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
might feare he had lost This is all we finde by the Auncient in pasce oves And if the Iesuite will permit it with patience besides the places formerly cited their owne Counterfeit that hath a name of antiquity telleth us that the rest of the Apostles received honour power in equall fellowship with Peter b Anaâ—letus ad â—pisâ— Italiae Epist 2. dist 21. c. In â—oâ—o teâ—â—â—m â—â—eeti verò Apostoli â—â—m codem pâ—ri consortio honoâ—em potestatem acâ—â—â—erunt And Ambrose will not favour Rome so much though he ruled at Millaine but that he will acknowledge that Peter did not only receive the charge of them but himself and all Bishopâ— received it with Peter c Ambros de dignit sacerd â— â— Pasce oveâ—â—eat Quas oves quem â—â—â—gem noâ—â—â—lum tunc 〈◊〉 susceâ—it Petrâ—s fed et cum illo â—â—s noâ— susceâ—imus omnes And as they received the commission with Peter so likewise did they performe the worke for so say your Romane Cleargie CHRIST said thâ—â— unto Simon Lovest thou me hee answered I love thee hee saith unto him fâ—ede my lambes Wee know this word was performed by the very act of Peters obedience and the rest of the disciples did so likewise d Epist Cleri Rom. ad Clerum Carth. apud Cyprian epist 3. Sed et Simoni fie dicit Diligiâ— me â—â—spondit diligo â—â— ei Pasce oves hoâ— verbum factum ex actu ipso quo cessit cognoscimus eâ— eâ—teri discipuli similiter 〈◊〉 Yea this is acknowledged by Cyprian for a common dutie and no particular prerogative of Peter All the Apostles are Pasters but the flock is shewed to be one which is fed of all the Apostles with an unanimoâ—â— consent e Cyprian de Vnitate Eccles E◠〈◊〉 â—unt 〈◊〉 sed grex 〈◊〉 ostenditur qui ab Apostolis omnibus 〈◊〉 consensioâ—â— pascatur And therefore Gregory from this place doth argue that they faile of love to CHRIST that performe not this duty of feeding the flock Whosoever saith he being endued with gifts refuseth to â—eede the Lords flocke is convinced not to love the cheife Pastor f Gregor l. 1 de cura past c 5. Si diligis me paâ—ce oves meâ—â— Si ergo dilectionis est testimonium cura pastonis Quisque virâ—â—tibus pollâ—â— gregem Dei pascere 〈◊〉 it pastorem 〈◊〉 convincitur non aâ—â—râ— Neither doth the other place Luc. 22. in the â—â—dgment of the Ancient make S. Peter otherwise then the rest of the Apostles For saith Ignatius CHRIST prayed that the faith of the APOSTLES should not faile g Ignatius ad Smyrnen Epistola â— Dominus Iesus Châ—â—stus rogaviâ— ne deficâ—ret fidâ—â— a postolorum and Clemene telleth us that CHRIST euen now saith as in times â—ast when we were gathered together I have asked that TOVR faith should not faile h Clemens constitut l. 6. c. â— Hic dicet nunc sicut antea nobis in unum congregatis de nobis aiebat Rogavi ne deficiaâ—â—â—des vestra And Augustine readeth these words in that manner that it concludeth all the Apostles I have prayed for you that YOVR faith faile not i Augustin de verbis Domiâ—i in Luc. ser 36. Igo rogavi pâ—trem pro vobâ—â— ne deficiat â— des vestra Whereby the Iesuite may see that these texts in the judgment of the Ancient Fathers make not Peter to be as he would perswade constituted Head of the Church upon Earth and consequently neither Prince Cheife Captaine Head Leader and Prelate over the rest of the Apostles with such soveraigne power as is pretended What the Iesuite citeth out of Hierome and Leo have received answere before Nothing remaines in this Section but his more particular answere to the most reverend the Lord Primate his enquires and first saith he When our Answerer then made his first Inâ—uirie Whether the Apostleship was not ordained by our Saviour CHRIST as a speciall Commission which being personall onely was to determine with the death of the first Apostle Answere might soone have beene returned that the Apostleship indeed ended with the Apostles yet not that Apostolicall power of headship and Iurisdiction Reply pag. â—â— First here is poore forgetfulnes for but now Peter was Head of the Church not as he was an extraordinary Embassadour for therein the Apostles had equall iurisdiction with him over all Christian people but as the ordinary Pastor not onely over all nations but also over the very Apostles themselves and now in this place the Headship must bee Apostolicall power and not ordinarie Iurisdiction Secondly I desire the Iesuite to expound this riddle How the Apostleship ended with the Apostles yet not the Apostolicall Headship and Iurisdiction seeing the power Apostolicall iâ— whomsoever it be found doth make an Apostle they being so stiled for their Commission and power received and not for any other reason that the Iesuite can assigne Thirdly I would gladly know whether this Apostolicall Headship doth consist in infallibilitie of doctrine immediate calling extent of Iurisdiction in binding or loosing in punishing or pardoning teaching or ruling the Church of GOD See the Rhe mists annotations upon Luke 6. 13 for if it be found in these the Apostles enioyed it if out of these let the Iesuite seeke into what place this Saul is runne to hide it selfe But this Head of the Church that hath ever beene acconuted an Apostle hath now lost this title for the Iesuite tels us that the Apostleship ended with the Apostles yet not that Apostolicall power of Headship and Iurisdiction which CHRIST for the better government of his Church gave to S. Peter the which Apostolicall power although it doth not absolutely make the man upon whom it descendeth an Apostle yet it maketh him Apostolicall And this is all which is meant whensoever in the Lawyers yearsbookes or elsewhere the Pope is called by the name of Apostle m Reply pag. 60 What he assumes to bee given to Peter hath beene before plainely shewed to be a vapour and sume from a full stomacke That the Pope is no Apostle we easilie grant yet heereby we may learne that they have sometimes taken to themselves those titles that their evidence could not warrant for by the Iesuits confession the Pope hath been stiled what he is not to wit an Apostle Yet this will not satisfie them sometimes to be an Apostle barely in succession but Peter the Apostle himselfe for so Pope Stephen doth proclaime himselfe PETER saith he called an Apostle of IESVS CHRIST to you most excellent men Pipin Charles and Charlemaine three Kings and to all Bishops Abbots Preists Monks Dukes Earles and Generalls c PETER the Apostle called by CHRIST and ordained to be the enlightner of all the world to whom hee committed his 〈◊〉 saying 〈◊〉 my 〈◊〉 I the Apostle PETER whose adopted sinnes you are admonish you 〈◊〉 you presently come and define this 〈◊〉 from the hands of
