The First Part.

Wherein the Generall Answer to the Challenge is cleared from all the IESUITES Cavills.

MATTH. XXIII. 9. 10.
Call no man your FATHER upon the earth, for one is your FATHER which is in Heaven. Neither be yee called Masters: for one is your Master, even CHRIST.
II. TIMOTH. III. 8. 9.
As Iannes and Iambres withstood Moses, so doe these also resist the Truth: men of corrupt mindes, reprobate concerning the Faith. But they shall proceede no further: for their folly shalbe manifest unto all.

DUBLIN, Printed by the Societie of Stationers, Printers to the Kings most excellent Majestie. 1632.


Right Honourable my singular good Lord,

IT was Tertullian's observa­tion of Heretickes, Nostra suffodiunt ut sua aedificent Tertull de praescript a [...] vers. haeret. cap. 42.: Your Lordship is well infor­med by experience, that the Romish Clergie who disdain the stile of Hereticks, are like Ʋnderminers, like Builders: For what kinde of Ʋndermining is left unpractised to make way, ut sua aedificent, that they may build up their Babell, and ad­vance their ROMAN See? The Scripture the Rule of Faith they undermine by their Ʋnde scis? allowing it neither authority nor Com­mand, but because their Cheife Pastour de­clares it, expounds it. The Church they under­mine by assuming her Name, defiling her Do­ctrine. Councels, by denying their lawfulnesse, [Page] unlesse called and approved by Rome: Bishops & Preists, by making them Delegates to his supposed Holyness, rejecting their Commissi­on received from CHRIST. Neither cease they here, but Princes and States they under­mine also, sometime by raising open VVarre, sometime by Bosome-conspiracies, Powder-plots, & other secret attempts. Nor doe these Ʋnder­miners looke alway like Faux in the Vault, but they will appeare somtimes as it were Angels of Light: Princes shall have Thousands of their Pennes Iesuite Fisher in his Epistle to the King., but I thinke rather Pen-knives: They wilbe strongly tyed and united to his Majesties Crowne, & the more familiaritie they have with him by whom Kings do raigne, the more awfull will they be found unto his Holy annointed The Iesuite in his Epistle Dedicatory., and all this, as the Divell to our Saviour, ut sua aedifi­cent, that Princes may fall downe and worship their Beast. We may goe further; None escape them. They undermine & Populum & Primates Populi, by subverting their Estates, Proselyting their Children: and yet the keeping backe of these Ʋnderminers from his Majesties pre­sence is censured by Mr Malone (our Iesu­ite) to be the fruite of waspish emulation In his Epistle Dedicatory., as [Page] if these things might be done, and yet they re­maine faithfull to their Prince, his State and Dignitie. But their Allegiance may well be dis­cerned by their Obedience: For, besides their immediate addresse to Rome, their acknow­ledging a PROTECTOƲR In a letter of LVD. CAR. LVDVISIVS S. R. E. VI­CECANCEL­LARIƲS, superscribed thus, Rev. PP•i.. Praefect [...] p. P. Car [...] Excalceaterum in Reg [...] Hiber­nia. Dated. Rome 10. Kal. I [...]ii, 1631. which is in my hands, and con­cerneth the quarrels of the Regulars and Seculars in the points censured by the Doctors of S [...]bon, [...]5. [...]an. 1631. Vt rei veritas innotes [...]at scri­ptum est ad quosdam illius Regni Praelatos â qu. bus expe­ctatur infor­matio. Interim v [...]sum est sacrae Congreg.ni ut nos ex munere PROTECTORIS quo fungimur admoneamus, & rogemus V. [...] ne ex dolore aut vin­dicta illatae, ut praetenditur, calumniae quid quam agat erga tumultus authores, ne maj [...] ­res [...]xcitentur turbae, sed offensiones & injurias suas [...]uorumque re [...]ittat s [...]cr [...] Con­greg. [...] quae plenè satisfaciet, & justâ censurâ corripiet, ac poenâ afficiet [...]mniae dum constire it Architectos. there, and abusing his Majesties Subjects by pressing their Consciences to yeeld subjection (against his sacred Commaunds) to none but from thence, There is dayly resisting of his ROYAL Commaunds, in matters that are not absolutely Spirituall: For there being Publication of His Maiesties ROYALL pleasure for the chan­ging of the Popish Calendar, which ever since the times of Rebellion was observed in the Province of Vlster, Did they obey? This it may be they will glory in; But for what other then Politick respects? How was the Titular Pri­mate advised by his Councell learned Was he not pressed to disobey? Was it not reputed in­convenient to alter the same? Did he not cen­sure the receiving of the Kings command against [Page] this their disobedient practise to be no other­wise then to obey men more then GOD! That if obedience should be yeelded herein, their Adver­saries (so he stiles his sacred Majestie & Councell) wilbe encouraged to publish more severe e­dicts against them, & sic paulatim serpet Can­cer In a letter written partly in Irish, partly in Latine, to the Titular Primate, super­scribed, To his much esteemed assured loving fr [...]ind Mr Willi­am Bitagh these in haste where­soever. These are the points for which it were inconve­nient to alter the time heere praes [...]rtim hoc anno. [...], quod videamur obs­dire hominibu [...] magis quam Deo, recipiendo TEMPORA­LIVM Potestatum mandata contra r [...]ceptam Ecclesiasticam lgem, idque [...] [...]dium religionis nostrae; und [...] ADVERSARII animentur ad alia magis nociva praecepta can­ [...]ra nos [...]denda, dum [...]iderent nos minoribus praeceptis [...]emperare, & sic paulatim serpet Can­cer &c.. Doe they apprehend his Majestie & Coun­cell for Adversaries? Who can then esteeme thē for Friends? Shall a rebellious intrusion bee e­steemed the Oracle of GOD and checke the Regall Power, as proceeding from Men, and yet Subjection not violated, but their Obedience must remaine firme?

