likewise you shall observe that he hath rased and purged an ancient Record and speciall Evidence against the universality and supremacie of the Bishops of Rome It is an Epistle written by Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarea to St. Cyprian which St. Cyprian translated into Latin as your Pamelius doth confesse wherein he professeth that he is justly moved with indignation at the manifest folly of Stephanus then Bishop of Rome that boasting so much of his Bishoprick At que ego hâc in parte justè indignor ad hanc tam apertam manifestam Stephani stultitiam Firmilian Cyp. S. Ep. 75. p. 203 Noli te fallere siquidem ille est verè schismaticus c. p. 204. Insuper Cyprianum Pseudo-Christum Pseudo-Apostolum dolosum operarium dicere qui omnia inse conscius praevenit c. p. 205. and that he hath the succession of Peter upon whom the foundation of the Church was set brings in many other Rockes c. He bids him not deceive himselfe he hath made himselfe a Schismaticke by separating himselfe from the Communion of the Ecclesiasticall unitie for while he thinkes he can separate all from his Communion he hath separated himselfe onely from all He taxeth him for calling St. Cyprian a false Christ a false Apostle and a deceitfull workeman which he himselfe being guilty of and privie to himselfe that those termes of right belong to himselfe by way of prevention he objected them to another Touching these severall Additions and Extractions Pamelius by whom the Antwerp and Paris Cyprian were set forth first excuseth Manutius for adding the words in his Roman print and tells us they were found in a written Copie of the Cambron Abbey in Hannonia which was the best of all the Copies he had and therefore saith he we were not afraid to insert that Reading into the Text. Nonsumus veriti in textum inserere Yet Manutius himselfe professeth he perused five and twenty printed and Manuscript Copies which had none of those Additions and as touching the Epistle to or from Firmilianns which proves a resistance anciently made against the usurped power of the Pope Pamelius thinkes it was left out purposely by Manutius Argumentum Ep. 75. p. 198. and saith he Perhaps it had beene more wisedome it had never been set out at all but withall he addeth because Morelius did publish it before me I thought it not fit to let it passe but print it Now let us looke backe and examine the reason of these severall Editions and falsifications Mr. Hart sayth that the Additions were taken from a very ancient Copie gotten from Verona Pamelius saith they were borrowed from a Manuscript in the Cambron Ahbey in Hannonia but in 25. Copies the Additions were not to be found Mr. Hart saith the true Copie was printed at Rome by the Popes command and with the advise of vertuous and wise men to be perfectly corrected and free from all spots Pamelius saith it was better than any other but withall it was not so exact but that the old Proverbe might take place the latter is commonly the better Lastly touching the razing out the Epistle of Firmilianus Pamelius concludeth that his Copie which doth cite it is so perfect Indiculus Codicum in initio Cypriani that be it spoken without envie there will need no further recognition yet happely saith he it had beene better it had never come forth Thus you may discerne what forgeries are used by your men to support the circumgestation of your Sacrament and the Popes Supremacie which is a maine Pillar of your Faith And this may serve to shew your falsifications and forgeries in the third Age. In the fourth Age. The fourth age An. 300. to 400. The first Generall Councell of Nice is forged by Zozimus Bishop of Rome in behalfe of his owne supremacie The pretended Canon is this In Concil Carthag c. 1. Binius Those who in the Nicene Synod gave their sentence concerning Appeales of Bishops said in this manner If a Bishop shall be accused and the Bishops of his owne Province shall thereupon condemne and degrade him if he thinke fit to appeale and thereupon flye to the most holy Bishop of Rome if he be pleased to have the hearing of it the Bishop is to write to the Bishops adjoyning and let it be at his pleasure to doe what he will and as he in his judgement shall thinke fittest to be done This Canon is not to be found either in the Greeke or Latine Copies of the Nicene Councell and those Canons in all were but 20. It is true that you pretend that there were in all 60. Canons where of 40. were burned by the Arabians amongst which this Canon was one But if they were extant how were they burned And if they were burned how came you to the knowledge of them The truth is their Bastardie saith Contius your Lawyer is proved even by this that no man no not Gratian himselfe Raynold chap. 9. Divis 2. pag. 575. durst alledge them Eusebius Caesariensis Bishop of Caesarea is corrupted to prove the Popes supremacie In the Basil print translated by Ruffinus he sayth Peter James Euseb impr Basiliae ex Officinâ Henr. Petrina Ruffino Aquiliensi Interprete Sed Jacobum qui dicebatur Justus Apostolorum Episcopū statuerat Eus l. 2. Eccl. Hist c. 1. p. 677. Petrum Jacobum Johannem non de gloriâ honore contendisse interse sed uno consensu Jacobum Justū Hierosoly monum Episcopū designâsse Coloniae Allobrogum excudebat Petrus dela Roviere An. 1612. and John after the Assumption of our Saviour although they were preferred by him before all the rest of the Apostles yet did they not challenge the honor of Primacie to themselves but appointed James which is called Justus to be Bishop of the Apostles In your Coleine Edition you have altered the sense in this manner Peter James and John when they had obtained of our Lord a high degree of dignity they did not contend about glory and honor amongst themselves but with one consent made James Bishop of Jerusalem Thus the true and ancient Eusebius saith Peter and the rest did not challenge the honor of primacie the latter saith they did not strive about glory and honour the ancient saith they appointed James which is called Justus to be Bishop of the Apostles the other saith they nominated Justus Bishop of Jerusalē This Authority is so pregnant against the Popes Jurisdiction claimed from Peter that Bellarmine hath nothing to answer but this Although those words be found in the Basil print translated by Ruffinus yet in a Colein print translated and published by a Roman Catholike Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 26. the word Primacie is not to bee found and in stead of the words Bishop of the Apostles are inserted Bishop of Jerusalem The Cardinall doth not complaine that Ruffinus Translation was false and corrupt for they are the words in the Originall
neither nameth all of them either joyntly or severally this the Iesuit knowing well enough bringeth no one testimonie for the proofe of their seven Sacraments out of him but forceth only some sentences to prove out of them that hee held more then two as namely out of his first Sermon upon the 103. Psalme Cast thine eyes upon the gifts or offices of the Church in Baptisme the Eucharist and the rest of the holy Sacraments and Epist 118. having brought in two Sacraments Baptisme and the Lords Supper hee addeth such a generall clause and if there bee any thing else commended in holy Scriptures which words of his import that hee held more sacraments then Baptisme and the Lords Supper in that very sense wherein those two by him named are called Sacraments I answer S. Austine in neither of these places taketh the word Sacrament in a strict sense but in a large for every sacred rite commended in Scripture or gift and office of the Church As for the word coeter is the Iesuit insisteth upon it importeth only a generical convenience and similitude not a specificall and so wee acknowledge that there are many sacred rites in the Church which agree with Baptisme and the Lords Supper in the genericall notion of Sacraments but not in the specificall as the word Sacrament is taken for a peculiar seale of the New Testament having thereunto annexed a promise of justifying grace Now let us weigh what the Knight alledgeth out of S. Austine for two Sacraments only De doct Chris l. 3. c. 9. Our Lord saith that Father and his Apostles have delivered unto us a few Sacraments in stead of many in performance most easie in signification most excellent as is the Sacrament of Baptisme and the Lords Supper To disappoint this testimonie the Iesuit first layeth corruption and falsification to the Knights charge because S. Austines words are signa pauca not sacramenta Which is nothing but a meere cavill for signa and sacramenta are in S. Austine no other then synonima by signa hee can meane no other then sacramenta For he instanceth there in no other neither did Christ deliver unto us any other signa or sigilla but these two Yes saith the Iesuit for it is plaine by the word sicut that hee bringeth in Baptisme and the Lords Supper for example only and doth not restraine the signa to these two It is not plaine for sicut bringeth in an example be it one or more neither can wee from thence inferre that there are more For S. Iohn speaking of our Saviour