delivered to the Saints * Iude v. 3. 4. neither the instrument Gods Booke †Luke 1. 4. written for this purpose and continued for this end that it might be a memoriall of Gods truth for the time to come for ever and ever * Esai 3â— â— Doe you thinke that if all or any of this had made for him or given advantage to his cause the Iesuite would have closed his eyes I cannot beleive that it was courtesie which made him for beare but the brightnesse of the testimony which this 〈◊〉 his tender eyes durst not behold whereby you may take notice of the Iesuits practise in leaving convincing grounds untouched that he might the better and with the lesse reproofe stile that a vaine betaking to the Scriptures which truely is done in imitation of Christ and by Apostolicall direction And furthermore who amongst his owne will not be ashamed of his wry mouth and cloven tongue that dare stile that a conveighance which this most reverend Father urgeth from antiquity citing Tertullians wordes Is this the honourer of the auncient Church that accounteth the iudgement of the fathers as the assured touchstone to try all controversies betwixt us i In his Epistle to the King Here wee see what esteeme they may expect at his handes if they crosse his way for though he forbeare to question Tertullian whom he cannot answere yet you may perceive his direction followed by the most learned Answerer is persecuted by this Mountebanke with a base invective But although the Iesuite dare not absolutely submit his cause unto this tryall yet for the present he will accept his motion upon condition that if the Answerer come short of proving this way that a change hath beene made that saying of Tertullian shall point at him and his doctrine and all the rest which he casteth at us shall fall upon his owne head k Reply pag 20 I understand not this condition nor I thinke he himselfe but if the Iesuite convict us by Tertullian his rule we are content that he shall triumph and be acknowledged a Victor The first instance then produced by the most reverend Primate is this In the Apostles dayes when a man had examined himselfe he was admitted unto the Lords table there to eate of that bread and drinke of that cuppe as appeareth plainely 1. Cor. 11. 28. In the Church of Rome at this day the people are indeed permitted to eate of the bread if bread they may call it but not allowed to drinke of the cuppe Must all of us now sâ—â—t our eyes and siâ—â— * As it was in the beginning so now Sicâ—â— erat in principio nunc unlesse we be able to tell by whom and when this first institution was altered l See the most reuerend the Lord Primate his answere to the Iesuites challenge And the Iesuite would perswade that this is a weake argument by his crosse pleading of foure things practised by us 1. In the Apostles dayes the faithfull received the sacrament after meate in the euening * 1. Cor. 11. â—1 in the Protestants Church at this day it is commonly received fasting and in the morning therefore it is not with them sicut erat in principiâ— nunc 2. In the Apostles dayes the sick were annointed * Marke 6. 3. Ia. 5. 14. with oyle and a commandement given so to doe the Protestants practise no such thing therefore c. 3. In the Apostles dayes the faithfull were commanded to obstaine from eating of bloud * Act. 15. and strangled meates Among the Protestants there is no such abstinâ—nce observed Therefore c. 4. Christ when hee ministred the sacrament said * Mat. 26 6. Take eate this is my Body the Protestants now adayes say not so but take â—ate this in remembrance c. And from this he concludes that it is not with the Protestants sicut erat in principio m Reply pag. 20 c. Heere any man may see that this Iesuite dare not stand to his accepted motion to bee tryed by Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles the sacred Scriptures and therefore hee laboureth to weaken the strength thereof but let him mantle himselfe in his pretences never so much this is sufficient to declare that a change hath beene made which is all that the most learned Answerer desireth to conclude So that if wee can declare that Papists not Protestants in their changes made have fallen from the puritie of Doctrine and practise of primitive times the Iesuite will rest like a Franciscan Novice demure and tongue-tyed for ever For the three first instances wee confesse that a change hath beene made and that heerein wee have followed the practise of those that brought them in But for the fourth hee deales like a shuffler and would seeme to insinuate that we have dealt with those words * This is my Body Hoc est corpus 〈◊〉 as they haue done with some of the Commandements either cast them out or put something in the place thereof as their owne 〈◊〉 and Ribadâ—nâ—yra n The second they have left out and â—ut in stead of the fourth Commandement Remember to sanctifie the holy Dayes have done Wheâ—â—â— our Church teacheth Children before Confirmation that the Body and Bloud of Christ which is the inward part or thing signified of the sacrament are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithfull in the Lords Supper o See the Catâ—chisme in our Common Prayer Booke and in the celebration of the Communion the whole institution is repeated in these words expressely Take â—ate this is my Body which is given for you p See there the Order for the Administration of the Communion So that this is but an imaginary change pretended having no truth in it at all For the Changes confessed they are not but in things indifferent and ceremonies which no Papist dare deny but the Church of God had and hath power to alter CHRIST as in the Sacrament prescribing the substance leaving the Ceremonie to the ordering of the Church r Augustin epistol 118. Salvator non praecepit quo deinceps ordine sumeretuâ— ut Apostolis per quos dispositurus erat Ecclesiam servaret hunc loâ—â—m Nam si hoc ille monuisset ut post cibos alios semper acciperetur credo quòd cum morem nemo variâsset as is apparant in those wordes This doe not thus in 〈◊〉 of â—ee Luke 22. 19. This Answere the Iesuite knew would put a period to his vaine flourish and therefore by repeating it hee thinkes to avoyde the same as if the rule by Scriptures were of no force if this answere were permitted for saith hee What force leaveth he to his owne argument made against us in a matter of the like indifferency Å¿ Reply pag. 20. If the Iesuite could prove it so it were something to the purpose but lame Ignatius heere leaves his armes and fals to
crutches For what are the Arguments hee contendeth with 1. That there was never any commandement given that the Cup should be given to the Laytie 2. That the use of celebration of the Cuppe was not sâ— generall in the Apostles time c. And for this hee cites a Iesuite and tells us that Cardinall Perâ—n in his Reply to the King of Great Brittaine hath undeâ—yabliâ— proved that uppon just cause the Church might change the Communion of both kindes into one that Cardinall Bellarmine hath most largely disputed heâ—reof and clearely prooveth That Christ in the Sacrament is wholly contained in one kinde and that under one kinde there is found the full substance and vertue of the Sacrament t Reply pag. 20. 21. c. Loe heere is the brave confirmation of his indifferent Chalice * If Christs Bloud how â—lightly is it valued when they fight to avoyde it which if allowable I wonder hee should take so much paines in his Reply but have referred all the Controversies to his Predecessors paines because nihil dictum est quod non â—â—it dictum priâ—â— But as hee prooves so shall his answere bee sutable His referments shall bee answered with referments For their Peron I referre him for answere to Mâ—â—lin And for Bellarmine I could name him an hoast But this sacriledge of theirs I will truely lay downe and breifly in a few wordes that the Reader may see the ground of our Churches practise and the base and simple shiftes that they are forced unto for their defending of the surreption of the Cuppe And although our Iesuite declareth himselfe to have beene borne in a full Moone or the Dogge-dayes by his folly and reviling calling our Cleargie the Cupping Ministery u Reply pag â—â— yet GOD bee thanked wee defire not the cuppe for our owne selves in that their appetite is seene but for the people also that all things may bee ordered in the Church according to Christs institution And heerein all may see that hee might as justly revile CHRIST and his Apostles as hee doth those whom hee styles the Câ—pping Ministery And I thinke a Papist and a Preist might best of all men let that scorne have passed seeing the Cuppe not of the New Testament might â—it them for their armes with a Poâ—uâ— non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their Motto For a man may be in the act of â—eriting with them that is none of the soberest x Less de Iustie â—uâ—e l. 4. cap. 2. dubitat â— nu 10 p. 718. 