Much more in this kinde may be presented to your Lordship, if it were not superfluous, but by this it may appeare, how that (notwith­standing their pretences) Princes are relished or distasted by them in ordine ad spiritualia, as they countenance, or exalt their Popish Facti­on. For to omit other things, the Iesuit his con­temptuous reproaching of the learned defence of his Majesties supreame power, made in the Castle-Chamber in the time of your Lordships [Page] Government here, doth declare how invious­ly they heare of his Maiesties eminent and glo­rious Prerogatives. But the more they declare themselves enemies to our Faith & her Defen­der, the more I doubt not, but all sacredly af­fected will arme themselves to resist them, in these their contrivings & secret imaginations.

I doe not come with this Dedication to move your Lordship hereunto, for it hath beene your VVorke; & who is or hath beene more Faith­full amongst all the Servants of my Lord the KING 1. Sam. 2 [...].? And for your pious affection to the true Religion I could speake more then I sup­pose your modesty would be willing to heare; so that I doubt not, but in this way you will prosper and flourish, (Ʋnus Deus & plures A­mici) being confident that there will never be wanting Blessings & Honour to him that ei­ther walkes with GOD or for him. Neither is it a light Argument of your loue to Pietie and Religion, that in the time of your Lordships Government (imitating herein BOTH your most glorious MASTERS) you were a Fa­ther to the Cleargie and Ministers of GOD; your last Act amongst us shewing with how sa­cred [Page] an esteeme you reverenced their Persons; when by your practise you taught the most Honourable of the Kingdome to acknowledge them for men appointed by GOD to blesse in his Name.

I will now draw to an end, excusing my presumption in offering this to your Lord­ship; but I could doe no lesse, in regard I have no other meanes to acknowledge your libe­rall favours and bountie to mee, and to give your Lordship an Accompt, that although they can never be deserved, yet they are not altoge­ther misplaced or cast away. The LORD multiply his Blessings upon your Lordship, and inflame your affections more and more to his Glory, that hee may crowne you with his mercies here, and eter­nitie hereafter; which he shall ever pray for that is

Your Lordships most humble servant and Chaplaine GEO: SYNGE.

To the Reader.

I Am to give thee notice (Christian Reader) that M. Malone the Iesu­ite writing a DEMAUND, and sending it to the most reverend Fa­ther in God, the Lord Primate of all Ireland his Grace, when he was Chancellor of the Ca­thedrall Church of S. Patrickes Dublin, re­ceived an ANSWER from him to the same, full of gravitie and learning, when he was Bishop of Meath, having the first coppie that came forth of the Presse sent unto him. Since which time he hath printed, A REPLY TO Mr VSHERS ANSWER, so fully expressing an impatient & disquieted minde, that scarce a page may be found, wherein he useth not a licentious libertie and revi­ling tongue against the most learned Answerer. This booke travailed long before it could bee espy­ed by us, but having got it at last, wee found it to bee as before is declared. Whereupon some [Page] Divines did labour to disswade the most reverend the Lord Primate from rejoyning thereunto, in regard of the indignity of the raylor, and violence of the worke, as also because it would hinder him in other studies more necessary for the Church, and did offer their endeavours to examine the same; VVhich being accepted by his Grace, the worke is now so farre prepared, that it waytes at the Presse. Onely this Peice prepares the way, which I have sent out of due course and order with­out the rest, occasioned by the adverse part, who have reported it to bee in answering before ma­ny sheetes thereof were printed, whereby I had reason to suspect, that to get the coppie they used some deceit.