saith vidimus gloriam ejus sicut unigeniti filij Dei Wee beheld the glorie as of the only begotten Sonne of the Father Will the Iesuit from thence inferre that God had more only begotten sonnes but to expound S. Austine out of himselfe those signes or Sacraments which here hee calls a few in his 118. Epistle hee tearmes most few Sacrament is numero paucissimis surely seven Sacraments are not numero paucissima fewest in number but two are so and therefore in his booke De symbolo ad catechumenos he tearmeth them gemina Ecclesiae sacramenta which passage the Iesuit taketh no notice of because hee could give no answer at all unto it yet hee setteth a good face upon the matter saying this may suffice for such testimonies as were alledged out of S. Austine Of all the Roman Captaines I cannot liken him fitter to any then to Terentius Varro who though hee fought so unhappily against Hanniball at Cannae that hee lost 40000. men upon the place yet hee seemed to bee little daunted therewith and the Roman Senat sent him publike thankes quòd de republicâ non desperâsset that hee despaired not of the Common-wealth To the ninth The authour of the treatise De ablutione pedum who was farre later then S. Cyprian mentioneth indeed five sacraments which are more then two yet lesse then seven and for those five hee nameth it is evident hee intended not that they were Sacraments in a strict sense For one of them is ablutio pedum which if it bee a Sacrament in the proper sense then hath the Iesuit an eighth sacrament as himselfe is sapientum octavus Not so saith hee for ablutio pedum which that Authour meaneth is the sacrament of Penance Then belike Peter and the Apostles did Penance whilest Christ washed their feet Although there may lie hid some mysterie in that ablution L. 2. de sac c. 24. and therefore it may bee tearmed a Sacrament in a large sense as Bellarmine expoundeth that authour Yet our Lord himselfe revealeth unto us no other mysterie nor maketh any other inference from it then a patterne of humilitie Ioh. 13 14. If I your Lord and Master have washed your feet ye also ought to wash one anothers feet Yea but saith Flood the authour speaketh of another Laver after Baptisme and what can that bee other then Penance He speaketh of another laver not of another Sacrament which laver is no other then the laver of penitent teares But dicis causa let ablutio pedum be Penance yet wee have but foure Sacraments mentioned by this Author what becommeth of the other three To this hee answereth that the Authour mentioned not them because his scope was in that place to speake of such Sacraments as had relation to our Saviours last Supper A ridiculous evasion for what relation hath Baptisme or Penance or Confirmation or order to our Lords Supper But the Iesuit like a Lawyer that hath taken his fee of his Client thought himselfe bound in conscience to speake something in behalfe of this Authour though nothing at all to the purpose like Erucius in Tully Ego quid acceperim scio quid dicam nescio Cic. pro. Rosc Amer. To the tenth The Iesuit in his answer to S. Isidore bewrayes extreame negligence For the Knight quoting S. Isidore at large in his sixt book and not naming any chapter this Desultorius Miles posting through one chapter and finding not the words there chargeth the Knight with falsification whereas in the chapter immediatly following to wit the 19. according to the later edition of S. Isidore but in the 18. according to the former the testimonie alledged by the Knight is found in expresse words and Baptisme Chrisme and the Lords Supper reckoned by him for the Sacraments of the Church there without addition of any other If hee had held seven sacraments questionlesse in that place hee would have named all or at least the major part of them The Iesuit applieth a plaister to this sore to wit that else-where the same Father mentioneth Penance and Matrimonie But the plaister is too narrow and the salve of no vertue at all First it is too narrow for though Penance and Matrimonie be added to Baptisme Chrisme and the Lords Supper we have yet but foure or if we take Chrisme not for a Ceremonie used in Baptisme but a distinct Sacrament from it at the most but five
bookes yet extant wherein he no way approveth of Transubstantiation but condemneth it expressely Neither doth he say that a right beliefe in the Sacrament touching the substance thereof is no matter of salvation but that it is no matter of salvation to beleeve after what manner the substance of Christs body is in the Sacrament whether by Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation which is most true for as Doctor Andrewes late Bishop of Winton acutely observed Christ said hoc est Corpus meum non hoc modo est or fit Corpus meum this is my Body not the bread is after this manner my body To the sixt If communion in both kindes be an haeresie Christ his Apostles and the Primitive Church which administred and received the Communion in both kinds as is confessed in the Councell at Constance cannot be free from haeresie And whereas the Iesuit saith that this Martyr in all other points held with Papists the contrary appeares in his printed bookes and by the prayer he made at his death mentioned by Cocleus in the history of the Huzzites wherein he prayeth to God that his soule after his death might be where the soule of Wickliffe is To the seventh To the Iesuit his allegations out of Barrow Hooker Some Bunnie and Covell Dr. Morton now Bishop of Duresme answereth at large in his Catholike appeale l. 4. from the first Section to the sixth where he proveth that the testimonies themselves and the reasons annexed to them doe shew that the above cited Protestants yeeld no more security to the Romish Church then they doe to any other erroneous Church wherein there is true baptisme and the the profession of the chiefe principles of faith Barrow acknowledgeth the Church of Rome to be a Church of God that is a Church professing Christianity in which there may be a possibility of salvation not an Orthodox or right believing Church in which there is certainty of salvation Hooker saith that the Church of Rome is a member of the visible Catholike Church a member not the Catholike Church and no sound member neither according to that Thesis of Doctor Reynolds Romana ecclesia nec est Catholica nec sanum membrum Catholicae Dr. Somes saith as likewise Iunius Iunius de Eccles l. sing Papatu◠est in Ecclesia seu in papatu est Ecclesia Papatus tamen non est Ecclesia that in Popery there is a Church that is under the Popes dominion Christ hath his Church or that Popery is in the Church yet that Popery is not the Church Bunnie saith that we are not a severall Church from the Papists that is not essentially defferent from it no more then a sicke man differeth from a sound Covell saith the Church of Rome is a part of the Church of Christ but a very unsound part From all which passages this onely may be concluded of the Roman Church as of other erroneous assemblies that though in regard of their manifold errors they must be esteemed sicke and unsound Churches yet in regard of the being and essence of a Church they must be acknowledged visible Churches of Christ Neither Field nor Morton saith that the Church of Rome is the Church of God but a Church of God Fields words are Romana ecclesia est verè ecclesia non vera ecclesia is truely a Church not a true Church Morton proveth in one whole Section that the Church of Rome is not properly the Catholike Church but a particular Church subject to error Sect. 6. Protest appeal l. 4. But in this point in what sense the Protestants call the Church of Rome a true Church see a late Treatise set forth by Doctor Hall the Bishop of Exton called the Reconciler wherein both he and Bishop Davenet and Morton in their letters affixed thereunto cleare the matter nothing at all I assure you to your advantage To the eight The Knight saith not that a man may be saved in one Religion yet so as he must not die in it but that a man living in one Religion to wit the Popish may be saved so that he renounce it before his death and dye in a better for not onely the bosome of the Church but also the gates of Heaven are alwayes open to the penitent as the Prophet Ezekiel teacheth C. 18.23 neither is this any new conceit of the Knight but the generall opinion of all Protestants as the Iesuit may read in the Catholike Appeale l. 4. c. 1. The Reverend Bishop now mentioned understanding how that great and honourable personage in the last Act of her life renounced all presumption of her owne inherent righteousnesse and wholly affianced her soule to Christ in beliefe to be justified onely by his satisfactory justice did therefore conceive hope of her salvation by vertue of that Cordiall prescribed by the Holy Apostle viz. that where sinne aboundeth the grace of God doth superabound which the Apostle hath ministred for the comfort of every Christian who erring by ignorance shall in sincere repentance for all his knowne sinnes depart this mortall life having the heele or end of his life shod with the preparation of the Gospell of peace not of the new Romish