719. Si tantus â—it excessus ut peccet mortiserè amittit meritum â—â—junij sicut aliorum bonorum operum Si aâ—tem non peccet mortiferè non amittit absolutè sed solum ex parte Quia quâ parte voluntariè abstinet à cibâ—â— vetitis et à secundâ refectione propter Ecclesiae prâ—â—ceptum meretur quod meritum non eliditur etiamsi in usu cibi vel potus non seâ—â—â—â— dâ—â—iâ—am modeâ—â—tionem quâ â—amen parte excedit non â—eâ—eâ—â— nay a man may be drunke and yet fast truly y â—â—llarm lib. 2. de bonis operibus in partic cap. 1. Iejunium EcclesiasticuÌ„m est abâ—â—inâ—ntia cibi secundum Ecclesiae regulam assumpta paâ—le post Iejunium igitur Ecclesiasticum dicitur abstinentia cibi quoâ—iam hoc â—â—junium neque POTVS neque medicamentorum sed solius cibi absâ—â—â—â—nâ—iaâ— perâ—se râ—quiâ—iâ— if Bellarâ—ine his definition of a Fast be adequate to the thing that is defined But letting all this passe I will shew plainely that the Cuppe cannot be taken from the Sacrament but the perâ—eâ—tion and integritiâ— if not the substance thereof is utterly overthrowne And to deale with a Iesuite from Iesuiticall grounds we may observe that if it crosse the substance either of Christs institution or of his Sacrament â—r his precept or of the practise of the primitive Church a Reply to Iesuite Fisher by Dr Fran White pag. 466. 467 it can no lesse then vitiate the whole action That it crosseth these what tongue can deny which impudencie hath not appropriated to its selfe For did CHRIST exhibite a double thing to the Apostles faythes and memories and did hee not likewise for the effecting thereof consecrate two materiall elements bread and wine was it not the practise of the primitive Church b Lyranâ—â— in 1. cor 11 Fit hic 1. Cor. 11. mentio de duplici specie nam in primitiva Ecclesia sic da â—atur â—idelibuâ— Cassander consult ar 22. pag. 168. Satis conâ—â—at occidentalem seâ— Romanaâ— mille à Christo â—nnis in â—olenni et ordinaria hâ—â—jus Sacramenti dispensatione â—tramque paâ—â—â— et â—iâ—â— specâ—em omnibus Ecclesiâ— Christi members eâ—hibuiâ—â—e iâ— quod ex in nuâ—â—â—iâ— veâ—â—rum scriptorum taâ— Grâ—coâ—um quam Latinorum testimoâ—â—â—s manifesâ—â—â— est atq ut ita facerent inductoâ— fuisse 〈◊〉 instituâ—â— exemploque Christi and of the Latine for a thousand or more yeares to administer it in the same manner not onely to the Cleargy but to the people also by the institution example of Christ â—ellarâ— De Euchar. l. 4. c. 24. Ecclesia autem vetus ministrabaâ—â—â—b duplici specie quando Christiani â—rant pâ—â—â—â—i 〈◊〉 Crescente aâ—tâ—m multiâ—â—â—â—ne magis â—â— magis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—t sic paâ—latiâ— defâ—â—â—â—sâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the contrary ever received by the Church deliberatly upon concluding grounds or did it stealedas the rest of the tares into the Romish Church by Custome If the Iesuite can shew us better grounds to acquite it from intrusion let him declare it this was the cheife reason the Councell of Constance e Concil Constantien Seâ—â— 13. Licet Christus post â—â—â—nam instiâ—â—erit suis discipulis administraverit sâ—b 〈◊〉 que specie panis vini hoc venerabile â—â—cramentum tamen hoc non obstante sacrorum Caâ—oâ—â—â—â—â—thoriâ—aâ— laâ—dabilis approbata coÌ„â—etudo ecclesiae servavit servat c. Et sicut haec consâ—â—â—â—do ad evitâ—â—dum aliqua pericula et scandala est rationabiliter introducta quod licet in primitiva ecclesia hujuâ—â—odi sacramentum reciperetur à fidelibus sub utraque specie posâ—â—à à confiâ—â—entâ—bus sub utraque et à laicis tantuâ—â—odo sub specie panis sâ—cipiâ—â—ur c. Vnde cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia sanctis patribus rationabiliter introducta diâ—â—issimè observata sit habenda est pro lege had for its defence and what strength it hath against Christs institution and the Primitive practise any may conceive What hath mooved the Roman Church to this surreption of the Cuppe from the people no man can without doubting imagine for if those wife motives repeated by Gerson should bee the cause wee may see how weake arguments will moove the Apostolicall power against CHRISTS institutions For first he telâ—ethus of the danger in the effusion 2. The inconvenience of the portation of it from place to place 3. The vessell might bee as filthâ—â— as Iudas his trunke 4. There
acknowledgeth it no better to afford the people free libertie to reade the scriptures then to cast Pearles before swyne Å¿ Reply pag. 27. which he hath received from Hosius t De expresso Dei verbo Sed sic visum est haeresiarchae nostri temporis qui primus dare sanctum canibus ante porcos ausus est projicere margaritas And it is no marvaile that they so much desire to inclose these commons of Gods people in regard they find not any to bee made Papists by the Catholicke Doctrine contained in them For experience it selfe hath taught them what fruite the reading of these divine mysteries in a vulgar tongue hath brought forth u Hosius de sa vern leg Experientiâ magistrâ didicimus quid fructus ea res attulerit Tantum abest ut accesserit ad pietatem aliquid plus ut etiam diminutum esse videatur The People saith Bellarmine take no profit out of the Scriptures but hurt x Bellarm. De verbo Dei lib. 2 cap. 15. Populus non solum non caperet fructum ex scripturis sed â—tiam caperet detrimentum Experimento idem comprobatur And the Iesuite telleth us a whole legend of tales to confirme this Doctrine y Reply pag. 27. So that it is most apparant by what hath beene already said that the auncient Church not onely permitted all Christians without exception or dispensation to heare and read the sacred Scriptures but also earnestly exhorted them to the practise of those holy duties and that the present Roman exhorteth none permitteth very few to be acquainted with those heavenly Oracles And shall weâ— then deny that Papists have remooved the bounds set by the auncient Fathers and fedde the people with huskes of superstition whom they ought to have nourished with the sincere milke of the word of life unlesse we can point them out the Pope that first attempted to bereave Gods people of so great a blessing But the Iesuite hath an other frame for his defence That scripture which those of the auncient Church had free libertie as he saith to reade was onely such as was approved to bee true and lawfull by the same Church the reading whereof amongst us at this day is as free as ever it was amongst our forefathers z Reply pag. 25. How tenderly doth the Iesuite tread here if this Ice breake sure he will be swallowed up He dare not graunt that the auncient Church gave free libertie to reade the scriptures and therefore pointeth it out as the most learned Answerers assertion as hee saith neither dare he confesse the truth concerning themselves that they deny them to the people as hath beene fully proved yet declaimeth of the desperate effects that are produced by the reading of them neverthelesse would perswade us to beleive 1. that they vary not from their forefathers 2ly that their adversaries