But before I leave thee (Christian Reader) I must first acquaint thee, that in the examination of the Generall Controversie in the Iesuites Re­ply, I have passed by sundry mistakes, solecismes, and false Quotations, casting them aside, as the Israelite did the body of Amasa 2. Sam. 2. 20. lest they should hinder me in a more necessary pursuite. Neither have I beene moved with every provocation of the invious Iesuite, knowing that the sinne which pro­voked him to this bitternes, is (as Cyprian ob­serves) [Page] sine fine peccatum, everlastingly exten­ded, and without an end, set on fire by Hell,Cyprian. de Zelo & Livore. Zelus termi­num non ha­bet permanent jugiter malum & sine fine peccatum, quantóque ille cui invidetur successu meli­ore profecerit, tanto invidus in majus incen­dium, livoris ignibus, in [...]r descit▪ though the fuell that nourisheth it come from Hea­ven, whereby the most learned Answerer is justi­fied, in regard that the more GOD hath beau­tified him with excellencies and admirable perfe­ctions, the more he is persecuted by this fierie in­flammation. Besides, his owne have censured him for his rage heerein, admiring

—Quae causa indigna SERENOS Foedavit vultus?

and therefore he being condemned by them, I did take libertie many times to spare my reproofe. VVhat errours have passed in the Presse, I have taken the best course I could for their correction. I pray GOD blesse and protect his Church against all the proud holdes that are ere­cted against the Scepter of IESUS CHRIST.


IT is sufficient to procure iea­lousie, when an Adversary raves; But it is a convincing Argument of desperate feare, when one flyes vpon a partie, to countenance his Cause. That this hath beene our Iesu­ites practise, I thinke will ea­sily appeare.

In his first page, if Painters and Poets were to bee be­leived, hee In the preface to the Reader. Emblematically s [...]ts forth our private spirit, iarring Synagogues, and would perswade the world, that there is amongst them, Pag, 1. the Ʋnity of the spirit, in the bond of Peace. But all this in a shadowe onely. I hope the Reader will not thinke wee esteeme our persons as our cause, or that we conceit, wee are as free from Passi­on, as our Faith from falshood: This humour were too Pharisaicall, and fit for a Iesuite. Some humours will extend a gnat to a As Luthe­ranes &c. mountaine, and determine every thing damnable, which they conceive an error. On the [Page 2] other side, others have consciences so largely capaci­ous, that nothing offends them, and therefore can as well receive a precept, or command from Satan, as GOD; from Antichrist, as CHRIST; and obey with more obsequiousnesse the I. Gordon Huntl. in epist. ad Paulum 5. ante epit: contr: Tu Petra firma & immobilis in qua religio cō ­quieseit, Bell. de Rom. Pont. lib 4. c. 5. Si Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia, vel pro­hibendo virtu­tes teneretur Ecclesia crede­re vitia esse bo na, & virtutes malas, nisi vel­let contra con­scientiam pec­care. Tyrant, then the Chrys. hom. 37. in Gen. Christus prae­cepit dicens; scrutemini scri­pturas; yet I. Gordon Huntl. cont: epit: with other Papists except, that wee know not the Scriptures, neither their sence, but by the Pope and his Church, that they are obscure, in the originall ambiguous, the points ill placed, the text corrupted. Prince of peace, the onely true Lord of the Conscience.