but of the old Catholike faith which is the faith of all Protestants C. 15. p. 363. And againe in his booke intituled the Grand Imposture If you demand why Protestants have so charitable opinion of some Romanists you are to understand that it is in regard of that without which they cannot be saved that they died in the beliefe of this Protestant Article of Faith which is to be justified by remission of all their sinnes through the satisfactory righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith and not by the legall justice or perfection of inherent righteousnesse in themselves as your Councell of Trent hath decreed and this opinion we finde verified in the experience of many Papists who howsoever in their life time they professe and magnifie your doctrine of perfection of works yet on their death bed as soone as the least glimpse of the majesty of Christs tribunall is revealed unto them and the booke of their conscience begins to be unclapsed and so laid open before them that they cannot but reade their sinnes which in their life-time they held as veniall to be deadly and written in Capitall litters then they take Sanctuary in the wounds of Christ from whence floweth the Ocean of all expiatory merit and satisfaction by which it is impossible but that every faithfull penitent should receive life To the ninth To this argument I say that it is paralyticall and weake in the sinewes For how doth this follow the Donatists held as the Papists doe that all men were damned that were not of their sect St. Austine de unit eccles c. 12. and other Catholike Bishops thought that some of them might be in the state of grace and that their Baptisme was good Ergo it is a safer way to embrace the Donatists haeresie then the Catholike
of the ancient Eusebius neither could he say truly that the Colein was translated by a Catholike for indeed it is the property of an Here-ticke to falsifie and corrupt the Text. And thus you have done in your Colein Edition where you have altered the sense in that manner Eusebius Emissenus Bishop of Emesa in Syria is forged by Gratian for the doctrine of Transubstantiation Grat. Dist 2. de Consecrat Quia corpus fol. Mihi 432. his words are these Christ the invisible Priest turned the visible creature into the substance of his body and bloud with his word and secret power saying Take eate this is my Body whereas there are no such words to be found in all his Works The Councell of Laodicea is falsified in favour of your Iâ—vocation of Angels The words of the Originall are these a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Conc. Laod. Can. 35. Bin. Tom. 1. p. 245. Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God and depart aside and invocate Angels and make meetings which are things forbidden If any man therefore be found to give himselfe to this privie Idolatrie let him be accursed Now in the same Councell published by James Merlyn and Fryer Crab by transmutation of a letter you are taught a lesson contrary to sense and reason saying b Quod non oporteat EcclesiaÌ„ Dei relinquere abire at que angelos nominare congregationes facere Merlin Tom. 1. Concil edit Col. An. 1530. f. 68. Crab. edit An. 1538. Colon. fol. 226. Verit as non quaerit Angulos It is not lawfull for Christians to forsake the Church of God and goe and nominate or invocate Angels or corners and make meetings and thus Angeli are become Anguli Angels are become Angles or Corners as if truth did seeke Corners when so faire an Evidence is brought against Invocation of Angels St. Basil the great Archbishop of Caesarea was forged by Pope Adrian the first at the second Councell of Nice for the worship of Images his words are these c Pro quo siguras ImaginuÌ„ eorum honoro adoro veneror specialitèr hoc enim traditum est à Sanctis Apostolis necest prohibendum acideò in omâ—ibus Ecclesiis nostris eorum designamus Historias Citat ab Adriano in Synod Nic. 2. Act. 2. p. Mihi 504. For which cause I honor and openly adore the figures of the Images speaking of the Apostles Prophets and Martyrs and this being delivered us by the Apostles is not prohibited but in all Churches we set forth their Histories This Authority was cited by Pope Adrian in the name of Basil the Great in his Epistles when as in all his Epistles of which are extant 180. there are no such words to be found St. Hierome is likewise forged for the same doctrine and by the same Pope the words in the Epistle are these Sicut permisit Deus ador are omnem gentem manufacta c. Citatur ibid. Ep. Adr. p. Mihi 506. As God gave leave to the Gentiles to worship things made with hands and to the Jewes to worship the carved workes and two golden Cherubins which Moses made so hath he given to us Christians the crosse and permitted us to paint and reverence the Images of Gods workes and so to procure him to like of our labour These words you fee are cited by your owne Pope at a generall Councell as you pretend for a point of your Romish faith and yet there are no such words nor the meaning of of them to be found in either of those Fathers and without doubt there was great scarcity of true ancient Fathers to bee found at that time to prove your adoration of Images when your Pope was driven to shifts and forgeries especially when your owne Polydore tells you Polyd. de ReruÌ„ Invent. that the worship of Images not onely Basil but almost all the ancient holy Fathers condemned for feare of Idolatrie as S. Hierome himselfe witnesseth This puts me in mind of Erasmus complaint that the same measure was afforded to Basil Eras in Praefat. lib. de Spirit Sanct. Bas which hee had otherwise observed in Athanasius Chrysostome Hierome that in the middle of Treatises many things were stuffed and forced in by others in the name of the Fathers St. Ambrose Bishop of Millaine is falsified and corrupted Franciscus Junius as an eye witnesse Junius Praefat. in Ind. Expurg Belg. tells us that at Leyden in the yeare 1559. being familiarly acquainted with Ludovicus Saurius Corrector of the Printing house and going to visit him hee found him revising of St. Ambrose workes which then Frelonius was printing after some conference had betwixt them Ludovicus shewed him some printed leaves partly cancelled and partly razed saying this is the first Impression which wee printed most faithfully according to the best Copies but two Franciscan Fryers by command have blotted out those passages and caused this alteration to my great losse and astonishment It may be the discoverie of it by Junius might stay their further printing of it or else might be an occasion to call it in after the printing for otherwise if that Impression may be had it were worthy the examination Bolseus dicit se in manibus Secretarii hâ—c testimonium vidisse inspexisse In disp de Antichristo in Apend Nu. 49. 53. Laurent Rever Rom. Eccl. p. 190. Non habent Petri haereditatem qui Petri sedem non habent Grat de Paenit Dist 1. c. Potest fieri But for a proofe of this falsified Ambrose Lessius the Jesuit tells us that Bolseck doth confesse he saw the Copie in the hands of a Secretary howsoever their later Editions are sufficient proofe of your manifold falsifications But I will speak of Impressions onely that have been within my view First to prove your succession in doctrine in your owne Church Gratian tells us from St. Ambrose They have not the succession of Peter who have not the Chayre of Peter and thus he hath changed Fidem into Sedem Faith into Chaire This forgery in time may creepe into the Body of Ambrose but as yet the words of Ambrose are agreeable to our doctrine that is a Non habent Petri haereditatem qui Petri fidem non habent Ambr. de Paenit c. 6. Tom. 1. p. 156. Basil apud Joh. Frob. An. 1527. Ambr. de Sacr. l. 4. c. 5. Tom. 4. p. 393. Basilâ—ut supra they have not the succession of Peter which want the faith of Peter These be the words of true and ancient Ambrose hereby declaring unto us and them that they may have the See of Peter and yet want the faith of Peter Againe in his Booke of the Sacrament St. Ambrose saith b Fac nobis haÌ„c oblationem ascriptam c. quod fit in figuram corports sanguinis Jesu Christi Amb. Colon. Agripp An. 1616 Tom. 4. p. 173. Make this Oblation to be a reasonable acceptable one quod est
