of Scriptures as the divell used them in his allegations against our Saviour or Popes in their 〈◊〉 corruptly and 〈◊〉 and not according to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and true meaning of the text Yet that Scriptures are the onely sufficient rule was so generally a received truth that never any Hereticke denyed the same for although many of them denyed some Scriptures yet they confessed those which they acknowledged divine to bee delivered to the Church to reveale Gods will and to determine all doctrines in the Church and controversies of Faith by And whereas this wisest of his Brethren would perswade that we to cloake our errours with a shew of Pietie will not be subject to the sentence of any Iudge whatsoever but the sacred Scriptures Reply pag. 32 The Iesuite is here in a mist and sees nothing for wee refuse not the judgment of any whether Fathers Councels or consent of the Catholicke Church to judge us by the doctrine of Faith the sacred Scriptures but to be tryed without the Scriptures were to be tryed in the darke Tertullian calling Heretickes Flyers from the light of the sacred Scriptures Tertullian de resurrect carnis c. 47. Qualiter accipiunt Lucifugae isti scripturarum in his prescription against Heretickes he telleth us that they have a faith without Scriptures that they may believe against Scriptures c Idem praescript con Haeret cap. 23. Credunt fine scripturis ut credant adversus scripturas And what the Iesuite would make the note of an Heretick the contrary thereof did point them out in old Ireâ—â—us his time Hereticks were then known by the path wherein our Iesuite treades in rayling accusing the Scriptures when they are convinced by them as if they were not upright nor of authority and because they are ambigâ—â—â—â— and cannot afford the 〈◊〉 to them that are ignorant of Tradition d Irâ—â—eus lib. 3. cap. 2. Haeretici cùm ex scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum scripturarum quasi non reâ—â—e habeant neque sunt ex authoritate quia variae sunt dictas quia non possit ex his invenire veritas ab his qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You see Hereticks and their practises they hate the Scriptures because they beare witnesse of them that both their workes and doctrine are unsound and evill Now as if he would make it appeare to every weake eye that we submitting to Scriptures as the onely rocke whereon we build our faith doe thereby anoyde all tryall he prosequutes this with a simile For we see saith he in the temporall Courts besides the Law there must 〈◊〉 be a Iudge who must declare the true meaning of the Law and pronounce his sentence in matters of controversie according to the same e Reply pag. â—â— So likewise the same forme must be observed in the spirituall regencie of the Conscience if credit may be given to this Iesuite concerning the written Law of God If all this were true what maketh it against the sole rule of Scriptures Iudges doe not Ius dare but dicere and if they doe attempt more they usurpe which your controuling Iudge doth for he will declare what he pleaseth for Scriptures and will prove what he pleaseth by them nay our Iesuite himself can prove doctrines by Scriptures that were never knowne but by tradition f Reply Sect. x If a temporall Iudge trench against the law of Man as your infallible Guide doth against the Law of God his sentence may be disanulled revoked and the Iudge himselfe is not free from reproofe And wee know that the makers of a law may interprete it or give power to others to performe the same But Gods law is not made by man neither hath man received power to be such an infallible Iudge g August Confess l. 13. c. 23. Non enim oportet de tam sublimi autoritate judicaâ— neque enim de ipso libro tuo etiamsi quod ibi non lucet quoniam submittimus ci nostrum intellectum certumque habemus etiam quod clausium est aspectiâ—â—â— nostris rectè veraciterque dictum esse Siceâ—â—â— homo licet jam spiritualis renovâ—â—â—â— in 〈◊〉 Dei secundùm imaginem ejus qui creavit eum FACTOR tamen legis debet esse non IVDEX De his enim judicare nunc dicitur in quibus et corrigendi potestaâ—â—m habet Clemens Alexandrinus strom l. 7 Non enim absolutè eâ—â—â—ciantibus hominibus fidem habucrimus quibus licet etiam câ—â—tiare contrarium Sed oporteâ—etiam probare quod dictum est non expectamus testimonium quod datur ab hominibus sed voce Domini probamus quod quaeritur quae est magis side digâ—â— quam quaevis Demonstrationes Ibid. Hâc ergo ratione non sunt pij ut qui divinis praeceptis non acquiescant hoc est Spiritui sancto Quia est ergo ex scipso fidelis Dominicâ scripturâ voce est fide dignus quae per Dominum 〈◊〉 ad hominum beneficium Ipsa autem Iudice utimur ad res inâ— niendas Wadding Lâ—gat Philippi 3. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 multa sunt hujusmodi quae reâ—â—agantibus aut circâ—ca 〈◊〉 Doctor 〈◊〉 sunt à Pontificibus nec enim parvum Doctorum aggerem sed Dei sapientiam et spiritum pro regula etrectore veritatis habet â—â—â—cta haec 〈◊〉 quae falli non potest Mater Ecclesia That which God hath left his Church is the blessed Spirit in his word â— which Christ hath promised shall direct his owne in all at least fundamentall truth And what if some desperat men follow deceitfull guides must this of necessity make the true guiding of his Spirit contemptible Or must the Scriptures be uncertaine in their direction because we have men that will not see that will interpret by their owne passion not yeeld to the truth or absolute demonstration Besides how vaine is it 〈◊〉 to expect the Romane Iudge for our Determiner who â—â—y make us a new rule of faith as large as the Decretals pretending the Scriptures or tradition for it and yet never be an Heretick For if he might be an Hereticke it must be for denying some truth before defined but he cannot be â—◠〈◊〉 for defining any new matters saith your Cardinall Bellarmine for then hee doth not believe against any thing defined by the Church k Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 7. Nam Pontifex si possit esse Haereticus solum erit ne gando aliquam veritatem antea definitam non autem potest esse haereticus dum ipse aliquid novi definit tunc enim non senâ—it contra aliquid deâ—â—nitum ab Ecclesia And suppose he could not erre in expounding the Scriptures may not they which receive his exposition miâ—interpret the same and the people upon report be carried out of the Romane faith Our Iesuite proceedes It will be worth the marking also to observe how this manner of tryall by onely Scripture hath
at the right hand of his Father and there maketh intercession for us executing alone the office of a true and lawfull Preist and Mediator and from thence hee hath a care of his people and governeth his Church adorning and enriching her with many blessings Wee beleive that without Faith no man can bee saved but that wee call Faith which in CHRIST IESVS justifieth which the life and death of our Lord IESVS CHRIST procured the Gospell published and without which no man can please God Wee beleive that the Church which is called Catholicke containeth all true beleivers in Christ which being departed are in their Countrey in heaven or living on earth are yet travayling in the way the Head of which Church because a mortall man by no meanes can be Iesus Christ is the Head alone and he holdeth the stâ—rne of the Government of the Church in his owne 〈◊〉 but because on earth there bee particular Visible Churches and in order every one of them hath one cheife which cheife is not properly to bee called a Head of that particular Church but improperly because hee is the principall Member thereof Wee beleive that the Members of the Catholicke Church bee the Saints chosen vnto eternall life from the number and fellowshippe of whom Hypocrites are excluded though in particular visible Churches Tares may bee found amongst the Wheate Wee beleive that the Church on earth is sanctified and instructed by the Holy Ghost for hee is the true Comforter whom Christ sendeth from the Father to teach the truth and to expell darkenesse from the vnderstanding of the Faithfull For it is very certaine that the Church of God may erre taking falshood for truth from which errour the light and doctrine of the holy Spirit alone freeth us not of mortall man although by Mediation of the labours of the Churches Ministers this may bee done Wee beleive that a man is justified by Faith and not by workes but when wee say by Faith wee vnderstand the correlative or object of Faith which is the righteousnesse of Christ which Faith apprehends and applyeth unto us for our Salvation This may very well bee and yet without any prejudice to good workes for Truth it selfe teacheth us that workes must not bee neglected that they bee necessary meanes and testimonies of our Faith for confirmation of our calling but for workes to bee sufficient for our salvation and to make a man so to appeare before the Tribunall of Christ that of condignity or merit they conferre salvation humane frailty witnesseth to bee false but the righteousnesse of Christ being applyed to the penitent doth onely justifie and save the faithfull Wee beleive that free will is dead in the vnregenerate because they can doe no good thing and whatsoever they doe is sinne but in the regenerate by the grace of the Holy Spirit the will is excited and indeed worketh but not without the asistance of grace to effect that therefore which is good grace goeth before the will which will in the regenerate is wounded as hee by the theeues that came from Hierusalem so that of himselfe without the helpe of grace hee hath no power to doe any thing Wee beleive that there bee Evangelicall Sacraments in the Church which the Lord hath instituted in the Gospell and they be two wee have no larger number of Sacraments because the Ordayner thereof delivered no more Furthermore wee beleive that they consist of the Word and the Element that they bee seales of the promises of GOD and wee doubt not but doe conferre grace But that the Sacrament bee entire and whole it is requisite that an earthly substance and an externall action doe concurre with the vse of that element ordained by Christ our Lord and joyned with a true faith because the defect of faith doth prejudice the integritie of the Sacraments We beleive that Baptisme is a Sacrament instituted by the LORD which vnlesse a man hath receaued he hath not communion with Christ from whose death buriall and glorious Resurrection the whole vertue and efficacy of Baptisme doth proceed therefore in the same forme wherein our LORD hath commaunded in the Gospell wee are certaine that to those who bee Baptized both Originall and Actuall sinnes are pardoned so that whosoever haue beene washed In the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost are regenerate cleansed and justified But concerning the repetition of it wee haue no commaund to bee rebaptized therefore wee must absteine from this inconuenience Wee beleive that the other Sacrament was ordained of the LORD which wee call the Eucharist For in the Night wherein hee was betrayed taking bread and blessing it hee said to his Apostles Take yee cate this is my body and when hee had taken the Cuppe hee gaue thankes and said Drinke yee all of this this is my blood which was shed for many doe this in remembrance of mee And Paul addeth for as often as yee shall eate of this bread and drinke of this Cuppe yee doe shew the LORDS death this is the pure and lawfull institution of this wonderfull Sacrament in administration whereof wee confesse and professe a true and Reall presence of CHRIST our LORD but yet such a one as Faith offereth to vs not such as deuised transubstantiation teacheth For wee beleive the faithfull doe eate the body of CHRIST in the Supper of the Lord not by breaking it with the teeth of the body but by perceiuing it with the sence and feeling of the Soule sith the body of CHRIST is not that which is Visible in the Sacrament but that which Faith spiritually apprehendeth and offereth to vs from whence it is true that if wee beleive wee doe eate and partake if wee doe not beleive wee are destitute of all the fruite of it Wee beleive consequently that to drinke the Cuppe in the Sacrament is to bee partaker of the true blood of our Lord IESUS CHRIST in the same manner as wee affirmed of the body for as the Author of it commanded concerning his body so he did concerning his blood which commaundement ought neither to bee dismembred nor maymed according to the fancy of mans arbitrement yea rather the institution ought to bee kept as it was deliuered to vs when therefore wee have beene partakers of the body and blood of CHRIST worthily and haue communicated entirely wee acknowledge our selues to bee reconciled united to our Head of the same body with certaine hope to bee coheires in the Kingdome to come Wee beleive that the soules of the dead are either in blessâ—dnesse or in damnation according as every one hath done for assoone as they remoue out of the body they passe either to Christ or into hell for as a man is found at his death so he is judged and after this life there is neither power nor opportunity to repent in this life there is a time of Grace they therefore who be iustified heere shall suffer no punishment hereafter but they
