogitat if wee beleive the Proverbe VRBAN was never yet just how comes he now to be so upright And further as your Monarchie is farre from being either like to GOD or Iustice so shall wee appeare to be farre unlike either to your Malefactors on earth or the damned in Hell Wee are Malefactors Heretickes but by whose judgement save the Hereticks himselfe the most absolute Malefactor on earth Were not the Apostles so stiled What better appellation had Memnon or Cyrill from the Nestorians h Acta Concilial Ephes tom â— Acta Concil Ephes c. 1. p. 774. sequâ—â— But for the damned in Hell I am so farre perswaded of Papall charitie from their fierie Chariots that I doubt not but they would adventure an other Powder-plot to blow us up to Heaven upon condition that his Usurpations in darkenes bee not unlightned and so troubled with us on earth But the Iesuite is impatient and would scorne away this presage As though saith he there hath not beene a generall peace for many ages before the stirring of Luther and his rebellious rout notwithstanding that the Pope did alwayes keepe the same rule in GODS house i Reply pag. 80 The Iesuite to exempt the Bishop of 〈◊〉 from being a disturber of the peace of the Church would prove it from the experience of his peaceable government before Luthers time But he might know that there hath beene no peace at all that we might call the peace of GOD where he hath borne any controule For is it probable that Peace should proceede from him that was alwayes or the most part at warre How many Schismes were there in the Romane See k Stapleton Doctr. Princip l. 23. c. 15. Schismata Rom. Pontiâ—icum viginti numerantur If they could not agree upon their Peace-maker must they not be at warre themselves Had it not beene the best course in those times to bring peace to the Church for to have excluded them altogether from governement But if so great peace were in the Roman Church as you pretend why did the Pope condemne your representative Church of Basil l Epistola Synodalis contra invectivaâ— factam nomine Eugenij Papae qui Epistolae illius exordio dicere ausus est Patres in Conciliâ— congregatos jam fere septem annis ab ipse Christi Vicario aÌ„ supremâ— ApostolicaÌ„ Romanâ— sede Christianorum matre tre capite segregates esse when your Roman Church had censured him for a Schismaticke m Concil Basil Sess 34. If wee by a spirit of giddinesse be divided because there are as the Iesuite saith above a hundred severall sects and varying opinions amongst us n Reply pag. 24. what shal be concluded concerning them that in the hight of their tyrannie and leonine peace haue had six hundred and such as were begotten by posthabiting the Gospels Epistles and Christian wisdome o Cornel. Mus com Rom. 6. pag. 279. Vigebat Spinosa molesta nescio quae Theologia de instantibus de Relationibus de Quidditatibus c. Tota penè aetas in hominum decretis quae inter se pugnantia semper nullo tempore reconcilianda alunt perpetuum per secula litem centerebatur c. Is sublimis Theologus habebatur qui majora portenta pro suis Traditiunculis fingere sciat c. Minc SEXCENTAE Sectae Thomistae Scotistae Occhamistae Albertistae Egidiani Alexandrâ—i c. O secâ—â—â— posthabebantur Evangelia Epistolae Christiâ—â— sapientia delitescebat c. Neither can the Iesuite glory in their Romane peace when in Ferus his judgment In omnibus gentibus major est concordia quam inter Christianos at the time the Pope kept the greatest rule in the Church there was more concord in any nation then amongst the Christians p 〈◊〉 3. De 〈◊〉 Domini And from what fountaine came these quarrells He 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it will decâ—are Because their 〈◊〉 werâ— not as our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Peace Esay 9. but of Warre Alvar. de planct Eccles l. â— art 5. Nec sunt â—odie Prâ—lati principes pacis sicut Christus Esay 9. sed Guerrae And what made the Pope and his Prelates so Mâ—â—tiall Was not the quarrell doctrine and in their divinity the foundation of faith the Supremacie What peace had the Roman Church when Princes resisting their Usurpations their Kingdomes were filled with warre with bloud What Unity of faith could make the sonne breake the bond of nature to his Father the servant the bond of faith to his Lord What peace was there when your Pope denyed marriage to the Cleargie when they bearded your Tyrant charging him with heresie and franticke opinions r Lambertus Schafnaburgensis in histor ann 1074. Hildebrandinus Papa cum Epicopis Italiae conveniens jam frequentibus synodis decreverat ut secundùm instituta antiquorum canonum presbyteri uxores non habeant c. Adversus hoc decretum protinus vehementer interfremuit tota â—actio Clericorum hominem planè haerâ—ticum vesani dogmatis esse clamitans qui oblitus sermonis Domini quo ait Non omnes capiunt hoc verbuÌ„ qui potest capere capiat Et Apostolus Qui se non conâ—inet nubat melius est 〈◊〉 nâ—bere quam uâ—i 〈◊〉 exactione homines viâ—ere cogerat titu Angelorum dum consuetum curâ—â—n naturae negaret fornicationi immundiciae fraena laxaret You talke of Peace and will have the Tyrant the Peace-maker when like a cursed Ismael his hand hath beene against every man every mans against him * Gen. 16. 12. What Prince was not an Hereticke or Schismaticke that resisted his will What Preist or People were not condemned persecuted that would not stoope to this golden Calfe Peace you have had but it hath beene amongst your owne such as Grâ—gory speakes of that the ministers of Antichrist shall be knit together like the scales of 〈◊〉 Å¿ Greg. Moral l. 33. c 24. Quia membra Leviathan istius id est iniquos omnes quos Dei sermo squamarum compactionibus comparat ad defensionem suam par culpa coâ—cordat benè dicitur Vna alteri adhaerebunt tenentes se 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abunâ—ur and this Peace the Turkes have and how have they got it thinke you but as your Popes have obtained theirs by the strangling of their brethren Could not the Arians say that all peace was amongst Arians when they execrated the Catholicke world And who can speake against Roman Peace when by their Bulla coenae they excommunicate all the world but Heretickes This Peace may be found amongst the wicked Nay Hell it selfe cannot stand without it The
reason was not because it was condemned by the Roman Bishop or his Roman Church but because out of the sacred Scripture by a lawfull Councell * Concil Nicen of the Catholick Church it was detected as erroneous and false But whilst our Adversaries doe not acknowledge any such superiour Church what wonder saith the Iesuite that they live forlorne consumed and confounded with â—dious discord and debate amongst themselves deprived of all true faith forasmuch as they refuse to listen unto her by whom God hath decreed all faith should be delivered unto his people throughout the world x Reply pag. 81. This is but fuming froth We acknowledge a Catholick Church as superiour to all particular Churches in the world But wee say your Roman is so farre from being it that it gaines well if it appeare a true member thereof when it comes to be examined What is there no God but at Dan and Bethel Must your Calves measure true worship or your Excommunicating the Levites make the Catholick to be no Church It is not your censuring of all others for Heretickes that can exempt you from being Schismatickes any more then the Donatists which did the like Being then aliens from this Church wherein no where else the right Christian faith is certaine to be found they must not wonder saith the Iesuite that we should thus bewayle them as perished and lost y Reply pag. â—â— For your bewayling us as perished and lost it is but a fetch of your Hypocrisie I could wish your teares if you shed any were bestowed upon your selves who need them We 〈◊〉 know the temper of your teares too well How bewayled you the French Massacre the Butchery of Princes but with teares of blood with groanes of applause z See the Oration of Pope Sixtus the fift upon the death of the French King Henry the third The places which you brought out of the Fathers against Schismatickes doe most properly point out your selves and therefore ill chosen to discredit us Take then your owne charge unto your selves who justly deserve it for howsoever you glory as if you onely had the Church of CHRIST which we doe not it will not therefore follow that you belong unto his consecration in regard you are separated from the body of CHRIST keeping neither Communion nor Unity with the whole being sequestred by your selves doe censure all that will not forsake the libertie of CHRIST and hold from you in villany and Vassalage Whereas the Iesuite thinketh to despise the Answerers Church by his frames of folly and falshood tearming it â— Church lurking in a corner of the earth obscure and in glorious that can neither obtaine friendship with any abroad nor yet maintaine agreement in itself at home a Reply pag. 8. Wee know the true Church many times doth lurke when the where sits as Queene and knowes no sorrow * Rev. 18. 