by way of conclusion what hee would have called Heresie Ibid. This would I rather call Heresie saith he to accompt mens writings among the Scriptures of God and so doe they that thinke it a wicked matter to dissent from the writings of man no lesse than it were the judgements of God Now that your men are guilty of such Heresies in the highest degree appeares by his owne confession Ibid. l. 1. c. 2. p. 14. for he complaines of Gratian who did insert the Popes decretall Epistles amongst the holy Scriptures as if they were of equall authoritie with them and he speakes as an eare witnesse of others who in their publicke Sermons have declared that whosoever shall dissent from the opinion of St. Thomas is to be censured for an Hereticke O fortes verbi Dei Praecones O powerfull Preachers of the word of God saith he or rather I may truly say of St. Thomas doctrine l. 1. c. 7. for by this meanes it will come to passe that blessed Bonaventure must be censured of heresie Ibid. p. mihi 31. for he crosseth St. Thomas and blessed Anselme must be suspected of Heresie because contrary to Thomas opinion he thinketh him not a lover of our blessed Virgin who refuseth to celebrate the Feast of her Conception As this Author wrote a tract against Hereticks so likewise he professeth that the head of the Roman Church as well as the members are subject to that capitall accusation whereof you accuse the Reformers and particularly he doth instance from Platina in Pope Liberius for an Arrian Hereticke and Pope Anastasius for a favourer of the Nestorian Heretickes and withall hee resolves the question which without all question is so to bee resolved that the Pope which you make one of the infallible Rules of your Faith may become an Hereticke You shall doe well therefore to forbeare your name Catholicke till you can free your Pope and his adherents from the markes of Heretickes In the meane time I might more justly retort your owne words cum faenore into your owne bosome and say We Reformed Catholickes not onely stile but prove J. R. and the Romanists to be rightly stiled by the common name of Heretickes I proceed to the rest of your accusations Theodoret say you is wholly impertinent Bellarmine his meaning is abused and his words corrupted First touching Theodoret his proofe notwithstanding your exception stands good for if the agreement of both parties in the Nicene Councell in his judgement ought to have allayed the heate of contention in the Church of Antioch I might well conclude much more that the three Creeds and the first foure Generall Councels wherein both sides agree ought to have abated the edge of your sharpe and bitter Invectives against our Church And as for abusing of Bellarmine I assure you it was farre from my thoughts and you cannot be ignorant that the inference according to true meaning standeth thus If Protestants beleeve and hold all things necessarie for all Christians then are they not to be accompted damned persons and worse than Infidels But they beleeve the Apostles Creed they teach the ten Commandements and administer some few Sacraments which in your Cardinals opinion are those things which are simply necessarie for all to know and beleeve and to this argument you answere nothing but you quarrell about words When I translate nonnulla a few Sacraments you say I falsifie Bellarmine for the word few is not there and yet you know well that by nonnulla hee doth not meane omnia Nonnulla is a diminutive terme signifying not none that is some be they never so fevv and therefore those which he meaneth are but few The word utilia is in the same place of Bellarmine and as for other words added or left out they alter not the sense nor are wee bound precisely to the words but to the sense in translating a passage out of any Author But say you what man ever tooke Babylon for a true Church If by Babylon you understand literally the ancient Citie of Chaldea or that famous City in Aegypt once called by the name of Memphis and now of Cair you know well that it is not my meaning so to take it for you confesse that I otherwise expresse my selfe but that a particular Church as namely your Church of Rome which was sometimes a sound that is a right-beleeving Church may afterwards fall into Heresie and become spirituall and mysticall Babylon this is not onely my assertion but your Romanists and fellow Jesuites in the Church of Rome Ribera your fellow Jesuite of Salamanca in Spaine tells us by way of prevention If Rome shall commit the same things hereafter which she committed in the time of John she shall be called Babylon againe as it was in the case of Hierusalem which of a faithfull City once became afterwards a Harlot And according to the Prophesie of St. John he protesteth in this manner We know this truth so perspicuously by the words of the Revelation Ut ne stultissimus quidem negare possit that the veriest foole cannot deny the same Then he concludes Riberae Comment in Apoc. 14. v. 8. in c. 14. num 31. n. 32. Since Babylon shall be the shop of all Idolatrie and of all impieties therefore it cannot be doubted but that this shall be the condition of Rome hereafter I will come nearer to you Your Monke Sigebert about 500. yeares agoe interpreting the words of St. Peter The Church at Babylon salutes you delivereth this doctrine Sigeb Ep. p. mihi 188. in l. Goldasti Replic Hitherto Peter by Babylon did signifie Rome because Rome at that time was confounded with Idolatrie and all uncleannesse but my griefe doth now interpret unto mee that Peter by a Propheticke spirit by the Church of Babylon foresaw the confusion of dissention with which the Church of Rome at this day is rent in pieces Honorius Bishop of Anthun in France speaking of the fall of the Church of Rome not long after the same time cryes out to the members of his Church Honor. Angust in Dial. de Praedest l. arbit Turne to the Citizens of Babylon and see what they are behold the buildings of that damned Citie consider the principall persons there and thou shalt finde the See of the Beast Thus you see the first Babylonian tels what he feared would come to passe in the Church of Rome hereafter but these two later proclaimed openly that Rome was become Babylon many hundred yeares since and for their loud cries their tongues are now cut out by the command of your Inquisitors How undeservedly were these men punished and forbidden to speake the truth let the Reader judge but that which is observable you raze the Records which testifie for us you forbid them to speake if it make against your Church and then you demand of us What man ever tooke Babylon for Rome I will give you one witnesse more who is ancient and
was discovered and herein the Author the time and place was observed and knowne to all but in the Church of Rome it was otherwise there was first an Apostacie a falling away from the truth which was first caused by an error secretly stolne into the Church and therefore it is sometimes called a mystery of iniquity because mystically covertly secretly hee shall winde his abominations into the Church of God and accordingly the Apostle gives Timothy to understand that in the last times some shall depart from the faith 1 Tim. 4.1 giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of Devils and such as speake falshood in Hypocrisie which place plainely shewes saith a learned Divine that Antichrist himselfe shall not professedly renounce Christ Mr. Bedel against Wadsworth p. 40. and his Baptisme that his kingdome is a revolt not from the outward profession but inward sinceritie and power of the Gospel And therefore all doe not understand Apostacie a forsaking of Christ and Christianity Not all no not the same Apostle where hee useth the same word Apostacie to the Thessalonians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 2 Thess 2.3 Let no man deceive you by any meanes for that day shall not come except there come an Apostacie a falling away first Hee speakes of the departing from the orthodox Faith not from Christianitie Not all no not your Rhemists in their Annotations upon this place Rhem. Annot. in 2 Thess 2.3 For it is very like say they be it spoken under correction that Gods Church and all learned Catholikes that this great defection and revolt shall not be onely from the Roman Emperour but especially from the Roman Church and withall from most points of Christian Religion or as they interpret in their Margin from most Articles of the Christian faith Not all no not Campian your fellow Jesuite who termes Luther an Apostata for falling from your Church not from Christianity Not all no not your Decretals who terme a Monke for leaving his Order or a Clarke forsaking his habit an Apostata Not all no not Gregory the Great Greg. l. 6. Ep. 24. who called John Bishop of Constantinople an Apostata for assuming the title of universall Bishop Lastly Not all no not your Councell of Basil where 900. condemned and deposed your Pope Eugenius for a Symonist Concil Basil sess 34. a forsworn man a man incorrigible a Schismaticke an Apostata a man fallen from the faith and a wilfull Hereticke I say therefore not all nor any of these did understand an Apostacie to be a forsaking of the name of Christ and Christianity and therefore I hope you will confesse that your assertion is neither Catholike nor universall When therfore we lay Apostacie to your Church we doe not charge you with a totall falling from Christian Religion like that of Julian the Apostata with an obstinate pertinacie in denying the principles of the faith necessarie to salvation or a renouncing your Baptisme and consequently the name of Christianitie Wee charge you not with Apostacie in such a fearefull and horrible sense unlesse you will assume it to your selves Lyra in 2. Thess 2. but wee thinke with Lyra that as there was an Apostacie or revolt of many Kingdomes from the Roman Empire and of many Churches from the Communion of the Roman Church so there hath beene an Apostacie from the Catholike saith in the midst of the Church not for that all at any time did forsake the true Faith but for that many fell from the sinceritie of the Faith After your definition of Apostacie you proceed in this manner How then can we be Apostatas in no wise certainely but if wee erre wee erre as heretikes and if wee be heretikes you confesse you must assigne the persons time and place I have cleared you from the hainous title of Apostata in your owne sense but not in ours D. Potter p. 19. 