wheredomes and fornications wherewith they defiled the Court of Rome and usurie in the highest degree i Nâ—ch Cleâ—â—â—ng in lib de corrupto Ecclesiae stam c. 10. Cardinalium qui Papae assident spiritus verba tumenâ—ia gestus tam sunt insolentâ—s ut si aâ—tifex quisque vellet superbiae simulachâ—um effingere nullâ congruentius tatiâ—â—â—id facere â—osset quam Cardinalis effigiâ—â— oculis inâ—â—â—â—iâ—m objectaâ—â—o Idem c. 12. Quis â—esciâ—â— â—ctionis schismaticâ— horrend am pâ—â—â—â—m per nequitiam Cardiâ—alium in Ecclesiae grâ—mium injectam c. Idem c. tâ— Quis immensam iâ—â—â—tâ—icabiâ—em voraginem ipâ—orum concupiscentiâ— ver bis â—quare valeat c. Idem c. 12. Transâ—o Simoâ—â—â—câ—â— aâ—â—d Papaâ— intercessioneâ— patrocinia veâ—alia corruptiones aut promotioneâ—â—â—â—pisâ—imâ—â— damnaâ—isâ—â—â—s quae omnes ferè istis auctoribus suasoribus â—iâ—bant c. Neâ— enumâ—rare volo câ—rum adulteria flupra â—oâ—â—icâ—â—â—ones quibus Romanam Curiâ—â—â—â—â—am nuâ—â— incâ—â—â—ant c. Neâ— refero usuras c. quâ ex causa nâ—â—mularioâ— supreme 〈…〉 non incongruâ—nâ—er â—oâ— quidam vocant And for their Cleargie how are they esteemed amongst themselves Aventine tearmes them in his time great wolves lustfull per sons adulterers ravishers of Virgins and Nunnes theives and Vsurpers Drones leacherous perfidious perjured ignorant asses wolves hypocrites k Aveâ—iniâ— l. 6. Annal. 〈◊〉 Cuâ— Oâ—iâ—â—â—apâ—oâ— â—iâ—â—â—â— luâ—â—â— liâ—idinoâ—os adulteros virginum sacratâ—rum foeminarum â—â—upra 〈…〉 cocosâ—â—â—liâ—â—â—s latroâ—â—â— argeâ—tarioâ— numâ—xâ—â—rioâ— â—ucos pecuniarum aucupes â—uâ—â—â—â—â—ditos peâ—â—â—do◠〈◊〉 literarum omnium penitus rudes imponiâ— Non audita loquoâ— â—â— quae â—isâ—e oculis video narro c. Albertus expresseth the rulers of the Church by the messengers of Antichrist supplanters of the flocke of CHRIST l Albertus in Evangel Iohan. c. 10 And how long they have continued this good opinion amongst all men the complaints and greife of men that have had any modestie in severall ages will declare m Hoâ—oriâ—â— Aâ—gust Dial. de praedest lib. Arbit Verte te ad Cives Babyloniae vide quales sint c. Alvares Pelagiâ—s de planâ—â—â— Ecclesiae Nic. 〈◊〉 de coâ—â—â—pto Ecclesi◠〈◊〉 Neâ—â—â—â— Berâ—â—â—dâ—â— alij Neither doth this age minister unto us any hope that their Doctrine is now of better efficacie though the Papacie be honoured with more glorious titles then ever it was before in regard they doe not as Luther is by them pretended to have done tearme only some dissolure persons swyne but all their Cleargie and Laytie also for so our Irish Regulars would have the Irish Bishops to be swinâ—â—erds their flock swine this being their argumeÌ„t to prove the Provincials of the Regulars to be greater Prâ—lates then the Bishops because the Pastor is knowne by his flocke Opilio digâ—ior est sâ—bâ—â—câ— A sheephâ—â—rd is better then a sâ—yâ—eheard n Consuâ—a â—â—â—iâ—ien Proâ—â—â—â— Superiores Regularium digniores sâ—nt Episcopis siquidem digâ—â—tas Pastoris petenda est ex condition◠〈◊〉 gregiâ— quemadmodum â—â—iâ—â—o dignior â—â— â—â—bulâ—o So that if the Iesuite make loosenes of conversation in some particulars an Argument against the truth of Religion and doctrine in the reformation and would thereby take away our kinred with the Primitive Church What may we conclude from the universall leprosie that hath by their owne confession over-growne both head and members throughout the Papacie But iâ— this manner of arguing from corrupt manners to corrupt doctrines be of small force as is acknowledged by themselves in so much that no inward Vertue in Bellarmines judgment is required to make one a part of the true Church o Bellarm. de Eccles miliâ—â—â—â—â— l. 3. c. 3. Vt aliquis aliquâ— modo dici possit pars veâ—â— Ecclesiae de qua Scripturâ—â— loquâ—nâ—â—r â—on â—â—taâ—â—â—s requiri ullam internam virtâ—â—eâ— Yet I am sure it is able to moderate this Vaunter from triumphing like the Pharisee God I thanke thee I am not like other men Luke â—8 9. But here our Answerer domandeth of me saith the Iesuite whether I be able to shew one point wherein they have broken that Harmonie which Irenâ—â—s commendeth in the Catholicke Church of his time I answere that I can very easily show it and make good withall what I said in my demand and 〈◊〉 which he keepeth such a vaine stirre to wit that the â—rotestants agreewith that ancient holy Church in very few points of Religion or rather to say better that they agree not in any one point at all p Reply pag. 76 How well able the Iesuite is or hath beene to make good whaâ— he said in his demaund wil be examined in the XIth Section Here we expect what point of Doctrine hee â—an finde out held by us wherein it will appeare that we vary from that Harmony which Irenaeus commendeth in the Catholicke Church of his time And for his orderly â—andling of this matter he puts downe Irenaeus his words as his Major Proposiâ—ion That Church which is spread throughout the whole World presenteth her faith as â—â— were dwelling in one house and likewise beleiveth as it were having on soule and one heart and uniformely preacheth teacheth and delivereth this faith amongst all nations having as it were one mouth q Reply Ibid. And now as if this repetition were our confusion he telleth us Our Adversaries neither have nor beleive any such Church therefore they keepe no such Harmony The Minor he is willing to prove by a twofold Mediâ—m First by what hath beene heeretofore produced by him concerning our disagreement which I hope the Reader hath observed will not serve his turne Secondly by a farre greater dissention which happeneth saith the Iesuite betwixt them and those Protestants with whom they pretend this Harmony in other Nations r Reply ibid. So that it seemes the Iesuite will first attempt to prove that wee bee not of that Church which keepeth Irenaeus his harmony and that he will reserve unto the last place the point he should prove to wit that we deny the Catholicke Church His best argument to manifest the first is the testimonies of some Lutherans Brownists and Puritans who disâ—â—aime and discard our Answerer and his Church as the Iesuite tells us from all this pretended harmony and agreement with him Å¿ Reply Ibid. And we say if they charge us so deepely as the Iesuite affirmes that this is not sufficient to prove his undertakings seeing that Doctor Stapleton denyes the Fathers and especially S. Hieroâ—e the priviledge of testimony when they write contentiously and with passion Stapleton â—rinc Doctriâ—â—l l. 67. Distinctio de his 〈◊〉 à pâ—â—â—ibus 〈◊〉 â—â—ae coâ—tentio â— scribuntur in verbis Hiero 〈◊〉 locum 〈◊〉 and therefore these rigide Lutherans though they befriend a Iesuite cannot in their disputes be allowed an inâ—allible priviledge Besides these Lutherans which the Iesuite urgeth if their words be as hee layeth them downe for I cannot come by their bookes doe
Angels and the Resurrection and convinced theÌ„ for such by the scriptures doe you think this tricke of Popish deceit would have exempted them from censure or preserved them for Saints Surely if this Iesuite â—nquired after truth he would not thus spend himselfe with vaine delayes and exceptions If a Sadduce should now appeare and teach the same doctrine as Pope Iohn z Concil Constan Sess 11. Item quod dictus Ioannes Papa vigesmus tertius â—apeè saepiùs coraâ— diverâ—â—â— praelatis alijs 〈◊〉 probis viriâ— pertinaâ—iter diabolo suadente dixit asservâ—â—â— dogmatiâ—avit adâ—â—â—uxit vitam aeternam non esse nequâ— aliam post hanc quin imo dixit pertinaciter 〈◊〉 animaâ—◠〈…〉 extingu◠〈…〉 dixitque 〈…〉 die 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contra articulum de resurrectione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de premissis fuit est dictus Ioannes Papa apud clerum populuae gravites diâ—â—aâ—atuâ— Sicque vt praediciâ—â—r fuit dictum tentum creditum reputatum diciâ—urque tenetur creditur reputatur palà m publicâ— notoriê the XXIIIth did how would hee stoppe his mouth Doe you thinke that he would be forced from necessitie to vrge the Scriptures Why the 〈◊〉 vrgeth them heere And I doubt not but hee could be content with them in other matters also if they would afford them the like â—â—elter But those that are strangled must needs make mouthes though they can speake nothing to the purpose and our Iesuite would seeme to defend that which he knoweth is impossible by his grounds to be made good So that you may hereby perceive that we can expect from him nothing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for his owne advantage for if he be not able to answere what is proposed then what is brought in against him is nothing to the purpose labouring to frame a pretence for vpholding of that which hee with no truth is able to justifie For his other answere viz Any man that hath read the thirteenth booke of Iosephus c. may easily declare how the Saduces brâ—ached both that and the rest of their errours vnder the high Priest Ionâ—â—has as Machabaeus who began his raigne about 163 yeeres before the birth of Christ and raigned twenty a Reply pag. 9. Whatsoever the Iesuite pretends there is not one word in Iosephus whereby he can proove the beginning of the Sadduces their opinion of denying Angels or indeede when they began to be a sect For in the place b Lib. 1â— antiâ—â—â—â— alledged by him Iosephus telleth vs that there were three Sects amongst the Iewes one of the Pharisees an other of the Sadduces the third of the Essenes who were accompted Sects not in their inchoation but perfection about 143. yeares before Christ in the time of this High Priest And the same Authour in an other place c 〈…〉 expressing things done some 11. yeares after Christ showeth that the Iewes were divided into sects a 〈◊〉 retrò 〈◊〉 which could not be if they began in the time assigned by the Iesuite Besides the Iesuite is so far from telling when the Sadduces or their Errours began that hee knoweth not when the High Priest 〈◊〉 vnder whom he would have vs beleive they 〈◊〉 that errour neither how long to vse his owne wordes he raigned For if hee had hee would not then have begun his raigne 163. yeares before Christ neither have extended his government to twentie yeares against the truth of Chronology in the manner that he hath done For 〈◊〉 his testimony I doe not need much to value it in regard his owne fellow-Iesuite Sâ—â—â—â—ius d In Triâ—haeres lib. 2. cap. 25. hath rejected and refuted his testimony in this particular So that this instance is not vainly brought nor so far wide as the Iesuite would have it but prest to purpose prooving strongly that to be an heresie the originall whereof he is no way able to demonstrate vnto vs which enervates cuts asunder the very heart-strings of his Argument The Grecians Câ—â—cassians Georgians Syrians Egyptians Habissines Muscovites Russians saith the most learned Primate dissâ—â—t at this day from the Church of Rome in many 〈◊〉 will you take vpon you to shew in what Bishops dayes these severall differences did first arise To this the Iesuite replyeth I will S â— and by Gods helpe performe it also out of the learned workes of our moderne Catholicke â—â—iters c Reply pag. â— But before this be performed the Iesuite must remember what their owne f A. C his true Relations of sundry Conferences pag. 11. 12. require of vs in this Quere that he may with the same strictnes satisfie vs in that which we desire of him First they desire vs to shew the point changed in the Roman Church from the auncient faith Secondly they â—rge vs to prove this change not by any reason of antiquity or the word of God but by the other circumstances of the Author 〈◊〉 place and who persisting in the former vnchanged faith opposed and continued opposition against is as against a Novelty and Heresie Besides this the Author time place of such novelties heresies must so be pointed out that no Papist may be â—ble to shew those points to have beene hold by more ancient approved authors in the same sence in which they are held by the Roman Church for if they are then they conclude that is able to convince that there was no such change â—ade Now if this Iesuite can performe what he hath promised in all the controversies betwixt the Roman the Greeke Church with that strictnes which is required of vs in the like kind theÌ„ may he have some colour for what he requireth at our hands but if he hath fayled herein the Reader will easily perceive that they are as little able to convince the Greek Church which yet notwithstanding they have rejected of Heresie by this rule as they thinke we are vnable to detect theÌ„ And seeing the Iesuit hath takeÌ„ vpoÌ„him the former task I will bestow the pains to give him a Catalogue of particulars wherin those Churches dissent froÌ„ the Roman to see out of what good authors he is able to lay me down the person time place by whom when where they were brought into those Churches with their opposers c. 1. For the Greciani they deny Purgatory fire and holde that the soules of holy men departed enjoy not the beatificall vision before the day of judgment g Concil Floren prope initium respons Graec. ad Cardinal Guisan q. 1. Thom. à Iesu de conv gen lib. 6 cap. 1. eit by Brere wood in his enquiries 2 The Habissenes have with them the practise of Circumcision not onely of males but females also h Zaga Zabo derel mor. Aethiop cit per cundem 3. They have a rule that no man must spit the same day that he hath received the Eucharist i Zago Zabo ibid cit per cundem 4. They teach that the soules