2. Yet it is not so obscure but it hath enlightned the world that it can despise your outward glory and deride your lyes in Hypocrisie your tales of Hobgoblins your deceit from Purgatory your holinesse for gaine and new declarative doctrines Secondly we hold peace with the Catholick Church as hath beene manifested when you have and doe really excommunicate it And in fundamentalls both with them and amongst our selves wee are faithfully knit together although there be some differences in matters of nâ— absolute consequence which the purest Churches have been ever subject unto when you are not agreed who is onely able to teach uncontroulâ—ably an infallible point of doctrine whether a Councell or the Pope b Francise â—icus Theorem 16. Fuere qui diâ—erent Concilium in â—ausa fidei praeesse Pontifici fuêre qui Pontificem Concilio praeponerent alia etiam quaestio utrum sine Pontifice utrum â—o â—efragante convocari colligique possit Bellarm l. 2. de Conciliâ— cap. 13. § Sed dum Vsque ad hunc diem quaestio superest When your Church is so farre from holding freindship with other Churchâ—â— that it malitiously sets it selfe against the whole raiâ—ing warres and tumults against the true members thereof as lately against the Greekes and eveâ— against that part of the Latin Church that refused her command as the Monkes of Bangor the Waldenses c. can well witnesse And although you are continually speaking of dissentions yet the best judgments wisest eyes that our ages have afforded have found your peace to be but the outward effect of Policy not naturall from truth but forced from your bloody laweâ— and cruellest Inquisition What is further urged against Schismatickes out of the Fathers we assent unto Which the Iesuite well know and therefore telleth us I know our Answerer here will say that these heavy threats admonitions and exhortations of the ancient Fathers doe make nothing against him at all forasmuch as hee pretendeth himselfe to bee within the true Church alreadie c Reply pag â—5 Here wee may perceive the Iesuite hath taken a great deale of paines to little purpose For whereas hee should have proved us to have beene schismatickes before hee had given sentence against us hee as it seemes according to the practise of their Inquisition with Hallyfax-law condemneth first and enquires for the Schismatick afterward and so poorely that a Iurie of morall honest Papistâ— rightly informed would finde an Ignoramus upon his bill for he bringeth us no proofe but repeates what hee hath formerly done But howsoever saith the Iesuite hee is able with this â—ond conceipt to sâ—oth up and quiet his owne Conscience â— doubt not but otherâ— many wil be found who taking more tâ—â—eart the businesse of their salvation will ponder advisedly what Church the holy Fathers above produced doe point at and whether they declare it not plaine enough to bee the Roman Church embracing in her holy Communion all Christian Churches of the earth out of which our Adversaries are confessedly departed and have erected to themselves a new Congregation so farre unlike unto that Vniversâ—ll and Apostolicall Church designed by the Fathers that neither in other Nationâ— doth she find any other Churches to joyne in one sincere Communion with her nor yet is able to maintaine agreement amongst her owne at home it selfe as above hath beene abundantly declared d Reply pag â—â— Wee have shewed in answere to that which the Iesuite hath formerly produced that the Fathers never thought the Romane Church to be the Catholicke nor dreamed of necessary Communion with her any further then she communicated with the Catholicke Church teaching that Truth which was first delivered by the Apostles And that we have left your Romane schisme it is just as before is declared in regard you have gone out of the Catholicke Church and corrupted and depraved the Catholicke Faith The repetition of Lutheran and Puritan accusations might have beene spared seeing they have beene urged and answered before where the Reader may see not onely the Pope and
agree with us in any why dâ—â— you beleive one God three 〈◊〉 Christs incarnation crucifixion resurrection and his last comming to Iudgment c. Such as accord therewith in none at all are not heretickes or schismatickes but 〈◊〉 Atheists and Infidels and who 〈◊〉 not but every gâ—pe of the Iesuite is ad oppositum and crosse to himselfe And here wee shall see to what shifts this Iesuite flyes for shelter the question is whether wee agree with the ancient Fathers in points of Religion the Iesuite answeres sometimes in very few an other time in none at all here to justifie this lashing Hyperâ—ole he tells us That howsoever some few points might be assigned in the outward profession whereof you will say you doe not vary from the common faith of Primitive times yet whilst we can shew that in very many points you beleive contrary thereunto and that with all you hold not with the Church Vniversall but have departed from the same we may not yeeld unto you that your inward faith can bee true and sound in any one article whatsoever notwithstanding that from the teeth outward you make professioÌ„ of this your imaginary agreemeÌ„t never somuch g Reply pag. 9â— All which is sliding and beside the point for we speake here of doctrine as in truth of position it doth agree with the ancient Church and not as it respects the act of beleife in the sincere receiving and imbracing of it Suppose we have with us as great a dearth of Saints as you at Rome that Protestants were as bad as 〈◊〉 Popes h Geneb 〈◊〉 in ann Christi 901. Pontificâ—â— circiter â—0 à virtute majorum prorsus defecâ—runt Apotactici Apostaticive potius quà m Apostolici yet notwithstanding this will not make the Apostles Creed to be no ancient faith neither the ancient doctrin which we hold to be hereticall Who doubts that the denyall of one point of the foundation perversly or expresly atleast makes the beleife of all the rest uneffectuall but what will the Iesuite inferre from hence that therefore we have not in the confession of our Church one point of Religion that agreeth with antiquitie We might as well argue that Arius Nestorius a Iesuite had no true and sound inward faith therefore they agreed in no particular doctrines with the ancient Church Or would this consequent found well Many of your Popes have had no true inward faith being such monsters as you have painted them therfore they agreed in no point of faith with the Primitive Church if this conclude well what will become of Papists who are only Catholickes by dependance whose faithes are judged by their adherence to their Head The Iesuit now runs to another shift that of calumnie charging us that we make profession of the ancient faith with an imaginary agreement from the teeth outward i Reply pag. 90 I must confesse we are not so zealous for that doctrin the ancient Church hath taught us the rooting out of your innovations as we ought to be pardon us this but whether you or we embrace the faith of Christ practised and taught in the ancient Church with more sincerity it is not here to be judged but must be left to him that knoweth the secrets of hearts And now we may see how impertinent the Iesuites allegations are Augustin saith that Schismaticks separated from the body of the Church are not in the Church that hereticks schismaticks cannot be profâ—â—â— by the truth they hold with the Church being in their heresie schismâ— that those that keep not communion with the Church are hereticall antichristian according to Prosper k Reply pag. 90 Who denyes this wherin makes it against us If we acknowledge things in controversie that Rome were the Church our selves schismaticks heretiks it were somthing yet nothing to this purpose neither of strength sufficient to prove that we agree not with the ancient Church in any doctrin of faith or point of religion as he should here manifest so that we see his ouâ—facing cannot protect his impudency but that he speakes vainely in charging us that we agree with the primitive Church in very few articles of Religion and just none at all And here Augustine and Prospers wordes are their cut-throats who not only reject coÌ„munion with the Catholick Church but judge that Catholick body to be a schisme and hereticall because it will not joyne in communion with themselves if Augustines and Prospers words may convict a Pope they have force in them sufficient to performe it for though he hold all the doctrine of the primitive church in shew yet fayling in the point of the Church denying the authority thereof and preferring his simple power before the 〈◊〉 authoritie of all the preists of God against the streame of antiquity and the two 〈◊〉 generall Councels of Constance Basill Is it not sufficient to bring him within your capitall letters that his holines and others of like sanctity ARE NOT IN THE CATHOLICKE CHVRCH AT ALL. And thus you see that the Iesuite doth both deceive himselfe others when he would perswade that upon paine of eternall overthrow all mustadhere to the Pope who indeed is taken by them for the ancient Roman Catholick Church And also that the doctrine of the Church of Ireland is sincere and agreeable to the foundation neither by heresie forsaking the doctrine delivered by Christ his Apostles imbraced by the ancieÌ„t Church neither by schisme departing from the body of Christ making their faith uneffectuall But that rule of faith saith the most reverend Primate so much coÌ„mended by Irenaeus Tertullian the rest of the Fathers all the articles of the severall Cteedes that were ever received in the ancient Church as badges of the catholick profession to which we willingly subscribe is with this man almost nothing at all none must now be counted a catholick but he that can conforme his beleife unto the Creed of the new fashion compiled by Pope Pius the 4. some foure fifty yeares agoe l See the moâ—â— reverend the Lord Primate his Answere 〈◊〉 the Iesuitâ— challenge pag. 25. The Iesuit tels us that he hath already made it knowne how far we have strayed from that rule of faith m Reply pag. 91 and we tell him againe that he is deceived in the wanderer and that we have manifested it also and that we doe willinglie subscribe unto all the articles of the severall Creedes that were ever received in the auncient Church although the Iugler †Iesuita est omnis home is jealous we intend nothing lesse then what we say n Reply pag. 91 But it is Iesuitisme to remoove the tongue from the heart equivocating you defend we abhorre it why doe you suspect us but upon a sudden the Iesuite flying from this calumnie without one word to justifie it but his detraction or Iealousie is rapt up with admiration shall