60. yet let me tell you with griefe and pitty be it spoken your profane and wicked application of the Apostles Creed as you pretend in jests is a fearefull signe of falling from Christ and Christianitie it selfe and therfore although I may free your Church in generall of that name and in that sense yet it behoves you to acquit your selfe in that particular But this by way of friendly admonition If we erre say you wee erre as heretikes I shall easily condescend unto you in that For the errors in the Roman Church caused an Apostacie at first and was mysticall and secret now after long practise and usage in the Church is become an heresie and so wee may truely assent unto you that you erre as heretikes And although I am not bound upon this acknowledgment forthwith to assign you the Authors of your heresies because they came in by degrees and at severall times privily and insensibly yet because you are so inquisitive after you predecessors Ecclefia sua definitione non facit talem assertionem esse haeresin cum etiamsi ipsa non desnivisset esset haeresis sed id efficit Ecclesia ut nobis persuam censuram pateat illud esse heresin Alph. à Castr l. 1. c. 8. D. Potter sect 4. p. 101. 97. if you will have but patience I will draw your pedigree in the next Section In the meane time let me tell you it is another errour in you to say They come to have the name of heresie onely by the condemnation of the Church For the Church condemnes them because they are heresies contrariwise they are not heresies because the Church condemnes them The Doctrines of Arrius Macedonius Nestorius Eutyches Eunomius and Dioscurus were themselves hereticall even before they were solemnly condemned in the foure generall Councels but woe to us and all the reformed Churches if this Tenet were true and Catholike for then are wee condemned already But I pray what if your Pope whom you Jesuites now make the onely Church admit I say your Pope were an Heretike such as was your Pope Eugenius or your John the 23. or Pope Vigilius or Pope Honorius were they able to judge of heresies in others that were tainted with them themselves or must their definitive sentence in Cathedra stand for a Law Si autem Papa erraret praecipien â—o vitia vel prohibendo virtutes c. Bell. de Pont. l. 4. c. 5. Sand. de visibili Monarch l. 7. An. 1541. p. mihi 595. and make that heresie which is no heresie Indeed your Cardinall sayes The Pope hath power to make that no sinne which is sinne and accordingly he hath placed that Tenet amongst the Heretikes and by the same Law he makes that to be heresie which is no heresie Your learned Sanders tells us it is heresie to translate the Scriptures into the vulgar Tongue and accordingly he hath placed that Tenet amongst the Heretikes Your Chancellor of Paris and Director of the Councell of Constance tells us it is heresie to communicate in both kindes and accordingly
we should heare of your differences among your selves but the fire of contention cannot bee kept within the walls of your Schooles quis enim celaverit ignem Lumine qui semper proditur ipse suo it breaketh out and if ye looke not to it it will set on fire the whole fabrick of your Romish Babel Meane while the Iesuit giveth us great incouragement to desire to bee admitted into the Roman Church because then forsooth wee shall have leave to tread the endlesse mazes of scholasticall disputes To the sixteenth If Soto come short Durand commeth home to the point in question for hee affirmeth that which is alledged by the Knight and confessed by the Iesuit that Matrimonie is not a Sacrament univocally if not univocally not truly and properly but equivocally or analogically Yea but saith the Iesuit all acknowledge it for anerror in Durand hee saith all but hee names none Surely the Divines of the reformed Church acknowledge it for no error in Durand but defend it for a truth and for such Romish Divines that adhere to the Councell of Trent they are but a faction in the Church nor is their authoritie more to be urged against the Doctours of the reformed Churches then the authoritie of the Doctours of the reformed Churches against them which yet if any should produce against any of the Articles of their new Creed they would not vouchsafe them so much as a looke For the definition of the Church in the Councel of Florence which the Iesuit toucheth upon it is of little or no authoritie because that Councell was not general nor called by lawfull authoritie but by the schismaticall Pope Eugenius the fourth who was deposed by a generall Councell held at Basil To the seventeenth Because the Iesuit is forbidden by the Popes law to tast of the fruits of Matrimonie at which it seemes his mouth waters hee is content to let the tree fall to the ground for want of support To Cardinal Cajetan who gave a strong push at it by denying that it can be proved to bee a Sacrament Out of the words of S. Paul Ephesians the fift hee answereth nothing but with ifs if it be not proved out of that place it may be out of others if out of no other yet out of tradition to his ifs I returne fies fie for shame that they should bind all their followers under paine of a heavie curse to beleeve this Sacrament of Matrimonie and yet know not where to ground this their beliefe upon Scripture or tradition If it may be proved to bee a sacrament out of S. Paul Ephes 5. their most learned Cardinal Cajetan is out if it may not be proved out of those words Cardinal Bellarmine and almost all Papists that wrote since Cajetan are in an errour The Iesuit holdeth a Wolfe by the eare hee dares neither hold with Cajetan nor against him but puts the matter off with an iff If it cannot be proved to bee a Sacrament out of that passage as Cajetan affirmeth yet it may bee out of other texts What texts why doth he not name them it is a signe hee feareth his coyne is counterfeit that hee dare not bring it to the test If that place which seemeth to make most for his Romish tenet make nothing at all as the acute Schooleman and most learned Cardinal Cajetan confesseth there is no likelihood that other texts which have lesse appearance will stand them in any stead and therefore for his last refuge he flyeth to unwritten traditions as the old Dunces as I noted before ad pontem asinorum To the eighteenth Canus puts a strong sharpe weapon in our hands to wound your Trent doctrine concerning Matrimonie Canus loc Theol l. 8. c. 5. in materiâ formâ hujus Sacramenti viz. Matrimonij statuendâ adeò sunt inconstantes varij aà eò incerti ambigui ut ineptus juturus sit quis in tantâ illorum varietate discrepantiâ rem aliquam certam constantem exploratam conetur afferre but withall forbiddeth us to strike with it as the Iesuit Flood telleth us as if we were at his beck and might not use our weapons as wee list But let him know though he be so foolish as to give advantage wee will not bee so childish as to leave it If that bee true which he writeth that the Divines of Rome write so uncertainly of the matter and forme of Matrimonie that it were folly in any to goe about to reconcile these differences and determine any thing certaine in the point we will inferre upon him that it is likewise folly to define Matrimonie to be a Sacrament for if the matter and forme of Matrimonie bee so unknowne as hee saith the genus of it must needs be unknowne For the genus as Porphyrie teacheth is taken from the matter L. de praedicab c. de genere and answereth thereunto as the difference is taken from the forme If the genus be uncertaine how can it bee an article of faith that matrimonium is species sacramenti The whole nature of a thing consisteth of matter and forme which if it bee unknowne the specificall essence is unknowne and if the specificall essence be unknowne how can it be ranked in his predicament under its proper genus What Papist soever therefore defineth Matrimonie and putteth it under a Sacrament as the proper genus Canus putteth the foole upon him take it off when you can To the nineteenth Vasquez giveth the Iesuits cause not so light a blow as hee imagineth in saying that where S. Austine calleth Matrimonie a sacrament hee taketh the word Sacrament in a large sense and not in the strict and proper for if S. Austine bee so to be understood he held not Matrimonie a sacrament properly so called but in a large sence onely and if that were his judgement we have a great advantage of our Adversaries in the cause for S. Austine carrieth a great stroake not only because hee is held the acutest of all the ancient Fathers and father of all the Schoolemen but especially because the Pope in the Canon law professeth Augustinum sequimur in disputationibus Wee follow for the most part saith Pope Gelasius S. Ierome in the interpretation of Scripture S. Gregorie in matter of moralitie but S. Austine in point of controversie Yea but saith Flood this is but Vasquez his private and singular opinion concerning S. Austine Neither doth the Knight otherwayes urge it then as the singular opinion of a singularly learned Iesuit enforced by evidence of truth to give over their chiefest hold of antiquitie in this point the authoritie of S. Austine Well be it so saith Flood Vasquez is so farre for you yet we have an Oliver for a Rowland Bellarmine for Vasquez for this opinion of Vasquez is contradicted by other Catholique Divines and by Bellarmine in particular Where is then the unitie our Adversaries so much bragge of two of the greatest Champions of the Pope Vasquez and