who being not justified doe dye are appointed for euerlasting punishments By which it is evident that the fiction of Purgatory is not to be admitted but in the truth it is determined that every one ought to repent in this life to obtaine remission of his sinnes by our Lord Iesus Christ if he will be saved And let this be the end This compendious and briefe Confession of vs we conjecture wil be a contradiction to them who are pleased to slander maliciously accuse vs and vnjustly persecute vs But we trust in our Lord Iesus Christ and hope that he will not relinquish the cause of his faithfull ones nor let the rod of wickednes lye vpon the lot of the righteous Dated in Constantinople in the Moneth of March 1629. CYRILL Patriarch of Constantinople OVr Iesuite is charged by the most reverend Primate Some things are maintained by you which have not beene delivered for Catholicke Doctrine in the primitive times but brought in afterwards your selves know not when The Iesuite pumping for an answere herevnto talketh of ambiguity doubtfull phrases fighting in a cloud As if a man could deale more plainely with the Roman faction then to tell them that there are many points held now of faith by them which the first times never received for Catholicke doctrine and that they themselves know not when many of them were first broached in the Roman Church But the Iesuite fearing least he should be espied in opposing so manifest a truth would here raife a myst or fogge that he might the better steale out of danger for he indeavoureth to perswade That by those words the Answerer goeth about to make his simple Reader beleive that we maintaine doctrine contrary to that of primitive times because forsooth we maintaine now somethings which were not expresly declared nor delivered as necessary articles of Christian faith c Reply pag. 11 He were a simple reader indeed that would beleive this Iesuite either in his faith or doctrine if it have no better support then the declaration of some of their late Councels to confirme it But he were more then simple that can pick the Iesuite his collection from the learned Answerer his words Simple men interprete the Bels as they imagine and imagination hath directed the Iesuite heere and not the truth For what hath the words of the most reverend Primate to doe with the species of opposition where chargeth he you with maintaining doctrine contrarie to that of primitive times where doth he insinuate so much He that discovered your intrufions to have been brought in vnder the name of Piety was not so forgetfull to judge those points contrary to the received doctrine of faith You teach new faith this is the charge You deny not the old professedly in any point this were too grosse and fit for the fooles your brethren open Heretickes and not for the wisest sonne that can promote his fathers kingdome by a more secret and mysticall fraud So that let his words be softer then oyle or sharper then darts I am sure heerein the Iesuite fayles when hee thinketh them to be shot at the innocent The Iesuite would speake more to purpose to free himselfe and his faction and to this end he delivereth to us two propositions 1. We maintaine some things as Articles of faith which were not in primitive times expressely determined declared delivered for such And 2. Wee maintaine some things as articles of our faith which are contrary to that which hath beene declared for Catholick doctrine in primitive times would have vs know that there is a great difference betwixt these two sayings d Ibid. But as the Iesuite granteth the former to be true of themselves so the most learned Answerer in this place doth not charge them with this latter at all For I doubt not but that the most reverend Primate will yeeld so farre vnto you that in shew at least you holde the Apostles Creed and with the Pharisees give it the first place of honour as they Moses law yet notwithstanding your additions have cast contumely many times vpon the ancient faith as Pharisaicall traditions vpon Moses law * Mat. 25. â— 9. That which Roffensis sayth may be acknowledged in a right sence that there were many points universally held by the Primitive Church in beleife and practise the which with explanation were defended against contradicting Hereticks that arose in after-times But what is this to new doctrine never universally received nor anciently knowne or what argument is heere perswading you to declare that for ancient faith which was never delivered from the Apostâ—â—s c. or received by the Primitive Church But the Iesuite that he might gaine credit to his first proposition tels vs. Before the Nicen Councell some books of Canonicall Scripture were doubted of yea and rejected from the Canon by some of the Ancient without any blame at all which after the said Councel could not lawfully be called in quèstioÌ„ e Reply pag. 11 And all to very little purpose For first the Nicene Councell did not declare doubtfull books for Canonical Scripture nor point out the Canon which the Catholick Church did universally receive neither doth it make at all against their universall receipt of those bookes that some privat men or Church doubted of or rejected them For the Iesuite will have his doctrine generally received if affirmed by ten or eleven Fathers †Valentia if by the choysest Why shall f Reply pag. 94 not Gods booke have equall priviledge with a Papall Indulgence when the first is acknowledged in a manner by most this never taken notice of nor acknowledged at all Besides suppose that some private men or some few Churches did not receive some booke of the Canon yet this can no way hinder the universal receipt of the whole more then a mountaine or a wave the Globes roâ—undity Secondly although they were not blame worthy as the Iesuite would have it which should not receive some bookes of the New Testament which is false yet they were not without blemish for if it were an honour to the Iewes especially to the tribes of Iudah Benjamin that to them wholly intirely were commended the Oracles of God * Rom. 3 2. it must needes bee a dishonour to the ten tribes to have rejected all but the five bookes of Moses Thirdly although those bookes were doubted of yet they were doubtingly received for you cannot finde them by any Church canonically rejected Fourthly it had bin as foule an errour to have decreed any thing against the authority of those books before the Nicen Councel as afterwards For if the Iesuit will take it to bee such a tye that all are bound to stand vnto the declaration of a Councel why did not the Councel of Laodicea f Carran in sum Concilâ— can 59. performe their obligatioÌ„ but in the repetition of the Canon leave the book of Iudith to be placed amoÌ„gst the Apocrypha not
pag. 1â— This Iesuite wanteth honesty otherwise he would not observe with falshood and jealousie that for which there is no ground in the most reverend Primates words For first he speaketh not of the Iesuit alone but of all his Tribe and do you thinke it is so hard a thing to find some of you asking What yeare the Religion of the Papists came in prevailed Whether all nations suddenly and in one yeare were moved to the doctrine of the Papistes Whether in a moment the masse was said in stead of other Apostolicke communion p See Doctor Fulks answere of a true Christian to a Counterfeite catholicke Is it not your owne Demaund In what Popes dayes was true Religion overthrowne in Rome and when you come to explaine your selfe in your Reply is it not the certaine time which you demaund of us page 1. and the precise time page 14. Secondly saith the Iesuite I observe false logick to wit Because Fisher Caietan or Valentia cannot tell therefore none else can tell q Reply pag. 13 This is none of the most learned Primates inference but the Iesuites Yet I dare say that it is better logicke then the Iesuite hath usually replyed withall For may not one argue from a probable ground but it must destroy the whole Systeme of Logick drive Aristotles Topicks out of his Organon Fisher Caietan Valentia not Punies though Mr. Malone seeme to sleight them but great Rabbins of Popish Divinity nay I thinke I may say the greatest without deserving censure cannot tell therefore none can tell is a probable argument and not false Logicke as this sixt Predicable would have it For if the best learned caÌ„not find out the time when these Customes c. were first brought in it is a vehemeÌ„t if not a violent presuÌ„ption that poore Punies cannot finde that out If a Sheriffe that hath posse CoÌ„mitatus returne non est inventus vpoÌ„ a persoÌ„ a Catchpole will scarse find out the fugitive And I thinke it is good logick for I am sure it is good reasoÌ„ that if Fisher Caietan Valentia cannot tell this Iesuite as he hath done may well hold his peace Yet here is more logick theÌ„ the Iesuite 〈◊〉 see or at least theÌ„ he hath observed for Valentia saith minimè coÌ„stat it doth not appeare wheÌ„ that Custome of receiving the sacrameÌ„t in one kind did first get footing in some Churche Fisher Câ—ietan say that no certainty can be had by whoÌ„ Indulgences were first brought in or what was their original r See them veged by the most reverend the Lord Primate in his answer to the Iesuit's challenge pag. 3 therefore it will follow necessarily that all the wise men in the Roman Church are not able to set downe the precise or certaine time wherein these Novelties did first arise vnlesse the Iesuite will despise the iudgments of their learned Cardinall their highly esteemed Bishop and his owne Valentia Againe Because Valentia cannot tell when the Custome of receiving the Sacrament in one kind began in some particular Churches therefore we know not when it was first vsed in the Church at all whereas it is shewen to have beene first brought in by Christ his Apostles Å¿ Reply pag. 13 Here is impudeÌ„cy would make an Ethiop blush for what can be more fowle theÌ„ to fasteÌ„ those things vpoÌ„ this most reverend Lord which he never intended neither can bee collected froÌ„ his wordes But the Iesuite frames argumeÌ„ts that he may with more facility answer theÌ„ the most reverend Primates are not so easily digested That which hee collecteth froÌ„ Valentia is that the vse of receiving the sacrament in one kinde began first in some Churches grew to be a generall custome in the latine Church not much before the Councell of Constance in which at last to wit 200 yeares ago this custome was made a law SecoÌ„dly that it doth not appeare when first that Custome did get footing c And out of this confession c. he observeth What little reason these men have to require us to set downe the precise time wherein all their prophane novelties