in resisting you making those articles of faith which were never of universall beleife in the Christian world But to whom doth hee tell these tales if to those of his owne profession it is idle and needlesse if to us it is most â—â—â—rue for saith hee it is well knowne that with us they bee cerâ—â—inely accounted cheife articles of faith being all of them declared for such by the sacred and infallible â—â—thâ—â—itie of the Church h Reply ibid. It is neither â—eedelesse for his owne nor untrue being delivered to your selves For the most reverend Father knowes it is his dutie dayly to perswade against faith-intrusions for the preservation of his owne neither can your Arguments make it untrue for are all things you accompt or the Trent Câ—â—ncell hath determined of so necessarie light that everie man must beleeve them You may perswade this in Peru or Mexico but your neighbours the Vâ—â—etians will not beleive you that dwell nearer home neither have all your Catholicke Children such opinion of that Councell as to receive it Now our Iesuite would have them of faith from our confession Neither can our Advâ—rsaries themselves saith hee deny that they appertaine to the substance of Faith and Religion sâ—â—ing that they condemne them for heresiâ— in us i Reply pag. 93. Heere the Iesuite will not have an Heresie to bee but in point of faith that the denyall thereof might exclude us from salvation if this be the rule by which the Iesuite will try Heresies I thinke these will not proove of that stampe in our opinions For first we deny not salvation to those which by ignorance communicate with them that imbrace these grosse follies Secondly we say not that they belong to any article of the Apostles faith but are additions that had nothing to glue them to the Creed but Babylonish Clement We take them for grosse corruptions but to make them errours in fundamentall points our Church hath not I thinke declared it Heresies of deeper errour and more elavated pride then are found in this Catalogue proclaime themselves among you those peâ—ces declare noâ— your greatest defection Who abhorres not your tyrannicall Hildebrandine insurrection whereby you trample upon Gods power the authority delegated to Kings and Bishops and the whole Preisthood of the Catholicke Church Secondly your Conscience Monarchy whereby you cast Christ out of his chaire and give the Pope Christs infallible office This Constance could not endure and k Sess 2 4 Basill l Sess â—3 thought Heresie never doubted of Who is ignorant that heresies have had their degrees which they could not have had in respect of faith if all did equally totter the foundation Augustine defines an hereticke otherwayes then from the foundation Hee is an Hereticke that for lâ—cre of any temporall commoditie aâ—d especially for his owne vaine-glory and preferments sake as your Courtiers doe doth beget or follow false or new opinions m August in libro de utilieredend caâ—s 2â— quest 3. c Haereticus 〈◊〉 qui alicujus teÌ„poralis commodi maâ—imae gloriae principatusque fui gratia falsos ac â—oâ—as opiniones vel gigniâ— vel sequitur and this may be done in points which are not fundamentall Besides how many are accounted Heretickes in this common course of appellation and yet free from denying the foundation of Faith For wee finde Leo the Xth. in his Bull against Luther * 4 Iâ—â—â—â— 1â—â—â— to style it Heresie for any man to say that the Church or himselfe hath not power statuere â—rticâ—lâ—s fidei to make new articles of faith as also that Luthers assertion was no lesse optima pâ—â—itâ—â—tia novâ— vita new lifâ— was the best repentance and yet I hope the Iesuite will reâ—oove these farre from the foundation And if the Pope may erre in his Buls to call that Heresie which is not fundamentall errour why may not you give leave to others to use the same Libertie seeing hee is the patterne of imitation unlesse you thinke the Pope above Angels and that hee may deliver what he pleaseth and make Heresie what hee list and the Anathema that thereby hee deserves himselfe by his verie pleasure should fall upon others Nay you have gone further De Consecrat dist 5. Cap. â—t jejun that hee will never bee a Christian qui confirmatione Episcopali non fuit Chrismatus Now if a man may bee counted an infidell and unbeleiver by you for omission of the Ceremonie of Confirmation why should you draw from the liberties of mens tongues an Argument that whosoever by you or our selves are styled Heretickes must needes in regard of those points erre in the foundation Doe you not know it often fals out as when you charge us that after the way which is called Heresie so doe many of the faithfull serve the Lord God of their Fathers Shall we condemne to eternall fire Irenaeus Iustine Martyr all the Millenaries and all those which consented to those points which Epiphanius Augustine or Alphâ—â—sus de Castro have styled Heresies it were too rigide a censure and more fit for the Iudges of Hell then the Preists of God So that this proves but a vaine ground to inferre these points to be of faith because they are accompted heresies and if we will observe it we may from his owne words finde that heresies have declared themselves not so much from the matter whether fundamentall or not as from the perverse manner of holding an opinion against any ones conscience being lawfully convicted of the same And therefore our Iesuite will not have them Hereticks that deny tradition Images c. simplie by a bare and naked negation but wilfully and perversly by obstinate denyall Yet will our Answerer say saith the Iesuite that by the Fathers they were held but onely as opinions and not as belonging to the substance of faith and this is but his owne opinion for wheresoever the Fathers doe professe them in their works they never tell him that they hold them for opinions rather then for points of faith Reply pag. 9â— The Iesuite speakes of the Answerers divining but here divines amisse himselfe indeed proves down-right a Deceiver for if the learned Answerer will say that the fathers held them as opinions why should he require the Iesuites proofe for their consent and therefore let him fasten this opinion upon whom he can the most reverend Primate knowes well enough that they neither held them generally as opinions or of faith neither is he so ignorant in antiquity but that he well understands those ancient Souldiers of the Catholicke Church were alwayes ignorant of the after invented marches under Roman Coloâ—â—s so that the Iesuit would perswade the reader by a trick of deceit that 〈◊〉 knowledge the Fathers generall consent in these points as opinions but not as of faith which was never dreamed of by the Church By this it will appeare that they care not by what meanes they establish their decrees nor