have removed those bounds which were set by the Fathers in this point leading yea and driving Christ his flocke out of the wholesome pastures wherein formerly they were fed unto Salvation into the marish weedy and poysoned grounds of their new fangled vulgar Bibles a Reply ibid. For the first of which I willingly assent thereunto if by forefathers he understand those wise grave learned fathers which in watching the Church lost Religion learning languages and suffered Barbarisme and superstition to invade the same But if he meane those auncient lights the vigilant Bishops and Preists of the first and best times as wee take them to be none of your fathers so is it made good that you altogether in this practise vary from them it being most evident that the prime fathers for the edifying of Christs Church exhorted the people to the reading of the scriptures when your forefathers Mr Malone for the advancement of their Templum Domini in which is adored your Lord God the Pope were forced blasphemoâ—sly to inhibite the same b See this proved before in this Section For the second he will never prove it although hee attempt to performe the same by a two fold argument 1. Because our vulgar Bibles are not approved for holy Scriptures by the Church of God c Reply pag. 26 Whereunto I answere first that any mâ—y perceive the Iesuite cannot deny those bookes which we offer to the Church to be divine and revealed from God although â—e dreamâ—th that they have lost their nature by their translation Secondâ—y hee doth calumâ—iate us for the oâ—iginalâ— Canon oâ—t of which wee translate is allowed by the catholicke Church which they cannot say for theirs and the translation by a renowned member thereof which is sufficient for the approbation of the same Yet it may be he would have ours to bee allowed as their vulgar Latine hath lately been by canon in the Roman Church as if the Spirit of God remained at Eckron no word of God were to be found in Israel * 1. Kings 1. 2 3 But we know if it were in their power to approve or disprove it Gregory Sixtus d Consilium Episcopi Bononiae congregat de sâ—abiliend Rom. eccl Consilium nostrum esset ut tua Sanetitas Cardinalibus illis at que Episcopis quos in suis residere eclesijâ— contigerit praeciperet ut Decretales Sextum Clementinas Extravagantes regulas Cancellariae in 〈◊〉 quisque civitate legi ac doceri publicè curet Vtinam legendis hujusmodi libris homines ubique diligentisù incubuissent Neque enim res nostrae in hujusmodi deploratissimum statum ad ductae essent should bee the Canon which should governe the Church the Scriptures should not onely bee cast out but Gratian e Ibid. Ac non item Decreâ—i quod minimè mirum videri debet Est enim perniciosus liber author tatem tuam valde vehementer imminuit licet alicui extollere videatur Nam inter alia negat multis in loâ—â—s posse Papam vel tantillum ad eam Doctrinam adjungere quam nobis Christus ipse tradidit Apostoli docuêre also as too opposite to their intents The titles which they have given to Gods divine Oracles will declare how great affection they beare to the approvlng of them Besides if no translation be the word of God before the Roman synagogue hath approoved it I would know whether Sixtus or Clemens his edition be the word of God As for their vulgar edition by this rule it was no Scripture before the Trent assembly and the Rhemish Translation no Scripture to this houre His second Argument is that as it is not confirmed by Rome so it is disproved by Protestant Doctours themselves f Reply pag. 26. But herein two things are fit to be observed First that the Churches under the government of our sacred Prince did never propose any translation absolutely as without all kind of errour they being the workes of industrious and painfull and yet but men but as a faire helpe and means to
〈◊〉 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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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
de effectu Sacraâ—u l. 2. c. 10 Respondeo primo librum citatum non esse Augustini sed alicujus haeretici qui multa docet contra fidem contra Augustinum that taught many things both against faith against S. Augustine I doe not urge this as if his testimonies from hence were of any strength they being answered in substance before but because you may see that they will avoyde no witnesses though in other causes they reject them that will advantage their cause For the titles given to S. Peter by Chrysostome as Cheife Captaine Head of the Apostles t Reply pag. 54. they all have received answere before For we acknowledge Peter Head which is the same with cheife of the Apostles otherwise how could Paul compare himselfe to the very cheife if there had beene no cheife And if the Apostle had bene by divine institution Paules Soveraigne how could Paul compare himselfe with him he himselfe being divinely assisted But the Iesuite making a pause is willing for brevities sake to let passe manie other holy Fathers and Doctors of the auncient Church who are most copious in the confirmation of Peters primacy over the rest of the Apostles u Reply pag. 54. And you have seene for what kinde of Primacie it is that the Fathers speake not a Primacie of power to which all the members of the Church must stoop but of Order excellency gifts graces for the Fathers will expell from their mindes that will sincerely read them all conceite that Peter had a soveraigne Monarchy over the Apostles See Peters Primacie the same with that of Iames and Iohn for so saith Clemens Peter and Iames and Iohn after the assumption of our Saviour although they were preferred before others of our Lord himselfe yet did not challenge this glory to themselves x 〈◊〉 hist Eccles l. 2. c. 1. Clemens hoc asserit Petrus enim inquiâ— Iacobus Ioannes post 〈◊〉 Servatoris quamvis ab ipso quoque Domino alijs essent praelati gloriam tamen hanc sibiipsis non vendicaâ—â—â—â— â—â—â— Neither is Paul by Chrysostome made lesse then Peter himselfe and from S. Paul his owne testimony Gal. 2. 8. And now saith that ancient Father doth Paul shew himselfe to be equall to the rest of the Apostles in honour neither doth he compare himselfe to those others but unto the very Cheife declaring that every one of them had obtained alike dignity y Chrysost in Epist ad Gal. c. 2. Iamque se caeteris honore parem ostendit nec se reliquis illis sed ipsi summo comparat declarans quod horum unusquisqueâ— parem sortitus sit dignitatem Ambrose knowes not whether should bee preferred z Ambros serm 66. B. Petrus Paulus eminent inter universos Apostolos peculiari quâdam prerogativa praecellunt utrum inter ipsos quis cui praeponatur incertum est but Cyprian and Hierome make them all equall Christ after his resurrection saith Cyprian gave equall power to all the Apostles a Cyprian de Vnitate Ecclesiae Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat And the rest of the Apostles were even the same that Peter was being endued with the like fellowship both of honour and power b Ibid Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis Hierome also speaketh as much The Church is founded equally upon all the Apostles all received the kingdome of Heaven ex equo super eos Ecclesia fortitudo solidatur c Hierom. l. 1 cont Iâ—rin At dicis super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claves regni 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex â—â—â—â— c. So that the Iesuite had done well if he had taken up before if he had not troubled his Reader with proving that kinde of