were first brought in seeing this is more then they themselues are able to doe * See the most reverend the Lord Primate in his answere to the Iesuites challenge pag â— Which observatioÌ„ or inference the Iesuit durst not touch as being too well guarded by the premisses if Valentia may be beleived for him to avoyd For suppose one should say speake as true as Valentia that the plague or a leprosie as heresy is did begin first in some Provinces was afterwards scattered throughout the Roman Empire and should further adde that it doth not appeare wheÌ„ first that infectioÌ„ did get footing in some Provinces Doth it not necessarily follow that all men must be ignorant when the ContagioÌ„ or Leprosie first infected the Empyre So that if this Iesuite had framed his argumeÌ„t truly according to this most reverend Lords collection it would have made him gape for an answere Valentia that speaketh truth for wee must not thinke that a Iesuit can lye telleth vs that the receiving of the SacrameÌ„t in one kind did first begin in some churches at a time that doth not appeare afterwards got by custome into the Latine being made a law by a decree at Constance therfore it is more theÌ„ your selves can do to tell wheÌ„ this custome got footing in the Church at all And further if Valentia did coÌ„tradict himselfe saying at one time that this custome was brought in by Christ and his Apostles at another that it began first in particular churches so spread at a time that doth not appeare let the Iesuite bedaube him with an excuse or condemne the waverer And againe Because Fisher Caietan grant that no certainty can be had by whom Indulgences were first brought in therefore they must be profane novelties wheÌ„ as both Fisher Caietan ground theÌ„ vpon the word of God condemning him of another untruth when he affirmeth that they give us to understand how no certainty can be had what their originall was u Reply pag. 13 Here the Iesuite is driveÌ„ to the like inventioÌ„ for the learned Answerer maketh no such infereÌ„ce His intentioÌ„ there being onely by Popish witnesses to prove that you know not the originall of some points of your faith to discover thereby your vanity in requiring of vs the precise time of their birthes Profane novelties he stileth not these alone but all your other after-byrthes also yet proveth theÌ„ prophane and new in his most learned answere following And although the most reverend Primate intended in this place no such thing yet if a Popish Martyr and Cardinall beare not false witnesse they wil be little better then prophane and novelties also by their testimonies For if Indulgences be such a point of faith that no certainty can be had what their originall was or by whom they
unto us without some uncertainty h Reply pag. 13 Thirdly he flyeth to the institution of Christ as a sufficient rule to declare the originall of their faith which we like in them accepting the tryall thereby what he pretendeth for himselfe wee will on our part undertake to prove viz â— that all the points of our Religion by the confession of the very authors alledged by the Iesuite have their originals from the institution of our Lord. But if the Iesuite deny us the like liberty which he taketh unto himselfe he befooles his owne argument if he grant the same unto us then hee demonstrateth his owne demaund to bee vaine which requireth person time place as a necessary ground whereby to detect Heresie and errour by Finally it will most plainly appeare how vainly our Answerer proveth my demaund to be vaine if we gather his reason to a head thus we our selves cannot tell when some of those points which we maintaine against them began or by whom they were first brought in Ergo we have little reason to demaund the same of him seeing as he saith it is more then we our selves are able to tell The Antecedent hath beene already disproved i Reply pag. 13 How the Antecedent hath been disproved the Reader may judge by what hath been already said but I am sure it hath driven this Iesuite the Defenders of Purgatory c. to the Scriptures which the Iesuite â—â—r any Saylor in the Roman Gulfe would never anchor 〈◊〉 unlesse forced by a storme in case of necessity And further I wonder that the Iesuite should confesse that iâ— all their profession wee cannot shâ—we them any point or article whose Originall they cannot derive most plainely from Christ and his Apostles c. whenas they charge the Scripture with obscurity k Bellarm De verbo Dei lib. 3 cap. 1. Si res consideres necessarió fatendum est Scripturas esse obscurissimas Siquidem tradunt summa mysteria de divina Trinitate de incarnations verbi c Et 〈◊〉 post Si veromodum dicendi consideremus inveniâ—mus innumerabiles rationes 〈◊〉 darknes And thirdly you may perceive this Antecedent hath beene so well proved that omissâ successione intermediâ the Iesuite is willing to breake downe their bulwarke of succession and to originalize every point in his profession from Christ and his Apostles thinking that to be a sufficient meanes to declare the truth of Doctrine when their Champions Fisher and Sweet denyed the said liberty for the same end to their acute and learned opponent Doctor Featly l Answer to the Fisher catched in his own nâ—t Sect. 2. And although we should not stand with him upon his said Antecedent truely hee deduceth not a right conclusion out of the same For say that we our selves could not tell the precise time of their beginnings yet have we good cause to demaund the same of him m Reply pag. 14. c This is but a fancy and hath no ground in reason as if your Catholick Roman Church ought not to have as much care to prevent heresies as we to detect them or that you who make succession your note of truthes should not bee bound to shew their perpetuity by a preciâ—e continuance from the Apostles downewards as well as we to declare their falshood and to shew their upstartednes in following times Our Answerer surmising as it seemeth that the vanity of these foresaid proofes would quickly be descryed by his judicious Reader endeavoureth with other vaine instances and examples to cast a mist before his eyes n Reply pag. 14 c. Silly Dreamer how did his selfe-conceit flatter him when he compiled his Reply Doth he thinke a judicious Reader can espy that in transitu on a sudden and by view barely which a Iesuite and his fellow-labourers cannot manifest with all their paines Yet let the judicious Reader judge of things past he promiseth much in time to come But wee by Gods grace setting forth the light of veritie will easily disperse the foggie vapors of his vanitie that so wee may reduce the Reader to the path of truth o Reply ibid Gods grace assisteth truth not herefie the breath of his mouth must consume Antichrist not fortifie his kingdome the light of verity is so far from being set forth by this Iesuite that it is his master-peice to rayle against it to eclypse it if such a moone-calfe could performe the worke Yet let us see what these foggie vapors are which the glorious light of the Iesuites veritie will disperse He saith then concerning our Private Masse that he will tell us in what Popes dayes it first beganne if wee tell him in what Popes dayes the People first began to fall from their devotion r Reply ibid. But he hath left the most learned Primate's answere not because a fogge but because the light thereof ofâ—ends his sight For first the most learned Answerer setteth forth the vanity of his Demand in asking What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion which you commend in them of the first 400 yeares In what Pope his dayes was the true Religion over-throwne in Rome by severall arguments 1. from their owne disability 2. from their comming in pedetentim their lingring birth which cannot bee in one Popes dayes 3. from the tacite confent of many which cannot be wrought by one And heere hee bringeth two more instances the first taken from want of Devotion in the people the second from time it selfe And therefore to require a Pope for the altering of that which was done by another or to restraine us so to time as to urge us for to shew that to have beene brought into the Roman Church in one Popes dayes which perhaps was not effected in the lives of 100. of them this must needes be a vaine and ridiculous Demand But let us see whether the Iesuite be not lost in this mist Wee urge him with hiâ— promise saith he as he is a man of his word and wee give him to understand that in Pope Peter the Apostles time the people fell from their devotion of whom therefore the same Apostle saith That it had beene better for them not to have knowne the way of Iustice then after having knowne it to turne froÌ„ the holy comandement given them * 1. Peâ—â—â—â— 21. c. Behold now when people fill from their devotion and consequently when our private Masse began even by our Answerers owne rule unlesse he put chance betweene q Reply pag. 14 Did people in generall want devotion in S. Peters time was the best age of the Church the worst by your censure Is it the decay of love in some one or few hypocrites mindes that can answere the most learned Primates demaund You must shew us a time when the people did as universally lack Devotion as they doe among you the Sacrament or else you have accepted the Answerers promise to your
bee for the sinne that is unto death that it cannot be heard then God graunt they may fill up the measure of their sinue and with such lying libels as this let them delight themselves one with another to the full Now our Iesuites charge here is advantage picked from a temptation of Luther which they would willingly interpret his instruction when as Luther was disputed against and not the Masse For he tells us the Iesuite here being his interpreter I was willing to defend my Innocency and therefore I listened unto him to see what he could say c. Secondly the Divells charges are to drawe him to despaire Thou hast had no knowledge of Christ nor true faith at all c. How couldst thou consecrate when thou wast not a person apt c. Thou hast consecrated otherwise then Christ either willed or ordained c. This drove him into anguish perplexity which is the fruite of teÌ„ptation the effect of the Divell accusing a conscience not instructing an understanding Thirdly in regard the Iesuite urgeth Luthers words he should have enquired what Luther meant by theÌ„ which he might easily have found out if hee had looked a little further For he acknowledgeth this a temptation saying If I were a Papist ignorant of temptations whom the Divell neglects as those which follow their lusts b Luther de missa privata unctione sacerdotum Si Papista essem omnium tentationum rudis quem securum stertentem Satan negligeret ut ipsos negligit indulgentes fuis cupiditatibus c. c. Besides he saith this was no other then Christ himselfe suffered although he was without sin c Ibid Christus ipse quamvis sine peccato propter nos in quantis lachrymis in quibus augustijs agonizavit in his agonibus contra Satanam Againe speaking of the fearefull violence of Satan he saith that no heart of man could endure except God bee with him * which hee could not expect if he had given himselfe over to have been instructed by the Divel d Ibid. Nec n. humanum cor horrendum hunc ineffabilem impetum nisi Deus illi adsit perferre potest Further hee makes Iudas e Ibid. Vti cogitatio illa quae Iudae cor percussit vera Tradidi sanguinem justum Caius f Ibid. Sed ibi mentitur Satan quando ultrà neget ut desperem de gratia Sicut Cain dicebat majus est pec catum meum temptations as examples to illustrate this At last hee expresseth what hee resolved which was far from a Divels Pupill to turne to Christ with Peter and to have an eye to his wonderfull mercy and merite g Ibid Sed verto me ad Christum cum Petro respi cio ejus immensum beneficium meritum So that the Reader may perceive what prodigious tales are raised by these Iesuites to abuse the memory of Luther who did with one stroke God assisting him cut in peeces those ligatures wherewith Hell and Antichrist were united together And thus you see the false accusation of Luther answered and according to truth but if I would have beene guided by Popish example I might have said as they have done that one Divell might plead for God against their whole kingdome i Histor de tribus Energumenis edit Parisanno 1623. pag 04. Et Daemon ex ore sororis Francisâ—ae coepit clamare Nos hic tuemur partem Dei contra Luciferum omnem infernum that the Divell impugned Private Masse compelled thereunto by God and not from his owne inclination k Ibid Et Daemon exore sororis Catharinae dicebat Veré à Deo cogimur ad hoc et postea Deus est qui in hunc modum cogit nos loqui Et pag. 109. Affirmabat Belz quod Deus haec ei revelasset quia eadem non publicasset ex propria sua voluntate sed vi adactus Ibid pag 327. Tres Daemones confirmârunt singuli jura mento nihil est quod proveniat ex Diabolo quod omnia sunt à Deo vivo that the Divell might speake that which proceeded not from himselfe but from the living God that the Divell might minister to Christ more zealously then most illuminate Popish Preachers l Ibid pag. 797. De ministerio Daemonis Verini Possum dicere quod plures audiveram in Ecclesia Praedicatores viros sanctos valde illuminatos hujus comparatione voces emortuas dixisses that God might speake by Divells as by Balaam or his asse m Ibid. pag. â—35 Neque decrevit quidpiam verbo Dei ex hoc quod per Asinam prolatum est aut per Balaam membrum Diaboli But these are shifts of him that confesseth the doctrine which he would confirme to be from the Divell which wee scornefully and with derision cast from us Yet if the Iesuite will lend an eare it is not much to prove many particulars of Popish Doctrine to bee that which hee laboureth to prove the denyall of private Masse to bee For the point betwixt the Dominicans and the Franciscans concerning the immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin Marie is on both sides confirmed by revelations n Wadding Legat De Concept Virg. Mariae sect 3. orat 10. §. 