hath he thaâ—â—â— not concludent from the Scripture Not one unlesse you suppose that he keeps them as concealements yet he thinkes he doth something when he tels us from Hierome that the scriptures consist not in reading but in the true understanding of their sence meaning that by an evill interpretatioÌ„ the Gospell is no more the word of God but the word of man yea which is worse the word of the Divell i Reply ibid. As if this were not the matter that we complaine of that Popes will interpret as they please presume to say this shal be the sence of the Holy Ghost But to fit himselfe for performance of what he hath undertakes he saith that there be â—â—â— three meanes or wayes by which a Conclusion deduced from the scripture may be pretended to be infallible k Reply pag. 97 But what is this to the foundation of Faith I hope every infallible proposition is not of such necessary beleife that a maâ— must beleive it on paine of damnation You told us but 〈◊〉 that your new Creed was propounded onely to Scholleâ—s and cheifely unto such as are to receive promotions unto Scholasticall or Ecclosiasticall dignity l Reply pag. 98 what are all lay-men Clerks or is the nature of your faith changed Now the Iesuite nameth his three onely meanes the first humane discourse the second Private inspiration the third the authority of some externe meane ordained by GOD betwixt the Scripture and us c m Reply pag. 97 To avoyde the two first he makes a long discourse but he fights with his owne shadow for wee make not the Scripture of private interpretation as being against the Apostles rule * 2 Pet. 1. 20. neither doe we make our reason the onely Inquisitor to finde out the sence of Scripture knowing that the carnall man perceiveth noâ— the the things that are of GOD Yet this we say that reason being assisted by grace becomes a divine instrument whereby the scriptures may be used to saving knowledge and to finde out the mysteries of our Faith Now seeing that neither humane discourse saith the Iesuite 〈…〉 by God betwixt the Scripture and â—â— such as is the authority of the Magistrate 〈…〉 the Princes law and the people that it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and propound unto us all decisions and 〈◊〉 whatsoever Reply pag. 97 The Iesuite shall never finde that there is any such exterâ—â— infallible means 〈◊〉 by GOD betwixt the Scripture and â—â— to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and propound unto us all decisions and conclusions whatsoever that we are bound to beleive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 Neither when they come to point it out are they agreed who it is For sometime it is the generall and uniforme consent of auncient Fathers that is the assured Touch-stone to try all controversies betwixt us o See the Iesuites Epistle to the King and this generall consent may consist of 〈…〉 fathers p Reply pag. 94 â—â—â— sometimes of fewer as in 〈◊〉 of the Commandements and leaving out the Second they cannot find the one halfe to reckon them after that sortâ— sometime the practise of the Church sometime the rule of Faith sometime the Councels interpretations and sometime all must vanish and that which the Head determineth is a knowne truth that which the Head condemneth is a knowne error q Hart colloque cum Rainolds pag. 44. Now which of all these are infallible For Consent of fathers Cajetan will tell us that God hath not tyed the exposition of the Scriptures to the sence of the Fathers and therefore he resolves to follow a new sence agreeable to the Text. 〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alienus though it be repugnant to the streame of the sacred Doctors t Cajetan in Prooem comment in Genes In like manner Andradius Andradius Defens Triden Fid. l. 2. pag. â—â—â— Non 〈◊〉 debentur eorum explicationibus addicti alligarâ— quin sit 〈◊〉 omnibus illis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quid Dei praesidijs adjuti explicando valeamus sensum alium 〈◊〉 etiam dissimilem afferre atque noris explicationibus 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae sanctorum 〈◊〉 fidem atque pietatem illustraâ—â— For the practise of the Church if they meane the Roman it is no good direction in regard as we have shewed before it is very subject to varietie as in the point of Childrens receiving of the Eucharist t See before pag. 25. â— See before pag. 10â— and in the point of Iudges and the like all which are full of uncertainty For their rule of faith we see that this may be in the Roman Church enlarged extended yea we have wits in the Church of Rome that can censure it making it in some considerations standalous hereticall x Censura Symboli Apostolorum censur ar 3. Tota Haec propositio equivocatione laâ—orat quae inducere potest in haeresim propter ambiguas particulas de ex quia ordinaria de habitudinem importat principij componentis c. Ideo propositio in hoc sensu falsa est scandalosa haeretica 〈◊〉 y Censur ar 4. Haec propositio ambigua est aliquo sensu haeretica Periculosa est propositio 〈◊〉 obrium illum sensum intellectâ— quasâ— diviniâ—as aliquid passa aut â—â—â—tua fuctit non solum haeretica est sed etiam impis â— blasphema deceitfull z Censur ar 2. Tota haec propositio captiosa est â—â—llax blasphemous z See before lit erroneous See hereafter lit â— false c See before lit â— dangerous d See before lit 7. absurd Censura ar 9. Absurda ambiguous See before lit â— contrary to the word of GOD the common sence of the Fathers and of the universall Church g Censura ar 7. Propositio 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 falsa erronea nec non verbo Dei communi Patrum totiusque Ecclesia sensui contraria â— Wadding Legat. Phil. 3. Sect. 2. orat 9. § 9. Pro Petro in fide Petrâ— succedentibus non pjo Concilio oravit exoravit Adversus hoâ— adversus Ecclesiam in Petro in illisque fundatam non adversus Concilium dixit infernum non praevalituram 〈◊〉 â—oncilia errâsse viderimus quando à suo capitâ— Ã quo 〈◊〉 sanctius veritatis influentia recesserant vel dissenâ—â—râ—nt Non â—â—â—buit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—em Pontifici sed à Pontifice habet Concilitum ut sit ratum ac 〈◊〉 For Councels interpretations we shall have as much to doe for to finde out the sence of a Councell as of the Scripture it selfe Besides how many weake particulars may suspend a Councell from her pretended infallible authoritie as if not rightly called rightly headed c So that there remaines none but the Pope for whom Christ prayed It is he that gives authoritie to a Councell not the Councell to him But if this Lord that would be of our conferences prove a Lord of Mis-rule where then shall we
finde this Iudge that represents the Magistrate betwixt the Scripture and us And surely if the Spirit of GOD doth interpret the Scriptures as he delivered them holy men speaking as the spirit gave them utterance I have said sufficient before to declare that your Popes are no such manner of men And many of your owne exclude the Pope from this soveraigne power of interpreting the Scriptures i Bellarm. de Concil â—â—câ— l. â— c. 14. Concilium esse supra Pontificâ—m asscrit candinalis Cameracensis Ioannes Gerson Iacobus Almainus Nicolaus Cusanus Panâ—â—mitaâ—us Cardinalis Florentinus Abulensis et alij Alij vero volâ—nâ— Papam esse in Ecclesia id quod est Dux Venetiarum in republ Veneta some reckoning up his Hereâ—iâ—s as Alphonsus de Castro k Advers Haer. l. 1. c. 4. Omnis enim home erraâ—e potest in â—ide etiam â—â— Papa sit Nam de Liberio c. Yet if the Iesuite will have another Iudge then the Spirit of GOD in his word let him be ruled by it He sâ—â—â—â—e none of our ruler we follow that rule which the Apostles have taught Acts XV. XXV III. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to â—â— c. Neither is this supreme Iudge without atongue dumbe and mure as they caluminate but speakes by the writings of the Prophets and the Apostles wherein every necessary point of Faith is determined and made knowne And who can be judge of these hid and secret matters but he that knowes them and makes them knowne even the Spirit of GOD 1. Cor. II. X. XI XIII Who should interprete the law but the maker of it l Vult com inâ—â— l. 1. tit 2. §. 9 n. 1. Iâ—s interpretandi leges est penes â—undem qui habet jus â—â—â—â—nâ—i leges Whose words are the Scriptures but the words of the Spirit of GOD Acts XXV III. XXV II. Pet. 1. XXI Neither is it to be omitted that the Scriptures speake as a Iudge for what is attributed to GOD in regard of his supreame power and justice Rom. XI XXXII GOD hath concluded them all in unbeleife that he might have mercy upon all is spoken of the Scriptures Gal. III. XXII The Scripture hath concluded all under â—iâ—â—â— that the promise by faith of IESVS CHRIST might be given to them that beleive Who is it that accuseth who is it that condemneth but this Iudge Io. V. XIV The law the word is the Iudge absolute and infallible a ministeriall duty onely is committed to the Pastors of the Church Io. XII XLVIII Neither are Papists able to cast of this blessed Samuel from judging Israel and to erect up their owne Saul but by blaspheming the word of truth charging it with imperâ—â—ction obscuritiâ— and what not that may deprive it of its power So that there is nothing but the wrangling of Heretickes to plead for the Papall Headship and this is as vaine as the rest for unlesse he may irresisteably enlighten not onely the understanding but also the will he can never compound and silence Controversies in regard his words let them make them divine or otherwise are as subject to misinterpretation as the Word of GOD and may with more facilitie be perverted But if we doe but observe we may perceive how they casting off the absolute direction of Truth are involved in errour and blindnes For by making their Church the only teacher determiner of an article of faith they tye themselves to receive no other light from the Scriptures then Lucifer their Pope for he is their Church will convey unto them And howsoever they boast of the Fathers of Councels of the Church yet when all comes to all their Iudge of Controversies is onely their Roman Bishop m Grâ—gor Valent tom 3. Commentar in Thomam disp 1. quaest 1. punct 1. Cùm dicimus propositionem Ecclesiae esse conditionem necessariam ad assensum fidei â— nomine Ecclesiae intelligimus ejus caput id est Romanum Pontificem perse vel unâ cum Concilio ex praedicta auctoritate propositiones fidei fidelibus declarantem either with or without a Councell n Ibid. punct 〈◊〉 Si quando oriantur controversiae