Primacy which is not denyed him and had forborne the attempting a proofe of that which the Fathers will never graunt But howsoever he resolves that Optatus Bishop of Milevetum must not be let passe in regard he will seeme to catechize our Answerer himselfe very handsomely in these words Thou canst not deny but that thou knowest full well that the Episcopall Chaire hath beene first given unto Peter in the cittie of Rome wherein Peter the head of the Apostles hath sitten whence also hee was called Cephas In the which one Chaire Vnitie might be kept of all men least the rest of the Apostles should maintaine every one their singular Chaires to themselves so that now he should be a schismaticke and an offender who would seeme to raise up another against this onely Chayre d Reply pag. 54. This place of Optatus if the Papists doe rightly interpret it must enclose a notorious falshood for can it be affirmed with truth by Optatus that in his time the Apostolicall Chayre was onely placed in the Citty of Rome when other Apostles had their severall seates and Chaires in other Citties also as Iames at Hierusalem aswell as Peter at Rome all which were visible and conspicuous to the Church before Optatus his time as we may see out of Tertullian Percurâ—e Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipse â—â—huc cathedra Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur c Tertul. praescrip con haereâ—â—â—â— And therefore Optutus his Chayre cannot be interpreted for the onely chayre of the Catholicke Church placed by Peter at Rome from which whosoever did separate himselfe upon what cause soever should be a Schismaticke But Optatus being rightly understood declareth thus much and no more That Peter having his seate placed at Rome and yet Eusebius maketh him not the first Bishop therâ— f Euseb hist Eccl. l. 3. c. â—â— 19. the Apostles did forbeare to place their seates in that Cittie and therefore judgeth the Donatists schismaticall that placed another Bishop of their Schisme in Rome contra singularem cathedram which this father sheweth was ever one in Rome in ea sedit primus Petrus succedit Linus Lino Clemens So that the Donatist Permenian with his fellowes were esteemed Schismaticks by Optatus not because they separated themselves from the Vnitie of the Roman Church as now they understand it but in regard by placing a Bishop of their faction in Rome they contemned the established policie of the Church that required in one Citty but one Episcopall Chayre Whereby we see that Optatus is so farre from catechizing the Answerer that hee doth checke the Iesuite and his faction that in like manner as the Donatists have done doe now intrude upon our Episcopall Chaires in Ireland titular Bishops of their faction of Schisme not forbearing the chayre of S. Patricke it selfe But drawing to conclusion of this point the Iesuite could wish that both the Answerer and all his Adherents would listen well unto S. Leo who saith that Peter onely in all the world is chosen
as cheife in the calling of all Nations g Reply pag â—5 c. And we tell him that Pope Leo did speake more for Peter to advance himselfe then it is probable he would otherwise have done if his Chayre had not met with some opposition in those times for Leo maketh Christ Marke the tenth to reprehend the desire of that power which in the Iesuites quotation he seemeth to give to S. Peter h Leo Epist 55. ad Pulcher. Augustam de ambitu Anatolij Et ille vere crit magnus qui fucrit totius ambitionis alicâ—â—â— dicente Domino Quicunque voluerit inter vos major sicri sit vester minister Et quicunque voluerit inter vos primus esse erit vester servus Sicut filius hominis non venit ministrari sed ministrare although Maldonate the Iesuite would not have the words of the Evangelist so to be understood i Maldonat com in Marc. 9. 35. Non hic agi de prjma in gubernanda Ecclesia dignitate etsi co etiam sensuhunc locum alicubi apud Leonem magnum legi memini We have seene then saith the Iesuite how undoubtedly the auncient Fathers maintained S. Peters primacie as well ever all the Church of Christ as over the rest of the Apostles also k Reply pag. 55 But any may perceive with how false eyes his owne witnesses but little favouring his cause as we shall further shew hereafter So that any may conceive how poorely he hath layed the foundation of the Roman Catholicke Church vizt Peter his Monarchichall power over the Apostles Neither saith he will it be hard to shew the like uniforme consent of antiquitie in attestation of that other point denyed also by our Answerer in the Star-chamber concerning the same headship and Primacie which the Bishops of Rome doe inherite by lawfull succession l Reply pag. 55 And to manifest this he beginnes his entrance with a repetition of what hath beene said and answered before and then fixeth first of all upon the strong pillar of Popish height the Arabicke Canons of the Nicene Councell from whom hee doubteth not to bring us most plaine testimony in this point m Reply pag. 56 and who beleiveth him not for if these Canons speake not plainely for the purpose whereunto they were framed what device can helpe them But the Iesuite knowing his coyne counterfeit tels us that the Answerer doth soone rid himselfe of this and the like decrees of that holy Synode by averring them to be forged by certaine well-willers of the Roman Church in the name of the good Fathers that never dreamed saith he of such a busines n Reply ibid. And is not this a truth that the Iesuite cannot resist though he playes the Baby in telling us that if you desire to heare him prove this his saying you must have 〈◊〉 â—â— other proofe you are like to get none of him besides his owne rash affirmation o Reply ibid. For the matter is so cleare from all antiquity that there were but twenty Canons in the Nicent Councell all which we have that it were but the mis-spending of time to prove that which all acknowledge q See them repeated in the sixt Councell of Carthage apud 〈◊〉 um Besides could the famous lights of the world at that time be ignorant of these Canons as S. Augustine r Concil Carthag 6. c. 7. Augustinus Ecclesiae Hiâ—ponis Regiensis Legatus Provinciae Numidiae with 〈◊〉 and more 〈◊〉 Bishops Å¿ Epistola Aphricani Concil ad Bonifacium Papam 1. Aurelius caeteri qui praesentes affuimus numero ducenti decem septem ex omni Concilio Aphricae Were they so little esteemed that they were clofetted at Rome or so unknowne in the East that the Patriarches of Constantinople and Alexandria could make no returne of them t Epistola Concil Aphric ad Coelestinum Quia illud quod pridem per cundem co episcopum nostrum Faustinum tanquam ex parte Nicaeni Concilij exinde transmiâ—â—â—â—is in Concilijs verioribus quae accipiuntur Ni aena à sancto Cyrillo coepiscopo nostro â—◠〈◊〉 Ecclesiae à venerabili Artico Constantino 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ac auther 〈◊〉 missis tale aliquid non poâ—uimus repeâ—â—e though the one sent them intirely as they were decreâ—d by the Fathers at Nice u Epistola Attici Episcopi Constantinopolitani ad Concilium Africanum Sicut staâ—â—ta suntin Nicaea civitam à Pauibus canoâ—â—â— in integro ut jussisus direx and the other â—â—nsm faithfull exemplars from the authenticke Coppie x escripta ad Conc. Aphrican Cyrilli Alexandrini Episcopi Necesse habus 〈◊〉 exemplaria ex authentica Synodo in Nâ—â—â—â— Bythiniae habito vestrae charitati dirigere quae in Ecclesiastica historia requirentes 〈◊〉 But if there were nothing else to disgrace them the Iesuite his endeavours to