4. Haec sunt quae ex D. Catharinae Sâ—nen opponunt maculatae conceptionis assertores revelationibus B. Brigittae now God is not ad oppositum he never resists himselfe and therefore as they confesse one or the other must needes make use of the Divell for confirmation of their Doctrine o Ibid Docte Christiane judicant non posse dari in Ecclesia Dei revelationes contrarias de eadem re inter se pugnantes dum unam necesse sit esse mendacem à spiritu illusore non à Deo qui mendacij author non potest esse prodijsse Besides what points of your new Creed have not beene beholding to new miracles for their new entertainment in the Church of God you have told us sufficient of Transubstantiation p See the Iesuites Preface to the Reader and his Reply pag. 283. and Alexander of Hales q Alex. de Hales sum Theol p. 4. q. 10. m. 2. ar 4. §. 3. Quia ergo extensio ipsius Sacramenti debet fieri per indicia vera non simulata vel ficta videtur dicendum quod caro vel sanguis in hujusmodi apparitione quando à Domino est est ipsius Domini A Domino esse dico quia huiasmodi apparitiones quandoque accidunt humanâ procuratione sorte Diabolicâ Ad illud quod objicitur quod caro quae apparet quandoque computrescit c. dicendum quòd hoc nunquam accidit quando ab ipso Domino est hujusmodi apparitio sed solummodo quando fit HVMANA procuratione vel fortè DIABOLICA operatione shall either bee your Accuser or Expositor whether you please Further in the point
S. Augustine's time there were many more heresies that oppugned the Primitive Roman Faith y Reply pag. 8. then hee nameth sects to discredite ours For Perkâ— as the Iesuite hath mistaken his name so his Author if he speake as he is alledged for I have him not hath forsaken the truth there being no ground in the Church of England to produce so vaine a charge But for that noble * Sir Edwine Sands Knight the true inheritour of his Fathers vertues he doth shew in the place cited z In his Relation of Religion that whatsoever unity is amongst us proceedeth from the meere force and vertue of veritie which he accompteth the best and blessedest and which onely doth unite the soule with God And that the Unity of the Church of Rome is but for order in the world c. antecedent before us for which worldly peace they are beholding to their Father and adviser yet he further acknowledgeth our differences are not essentiall or in any part capitall Whereby the Reader may see with what truth he hath cited this Author For the most learned Bilson hee doth onely bewayle the mindes of many men that are not so prone to peace as they ought A complaint that the best age of the Church might have taken up And therefore if the Iesuite will proove our jarres let him forsake such poore advantages that for the most part are raised from Passion and manifest that in fundamentall points we vary one from another or all from the Catholick Church for otherwise it is more then probable that Babell will remaine where the most learned Answerer left it even in the midst of the Roman blindnes SECT IIII. THe most learned Primate as he hath sufficiently shewed the meanes whereby tares that have crept into the Church might bee detected viz â— by having recourse unto the first and best times doth further shew that the like may be done by comparing the state of things present with the middle times of the Church To which the Iesuite replying sheweth himselfe offended not so much to be foyled by his Adversary as to have it knowne This word thus doth doth more perplexe the Iesuite then the blowes which make him smart and therefore his passion expresseth it selfe Why saith hee unlesse you performe it better then thus I see not but your selfe may be crowned an Innovator of idle arguments a Reply pag. 25 No neither of idle demaunds for that is so proper to the popish schooles that no man can deprive them of this catholicke title and least want of succession should make them loose their priviledge the Iesuite hath sufficiently continued it in this his vaine Reply The first of these Arguments which the Iesuite would have accompted idle is comprehended in these words I finde by the constant and approved practise of the auncient Church that all sortes of people men Weomen and children had free liberty to reade the holy scriptures I finde now the contrary among the Papists and shall I say for all this that they have not remooved the bounds which were set by the Fathers because perhaps I cannot name the Pope that ventured to make the first inclosure these commons of Gods people b See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Answere to the Iesuites Challenge pag 9. And hereunto the Iesuite giueth a downe-right answere that hee findes no truth in this his saying first because he layeth not downe where amongst the auncient any such practise is testified to have beene 2ly neither doth he shewe where amongst us he findes the contrary c Reply pag. 25 The most learned Answerer thought it not necessary to produce witnesses to manifest so open truthes whereof the Iesuite could not be ignorant besides he is vaine and wilfull to conclude a thing untrue because the proofe is not particularly urged for who will seeke to prove those things which are most manifest which the Iesuite without declaring his ignorance cannot deny But because he chargeth this most reverend Lord with untruth I will take away that scruple from whence he seemeth to deduce this conclusion and breifly manifest first that it was the constant and approved practise of the auncient Church that all sorts of people had free liberty to reade the holy scriptures secondly that we finde the contrary amongst the Papists that then we may see whether his impudency will deny that which his deceite in this place is willing to cover For the first it is a proposition so cleare that I am perswaded the Iesuite would not have denyed it if he could with safety to himself his cause acknowledge the same Yet although he doth not confesse it I neede not much to trouble my selfe in the manifesting thereof there being such cloudes of witnesses And to goe further then the Priâ—itive times after Christ It is apparant that Gods word was not given to be kept under a bushell but as the sunne in the Orbe of the Church to lighten and irradiate the hearts of his Children as may be gathered from the scriptures penning in their vulgar tongue when they spaâ—e Hebrew To this purpose it was that Moses commaunded the Israelites to * Deut. 6. â— write the law upon the posts of their houses and on their gates And that it was a custome amongst the Church of the Iewes to try doubtfull things by the scriptures may be collected by the words of our Saviour * 10. 5. 39. Search the Scriptures for in them yee thinke yee have eternall life and they are they which testifie of mee And why should the Iewes have sent their Hebrew text to be interpreted if they had conceived that the vulgar use had not beene permitted Also it appeareth 2. Tim. 3. 15. that it was the familiar practise of good people to breed up children in the knowledge of the sacred scriptures And that it was the practise of the primitive times is plaine by the * Act. 17. 11. Bereans who searched the scriptures dayly to try the truth of the Apostles Doctrine and were therefore accounted more noble then those in Thessalonica Neither was it practise onely but the Apostle in those times perswadeth thereunto by shewing the blessing which followed the same Apoc. 1. 3. Blessed is he that readeth and they that heare the words of this Prophesie c. And for the Ages following who can be ignorant that knowes any thing of that which the Iesuite desireth proofe of For Polycarpus to the Phillippians saith I trust that you are well exercised in sacred scriptures d Polyâ—arp ad Philippâ—n Confido benè exercitatos esse in sacris literis nihil vos latet And in Origen his time the reading of these divine mysteries dayly prayers the word of instruction were the nutriments whereby the Spirit e Origen in Levit hom 9. Nutrimenta igitur spiritus sunt divina lectio orationes assiduae sermo doctrinae His alitur cibis his coÌ„valescit his victor
take upon him to answere that treatise which our Answerer found in the librarie of S. Robert Cotton but by casting it of and disregarding it for that would quickely have casheered this foolish conceite that Berengarius was the first that denyed their carnall presence in the sacrament in regard it is manifest thereby that Rabanus and Ratrannus who is the same with Bertram the one in his Epistle to Abbot Egilo the other in a booke that he made to King Charles argued largely against Paschasius saying that it is another kinde of flesh and therefore hee is vaine when hee thinketh that in reason hee ought to be excused from regarding the said treaâ—ise untill such time as we have proved the antiquitie thereof seeing this is acknowledged already by Possevine his brother Iesuite and also that it is the same with that which is to be sene in the Iesuit's Colledge at Lovain which the Iesuite might have knowne by comparing them together if he had not conceived it an easier taske to cast off then to answere this testimonie Further the Iesuite would have proved that the said treatise at Lovain is blindly fathered upon Berengaerius whereof I â—row saith he he will give us leave to doubt seeing elsewhere he is bold to father it so himselfe for will he confesse that hee did it â—lindly also l Reply pag. â—5 Whether it is blindly by Possevine fathered upon Berengarius or no neither helps nor hurts the cause yet the Iesuite might have found it true had he not beene lazie if hee would have taken but a little paines to have sought the truth as hee did a long and dangerous journey to corrupt it especially when he was in Flanders not farre from the Coppie Neither doth it any thing at all reproach this most learned Answerer that hee following the Iesuite Possevine fathered it so himselfe for who knowes not that Iesuites will deceive all that beleive them But the Iesuite may observe that he is not blinde that hath a vaile cast before his eyes It is rather an argument that he hath eyes that can see to cast it off True then it is that he pointed in that place as directed by Possevine whom afterwards having gotten a transcript froÌ„ the Iesuit's colledge at Lovan he found to have bene blindly mistaken therfore rejected him So that all that the Iesuit hath obtained here is that this most reverend Lord did not see aright whilst hee viewed the Manuscript with a Iesuites eyes but putting off those false spectacles hee easily discerned the truth whilst he used his owne and viewed the transscript Now after all these notorious over-sights falshoods he draweth on to conclusion Seeing then we finde so little or no knowledge at all to have beene of this said booke attributed to Bertram untill Oecolampadius a prime Preacher of the sacramentarie error in these later times did publish the same at Basill why may it not be well thought that the said