de Fide Ecclesia non potest in ijs definiendis à veritaâ—â— aberrare Haec autem Ecclesiae infallibilis auctoritas ad definiendum non est in singulis fidelibus quippe qui sine controversiâ possunt errare singuli Neque est etiam in omnibus omninò fidelibus Frustra enim data illis esset cùm â—ieri vix possit in fidei causis ut ab omnibus illis sigillatim sententia dicatur Sed residet summa illa Ecclesiae auctoritas in Christi Vicario sâ—â—â—â—o Pontifice sive unâ cum Episcoporum Concilio sive absque Concilio res fidei definiâ—e velit Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 3. Summus Pontifex cùm to tam Ecclesiam docet in his quae ad fidem pertinent nullo easu errare potest Constat generalia concilia saepè errasse quando caruâ—â—unt Summi Pontificis suffragio Ex quo apparet totam firmitatem Concilioâ—um legitimorum esse â Pontifice non partim à Pontifice partim à Concilio Staplâ—ton relect prinâ— doctr contr 6. quaest 3. in explicatar 5. Potestas infallibilitâ—s Papalis est potestas gratia personalis personae Petri successorum ejus à Christo data Majoritas discretionis maturitas judicij si de scientia rerum sacrarum intelligatur non solùm Concilium sed Theologoâ—â—m collegium imò unus aliquis Theologus Pontificem facilè superabit Si autem de judicio fidei determinationâ— sensus Scripturae quem credere oporteat intelligatur non est Concilium supra Papam sed unus Papa Petri successor cui uni Christus indeâ—ectibâ—hâ—atem fidei impetravit super omnes est it matters not So likewise they are deluded with the spirit of errour in giving the power they doe to this externall Iudge for our Iesuite will have the Iudge to be the rule whereby to discover which is a point of faith and which not the manner how I have told you before whatsoever he saith is faith must needes be so let it be with a Councell or without Others make the Popes authority equall to the Scriptures o Christophorus de Sacrobosâ—o Defens Decr. Triden part â— c. 6. Dico Ecclesiâ— authoritatem parem esse authoritad Scripturae ratio est quia unuâ— idem Deus qui regebat Apostolos Prophetas ne eâ—â—arent scribendo diright Ecclesiam ne labatur in interpretando to the vâ—yce of GOD. Neither will they have their Pope or Church onely equall to the Scriptures but also somewhat superiour thereunto p Albert. Pighius l. 1. Hierat Eccles c. 2. dicit non soâ—â—â— non inferâ—orem non solâ—m parem imo quodammodò â—â—periorem â—â—otiorem Ecclesiae autoritatem autoritaâ—â— Scripturaâ—um for the Church is a Prophet q Defensor Iohannis Pistorâ—â—
falso 415. Ecclesia Propheâ—â— est more then a Prophet r Idem falso 224. Plâ—â—quaâ— Propheta yea greater then all the Prophets Å¿ Idem circ fals 286. Major omnibus Prophetis having the Spirit of GOD for 〈◊〉 â—iâ—ar t Idem falso 416. Spiritum Sanctum Ecclesiae Vicarium dicit Thus wee see what judge the Iesuite doth contest for and how farre they labour to extend his power to wit that the Pope who is not onely a Prophet but more then a Prophet yeaâ— greater then all the Prophets who hath the Spirit of God for his Vicâ—â— either with or without a Councell hath onely power to determine matters of Faith whereby we may know what to beleive and what not with authority not onely equall but superiour to the scriptures Now what strength doth the Iesuite bring to confirme this Rule His first place is Esay LIIII and the 17. Thou shalt judge every tongue that shall resist theâ— in thy judgment u Reply pag. 99. Surely the Iesuite is like to their Divines in the Councell of Trent who being restrayned to the Scriptures and forbidden schoole-disputes brought all the places out of the Prophets and Psalmes where they stand the words Confitâ—â—r and its verball Confissiâ— to proove Auricular Confession and they were accounted best learned who brought most of them * Hist Concil Tridâ—â— l. 4. p. 345. For here is nothing whereby to make the Pope the infallible Iudge of Controversies unlesse he will conclude that wheresoever Iudge or Iudgment is expressed it is meant of him The second is out of Mat. XI and the 18. Hâ—ll gates shall not prevaile against her x Reply ibid We confesse that all the powers of Hell shall never prevaile against the Church but we say this Church is neither the Pope naked nor Roman as hath in many places beene shewed Yet I would gladly know to what purpose this text is here produced The third place is Mat. XVIII and the â—7 Hâ—e that will not heare the Church let him be to thee aâ— a Heathen and a Publican y Reply ibid. If an infallible judge bee heere pointed out then all these abâ—â—â—dities will follow First that every particular Church should bee infallible and the Iudge of Controversies for Dâ—c Ecclesia hath relation to particular Churches not to the Catholicke Secondly a particular Church should not be subject to errour in criminall causes if this place pointed out an infallible judgment when as this infallibility is denyed not only your own Councels but your Popes also 3ly If the Churches judgment must be infallible because CHRIST requireth us to heare the Church How can the Pastors of the Church bee excluded from this priviledge when the people are enjoyned by the Apostle to obey and follow them Heb. XIII 17. His fourth place is Ephes IIII. II. and 14. God hath placed in the Church Apostles Prophets Pastors and Doctors c. To the end that we be â—â— more little children â—aâ—oring with every winde of doctrine z Reply ibâ—â— I shall shew hereafter that this text maketh against his Iudge his Monarch for the present he may take this with him First that we acknowledge as long as the Church had Apostles Prophets their testimonies were divine and could infallibly direct Secondly although the â—aâ—tors now are meanes ordained by God to the end that wee bee no more little children wavering with every winde of doctrine yet it doth not follow that they are infallible Iudges seeing the argument may as well hold of each as of all who are ordained to the same end which I thinke the Iesuite will not acknowledge His last is 1. Tim. 2. The Church is the Pillar and foundation of truth a Reply ibid. What therefore the Pope the infallible Iudge This followes not For he is the rock if we beleive Popish interpreters upon which the Church is built How then can he be the Church infallibly to direct The foundation surely differs from the roofe the Church that is builded from the rocke that she is builded upon Secondly the Iesuite may know that we envy not the priviledges which GOD hath given his Church nay he were no member of her that should not reverence her with obedience and therefore we acknowledge her the pillar and ground of Truth if containing the Apostles absolutely perfectly if without the Apostles we deny not her Counsels but with all obedience embrace them if she commaund as she is limited in matters of faith by the Scriptures But we see this place is more for the Church of Ephesus concerning which the Apostle speakes literally then Rome and yet experience hath perswaded us that there is no infallibility there Further then this some of your own dare not goe but make a difference betwixt the judgment of GOD and the judgment of the Church the one they say is infallible but the other may sometime deceive b Panorm in Decret De senten Excom cap. 28. Iudicium Dei veritati quae nec fallit nec fallitur semper innititur judicium autem Ecclesiae aliquando sequitur opinionem quae sâ—pè fallit fallitur Dried de dog Ecclesl 2. p. 58. Generale Concilium Papae Cardinalium Episcoporum Doctorum â—â— Scripturis propheticis intelligendis non est tantae authoritatis quantae fuerit olim Apostolorum collegum For Ruffinus his testimony that S. Basil and S. Gregory Nazianzen did take the interpretation of the Scripture not according to their owne proper understanding but according to the tradition of the Fathers c Reply p. 99. The Iesuite pointeth not out the place if he did I thinke little would appeare for his purpose in regard he is to prove the authority of a Iudge not the discretion of a Doctour And who doubts but any wise interpreter will use all meanes that may informe him to performe his worke But let Ruffine passe Augustine maketh an out-cry And doth not S. Augustine cry out saith the Iesuite that Truth reposeth in the belly of the Church c. d Reply ibid. And who saith otherwise He that should thinke that Truth is removed out of the Church thinkes amisse But to conclude from hence the Church the Roman Church the Roman Pope to be the Iudge or Rule of faith is inconsequent Neither doth that place of Augustine cited by the Iesuite in the Xth Section Evangeliâ— non credereâ—â— nisi me Catholica Ecclesiae commoveret authoritus containe any thing to enforce this for many things may move us to beleive that are not the Rule of Faith Miracles did this worke in many but this I hope is far from your Rule What is urged from Vincentius Lirinensis hath been fully answered His note from the Geneva Bible proves nothing If he finde this Iudge at Geneva he speedes well In these words I feare he cannot be espied And now having little or nothing he beginnes his Perâ—ration Behold here gentle Reader how although the articles