other man to be present at a prayer which he understandeth not then for a Parish-Clarke whom alone hee will have here to be understood Who is very much beholding to him for bestowing the name of idiot upon him and truly such a Clarke as the Iesuit here defineth may very well take the idiot in the worst sence to himselfe For he requireth no more in a Clarke then that hee understand the Service so farre P. 265. as to bee able to answer Amen But it seemeth the Iesuit tooke his holy orders per saltum and skipt over the Clarke For if hee had well considered what belongs to the Clarkes office he should find that he hath more in his part then to say only Amen for in all ancient and later Liturgies that I have seene many short sentences or responds are to be said by him as namely Christe eleeson cumspiritn tuo habemus ad Dominum and the like neither can hee say Amen to any prayer in the Apostles sence unlesse hee perfectly understand it for to say Amen is not only to utter the word which a Parret or Popenjay may doe but to joyne in prayer with the Priest and to give his assent to every clause To the ninth The Iesuits answer to Iustinian is lame on both feet For whereas hee taxeth him for taking too much upon him it will appeare to any who peruseth the Code Digests that hee taketh no more upon him then God commendeth to Princes to wit the custodie of both tables he did no more then S. Austine affirmeth appertaineth to Christian Kings to command those things that are just and honest not only in civill affaires but also in matters of religion for what he did hee had many excellent presidents before him in David Salomon Hezekiah and Iosiah Kings of Iudah and Constantine and Theodosius and other Christian Emperours as is declared at large by B. Bilson in his defence of the oath of supremacre and Doctor Crakenthorpe in his most learned Apologie of this Emperour Next what hee saith that the Decree of this religious Emperour may well stand with the present practise of the Roman Church is most false Novel constit 123. For the words of the Emperour are generall commanding all Bishops and Priests to celebrate the sacred oblation of the Lords Supper and prayer used in Baptisme not in secret but with a lowd and cleare voyce that the mindes of the hearers might bee stirred up with more devotion to expresse the prayses of God Now I would faine know to what end all Bishops and Priests are commanded to pronounce their words clearely and distinctly both at the administration of Baptisme and the Lords Supper but that their hearers might undetstand what they say and bee affected with those things they heare which cannot beif the Priest speak to them in an unknown tong For how can the lowd pronouncing of words in a strange language stirre up the devotion of the people to praise God for his benefits which the Emperour here requireth under a great penaltie saying Let the Bishops and Priests know that if they neglect to doe according to our princely command they shall yeeld an account in the dreadfull judgement of the great God for it and wee having information of them will not leave them unpunished To the tenth After the Imperiall Decree the Knight alledgeth a text out of the Canon law not to shew his skill in both lawes as the Iesuit would have it but to demonstrate that the practise of the Roman Church in this point of prayer in an unknowne tongue is against all law both Ecclesiasticall and civill Tit. 3. de Offic. and that the walls of the Romish Babell are battered by her owne canons for though the Decree of Pope Gregorie were made upon a speciall occasion yet it is grounded upon this generall rule that Service and Sacraments must bee said and administred to the people in a language they understand which the Iesuit himselfe confesseth in part saying that it is a matter of necessitie in the administration of some Sacraments to use the vulgar tongue as in Mariage and Penance as for the Councell of Lateran and the Pope in his Decree they speake indefinitely of holy Service and Sacraments and the Logitians rule is that indefinite propositions in materia necessaria are to be taken for universals and by the same reason which the Iesuit alledgeth for Penance and Mariage to be celebrated in a knowne tongue wee may conclude that Baptisme also and the Lords Supper ought to bee so celebrated For in both questions are put to the people to the god fathers in the one and communicants in the other and answers are expected from them To the eleventh The Iesuit is like them taxed by the Apostle who knew not what they spake nor whereof they affirme Our question is not whether divine Service ought alwayes to bee said in the mother tongue for wee our selves doe other wayes in divers Colledges but the point in controversie is whether the service ought alwayes to besaid in a tongue understood by those that are present this all the Authours alledged by the Knight affirme and therefore they make for us and assuredly if for seven or 800 yeares the publike prayers of the Church were offered to God in a language understood by the people as is confessed questionlesse in many places the prayers were turned into vulgar languages For it cannot be imagined that all the people in the Christian world before Pope Vitalians time understood Hebrew Lyra in 1 Cor. 14. in primitiva ecclesia bene dictiones coetera fiebant in linguâ vulgari Gretz def Bel. l. 2. de verb. Dei linguâ auditoribus non ignotâ omnia peragebantur consuetudo tunc ferebat ut omnes psallerent Harding apud Iewel ia 3. art divis 28 Verely in the primitive Church prayers were made in a common tongue knowne to the people Liturg. canonicam precem in primis dominici corporis sanguinis consecrationem ita veteres legebant ut à populo intelligi Amen ucclamari possint Ioban Belit in sum de divin offic in primitiva ecclcsia prohibitum erat ne quis lo quereturling u is nisi esset qui inter pretaretur quid enim prodesset c. Wald. in doct art eccies tit 4. c. 31. fuit ergo ratio talis benediction is in ecclesiâ tempore Apostoli cui respondere solebat non tantùm clerus sed omnis populus Aquin as lect 4. ideò erat insania in primitivâ ecclesiâ quia erant rudes in ritu ecclesiastico Greeke or Latine neither is it a point much materiall whether the Authours alledged by the Knight speake of any Precept of praying in a knowne tongue or not it is sufficient that they confesse that it was the generall practice of the Primitive Church to performe their devotions in the vulgar tongue For certainly what they generally practised in their divine
were true might not a man thinke you tell as good a tale of some Protestants who in their pots have made so bold with Almighty God himselfe as to drinke a health to him and were not this a fine argument to prove that there is no God It is intollerable presiemption in the Knight to take upon him to censure so great a Councell as that of Trent Wherein the whole flower of the Catholique Church for learning and sanctity was gathered together the splendour of which Councell was so great that your night owle Heretiques durst not once appeare though they were invited to goe and come freely with all the security they could wish Whoreas the Knight saith that it is a senselesse and weake faith that giveth assent to doctrine as necessary to be believed which wanteth authority out of Scriptures and consent of Fathers I answer he knoweth not what he saith for all the Fathers agree that there are many things which men are bound to believe upon unwritten traditions whose authority you may see in great number in Bellarmine De verbo Dei l. 4. c 7. The consent of Doctours of the Catholique Church cannot more erre in one time then another the authority of the Church and assistance of the Holy Ghost being alwayes the same no lesse in one time then another Tertull. de prescript cap. 28. quod apud multos unum invenitur non est erratū sed traditum and Tertullians rule having still place as well in one age as another that which is the same amongst many is not errour but a tradition St. Paul thought he answered sufficiently for the defence of himselfe and offence of his contentious enemy when he said 1 Cor. 11. If any man seeme to be contentious we have no such custome nor the Churches of God It is false which the Knight againe repeateth that an article of faith cannot be warantable without authority of Scriptures for faith is more ancient