justifie them from farre-fetched and counterfeit grounds were alone sufficient to render them suspected of themselves For doe you thinke that a â—â—e from the 〈◊〉 of S. Thomas sent from some sleight Mercenarie of the Pope to his mancipated servants the Iesuites in a matter that concernes the Popes greatnes so neerely is to be received as an infallible Argument Neither if this Papall altitude could stand upon true grounds would it need â—uch counterfeit supporters as these two Epistles cited by the Iesuit in regard they declare theÌ„selves counterfeite and are acknowledged for no better by their owne For if this Epistle were written to Pope Marke after the Arians burnt their bookes at Alexandria surely it must be many yeares after Pope Marke was dead their burning being in the raigne of Constantius y Athanasius Epistol ad orthodoxos in persecut when â—â— Pope Marke died in the time of Constantines government z Hieron in Chron. Further how could this Epistle lye hid when the controversie was betwixt the African Church and the Roman Bishops Besides could Marke send to Athanasius in Egypt when it is apparant by Baronius that he was â—â— Exul in France a Baron â—om 3 ad anâ—um 336 â— 39 Exul ho 〈◊〉 agebat â—â— Galliâ—â— Could the Roman Coppie and that of Alexandria so farre differ as wee see they did if the Pope had sent a true Exemplar ex Romano scrinie And not to presse the Reader any further What trifling follies doe they impute to the Niceâ—â— Fathers as to publish these Canons halfe Latinâ— halfe Greeke perswading that fourtie were made by the Greeke Fathers fourtie by the Latine and to insert tenne Cannons amongst the rest in relation to the seaventie languages which they conceived to bee in the whole world or the seventie disciples and all this by the assistance of the Spirit of God b Epistola Athanasij Aegiptiorum Episcoporum ad Marcum Papam Saâ—e praesentibus nobis octoginta capitula in memorata tractaâ—â— sunt Synodo scilicet quadraginta à Latinis similiter Latinis
are written by the most blessed Pope of the Roman city because S. Peter who liveth in his proper See is president in the same giveth the truth of faith to such as seeke the same a Reply pag. 59 But what is all this He perswades Eutyches to adhere to the truth of Doctrine preached by the Roman Bishops from what reason Because S. Peter who liveth in his proper See is president in the same giveth the truth of faith to such as seeke the same Who meaneth hee here by S. Peter Not the Apostle in person surely if he did they did ill to usurpe that chaire that he did presede in himselfe hereby they are debarred of succession If he meant his doctrin this might have been said of Antioch other Episcopall Sees But if they will have Peter so to remaine in the Roman city that he may give the true faith by inspiration to such as seeke the same this is too grosse to bee beleived though Leo hath some words that cast upon us this interpretation b Leo epistol â—9 ad episc Viâ—â—â— So that you see Chrysologus here speakes litle for a Monarchy by succession The Iesuite is at a pause yet before he leaves he brings forth Siricius Pope c Reply pag. 59 but doe you conceive the reason That he may make his discourse sutable and as he begun with a forged Councell so hee might conclude with a counterfeit Pope Now as if he had beene able to have pleaded the cause of those ignorant Delinquents to silence the whole Star-chamber he tels us By these authorities many more th◠〈◊〉 which might be alledged it appeareth how casilyone migâ—â— have taken up our Answerer in his Star-chamber flourish concerning this matter of S. Peters and his successourâ— universall Iurisdiction d Reply pag â—â— But let me advise the Iesuite unlesse he leaves counterfeits forgeries to keep himselfe out of that Chamber which 〈◊〉 pleaders pretenders of that kinde For although his folly and conceite may so advance the opinion he hath of his Rhetorick that he presumes he can perswade any thing Yet experience will acquaint him that he cannot so easily in that place deceive But let us veiw this Orator how he would have argued if at that time he durst have confessed S. Peter in that presence First he would have told those grave Councellors That howsoever all the Apostles were equally chosen and extraordinarily sent by Christ to preach teach and convert all nations and had herein equall jurisdiction every one over all Christiaâ— people throughout the world yet as S. Leo doth truely observe though all were elected alike yet to one was granted the preheminencie over the rest e Reply pag 60 All which had beene a slender defence unlesse hee had proved better then he hath done that Peters preheminencie was Monarchicall of power not of honour and gifts c. as we our selves acknowledge Secondly he would have said that they had then the like Apostolicall power extraordinarily given unto them over all nations but not in the same degree with Peter their power being over all yet not over one another as Peters was who was their Head f Reply pag â—â— which is a dreame and fancie as hath beene shewed in answere to his former productions Yet if the Apostles were equally chosen as the Iesuite saith and had equall jurisdiction to teach all nations throughout the world if if they had plenitudinem potestatis fulnes of power as Bellarmine confesseth g 〈◊〉 de Rom 〈◊〉 c. 11 if they were endued as before hath beene related pari consortio honoris potestatis with the like fellowship of honour and power as S. Cyprian and to the same effect other Fathers have affirmed how can this disparity arise Doth he thinke by a framed deceit that neither hath foundation from Scriptures or Fathers to controule our beleife The Apostle 1. Cor. 11. v. 5. telleth us that there were Summi Apostles cheife Apostles not one that was summus the cheife and sheweth Gal. 2. v. 9. that Peter with others gave the right hand of fellowship and Communion not of commaund to him and Barnabus Besides the Apostles shew more power over Peter then the Iesuite can shew that he exercised over them They sent him to Samaria Acts 8. v. 14. They question his actions and call him to an accompt Acts 11. Paul reproves him Gal. 2. where he fayled Paul chydes and Peter suffers saith S. Chrysostome that whilst the Master being â—hidden doth hold his peace the Schollers might verie easily change their opinion h Chrysost in Epist ad Galat c. 2. Vnde Paulus objurgat Petrus fustinet ut dum magister objurgatus obticescit facillimè discipuli mutatent sententiam An act that the glosse is perswaded would not have beene done unlesse he had thought himselfe Peters equall i Gloss Ordinar Resti Quod non auderet nisi sâ— non imparem sentiret or as Cajetan conceiveth something greater k Caietan in locum Thirdly he would have told them that they the Apostles were but as extraordinary Embassadours unto all Nations Peter was the ordinary Pastor not onely over all Nations but also over the very Apostles themselves l Reply pag. 60 But that grave Councellor would have espyed the Iesuite to have disadvantaged himselfe for in one place hee acknowledgeth that all the Apostles had the like Apostolicall power extraordinarily given unto them being Heads and Pastors of the universall Church their difference being in Degree m Reply ibid. and here he makes S. Peter not onely in degree to excell the rest of the Apostles in the Apostolicall office but gives him another different power superiour to the Apostleship which he calleth ordinary not onely over all nations but also over the verie Apostles themselves But I aske the Iesuite why it should be a good argument for Peters primacie that he was first named among the Apostles Mat. 10. v. 2. if the naming of the Apostles in the first ranke of the ministers of the Church Ephes 4. v. 11. may not obtaine from the Iesuite the same priviledge It seemeth hard that the Iesuite should so plead for the Papacy that thereby he should labour to diminish the Apostolicall power especiallie when the Rhemists will have the name of Apostle to signifie dignity regiment paternitie principalitie and primacy in the Church of GOD according to that of S. Paul 1. Cor. 12. v. 28. And GOD hath ordained some in the Church as first Apostles And that they thought the Apostleship to be no bare extraordinary power legantine but as supreame so ordinary it will appeare by their describing of it to be a calling of office governement authoritie and most high dignitie given by our Master with power to binde and loose to punish and pardon to teach and rule his Church which is called by a name expressing ordinary power in the Psalme and