Oecolampadius was Author of the worke himselfe and that to cloke his fraud and to winne the credite of antiquity to his errour he framed a Dedicatorie to the Emperour Charles aâ— to him who had forspoken the same Reply pag. 45 Here the Iesuit would say something if he could mouthe it and first he would have us believe that this is the work of Oecolampadius but herein he suspects himselfe justly for this booke was printed at Cullen anno 1532. Now if the Iesuite cannot shew us an edition as here hee hath not before that printed at Basill wee may justly suspect that Oecolampadius did not so much as ever see that book in regard he died anno 1531. Secondly this booke is acknowledged by your Sanctesius to have beene written many ages before Oecolampadius saw the light and therefore it being a matter beyond all exception true your owne thinke it fit to extenuate and excuse Bertram as they have done the errors of other auncient Authors although some making no question that the booke was Bertrams would have it altogether remooved out of the way Ind. expurg Hispan Card. Quirogae edit Madâ—â—ti ann â—â—â—4 in fine â—â—terae â— Deleâ—tur tota Epistola Vdalâ—ci Episcopi Augustani de coelibatu Cleri Item totus liber Bertrami Presbyteri de corpore sanguine Domini penitùs ausâ—ratur Thirdly the Puteani fratres in Paris have there a Copie of Ratrannus or Bertram De corpore Domini which to have beene no Manuscript of Oecolampadius the Iesuite I hope will graâ—t us So that hee and his fellow-labourers that be the greatest intelligencers abroad and would be ashamed to bee ignorant of any of the particulars may blush if they have any modest colour left in them to runne as here they have done unto such desperate shifts But saith the Iesuite if any one had rather say that Bertram indeed at the Emperors motion wrote a booke concerning the blessed Sacrament why may he not also say that Bertram maintained our Catholicke doctrine in this point against Heribaldus and the rest of the Stercoranists o Reply pag. 45 This may assure us that the Iesuite cannot tell well what he hath to say the truth he pretends to enquire after and yet he would faine cast out any evasion to cloude the same Are not the Manuscript Copies witnesses sufficient to stop your mouthes If impudencie will not bee satisfied upon so convincing proofes the Iesuite may know that Bertram hath taught the same doctrin in other bookes also viz r De nativitate Christi which is to be sene in the libraries of the Cathedrall Church of Sarisbury and Benâ—et Colledge at Cambridge And therefore all his shifts are vanity while he endeavoureth to perswade that Bertram maintained their Catholicke Doctrine in this point against Heribaldus and the Stâ—rcoranists when as he opposed as hath beene formerly manifested the Doctrine which Paschasius taught and the Romane Church doth now adhere unto And it is a trifling inconsequent of the Iesuites to insinuate that because Bertram did not write against Paschasius which is false therefore he did not oppose the corrupt doctrine that hee in effect first published to the Church p Bellarm. de Script Ecclesâ— in Paschasâ— Ratâ—erto Hic auctor priâ—â—â—â—uit qui â—enâ— coâ—iosâ— scripâ—it de veriâ—â—â—â— corpâ—â—◠〈◊〉 Doâ—â—â—â— c. Reply pag 45. But the strength of the Iesuites conjecture consisteth in this that Bertram lived under the government of Paschasius in his Monasteriâ— of Corbey in Picardie q Which indeed the Iesuite may say but will never be able to prove how confideÌ„tly soever he publisheth the same For Paschasiâ—s died in the yeare 851. when as Charles to whom Bertram wrote was not made Emperour before the yeare 875. So that Bertram might well have beene a Monke at Corbey and yet not have lived under the Government of Paschasius By all which it appeareth that the Iesuite hath beslabered OEeolampadius with an untruth who for any thing the Iesuite hath
produced did neither publish the worke nor promised as he faith to publish it sincerely in its owne colours And now he thinkes that he hath said sufficient to excuse the Censurers of Doway or any other that should endeavour to cleanse away such errours as have beene by the enemies of truth foisted either into that or into any other the like worke r. Reply pag. 4â— But the Censurers of Doway did not thinke these to bee such Errors as have beene foisted into that worke by the enemies of the truth Those errors which they endeavour to cleanse away are such as are found in the true olde Catholicke Writers Å¿ Iâ—d Expurg â—elg pag. 5. Quùm igitur in Catholicis veteribus alijs c. Nay how could it bee that Heretickes as these Antichristianaries call us should cry out that you burne and forbid such antiquity as maketh for you if Bertrams booke at the publishing thereof had beene beâ—â—abered by O Ecolampadius and they onely had cleansed it of these things The Iesuite must then confesse unlesse he haue better to pleade for himselfe then hee hath produced that neither Fathers nor Antiquity shall controule him or his whilst by extenuation excuse inventing devices denying or faigning they can avoyde the same But all his hope is though this be graunted that hee will stop our mouthes by recrimination I will take some paines saith he to try whether we may not finde more easily such like corruption and washing of antiquity amongst his fellowes as he would fasten upon us t Reply pag 46 Nescivit iniquus confusionâ—m * â—eph 3. 5 Whilst a wicked man can speake hee will not blush otherwise the Iesuit would not have instaÌ„ced so vainly as he here hath done For first â—â—o of his instances are nothing to the purpose in regard he cannot produce any Father that either Willet or the Apologists set forth therefore they could not fret wash or corrupt the monuments of the Auncients which they never published Yet Mr Malone cannot be ignorant that privat men in defending their opinions doe many times interpret the Scriptures and Fathers contrary to their Adversaries thoughts against whom they use them so that their Adversaries with passion are many times provoked to take notice of some things which they conceive to bee not clearely carried and thereupon take occasion to challenge them of misalledging corrupting abusing detracting c. This we finde is done amongst our selves as in the Controversies amongst your owne the like is not wanting t Wadding Legat Phil 3. sect 2. orat 9 tract 10. § 6. Quâ velurâ hâc diligentia exhibitâ experiretur vestra Sanctitas tam falsum esse quod dicunt Adversarij quam verum esse quod in citato Tractatâ— ego animadverti ex apparenti violenter congesta illâ congerie Patrum apud Bandellum Bandelloque similes reprobatos â—liosve authores paucissimos esse vel nullos qui expresse ferant sententiam contra Virginem caeterosque vel fermè omnes corruptos mutilatos esse in verbis quae ex eisdem proferunâ—ur Payva ciâ— ibid. Minimè verum est communi veteris Ecclesiae sententiae illam repugnare cum praesertim à multis videam Sanctorum Patrum testimonijs à quibusdam oppugâ—ari quae partiâ— sunt depravata partim nihil ad rem faciunt Onely here is the difference that we bewayle these passionat escapes could wish that men were more tempered with Charity You justifie your owne and tell us that your Church graunteth free liberty to all Catholicke Doctors to expound as well the Scriptures as the Fathers for the upholding of that part which themselves doe thinke to bee most probable u Reply Sect. XI For the objection from Mr Rogers true it is that he was deceived in taking that booke for Augustines when in all probability it was written by some Author of a Schoolemans age for Riming Meditations were not in date in St Augustines time as we may gather from Sixtus Senonsis x Sixtus Senen Bibl sanct l 3. Scholastici cûm desideraren thomines sui saeculi rythmes deditos ad studia sacrarum lirerarum allicere acceptâ hinc occasione excogitârunt ipsi novam Metricae artâ—â— rationem For could that practice if it had beene so auncient have beene contemned exploded by all learned men in the late learned ages as inept superstitious ridiculous y Ibid. Non me later Scholaâ—ocorum PoeÌ„ticem ab omnibus 〈◊〉 contemni prorfus explodi tanquam ineptam superstitioâ—â—m 〈◊〉 dignam I perswade my selfe Antiquity would have had a greater reverence and better esteeme Now in regard this Author was diligent in the reading of Augustine of whom he hath made good use in all probabilitie he gave it the name it beares and yet he mixed many corruptions of his owne therewith Secondly suppose the booke be Augustines yet consider that M. Rogers doth not put forth the same to deceive for the Iesuite acknowledgeth that he declares in his Epistle Dedicatory what is omitted in the booke so that what he hath done is no more in effect but a censure such as Sixtus Senensis hath used and others Thirdly the booke that hee published was fot popular use and therefore he thought it not requisite to suffer those things which he distasted should remaine in the text where conveniently he could not advertise the Reader but placed them in the Epistle Dedicatory where he hath shewed what he conceived of them Wherefore this as it is the last so it is the Iesmites worst defence whereby to excuse themselves hee would make Israell to sinne SECT VII HEre the Iesuite considers How vainely our Answerer accepteth of the Fathers judgement againe a Reply pag. 4â— and in the first place most unwisely playeth the Orator Notwithstanding all that our Answerer hath said hetherto playing as it were fast and loose and by a doubtfull tergiversation keeping off and on with the Fathers at last ashamed of his inconstancie herein he proclaimeth valoroustio his finall resolution in these words That you may see how confident we are in the goodnes of our cause we will not now stand upon our right nor refuse to enter with you into this field but give you leave for this time both to be Challenger and the appointer of your owne weapons b Reply pag. 4â— If the Iesuite had any modestie he would not play the childe so vainely as here he doth for where doth the most reverend the Lord Primate play fast and loose Out of which of his words will he finde his doubtfull tergiversation where is his inconstancy that maketh him ashamed These flashes at the best are but straynes of Vanity The most learned Answerer hath shewed the Iesuite out of Tertullian the meanes to finde out the truth Their very doctrine it selfe being compared with the Apostolicke by the diversitie and contrarietie thereof saith that auncient Father will pronounce that it had for
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
of Bishops in the Roman See that invincible rock upon which Christ built his Church For who will dreame that Father to esteeme that present seate or succession to be the rocke for any other reason then because they held the rocke confessed by Peter And in this sence not only Peters successors at Rome but all other successors of Peter the rest of the Apostles might bestiled rocks p Origen in Math hom 1. Petra est 〈◊〉 omnis qui imitator est Christi ex quo bibebant qui bibebant de spiritali consequenti petra Et super omni hujusmodi petra aedificatur ecclesia Dei In singulis enim quibuscunque perfectis qui habent in se congregationem verborum oâ—erum sensuum omnium qui hujusmodi beatitudinem operantur 〈◊〉 Eccelesia Dei cui portae non praevalent inserorum Si autem â—per unum illum Petrum arbitraris Vniversam Ecclesiam aedificari à Deo quid dicis de Iacobo Iohanne filijs tonitrui vel de singulis Apostolis Vere ergo ad Petrum quidem dictum est â—u es Petrus c. tamen omnibus Apostolis omnibus quibuscunque perfectis fidelibus dictum viâ—â— retor For why may not those churches that cleave fast to the rock of faith be called rocks to stay and adheare unto q Iranaeus l. 4. c. 43. Ijs qui in Ecclesijs sure presbyteris oporter obaudire qui successionem habent ab Apostolis quicunque cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundùm beneplacitum patris acceperunt Idem c. 44. Adherere his qui Apostoloâ—um doctrinam oustodiunt cum presbyterij ordine sermonem sanum conversatio nem sine offen sa praestant as well as the Roman her Bishops in regard Augustine saith in that very Psalme that if any man come full of the Catholicke faith wee are wont to give eare unto him as unto these men r August in Psalm contra partem Donati Talis si quis ad te veniat plenus Catholica side Quales illoâ— sanctos viros omâ—es solemus audire But what makes the former words to the Iesuites conclusion Doth