then Scripture to say nothing of the times before Christ faith was taught by Christ himselfe without writing as also by the Apostles after him for many yeares without any word written As no lesse credite is to be given to the Apostolicall preaching then writing so no lesse credit is still to be given to their words delivered us by tradition then by their writings the credite and sense of the writings depending upon the same tradition St. Austine defendeth many points of faith De baptisme l. 2 c. 7. l. 5 c. 25. cont Maximin l. 3. c. 3. et Epist 174. de Genesi ad litteram l. 10. c. 23. l. de cura pro mortuis et Epist 118. de unit eccles c. 22. et tract 98. in Iohan. either onely or chiefely by tradition and the practise of the Catholique Church as single Baptisme against the Donatists consubstantiality of the Sonne the divinity of the Holy Ghost and even unbegottennesse of the Father against the Arrians and the Baptisme of children against the Pelagians to say nothing of prayer for the dead observation of the feasts of Easter Ascention Whitsontide and the like Nay this truth was so grounded with him that he accounted it most insolent madnesse to dispute against the common opinion and practise of the Catholique Church In his booke of the unity of the Church he saith that Christ beareth witnesse of his Church and in his Tractates upon John having occasion to handle those words of St. Paul If we or an Angell from Heaven c. wherewith the Knight almost concludeth every Section he thus commenteth upon them the Apostles did not say if any man preach more then yee have received but besides that which you have received for if he should say that he should prejudicate that is goe against himselfe who coveted to come to the Thessalonians that he might supply that which was wanting to their faith but he that supplieth addeth that which was lacking taketh not away that which was before these are the Saints very words in that place by which it is plaine that he taketh the word praeter besides not in that sense as to signifie more then is written as you would understand it but to signifie the same that contra St. Paul himselfe useth the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 para besides Rom. 16.17 for contra and you in your owne Bibles translate it so I beseech you brethren marke them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them The Hammer AS Erucius the accuser of Roscius Amerinus having little to say against him Cic. pro Rosc Amer. to fill up the time rehearsed a great part of an invective which he had penned in former time against another defendant so the Iesuit here failing in his proofes for indulgences for which little or nothing can be said to fill up the Section transcribeth a discourse of his which he had formerly penned concerning the necessity of unwritten traditions which hath no affinity at all with the title of this Chapter de Indulgentiis In other paragraphs we finde him distracted and raving but in this he turneth Vagrant and therefore I am to follow him with a whip as the law in this case provideth Touching the point it selfe of Indulgences which Rivet fitly termeth Emulgences but the Iesuit the Churches Treasury whosoever relieth upon the superabundant merits and satisfaction of Saints for his absolution for his temporall punishment of sinne after this life shall finde according to the Greeke proverbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of treasure Eras Adag Thesauri Carbones glowing coales heaped upon his head in hell For neither are there any merits or superabundant satisfactions of Saints Luk. 17.10 Christ saying when you have done all you are unprofitable servants nor were there any could they be applied or imputed to any other men 2 Cor. 5.10 the Apostle teaching that every man shall receive according to that which himselfe hath done in his body whether it be good or evill 2 Cor. 11.15 nor hath the Pope any more power to dispose of this treasury for the remission of sinnes our Saviour Matth. 18. v. 18. and Iohn 20.23 conferring the same power of remitting sinnes upon all the Apostles which he promised to S. Peter Matth. 16. Neither if the Pope had any speciall power of granting Indulgences could it extend to the soules in Purgatory quia non sunt de foro Papae because they are not subject to the Popes court Serm 2. de defunct 9 9. as Gerson rightly concludeth Neither lastly can it be proved that there is any Purgatory fire for soules after this life St. Iohn expresly affirming that the blood of Christ purgeth us from all our sinnes 1 Iohn 1.7 the fire therefore of Purgatory is rightly termed chymerica and chymica chymericall and chymicall chymericall because a meere fiction and chymicall because by meanes of this fire they extract much gold The Apostle saith there is
4. Art 1. betwixt a Councell approved by the whole Christian world and one that is disclaimed by most Christian Kings and Bishops and the major part of Christendome But you would further know a difference betwixt their two Creeds Let me tell you in briefe When a Romanist like your selfe would needs know of a Protestant the difference betwixt his religion and ours Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus dicimus definimus pronunciamus omninò esse de necessitate salutis Bonifac. 8. in Extr. de Major Obed cap. Unam sanctam because both beleeved the Catholike Church in the Creed the Protestant made answer that wee beleeve the Catholike faith contained in the Creed but doe not beleeve the thirteenth Article which the Pope put to it when the Romanist was desirous to see that Article the Extravagant of Pope Boniface was brought wherein it was declared to be altogether of necessitie of salvation for everie humane creature to be subject to the Bishop of Rome This thirteenth Article in your Trent Creed besides the newnesse of the rest makes a great difference Mr. Lloyd betwixt the two Creeds and the rather because it is flat contrarie to the decree of the Nicene Councell besides many other differences as shall appeare hereafter But say you they agree in this that as the Arrians of those times cryed out against that Creed as being new and having words not found in Scripture for example Consubstantiation so our Protestants cry out against the Trent profession of faith for the same reasons of noveltie and words not found in Scripture as for example Transubstantiation It is true the Arrians at the time of the Councell cryed out against the Nicene Creed for defining the word Consubstantiall or Coessentiall as being new but it is as true they complained without a cause for long before that time the word was used by Origen Doctos quosdam ex veteribus illustres Episcopos Homousii dictione usos esse cognovimus Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. and other ancient Fathers as appeares by Socrates Wee know saith he that of the old writers certaine learned men and famous Bishops have used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and accordingly it was resolved by S. Austin that the name was not invented but confirmed and established in the Councell of Nice The word therefore Consubstantiall was not new August contr Maxim l. 3. c. 14. which they complained of but the word Transubstantiation is so new that it was altogether unknowne till the Councell of Lateran Concil Lateranense Anno 1215. Bellarm. 1200. yeeres after Christ therefore your comparison holds not in the first place But ad nit the Councell had first devised the word Quomodo dicis in Scripturis divinis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non inveniri quasi aliud sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quà m quod dicit Ego de Deo patre exivi Ego Pater unum sumus Ambros de fide contra Arrian Tom. 2. c. 5. p. 223. in initio August Ep. 174. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas Ep. quod decret Synod Nic. Congruis verbis sunt exposita Nihil refert hanc vocem non esse in Scripturâ si vox id significat quod Scriptura docet Vasq in 1. Thom. Tom. 2. Disp 110. c. 1. sect 4. yet it is agreed on all hands that the meaning of the word is contained in Scripture S. Ambrose writing against the Arrians puts to them this very question How doe you say the word Consubstantiall is not in divine Scriptures as if Consubstantiall were any thing else but I went out from the Father and the Father and I are one the word therefore was a pregnant word agreeable to the sacred word of God And albeit saith S. Austin the word perhaps be not found there yet the thing it selfe is found and what more frivolous quarrell is it than to contend about the word when there is certaintie of the thing it selfe In like manner Athanasius answered the Arrians in those dayes as I must answer you Touching the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 albeit it be not found in Scriptures yet it hath the same meaning that the Scriptures intend and imports the same with them whose eares are entirely affected towards religion We cry not out against you simply because your word Transubstantiation is not found in the Scriptures but because the true sense and meaning of the word is not contained in them for the words Unbegotten Increate the word Sacrament the word Trinitie and the like are not found in Scripture yet wee teach them wee beleeve them because their true sense and meaning may bee deduced from the Scripture and we professe with your Jesuite Vasques Nihil refert c. It mattereth not whether the word be in Scripture or no so as that which it signifieth be in the Scripture To come neerer to you doe you but prove that the words This is my body imply Transubstantiation and let me be branded for an Arrian if I refuse to subscribe to it but that the world may know we condemne you justly both for the newnesse of the word and your doctrine also hearken to the learned Doctors of your owne Church Your Schoole-man Scotus tels us that before the Councell of Lateran Bellarm. l. 3. de Eucbar c. 23. Transubstantiation was not beleeved as a point of faith It is true your fellow Jesuites are ashamed of this confession and thereupon Bellarmine answers Ibid. This opinion of his is no way to bee allowed Suarez in 3. Tom. in Euch. disp 70. sect 2. and Suarez not content with such a sober reckoning proclaimes that for his lowd speaking hee ought to be corrected and as touching the words of consecration from whence you would inferre both the name nature of Transubstantiation Mont. in Luk. 22. your Arias Montanus saith This is my body that is my body is sacramentally contained in the Sacrament of bread and hee addes withall the secret and most mysticall manner hereof God will once vouchsafe more clerely to unfold to his Christian Church The doctrine therefore of your carnall and corporall presence is not so cleerely derived from the Scriptures nay on the contrarie hee protesteth that the body of our Saviour is but sacramentally contained in the Sacrament as the Protestants hold and therefore not bodyily It is more than evident that the word Consubstantiation used by the Fathers was derived from the Scriptures but you have not that infallible assurance for your word Transubstantiation witnes your Cardinall Cajetan Cajet in Thom. part 3. q. 75. art 1. he assures us that there appeareth nothing out of the Gospel that may inforce us to understand Christs words properly yea nothing in the text hindereth but that these words This is my body may as well be taken in a metaphoricall sense as those words of the Apostle The Rocke was Christ that the words of either proposition may well bee
true though the things there spoken be not understood in a proper sense but in a metaphoricall sense onely Nay more your Jesuite Suare Suarez Tom. 3. disp 46. confesseth that this Cardinall in his Commentary upon this Article doth affirme that those words of Christ This is my body doe not of themselves sufficiently prove Transubstantiation without the authoritie of the Church and therefore by the command of Pope Pius the fifth that part of his Commentary is sponged out of the Romish Edition Thus one while you correct your Authors another while you purge them for delivering the truth in our behalfe Look upon your Cardinall Bellarmine although he will not allow that sense which the Lutherans give Bell. de Euch. l. 2. c. 19. yet hee granteth that those words This is my body may imply either such a reall change of the bread as the Catholiques hold or such a figurative change as the Calvinists hold And although hee would seeme to prove that the words of Scripture are so plaine that they may compell a refractorie man to beleeve them yet having well weighed the reasons and allegations of other Schoole-men Bell. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. at last concludes It may justly be doubted whether the text be cleere enough to inforce it seeing men sharp and learned such as Scotus was have thought the contrary How therefore your Church should ground a point of faith upon a doubtfull opinion or on such words as by the testimonies of your best learned Divines may receive a double construction I leave it to be judged But farther in proofe of Pope Pius Creed I could urge Sr. Humfrey say you with the 39. Articles appointed by the authoritie of the Church of England to be uniformely taught by all Ministers which they are to sweare unto which Articles though they be indeed new coyned as the foundation of a new Church yet Sr. Humfrey being his mothers Champion will not I suppose yeeld her or her doctrine to bee new Thus you It is true as you say there are 39. Articles appointed by our Church to bee uniformely taught by all Ministers and it is as true that they are published and received with unitie and consent which your men acknowledge for a proper marke of the true Church And withall let me adde this one thing for your observation and indeed it is a thing remarkable whereas all your Trent Articles have beene questioned and confuted by Chemnitius Chamierus Gentilletus and other Protestant writers yet there was never any Papist could goe farther than to tell us as you doe I could urge you with the novelty of the 39. Articles I say never as yet did any Romanist attempt much lesse was able to confute and overthrow our Articles which stand like a house built upon a rocke immoveable and cannot be shaken Let me tell you further your comparisons betwixt our Articles and yours doe not hold for all your Articles are fundamentall points to your Trent beleevers and the deniall of any of them makes them heretiques and damned persons as your Popes Bull expressely declareth Bulla Pii quarti On the other side some of our Articles concerne the discipline of the Church and are not essentiall to salvation others concerne the ancient and latter heresies wherein we teach the negative and those are not properly Articles of faith which we beleeve but points of doctrine which wee condemne and beleeve not And that you may know our Articles are not new nor newly coyned by our men if you will put on your spectacles you shall finde that most of our prime Articles are taught and received by your owne Church as well as ours and therefore I hope you will confesse they are not coyned and built upon the foundation of a new Church Briefly touching our 39. Articles The first sort are in the Affirmative both ours and yours and all those are uniformely received by both Churches The second sort are ours onely which we affirme and you deny and those are very few in number and are evidently deduced from the Scripture The third sort are yours which we deny and you affirme and for that cause you terme our religion negative and those remaine for you to make good Joyne therefore those negative Articles which are wholly yours to those positive Articles which you hold with us and you shall easily discerne if the denomination followeth the greater part those Articles may most properly bee termed Articles of your faith for I dare confidently avow that of the 39. Articles there are above 35. yours that is either such which you hold with us which are at least twentie or such wherein the affirmative is yours and not ours which are at least fifteene take therefore your owne libertie either confute ours or make good your owne herbam porrigemus and I will give you the bucklers You proceed and upon a false supposall that our Church hath created new Articles you proclaime in the name of your owne Church these words We teach that for Articles of faith the Church can make none as she cannot write a Canonicall booke of Scripture Thus you When Diogenes saw a supposed Bastard casting stones in a presse of much people he gave the boy this caveat Take heed lest thou hit thy father This is like to bee your case for by this Tenet you will wound the Church your Mother and amongst others you will surely hit your holy Father the Pope It appeares first that you endevoured to shew that your Church hath created no new Articles of faith but for want of solid proofes you begin to faint and thinke it the safest way to turne Protestant in this point and say the Church can create none but I wonder how you dare pronounce in the name of the Church we teach whereas in truth your Church teacheth it not This is therefore but a cunning device of yours to dazle the eyes of the ignorant with your false glasses and to make them beleeve it is the generall Tenet of your Church and then you thinke they will conclude according to your Assertion Ergo The Church hath created none when as your saying makes more strongly against you if either your Articles prove new or the Pope and his Agents professe the contrarie Mr. Heigham who first answered my Book Mr. Heigham in his answer called Via verè tuta pag. 199. 200. was a member of your Church and he cries aluod that the Church hath power to decree and promulgate new articles of faith But your third Replyer Tom Tell-troth in his Whetstone of Reproofe thought it the wisest way to decline the question for hee knew well when you were both at odds and taught flat contrarie doctrine each to other the Whetstone of necessitie would belong to one of his fellow writers But to let passe such differences amongst your selves bee it spoken to your comfort Friar Walden about two hundred yeares agoe affirmed the same that you doe Waldens