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
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
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
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—
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
of Infants dying before Baptisme because they are sprung from faithfull parents and froÌ„ the virtue of the Eucharist received by the mother after conceptioÌ„ to sanctify the child in the womb shâ—lbe 〈◊〉 k Zag Zab. ibid. Thom à Iesu lib. 7. pa. 1. cap 8. cit per cundem 5. They baptize themselves every yeare vpon the Epiphany as the Muscovites in memorial of Christs Baptisme whom they thought to be baptized as that day l Zag Zab. ibid eit per cundem 6. The Egyptians have a custome to conferre holy Orders to Infants m Thomâ— a Iesu lib. 7. pa. 1. cap. 5. cit per cundem 7. They deny all efficacy to Baptisme vnlesse celebrated in the Church by the Preist notwithstanding any necessity whatsoever neither doe they baptizâ— till the fourtieth day though the child dye without Baptisme n Tho. à Iesu ibid. cit per cundem I could name the Iesuit many moâ—â— but if he can shew the person time place by whom when where these points received birth with their opposers by demonstrable authority not by naked grounds we will spare him the rest confesse he may with good reason aske the question he doth and require our answere to it But till then let him not expect that from an other which the whole Roman Inquisition cannot discover vnto vs in the like kinde Yet for the present the Iesuite hath performed his promise as he supposeth in some particulars pointed out by himself First concerning the defection of the Greeke Church which indeed comprehendeth all the rest by you named o Reply pag. 9. c. Here we have the Iesuite myred in his first entrance For what hath he tu doe with generals Saphista versatur in generalibuâ— he followeth not his answerer but forsakes him here Particulars are demaunded like a false Steward the Iesuite delivereth all in grosse fearing his prejudice if hee submit to a strict particular accompt All that he laboureth to prove here are two things First the beginning of the Greek Churches defection from the Roman which was not desired at his hands Secondly the beginning of severall errours which shal be observed in their place For the first the defection of Paulus Samosatanus Macedonius Nestoriuâ— c. was not from the Roman but the Greeke a principall member of the Catholick Church Secondly the Greek Church did not fall with theÌ„ but condemâ—ed theÌ„ neither doe they adhere to them or their doctrine at this day That there are in the East which are named from some of those condemned Hereticks yet follow not their doctrine p Onuphr in Iul 3. Uerum hie Nestoriani nomen potius Nestorij haeretici quam errores retinuisse mihi videntur c. there is no question But that the doctrine of those Hereticks is taught by the Greek Church is vtterly vntrue neither dare the Iesuite say it is althogh by his obscure generalities he wold insinuat that in what those differed froÌ„ the Roman church these close with theÌ„ And for the other several defectioÌ„s as he calleth theÌ„ thogh it were but ajust flight froÌ„ their tyranny he cannot tel how many they were but stiles them twelve or there abouts But to what purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these 〈◊〉 vnlesse he shew vs the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 they were made And this will not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â— shew vnto vs what errour every 〈…〉 in with â—â— for otherwise his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then imployed to none â—ffect Whereas he maketh them oppressed by the Turke in regard of their 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 it 〈◊〉 Iesuites fancie I pray GOD 〈◊〉 theâ—â— other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 separation they cast off 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though noâ— all their slavery â—ut if it be 〈◊〉 â—◠〈◊〉 at the cause of their oppression which is not 〈◊〉 â—aith where 〈◊〉 notwithstanding their persequâ—â—ion they still 〈◊〉 but their persons many more probable grounds may be given of Gods putting them to this 〈◊〉 then this assigned by Iesuite vnlesse you have relation to politicke and worldly prudencyes of that Church and not to crymes that bring downe Gods judgments vpon them For we know some things 〈◊〉 not altogetheâ— to be approved of but idolatrous as Image-worship are practised amongst them They deny indeed that which is practised by you in regard of the manner even Statues of stone or Marble and yet imbrace with an idolatrous love paper and pâ—inted representations This their sinne is not the least causer of Gods iudgment vpon them as we may coniecture from the IX of the Râ—velation if Gods visiting them may bee imputed to their sinne and not to his secret will who tryeth his owne by affliction as the Church of the Iewes in Egypt and the Primitive in her sincereâ—â— perfections Thirdly â—s concerning the severall 〈◊〉 few in comparison wherein the Greek Church aâ— this day dissenteth from the Roman their beginning and contradiction iâ— noterious q Reply pag. â—â— Here the Iesuite by way of preface makes the Greeke Church at this day to vary from the 〈◊〉 in regard of vs for so I conceive he desires to be vnderstood â—ut in a few points which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for they differ at thisday from them in most points that we 〈◊〉 them for So that I doubt not but they received scardall from your corruption which because yoâ—â— pride would not â—ure they left you 〈◊〉 â—â— your 〈◊〉 and adhered to th◠〈◊〉 doctrine which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every wheâ— received at all times 〈◊〉 in the Catholicke Church And although they 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 yet some of your owne r See before thinke their errour therein to be onely in the 〈◊〉 of expressing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not in the substance of doctrine it selfe And 〈◊〉 whereas he saith that their begiâ—ning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i◠〈◊〉 I will beleive him when he hath answered those points which I have lay 〈◊〉 before for what he hath done by his owne election and choyce will declare vnto vs what great performance we may expect â—â— his hands when an other may have the liberty to point out his taske And first he beginneth with their denyall of subjectionâ—â— the Roman Sea c. This is the first 〈◊〉 and agreat one and as he tells vs was begâ—â— by Iohn of Constantinople and he there â—pon severally contradected by Gregory the great and by Pelagius in his epistle c. Å¿ Reply pag. â—â— Here are two 〈◊〉 fashoodâ— by this Iesuite in this particular supposed and 〈◊〉 First that 〈◊〉 ages before 〈◊〉 of Constantinople his 〈◊〉 the Bishop of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their sence was vniversally acknowledged Secondly that this controversie betwiâ—◠〈◊〉 Gregory was about the denyall of Papall 〈◊〉 â—oth which shal be 〈◊〉 to be notoriously vntrue For the first 〈◊〉 the Iesuite orderly proceeded he should have proved the Roman Bishop the Monarch of the Church by vniversall confent before hee should have questioned the Greeke Church for the