S. Augustine here declare Roman Preists Successors to Peter in a Monarchicall estate or such unmoveable grounded rocks that all the Churches in time to come must be grounded upon them Surely the sesuite will never finde this to bee S. Augustines meaning but from what the Roman Preists had beene and from what for the present they were alluding to our Saviors words he doth stile them a rock that the gates of Hell did not at that time prevaile against making them a good directory to truth whilst they adheared to the Apostles doctrine For by the course of that Psalme we cannot conceive S. Augustine to have thought otherwise in regard he doth not give the Bishop of Rome power to end and determine that controversie but maketh Donatus his request to have his cause heard at Rome to be unjust telling us what the Emperour had ordained that divers Bishops Preists should heare the matter not the Roman Bishop alone Å¿ August ibid Nam Donatus cùm volebat Africam totam obtiâ—ere Tunc Iudices transmarinos petijt ab Imperatore Sed haectam unjust petitio non erat de charitate Hoe ipsa veritas clamaâ— quam vclo modo refeâ—e Nam consensit Impeâ—â—â—or â—â—â—â—t quae soderenâ— Romae Sacerdotes qui tunc possent Caeciliano cuâ— illâ— audite which he would not have done I suppose if the Bishop of Rome had had that Monarchy by Apostolicall succession which now they pretend by that title to enjoy But there is not a word of Augustine that proveth the Roman Bishops Successors of Peter in any office power or Bishoprick or so much as maketh him Bishop of Rome That he had his seate there where the Roman Preists had their Succession he insinuateth but in this place he telleth us no more nor so much as Eusebius who beginneth the Roman Bishop with Linus t Eusebius hist Eccles l. 3. c. â— Linus verò primum post Petri Pauli Martyrium Romanae Ecclesiae Episco patum sorâ—iâ—ut est for the words of Eusebius after the martyrdome of Peter and Paul can no more make Peter Bishop of Rome then Paul and I thinke they will not admit two Bishops at once in one Citie Much more might be urged to shew that the Iesuite hath produced S. Augustine to testifie that which hee never thought of But I will come to Chrysostome whom the Iesuite produceth expecting much from him because hee nameth Peters Successours Why saith he did Christ shed his bloud but to regaine those sheepe the care of whom he committed both to Peter and to Peters Successours u Reply pag. 59 I aske the Iesuite whether he thought the Apostles had no commission from Christ to have a care of his sheepe whether Goe ye into all the world and preach the Gospell to every creature * Marke 16. 15 did commaund no care of CHRISTS flocke or whether there be no successors of Peter but the Bishops of Rome Cardinall Cusanus cannot deny that all Bishops are the successours of Peter x Nich. de Cusa Card. l. 2. De concord cath c. 13. Non possumus negare omnes Episeopos esse ejusdem successores Scilicet Petri And S. Chrysostome in the very place cited by the Iesuite expresseth himselfe to be free from the conceit that the Bishops of Rome are S. Peters onely Successours For why should he perswade Basil to be minde full of his dutie hee being a Bishop from this reason because CHRIST said to Peter Lovest thou me Feede my sheepe and because the care of his sheepe are committed to Peter and his successours y See Chrysostomes testimony produced before in the beginning of the Section if hee had not beene one of them This title I have shewed before doth belong to other Bishops as well as Romane neither is it denyed by Bellarmine himselfe z Bellarm de Rom. Pont. l. â— c. 23. Respondeo in Apostlatu continâ—â— Episcopatum Episcopes succedere Apostolis and therefore I may forbeare here further to presse it The next is Leo but I shall not neede to speake to that which is urged from hâ—m here in regard I shall have more occasion in the next Section He loved to be great and to make Peter greater then he should be for his owne sake as I have in some things before declared shall hereafter more fully shew Yet all that hee desired I suppose was not so great licentiousnesse as the Bishop of Rome desireth and would have all to attribute unto himselfe Now commeth the Bishop of Ravenna Peter Chrysologus in his Epistle to Eutyches You are not much beholding to that See that you should bring a Bishop from thence to give testimony for you but what saith hee Wee desire thee honorable brother that thou wilt listen dutifully unto those things which
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
it be yet it being cleare that it is the Popes will that that course of interpreting shall hold their mancipiall vow oath makes them perjured that violate the same The Iesuite esteemes these but â—hifts therfore he will justifie his Fathers an other way to that end proceedeth in this maner But let us put the ease that Maldonate did â—â—kâ— that â—ath if you doe without a dispensation he must be perjured yet shall not our Answerer be able ever to shew that either he or any other Iesuite did once violat the same i Reply pag. 9â— I feare you wil be deceived for if your excuse faile Maldonate must get a learneder advocate or plead guilty and it seemes you are to seek when you flye from the words of the oath seeke reliefe from the extension of the intent thereof For I suppose he is not so ignorant saith the Iesuite but that he knoweth how the intent of that oath extends it selfe no further then to bind the taken never to interpret the word of God in matters of faith contrary to the consent of ancient Fathers k Reply pag. 9â— He should be as blind as Mr Malone if he should take his shifts for a fit glosse for this text who shal measure the exteÌ„t of this oath but they that first occasioned it the councell of Trent and wil their decree patronize his conceipt It will tell you that ad câ—â—rcenda petulantia ingonia to restrain petulans wits l Conc. Trid. sess 4. Decret 3 the Synode doth decree that Doctors shal not interpret the Scriptures contra eum sensum quem tenuit tonet sancta mater ecclesia aut contra unanimem consensum patrum against that sense which the holy mother Church hath doth hold or against the unanimous consent of Fathers m Ibid. But is this all if it were the Iesuite would think himselfe secure but we shal find that in the first place it inhibites â—t nemo prudentiae innxus sacram scripturaÌ„ ad suos sâ—nsus contorqueat that no man leaâ—ing to his own wisdome doe wrest the Scriptures to his own sense Ibid. which Maldonat doth confesse he hath don non nego me hujus interpretationis authoreÌ„ nemineÌ„ habere I do not deny saith he that I have no author of this interpretation Besides the councel condeÌ„nes interpretations contrary to the unanimous consent of fathers but the Iesuit will not have the oath bind so it be not contradictory in that point which is expounded whether the councell wants faith or the Iesuit let the Iesuit resolve The words of the oath excludes the Iesuits gloss are stricter then the Councels decree The councell condemnes interpretations that are private from a mans owne wisedome or 〈◊〉 against the Consent of Fathers o Ibid. though it be with many assistants but the oath inhibites the receiving and interpreting of the Scriptures not onely with glosses that are contra against the Fathers this were too little but with such that are not juxta unanimem consensum according to the uniforme consent of Fathers p Bulla Pij 4. Nec eam unquam nisi juxta c. So that the place of Augustine is produced to small purpose it neither shadowing nor salving the Iesuites credite for the question is not whether a Divine free and at libertie may use S. Augustines practise in the interpretation of Scripture but whether a Iesuite tyed to the oath nec eam unquam never to interpret nisi juxta unanimum consensum Patrum but according to the uniforme consent of Fathers â—ay without breach of faith enjoy this libertie this is the question But their Iesuite Pererius hath interpreted quite contrary to the consent of Fathers and this Iesuite onely affords him a good word but sweats not at all for his releife or defence So that all may see the most judicious Answerer is freed from malice slander ignorance and of bold and desperate forehead which the blistered tongue of the Iesuite would have cast upon him He wrongeth me in like sort q Reply pag. 92 saith the Iesuite If his learned pen hath done you wrong it hath beene by detecting your frauds as before the perjuries of your Order For wherein is the wrong but in shewing forth the wisedome of your insinuations For the truth is he indeavoureth not to make his Reader beleive that you should be so unreasonable as to say that a man might not dissent from the auncient Doctors so much as in an exposition of a text of Scripture without making himselfe more learned more pious and more holy then they were r See the Reply pag. 92. but shewes that you have done it enforcing the same from your reason of the Fathers learning pietie and holynes which lookes upon all points with like authoritie And suppose that according to your owne principles an interpreter should dissent from the Doctors in exposition of one text the most remoâ—est from the foundations of Faith as Tâ—bies dogge his wagging of his tayle I hope you cannot deny but by that Act if they bee not more pious and holy then the Fathers from whom they vary yet they make themselves more learned in that particular if your reason be true or sound For if the learning pietie and holinesse of the Fathers be an argument of truth in deducing points of doctrine from the Scripture they that vary from them in doctrine drawne from thence must make themselves more learned 〈◊〉 and holy then they were But upon revisall what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to confesse he doth labour to excuse and to this intent he refines his character and tels us a long story of his thoughts that he who in such points of faith as those be which I layde downe in my demaund would prefette his owne private interpretation of Scripture before the generall and uniforme agreement of holy Fathers therein could not be excused from the guilt of such like arrogancie Å¿ Reply pag. 93 Is it but arrogancie to deny the Fathers in a point of faith such as those be which you have layde downe It seemes your faith is of your owne making otherwise it would be heresie especially being perversâ—y done against so great a light and conjoyned testimonie but why more in these points that are named by you and such like then in others learning pietie and holinesse direct in every point of religiou as well as in these and therefore if it conclude arrogancie to those that oppose in these you must shew us a reason why it doth not in others also And so farre as I can see the Iesuite hath no reason against the currant of their whole Church to make learning pietie and religion causes of true interpretation of Scripture no not in points of faith when by their owne confession these three Graces were suspended from guyding the Romane faith for whole ages together t Stapl. Relect. cont 1. q. 5. A. 3. Vixullum peccatum solâ Haeresi