doe as yet expect my sentence what I thinke fit to write concerning Easter day saith Saint Ambrose m Ambros ep 83. Meam adhuc expectant sententiam quid 〈◊〉 scribere de die Pascha But wee are not ignorant that the consent of the Patriarchall Sees was a great helpe to the advancement of Truth and repelling of errour and therefore those Bishops were sought unto to adde their assistance for suppression of innovations or arising Heresies Yet was not Rome sought unto in point of infallibilitie any otherwise then Alexandria For wee finde lovinian seeking to Athanasius that from his hand-writing hee might receive an exact exemplar or declaration of the Faith n Theodoror histor Eccless l. 4 c. 2. But what Iudgment would the Iesuite have their Innocent to have had A judgment of assent This what Bishops had not Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theoguis of Nice Heretickes exercised it o Sozom. hist Eccles l. 2. c. 15 Illa quae vestro judicio decreta sunt non contradicendo impugnare sed consentientibus animis confirmare decrevimus et hoc libello consensum illum roboramus Yea Liberius a Pope desires the Emperour that the Nicene Councell might in the same manner of all Bishops bee confirmed p Sozom. hist Eccles l. 4. c. 10. Liberius postulavit ab Imperatore ut fides in Concilio Nicaeno tradita subscriptionibus omnium obique Episcoporum confirmaretur which I am perswaded hee would not have done if he had conceived that subscriptive Confirmation had made a Iudge of Faith It may be he will have the Bishop of Romes subscription to make an Edict Why if this were graunted it were too weake to conclude him the rule of Faith for Emperors did the like with a power not usurped but sollicited and that by Councels and Popes too The first Councell of Constantinople petitioned Theodosius to ratifie the Decrees of that Councell that as by his Letters he called the Councel so by Seale he should fortifie their Decrees q Epistola Synodalis ad Theodosium Imperatorem Rogamus igitur tuam clementiam ut per literas tuâ— pietatis ratum esse jubeas confirmesque Concilij decretum et sicuti literis quibus nos convocasti Ecclesiam honore prosecutus es ita etiam summam corum quae decreta sunt conclusionem sententiâ â—tque sigillo tuo corrobores And Euagrius reports your Pope Felix to doe the like sending his Nunâ—ies to the Emperour by his authoritie to confirme the Chalcedon Councell r Enagrius histor Eccles l. 3. c. 18 Mittantur à Felice ad Zenonem Vitalius Misinus Episcopi ut ejus authoritate tum Concilium Chalcedoâ—â—â—se confirmaretur and many places to the like purpose may be urged But if the Church be the rule of Faith how many absurdities will follow thereupon As first that there must bee a Church before and so without Faith because faith in the Iesuits judgment cannot be before it is defined Secondly the Church must be the Rule of it selfe unlesse they will put forth that Article The holy Catholicke Church out of the Creed Thirdly the Church must rule the foundation upon which it is builded Ephes 2. Revel 21. Fourthly it is not denyed by the Iesuite that this rule is ruled someway by Scripture and therefore it hath not its rectitude in it selfe So that we see the Church of God hath her ministery the word of God the controule The Councell of Nice did her duty but Theodores telleth us how l. 1. c. 8 Å¿ Ibi animadversa fraudulcÌ„tia allegârunt Episcopi ex Scriptura resplendentiam soutem flumen charactera ad substantiam hoc In lumine tuo videbimus lumen Et hoc Ego Pater unum sumus luculentius deinceps ac com pendiosius conscripsere EIVS DEM CVM PATRE ESSE FILIVM ESSENTIAE And that all may perceive with how much fraud and falshood these places of Augustine are forced we may consider that the Scriptures are sufficient t August in Ioan tract 49. Cum multa fecisset Dominus Iesus non omnia scripta sunt sicut idem ipse sanctus Evan gelista testatur multa Dominum Christum dixisse fecisse quae Scripta non sunt electa sunt autem quae scriberentur quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur Serm. 38. ad fratres in Eremo inter opera August Legite sacram Scripturam in qua quid tenendum quid fugiendum sit plene invenietâ— not onely to teach faith but also to condemne heresies * See before pag. 199. in that fathers judgment and that Generall Councels themselves may be amended u See before pag. 319. Further he would never have moved to have past by the Councels of Nice and Ariminum x August con Maximin l. 3. c. 14. Neque ego Nicenum nec tu debes Ariminense tau quam praejudicaturus proferre Concilium Nec ego hujus autoritate nec illius detineris Scripturarum autoritatibus non quorumcunque proprijs sed utriusque communibus testibus res cum re caussa cum caussa ratio cum ratione decertet Reply pag. 100. if the Church had onely ruled the Faith So that the Iesuite hath concluded upon halting principles For never was the Pope acknowledged alwayes or at any time the onely Pastor of the Church neither the Roman Church the rule to find out heresies or to declare truthes neither did the auncient Bishops dreame of submitting to the Roman Church as the onely way to prevent errour neither did they thinke Arius his blasphemy onely cursed after the determination at Nice neither did Augustine ever breath forth as the Iesuit would father upon him y though with caution that an opinion which formerly was not held for a point of Faith may by the declaration of the Church be received and held for such Neither lastly did the Catholick Church expresly declare the Iesuites points for Cheifâ— articles of Faith True it is that a point of the Catholicke Faith may not be so fully preached or so openly professed or so publickely declared at one time as at another but that the same article might be no cheife point of faith at one time in the Christian Church and at another time by the Churches declaration be fundamentall is grosse and ridiculous For either the Churches declaration doth make that which was not to be of the substance of Faith giving it authoritie and credit making it of necessary beleife and so fundamentall which is too grosse to bee defended at Mid-day or else it doth declare to others what was formerly the foundation out of the Scriptures against some new arising Heresie And what doth the point gaine from the Church whether authoritie or light Authoritie they feare to say Light they cannot affirme for by the producing of it the darkenes is detected the Heresie is condemned Truth it receives not for it was there before Nay how could an Heresie against the foundation be
antiquitie rejecting sundry points which the major and sounder part of the auncient Fathers did teach in the Church r Wadding legat de Concep Virg. Mariae Sect. 2. orat 9 §. 6. mâ—â— 31. â—lures sunt graviores ij quos supra retuli contra quos cum alijâ— definitum est circa animaâ—uâ— ante diâ—m Iudicij beatitudâ—â—em Plures gra viores contra quos docet ecclesia Aâ—gelos esse spirituales Plures graviores contra quos â—el quibus dubitantibus dâ— varijs libris Scripturis Canonicis â—oâ—umque editionibus plâ—tâ— sunt statuta ab Ecclesia Multi graves sunt quos quidam citant â—t volunt â—â—nsisse ipsissâ—â—am hanc Virginem actualitâ—r peccâ—sse contra quos tamen actualem ejus inâ—oâ—enâ—iam 〈◊〉 â—â—â—dit Ecclesia Aliaque multa sunt hâ—jusmodi And if his confidence in this kinde of reasoning be so strong why doth he after labour to manifest us for Novelists when Bristâ— acknowledgeth That some there have bene in many ages in some points of the Protestants opinions Å¿ Mot. preâ— et Mot. â—â— And Reinerius hath as before Pag. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Margin hath beene shewed derived our doctrine condemned by you in the Leonistâ— from the Apostolicall times Whereas he saith that the most learned Answerer may much more be ashamed to tearâ—e them prophane and Hereticall when he is not able to finde out as I said before saith the Iesuite that either by authoritie of Church Councell or Fathers they have beene condemned for such Reply p. 109 I have answered hereunto before x Pag 99. and but even now told him out of Tertullian that whatsoever savoureth against the Truth is Heresie y Aboue lit p. but if a point as Bellarmine affirmes may be defined usu ecclesiâ— z Bellarm. de Reliq sanct c. 6. 