denyall thereof and that his Monarchy 〈◊〉 consist not in matter of outward glory and precedency but of spirituall regency and power for els how could they deny what was never established or consented vnto by the Catholicke Church or any famous or glorious member of the same And further in manifesting the falshood of his supposition you may conceive it is impossible to 〈◊〉 the ancient testimonies i◠〈◊〉 that the fathers denyed this spirituall and divine regency of the Roman Bishops because they never assumed or exercised it yet all those steps whereby they laboured to ascend vnto this spirituall height were ever resisted in all times and ages For in the first place their attempt of divine derivation of this power is cast off by their owne Cusaâ—us t Cusanus de Concord cath lib 2. cap. 13. is so far from giving the Bishop of Rome this spirituall eminency by divine Canon that he denieth it to have beene granted vnto him by any Canon of the Church and proveth it to have beene onely brought in by coÌ„mon vse custome And surely what priviledges the Bishops of Rome enioyed above their brethren which were far from that oecumenicall spirituall regency u Turrecrem d. 2â— Constantino Consistebat hic honor in hoc videlicet quod ad locum in fedendo primo post Rom â—oat in responsionibus haberet secundam vocem in subscriptionibus or papall omnipotency the Councell of Chalcedon x Chalced concil act 16. Etâ—â—im 〈◊〉 â—â—nioris Romae propter imperium civitatis illius patres consequenter privilegia teddiderum atributed to the guift of their fathers which fathers we may coniecture Pius y Aeneas Sylv. epist 301. the second thought to be the fathers assembled in the Nicene Councell as Marsilius z Defens pa. 2. cap. 1â— Patavinus hath plainely declared Now all practises of insurrection to gaine this vniversall regency either before or after they received this limited honour of sitting and subscribing first were ever resisted by the Catholicke Bishops as by this one instance wil be sufficiently cleared The Bishops of Rome did many timesstrive that the finale judicium next to the determination of a â—â—â—â—cell for a Papa a Concil Constan sess 4. â— Consil Basil sess 2. Idem assent Cardinal Cameracensis Ioannes Gerson Iacobus Almainus Nicolaus Cusanus â—anoriâ—itan Cardinal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alii teste Bellarmin d concil 〈◊〉 lib. cap. 14. supra was never dreamed of in primitive times should depend vpon theÌ„ in matters not of faith which they never pretended authority to declare but of fact this Cyprian b Lib. 1. epist 3. Nam cùm statutuÌ„ sit omnibus nobis aequum sit pariter justum vt vniuscujusque causa illic audiatur vbi est crimen admissum singuliâ— pastoribus â—â—â—tio gregis sit adscripta quam regat vnusquisque guberâ—eâ— rationem sui actus Domino redditurus oporter vtique cos quibus prae suâ—â—s nâ—â— circumcurfare nec Episcoporum concordiam cohaereâ—â—â—â— suâ subdolâ fallaci temeritate collidere sed agere illic causam suam vbi accusatores habere testes sui criminis possuÌ„â— nisi si paucis desperatis perditis minor videtur esse auctoritas Episcoporum in Africa constiâ—utorum qui iam de illis judicaverunt et eorum câ—â—scientiam multiâ— delictorum laqueis vinctam judicij sui nuper gravitate damnârunt I am causâ— coâ—â—â—â— cognita est iam de eis dicta sententia est nec censurâ— congruit sacerdoâ—um mobilis atque in constantis animi levitate reprehendi cum Dominus doceat et dicat sit sermo vester est est non non resisteth as savouring of usurpation shewing vpon what poore grounds this practise dependeth even vpon the judgment of a few desperat graceless people who were of opinion that Bishops were vnequall in their authority wherevpon the Bishops laboured to restraine these busie-bodies by lawfull remedy in Councels afterwards as may be collected from the sixt Councell of Carthage c Epistol concil Aphricani ad Caelest vrbis Romae Episcopum the 8th generall Councell held at Constantinople d can 26. Secondly the Iesuite doth falsly point out the Patriarch to deny Papall height or their spirituall monarchy for the Popes at that time pretended nothing of that nature and therfore he could not dâ—ny that which was never affirmed It is true that Iohn could not be content to enjoy the priviledges of his predecessors given him by the Councels of Constantinople and Chalcedon but that he would be more the onely Bishop and vniversall Patriarch yet that he denyed the honour of the Bishop of Rome no more then the other Patâ—iarchs Gregory e Epistol 36. will cleare in regard he lamenteth their losse as much as his owne Neither is there any thing urged by this Iesuite that proveth the point of denyall of this Top-gallant of Papall vsurpation and therefore we may well reject it as to no purpose For why should Gregory by this thinke the Patriarchall Sees in their Priviledges violated if that Papal pride had only bin contradicted by Iohn of Constantinople Secondly he assumeth that their denâ—al of prayer for the dead was begun by Acrius contradicted by Augustine Epiphan 1. This is boldnes and impudency in the Iesuite to charge the Greek Church to follow that Hereticke whom they have do in their practise vtterly abdicate condemne 2. He speaketh not any thing to the purpose for Acrius did never crosse prayer for the dead in the sence that the Greeke Church doth at this time for they deny prayers for soules in Purgatory f Cocciâ—◠〈◊〉 2. lib. 7 art 5. pag. 846. Grâ—ci ac Musâ—â—vitae etsi funeâ—re sacrum 〈…〉 tamen Purgatorium Purgâ—â—oâ—ium 〈◊〉 art 1â— coâ— Lutheâ— Gâ—â—â—is ad â—unc usque diem non est creditum Purgatorium esse which the ancient Churchâ— never dreamed of nor Aerius ever opposed but that Hereticke denyed the Commemoration and prayer for the Saints departed vsed by the ancient Church which had no relation to Purgatory flames or soules pretended to be punished there as will be seen in handling of the point and for this and not the other was he condemned of hereticall rashnes So that the Iesuite is mistaken framing an answere to that which was not required at his hands and therefore we desire him to recâ—llect his thoughts tell vs what person among the Greekes did first deny prayer for soules out of Purgatory or els he saith nothing to the demaund In the third place he tells vs their defence of marriage of Preists was contradicted against Theodorus by Chrysostome g Roâ—â—enâ— ibid Legat qui velit Graecorum veterum commentarios nullum quantum opinâ—â— aut quam â—arissi mum de Purgatoriâ— seâ—â—oâ—em inveniet sed neque Laâ—iâ—i simâ—l omnes ac sensim hujus â—â—i veritatem conceperunt and against certaine other by Epiphanius hâ—r
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