excepta cogitari potest quo illa sedes turpiter ma culata non fuerit maxime ab an no â—00 and therefore it were better to acknowledge the miracle with Bellarmine Bellarm. in Chronolog an 970. Vide seculum infelix in quo nulli Scriptores illustres nulla Concilia Pontifices parum solliciti de republâ— Sed divina providentia fecit ut nullae surgerent haereses novae from thence perswade obedience then from leâ—â—ning piâ—tiâ— or holinesse at all which you neither acknowledg requisite †Papiâ—ius Massonius in vita Pauli 3. In Pontificibus nemo hodiè sanctitatem requirit optimi putantur si vel leviter mali sint vel minùs boni quam â—aeteri mortales esse solent or assistant to the guider of your Catholicke faith And thus you see distinctions of points of faith left indifferent determined cannot preserve the Iesuite from his unsound and unreasonable supposition the reason being alike for both So that there needs no consideration of the points nor satisfaction to the Persons mentioned the mistake presupposed by the Iesuite being a just charge But he proceeds and tels us that through the like mistake the Answerer chargeth him with boldnes when he offered to produce good and certaine grâ—â—nds out of the sacred Scriptures in confirmation of such points of Religion as he layde downe y Reply pag. 93 M. Malone this is bouldnes beleive it and such which the best of your owne notwithstanding your flourishes will not adventure to defend therefore it is justly so stiled by the most reverend Primate It is apparant that your confidence herein had no other prop at first but ignorance to conceipt your ability howsoever your shame hath now attracted impudency for your further assistance if your answere to this be not meere blockish you shall tryumph everlastingly In your challenge your promise for the confirmation of all the therein mentioned points of your religion to produce good and certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures if the Fathers authority will not suffice And further you desire any Protestant to alleage any one text out of the said Scripture which condemneth any of the above written points z See the Iesuites challenge This rash escape begets in the most learned Answerer a just derision of your boldnes ignorance who against the coÌ„sent of your learned councell will attempt to prove confession prayers to Saints image worship Limbus patrum Purgatory c. by good certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures whenas some of those points are coÌ„fessed neither expresse nor involutè to be coÌ„tained therein a â—annes 2. 2 q 1 â— 10 all of them referred to the tradition of the universall Church b Gloss in Gratian de Poeniâ—en d 5 c. 1. in poenitentia Canus loâ— thâ—olâ— â— c 4 Coster in compend orthodoâ—ae fidei Demonstr propos 5 c. 2 p. 162. Is not here cause sufficient to deride your boldnes hath not your evasive answer confessed your ignorance who sees not an amazed Iesuite He dares not deny the truth that this doctrine is not delivered in Scripture neither hath he the modesty to confesse his lapse and therefore frames such an answere that justly makes him ridiculous unto all When by by saith he we shal come to dispute of Traditions we will prove even by good grounds of Scripture that such divine traditioÌ„s are no lesse to be beleived of us then are those points of faith which be expresly mentioned in holy Writ and then it will appeare how it was a confidence of the truth which did beget this boldnes in me and nothing else but partialitiâ— which begot in him that sinister suspicion c Reply pag. 93 Is not here wisedome merus Logicus is a better rational then we finde here He will prove by Scriptures traditionâ— are no lesse to be beleived then points of faith expressed in holy Writ will it follow therefore confession image-worship c. may be proved by good certain grounds out of sacred scriptures Where were your Canonists schoolemen late Iesuites their eyes or wits that they could neither see nor find out this but rather reckoned these points amongst traditions not laid downe in Scripture d See before lit â— They saw what you pretended your Arguments are no newes they used them to the same purpose with as much wilynes as you either have or can doe yet they could never prove those points that are acknowledged to be received from tradition to have good certain grounds out of the sacred scriptures Besides the points specified either have good certain grouÌ„ds out of scriptures or they have none If they have none how can the Iesuit produce them if they have any why doth your church perswade their beleif froÌ„ the word not written the tradition of the universall Church Neither will this evasion deceive a purblind sight for if he prove traditions of as necessary beleif as points expressed in scriptures what gaines hath he for he doth it in grosse this proves there are traditioÌ„s but not confâ—rmes any of the points by good grouÌ„ds out of sacred scriptures or in particular that confession Prayers â—o Saints Image-Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Purgatâ—riâ— c. are divine traditions And thâ—n the Iesuitâ— hath not performed what he promised in handling â—raditions no not in his endeavours neither will he ever doe if â—is owne guesse aright The Iesuite tels us he will forbear to urge any more â—hâ—â— other injurie whereby he charged us with forging câ—yning and clipping the â—â—nâ—ments of antiquity e Reply pag. 93 And doe you not thinke it had bene better his forbearance had begun before But let us examine this injury and it will not be any great trouble to make the Iesuite impudent or a confessionary of such frauds And first to begin with the first of forging and coyning not to name all this were to much but some of most kindes First Dâ—â—ation as Constantiues for his temporall Patrimonie f See before â— â—05 â—06 Secondly Councels as Conciliuâ— Siâ—â—â—â—â—an 〈◊〉 suâ— Sylvestrâ— g See before p 203. 204. 20â— Thirdly Canons as those of Nice pretended to the Bishops of Africke and the Arabian to the whole world h See before p. â—73 Epistles as your Deâ—â—â—â—â—ls never heard of in antiquitie but invented by your Merchant when Rome had forgot to speake in her auncient â—legancy i See before p 202 Besides false titles have beene given to Bookes but by whom for whose benefit you can judge If this be not forging and â—â—yâ—ing charge â—s with falshood But if I should at large proseqâ—â—te this it would trouble patience it selfe to attend Besides is it not forging and câ—yning to cite from a father that which he never spâ—keâ— as your Aquinas hath doâ—e from S. Cyrillâ— Thesaurus in the point of Supremacy an evidence applauded beyond all other For saith Canus all other anthors never
said so much for it as Aquinas his Cyrill Canus l 6. â— 5 Cyrillus apud Thomaâ—â—ulâ—o evidentiùs quim authores â—aeâ—eâ—i huic veritati testimonium perhibet and yet in the true Cyrill there is never a word to be found And further in the Councell of Chalcedon hath not the same Thomas l In opâ—sâ— con â—rrores Graecoâ—â—m mentioned decrees they never dreamed of and laboured to make the Greekes esteemed Hereticks by such invented forgeries that he hath brought against them and all for Appâ—aâ—â—â—â— Râ—â—â— â—or â—â—â— holinesse his universall vicarage The cause sheweth the forger and the forger confesseth the weakeâ—â—s of the cause Now not onely forging and coyning but also clipping hath bene too manifest You say your selves that Hereâ—ickes have done this and we beleive it and who are those heretickâ— if you cannot declare who those be surely they were never done the assigning of persons time and plâ—â—e by your doctrine being the mâ—dium to finde such concealâ—menâ—s out Further if the monuments of antiquitie be corrupted we may justly accuse you that pretend to bee the keepers and teachers of the Church that you would suffer such things to be done and know not whom you may truely suspect so that if you confesse corruption declare the corrupters if you know corruptions and doe not assigne them it is more then probable that you were acquainted with the worke Howsoever you may not reâ—urne this upon us whom you acknowledge to be little â—â—â—â—ienter then your order and but a little in antiquitiâ— preceding your faith So that we may conclude the injury is little the accusation being just The Iesuite nameth other injuries that he will let passe as when to shun that difficultie which pinched him saith he in my demaund he framed it fâ—â—re otherwise then it was prepâ—â—nded Reply pag 93 94. See the answere thereto whether the Iesuite played not Simplician in the demaund For the â—â—iâ— passages which he likewise complaineth of the Iesuite promiseth afterwards to discover theâ— c. To which we referre the Reader Yet one thing the Iesuite must not lâ—t passe to observe that when he said that the Answerers Religion cannot be â—â—ue because it disalloweth of mâ—â—y cheife articles which the Saynts and fâ—thers of that priâ—itive Church of Rome did generally hold â—o be true the Answerer will needes prescribe unto him what he must prove saying that it will not â—e sufficient for him that some of the Father◠〈◊〉 some of those opinions but he must prove if he will deale to the purpose that they held them generally and held them too not as opinions but 〈◊〉 dâ—â—ide as 〈◊〉 to the substance of faith and Religion Reply pag. 94 Surely if these be not fit caâ—tions for them to observe that by antiquity universalitie and consent of Fathers pretend to find the truth of doctrine let any modest nature discerne for if the Iesuite observes not these rules he may urge at pleasure but can prove nothing if they be of faith now they must have beene so in the Primitive times for that rule is unalterable and without change And besides Tertul. dâ— Virg. vel c. 1. Regula fidei una omnino est sola illa immobilis iâ—reformabilis if they were then reputed points of faith the rule to prove doctrine by consent would faile if the Fathers did not generally consent in every one of these for if Fathers did diâ—fer in grounds of Faith and Catholicke Religion where was their harmonie And if they consent not in all why should their consent be made a rule for the confirmation of any p Cal Lex Iurid Regulae ofâ—icium est exhibere nobisgeneraliter definitionem juris But wherefore doth the Iesuite distast these he shewes it is not for any just exception he can take against them but out of a jealouâ—ie from whence they proceed whether from charitie which he will not beleive or which is more likely perchance from a conceipt of his weakenes and ignorance whereby the Answerer was afrayde that he knew not himselfe what he had to prove or how it might be prâ—â—ved Reply pag. 94 which the Iesuite for his ownesake is unwilling to acknowledge For saith he though I confesse my selfe to be the weakest of a thousand yet have I no reason to thinke that he would any way support my weakenes who hath undertaken to enter into 〈◊〉 with me before such Specâ—â—tors â—â— in their veiw the â—east â—â—yle cannot be reâ—â—ived without a great disgrace r â—bid Here the Iesuite manifesteth his charitie but declareth no syllable for defence of his knowledge He makes his owne glorie the end of his quarrell and deemeth the Answerers indeavours to looke towards the same end but it i◠〈◊〉 glory â—â— disgrace that his 〈◊〉 resolution 〈◊〉 â—â— feares â—◠〈◊〉 Godâ—â—â—uth from the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 to keepâ— Christs 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 this iâ— the worke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee bee reviled by frogges and â—â—custes hee despiseth it 〈◊〉 â—e knoweâ— will 〈◊〉 in â—er 〈◊〉 and wisdome will have a time as to be justified of so to 〈◊〉 her children And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Answerer◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what hee esteemes them the Iesuites chaâ—â—ty appeaâ—â—s but small that feedes Christs flocke like the hireling for the wages of applâ—â—se and not from the ground of 〈◊〉 Pases because hee 〈◊〉 the Lord. For â—er him 〈◊〉 of the most leaâ—â—ed 〈◊〉 câ—â—â—itie to himselfe or 〈◊〉 towards the Fatheâ—â— as â—â— pleaseth I am 〈◊〉 â—e hath said nothing heere that may perswade us that hee hath swallowed downe all antiquitie or that his knowledge is so great that from the Answeâ—â—â—s learned 〈◊〉 he might not receive instruction But the Iesuite 〈◊〉 know that these are not the reasons that mooved him to perswade the obsâ—â—â—ation of these rules but their desperate impudeâ—ciâ—s for who knowes not that they can pretend Fathers for their cause that held 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by devising a 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make them their friends when they are urged against them and also make that faith which was not in the Fathers Creed neither found in any of their expositions upon the same This is the reason of giving these câ—â—tions because they use the Fathers to blind not to manifest the truth of the ancient â—aith therefore the Iesuite may see how â—ond his imaginations are how poore hâ—â— conceit But the Iesuit sees the RomaÌ„ faith to be such that he dare not undertake to prove it but bysome few and that not as points 〈◊〉 but as points held by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by presuÌ„ptioÌ„ as if in antiquity there were not a 〈◊〉 betwixt their Creed with the points therein other remote deductioÌ„s from the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from hence are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether this 〈…〉 which the 〈…〉 of Fathers Now he will give 〈…〉 wherefore he 〈◊〉 these 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 is he 〈…〉 any puâ—pose For first he confesseth it absurd that
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