〈◊〉 determinata â—rat usu totius Ecclesiae why may not the precedent Non-use of the Church condemne their intrusion of those points which the Church in her best times never practised And if no points of Religion can be prophane and Hereticall but such as are condemned by authority of Church Councels and Fathers I desire the Iesuite that he would forbeare to style us either Heretickes or prophane untill he can produce one Article of those agreed upon in the Synode held at London in the yeare 1562. concerning which he and all his Complices have beene Challenged †In the Lord Primate his Prefacâ— to the Reader before the Answere to the Iesuites Challengâ— but have given no Answere thereunto that hath beene condemned by authority of Church Councels or Fathers within the first 500. yeares Now the Iesuite vainely conceiting that he hath freed themselves from the imputation of Novelty proceedeth in this manner Let us as heretofore we have often done retort his tearmes upon himselfe and make him swallow downe his throat the shamefull reproach of Novelisme a Reply p. 10â— Here is a Champion in campis Gurgustidonijs Hee tels strange things monsters of his owne labour yet very few I thinke will beleive him But how will he performe this Why by proving that Martin Luther was the first broacher of the Protestants Religion b Reply ibid The Iesuite I suppose knowes that the Apostles were first called Christians at Antioch though the Reformed Churches are mistyled by them after Luther began to Preach But let them prove the Doctrine as new as the name they have given it otherwise they vainely contend Whereas he is further of opinion that this same cannot be more strongly proved then by the open confession of the said Luther himselfe c Reply p. 109. c. To This I Answere that if Luther should speake as the Iesuite beareth us in hand yet this should sway no more with us then Tetzelius did with Luther when he preached for Indulgences But I know not how this Iesuite is turned out of the way for we finde him snarling at a Latine worke formerly set forth by the most reverend Primate but never answered by any Iesuite wherein he hath pointed out a continuall succession of his Church for many ages before Luther but with such unfortunate event as even his own if we might beleive the Iesuit have judged him ridiculous herein d Reply ibid. And for what reasons I pray you Because first of all saith the Iesuite he tooke upon himselfe a taske impossible to be performed when he went about to search and to finde out his Church in those times wherein by the confâ—ssion of his owne learned Fathers and Brâ—thren it was invisible and not able to be sâ—â—nâ— Reply p. 1â—â— This wil be be tryed in the examination when the Iesuite will entreate one of his Brethren to examine the same and answere it In the meane time he chargeth us falsly to hold the Church absolutely invisible For if the Church be considered as containing all of all ages that beleeved the truth this wee say is not totally visible the greatest part being in Heaven If wee take the Church for those which are sinâ—â—re in their profession and are true members of CHRIST 2. Tim. 2. 19. Then we say that an humane eye cannot behold any member thereof but by probability and conjecture If foâ— the people that professe and the Pastors that teach the faith of CHRIST in severall ages this we say was never totally invisible but was knowne to them that professed the same though to persecutors that contemned the faith 2. Cor. 4. 3. or sought to oppresse it Rev. 12. 14. it might many times be hidd So that all the places brought by the Iesuit may be answered by that which hath bin said for some speak coÌ„paratively in regard of the outward glory of the Roâ—an Synagogue some in regard of precedent times some in regard of the world that persecuted them But doth the Iesuite conjecture that the most reverâ—â—d Primate thought by that booke to declare the Church in her succession as outwardly visible and glorious as Râ—me This was not his inâ—ent but to declare that there were many that professed the truth of CHRIST in all ages though under persecution in the succession of the Babylonish tyrannie And this the Iesuit might have observed if he had read the same for by the place of Ambrose in the Title-page we may conceive that his intention was to shew that though the Church be in condition many times like the Mâ—â—ne at full decreasing increasing yet it euer doth remaine a Church and such a one whose motions may be discerned and described f Ambros Hâ—xâ—â—â—er l. 4. c. â— Ecclesia vide tuâ— sicut Luna dâ—ficere sed noâ— dâ—ficit obâ—â—â—â—ari poâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secoâ—dly saith the Iesuite he bringeth in for Pillarâ— of his successive Church Waldo Wicklife and Husse g Reply p. 110. Here is sufficient to shew that the Iesuite doth not care what he saith nor feareth to censure things that he never saw For it is câ—â—are
that the most reverend Primate in that Historicall explanation did not discend to the ages of Wickliâ—â— or Husse and therefore could not bring them in for Pâ—lâ—ars of his successive Church The Iesuite further telleth us that they are confessed to be damned herâ—ticks h Reply â— 11â— but bringeth not any testimony for the same He that speaketh most bittâ—rly is O sâ—aâ—der against the Waldenses who taxeth their opinions as absurd c. But I hope wee are not tyed to belâ—ive him where it is apparant hee was altogether deceived That the most learned and holy Bishop Iâ—well did cast off the Waldenses as none of ours may bee imputed to this that hee bâ—held them as their persecutors painted them out with spots of Maâ—ichâ—isme and other hereticall errours But if the Iesuite will read that discourse which hee cavils at hee shall see that the heresies imputed to thâ—m were bred in the malicious minds of Papists who did therefore fâ—igâ—â— these opinions to be theirs because they reproached their dissolute lives and no otherwise i Girard Histor Franc. lib. 10. Quam vis pravis iâ—buti â—â—erint opinionibus non hoc taâ—en tantum Papae magnorum Principum odium in â—os concitabat quantum libertas orationis quâ dicâ—oâ—um Principum atque Ecclesiasticorum vitia morâ—s dissolâ—tos culpare ipsiusque Papae vitam actionâ—â— reprehendere consâ—everunt Haec praecipua res fuit quae universorum â—is conâ—â—avit odium quaeque â—ffecit ut plures â—efariâ— affingerentur â—is opiniones à quibâ—◠〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—ant alâ—â—â—â— Thirdly saith the Iesuite both Luther himselfâ— and all his followers doe make him the first Author of Protestanâ—y k Reply pag 110. What Luther the first that ever taught the doctrine professed by Protestants Those that are better read in story then our Iesuite confesse otherwise for Poplinerius acknowledgeth the Waldenses and Protestants to differ little and that this doctrine was preached and defâ—nded throughout Europe in France Spaine England Italy Germany and other Nations also l Popliâ—er hist Franc. lib. 1. â—dit aâ— 1581. fol 7. b Hi Albigenses invitis Principibus Christianis omnibus circa annum 1100 temporibus subsequentibus doctrinam suam ab eâ quam hodie PROTESTANTES amplectuntur parùm differentem non per Galliam solum totam sedâ—â—iam per omnes pâ—nâ— Europae oraâ— disseminârunt Nam Galli Hispani Angli Scoti Itali Germani Boâ—â—mi Sâ—xonâ—â— Poloni Lithuani gentes aliae â—am ad hunc diem pertinaciter defenderunt But I need not to stand in defence of that booke which doth defend it selfe and ever will against either the Iesuite or his fellow-labourers neither hath he urged any thing worthy observation against the same For there is no question but Luther did powerfully preach against Popish corruption and by his ministery together with others whom GOD raised up with him did publish the Gospell the light whereof for a long time they did disgrace and revile It is not enough to make Luther the Author of our Religion because after your Apostasie heâ— was one that at first did publickely and zealously preach the same When the Arians persecuted the Catholicke Faith eclipsed obscured it made it reputed Hâ—resie insomuch that the whole world m See before pag â—5 lit â— in marg was an Arian and Catholicke also in her owne judgment was the Catholicke faith afterwards published with zeale and victory the birth of Christian Religion the beginning of our Creed Nothing more triviall That which the Iesuite speakes afterwards of Luthers remorse of Conscience is ridiculous and might have beene spared for who can doubt but that in his â—calous performing of his duty in publishing the Truth of the Gospell of CHRIST the Divell did as violently assault him within as the Pope without thereby he was afflicted with as many superstitious feares within as outward terrors for the same reasons I suppose in regard the preservations of their kingdomes did depend upon it Now at last that he may conclude he casts up his Audit Sâ—â—ing that our Answerer cannot tell us that which we demaâ—nded to wit when or by whom our Catholicke Religion was first brought in n Reply p. 11â— Although there is no Injunction for it as hath beene shewed that he should answere your Demaund yet hee hath in all your particulars discovered your innovations which how it hath beene avoyded wil bee examined in their due place Yet the Iesuite telleth us that he will doe the Answerer the favour to tell him briefly where when and by whom his Protestant Religion was first begun o Reply p. 113. But I aske the Iesuite whether in his Conscience he is not checked for urging Calvin c with a corrupt minde when from their words he would have it concluded that the Catholicke Faith did first bâ—gin at Wittâ—nbergâ— I hope the Iesuite can consider that the repairing of the Temple was not the laying thâ— foundation of it neither David Hâ—â—â—â—hiah or Iosiah their regulating of things amisse a bringing in of a new law Teaching for doctrine the Traditions of men this makes a beginning but let the auncient of dayes be preached in the last times this is no Novâ—ltie no new thing But saith the Iesuite Loâ— here then the place where Wittenberge the yeare 1517 the day of the moneth the xxxi of Octâ—ber the day of the weekâ— Saturday yea the very houre of the day twelve of the clocke when first Protestancie was brâ—â—â—hed by Luther p Reply p. 1â—3 Nothing more fond Luther resisted Popish abuses such a day therefore the Faith preached by Luther did then first begin What did de make a new Gospell as some of you have attempted q See before pag. 330. 331 or frame a new Creed as you have lately done r See before 359. I desire the Iesuites evidence or his modesty his evidence to convict Luther or his modesty to condemne himselfe For if the opposing of Iâ—dulgences be the beginning of our Faith as the Iesuite doth insinuate Bellarmine will shew that he hath fayled both iâ— person time and place Å¿ Bellarm. de Indulgen l. â— c. 1. Primi qâ—â— indulgentias contempserunt oppugnârunt fuâ—ruâ—â— Waldenâ—â—â— Seqâ—â—tus est Valdenses Ioannes Wicleâ—â—â— Wicleâ—um seqâ—â—ti sâ—â—â— Hussitâ— Hos MAIORES PARENTES habâ—it Maâ—tinâ—s Lutherus And although he give Luther the name yet Bzovius will not have Luther but Staâ—pitius to have first begun the worke Bzovius Annal Eccles in ann 1517. num â— Staâ—pitius quoque quamvâ—â— PRIMVâ—â—apâ—dâ—m validâ—ori postea brachio vibrandum contra Ecclesiam conjâ—â—issâ—t sectâ— tamen cujus si non â—â—ctor certè promoâ—o◠〈◊〉 â—â—â—en darâ— non potuit sed â—â—rpiâ—â—dinem hanc Luthero reliquit And notwithstanding the Iesuite telleth us so confidently that Protestancie was first brâ—ached by Luther the yeare 1517. yet the same Author affirmeth that he disputed against them in the points oâ— free-will mâ—rits and traditions the yeare before Ibid. nuâ— 1â— Superiore poâ—â—o anâ—o 1516 Idem Lutherus disputavit conâ—ra Scholasticoâ— Theologoâ— de libero aâ—â—â—trio meritâ—s bonoâ—um opâ—â—â—â— traditionibuâ— Ecclesiasticiâ— â—asque propositioâ—eâ— Toâ—o 1. opâ—â—u◠〈◊〉 â—â—serâ—it â—◠〈◊〉 â—â—ique appaâ—eâ—◠〈◊〉 jam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So punctuall the Iesuite is that in the judgment of his owne he hath in every circumstance troad awry His repetition of Aâ—gâ—stines rule That Custome which â—en looking up into former tiâ—â—s doe not finde to have beene brought in by any that lived after the Apostles is rightly beleived to havâ— beene delivered by the Apostles themselves helpes neither them nor their cause for they never have nor ever wil be able to manifest either by our confession or otherwise that Roâ—ish customes have beene universally received neither can they defend them from Noveltie in their â—â—â—rance wherefore they may well bee cast forth into thâ— Dâ—nghill as wanting the Salt of Apostolicall institution for their seasoning So that S. Augustines Rule condemneth their Novelties and the GENENERALL CONTROVERSIE is cleared but indeed no otherwise then to the detection of their Egyptian Darkenes
S. Augustine's time there were many more heresies that oppugned the Primitive Roman Faith y Reply pag. 8. then hee nameth sects to discredite ours For Perkâ— as the Iesuite hath mistaken his name so his Author if he speake as he is alledged for I have him not hath forsaken the truth there being no ground in the Church of England to produce so vaine a charge But for that noble * Sir Edwine Sands Knight the true inheritour of his Fathers vertues he doth shew in the place cited z In his Relation of Religion that whatsoever unity is amongst us proceedeth from the meere force and vertue of veritie which he accompteth the best and blessedest and which onely doth unite the soule with God And that the Unity of the Church of Rome is but for order in the world c. antecedent before us for which worldly peace they are beholding to their Father and adviser yet he further acknowledgeth our differences are not essentiall or in any part capitall Whereby the Reader may see with what truth he hath cited this Author For the most learned Bilson hee doth onely bewayle the mindes of many men that are not so prone to peace as they ought A complaint that the best age of the Church might have taken up And therefore if the Iesuite will proove our jarres let him forsake such poore advantages that for the most part are raised from Passion and manifest that in fundamentall points we vary one from another or all from the Catholick Church for otherwise it is more then probable that Babell will remaine where the most learned Answerer left it even in the midst of the Roman blindnes SECT IIII. THe most learned Primate as he hath sufficiently shewed the meanes whereby tares that have crept into the Church might bee detected viz â— by having recourse unto the first and best times doth further shew that the like may be done by comparing the state of things present with the middle times of the Church To which the Iesuite replying sheweth himselfe offended not so much to be foyled by his Adversary as to have it knowne This word thus doth doth more perplexe the Iesuite then the blowes which make him smart and therefore his passion expresseth it selfe Why saith hee unlesse you performe it better then thus I see not but your selfe may be crowned an Innovator of idle arguments a Reply pag. 25 No neither of idle demaunds for that is so proper to the popish schooles that no man can deprive them of this catholicke title and least want of succession should make them loose their priviledge the Iesuite hath sufficiently continued it in this his vaine Reply The first of these Arguments which the Iesuite would have accompted idle is comprehended in these words I finde by the constant and approved practise of the auncient Church that all sortes of people men Weomen and children had free liberty to reade the holy scriptures I finde now the contrary among the Papists and shall I say for all this that they have not remooved the bounds which were set by the Fathers because perhaps I cannot name the Pope that ventured to make the first inclosure these commons of Gods people b See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Answere to the Iesuites Challenge pag 9. And hereunto the Iesuite giueth a downe-right answere that hee findes no truth in this his saying first because he layeth not downe where amongst the auncient any such practise is testified to have beene 2ly neither doth he shewe where amongst us he findes the contrary c Reply pag. 25 The most learned Answerer thought it not necessary to produce witnesses to manifest so open truthes whereof the Iesuite could not be ignorant besides he is vaine and wilfull to conclude a thing untrue because the proofe is not particularly urged for who will seeke to prove those things which are most manifest which the Iesuite without declaring his ignorance cannot deny But because he chargeth this most reverend Lord with untruth I will take away that scruple from whence he seemeth to deduce this conclusion and breifly manifest first that it was the constant and approved practise of the auncient Church that all sorts of people had free liberty to reade the holy scriptures secondly that we finde the contrary amongst the Papists that then we may see whether his impudency will deny that which his deceite in this place is willing to cover For the first it is a proposition so cleare that I am perswaded the Iesuite would not have denyed it if he could with safety to himself his cause acknowledge the same Yet although he doth not confesse it I neede not much to trouble my selfe in the manifesting thereof there being such cloudes of witnesses And to goe further then the Priâ—itive times after Christ It is apparant that Gods word was not given to be kept under a bushell but as the sunne in the Orbe of the Church to lighten and irradiate the hearts of his Children as may be gathered from the scriptures penning in their vulgar tongue when they spaâ—e Hebrew To this purpose it was that Moses commaunded the Israelites to * Deut. 6. â— write the law upon the posts of their houses and on their gates And that it was a custome amongst the Church of the Iewes to try doubtfull things by the scriptures may be collected by the words of our Saviour * 10. 5. 39. Search the Scriptures for in them yee thinke yee have eternall life and they are they which testifie of mee And why should the Iewes have sent their Hebrew text to be interpreted if they had conceived that the vulgar use had not beene permitted Also it appeareth 2. Tim. 3. 15. that it was the familiar practise of good people to breed up children in the knowledge of the sacred scriptures And that it was the practise of the primitive times is plaine by the * Act. 17. 11. Bereans who searched the scriptures dayly to try the truth of the Apostles Doctrine and were therefore accounted more noble then those in Thessalonica Neither was it practise onely but the Apostle in those times perswadeth thereunto by shewing the blessing which followed the same Apoc. 1. 3. Blessed is he that readeth and they that heare the words of this Prophesie c. And for the Ages following who can be ignorant that knowes any thing of that which the Iesuite desireth proofe of For Polycarpus to the Phillippians saith I trust that you are well exercised in sacred scriptures d Polyâ—arp ad Philippâ—n Confido benè exercitatos esse in sacris literis nihil vos latet And in Origen his time the reading of these divine mysteries dayly prayers the word of instruction were the nutriments whereby the Spirit e Origen in Levit hom 9. Nutrimenta igitur spiritus sunt divina lectio orationes assiduae sermo doctrinae His alitur cibis his coÌ„valescit his victor