Let vs now argue with the Iesuite, if our discourse doe not interrupt his Musicke, and enquire; If it be gran­ted, that there have beene some bitter passages among our owne, whether Discord of As Paul and Barnabas Act. 15. 39. Paul and Peter Gal. 2 11. the Churches of Asia, & the Latine in Pepe Victor's time. Euseb. eccl. hist lib. 5. Chrysost. & Epiphanius, Augustine & Ierome &c. Brethren, so it bee not deadly, is not better then Concord of As Saul & his Divell, as Bala [...] & Balaam that agree to curse the Church, Num. 22. as Pilate & the Priests, to crucifie the Lord of Life. Slaves? Or if there bee Vnitie among Roman Proselytes, as hee but pretends, and cannot prove, whether they can discerne it from the Chaine of their Capti­vitie, by which they are bound? Are there not ma­ny that Scot. 4. d. 11. q 3. captivate their Iudgements? that cannot perswade their Vnderstandings? And who knowes not, that their Aene: Sylv. in epist. ad Mogunt. capitulo [...]. cit: per Fl. Illyricum. Etiam verum dicere contra Papam, est contra juramentum Episcoporum. Maldon in Math. 16. 6. Haereticos non magis audiendos esse etiamsi vera, & sacris literis consenta­nea, dicant aut doceant, quam Diabolum. Oathes with other obligations, and not the Truth tye them like Sampsons foxes by the tayle, to the Ʋnitie of their blinde Subiection?

Is it not Concil: Tridentin: Heresie deserving a curse, to question Papall decrees? and in Roman determinations to doubt, where they cannot believe, Is not this to be an Gloss. Extravag: Iohan: 22: tit. 14 cap. [...]. Cum inter: Credere dominū deum nostrum Papam, condito­rem dictae Decretalis, & istius, sic non potuisse statuere prout statuit, haereticū censeretu [...]. He­reticke? But I will forbeare any further pursuite of these things, vntill a fitter opportunity, and consider how he expresseth this our Dissention, and their Concord in his vain-glorious Hieroglyphick.

The Roman Divines he makes Harpers, and turnes our Heavenly Musitians, to play on all kindes of Instru­ments, and this hee thinkes a [...]est worth his whole dis­course.

But Instruments of a kinde doe not presuppose an harmonious consent; Neither doe Organs of different formes necessarily exclude a concord, as this Harper would have it. Psalme 150. God was praysed in the sound of the Trumpet, vpon the Violl, and Harpe, with Timbrell and Flute, Virginalls and Organs, and yet no horrid dis­sonancie, or vnreconcileable discord to be heard; So that although hee make Knox Master of our Quire, I cannot thinke him fit to bee a Chorister in their owne, for his skill in Musicke.

He further proceedes, and gives Knox the Horne, when all. Scotland knowes, that he brought the To bee brought to the Horne is as much as to be outlawed. m Sleid: com: lib: 22: Hist: Conc: Triden: Pope and his Cleargie to it.

He puts our Private Spirit, as he tearmes it, in a Bag­pipe, and forgets the Spirit that travayled in a m Cloake-Bag, betwixt Trent, and Rome.

I will not trouble you with such other thoughts, as his piping hath occasioned, but will turne the leafe, and see whether his Pen, be better then his Pensill, and first wee finde,

A Replye to Mr Iames Ʋsher his Answere.

Your Father Parsons thought it an error in a Prince, to call your great Cardinall, Mr Bellarmine: Shall it bee justified in a Iesuite, to deale so vnmannerlie with a Primate, and one of His Majesties most honourable Privy Councell? A practise vsuall to our hot oppug­ners, yet so little approved by their wisest brethren, vp­pon their second thoughts, that Mr Fitzherbert, Rector of the English Colledge of his owne Society in Rome, retracted his vnmannerly vsage in the same kinde to­wardes the Lord Bishop of Winchester. Neither let this Iesuite thinke, that his pretence of Religion is [Page 4] Apologie sufficient to plead for his incivility heerein, when as Replique a la­response du se­ [...]enissime roy de la grand Bretagne Card. du Per [...]on pag. 1010. &c. wise as himselfe, or any of his order, gave that most reverend Bishop, the honour of his Dignity and Sea.

He telleth vs further, that his Reply discovereth how answerlesse Mr Ʋsher returneth. Balaam, nor his Crea­ture never spake truer, for though the Iesuite hath pre­sented to the world a Bulke pretending vniforme con­sent of antiquitie, for the Romish Religion, and the va­nitie of the Answerer, it will appeare onely that he hath expressed good will, though little strength, where­by Master Ʋsher Responsa e­ius sine respon­sionibus. returneth, and remaineth answer­lesse still.

Heere is folly enough for a Page, and a Painting; but resteth hee heere? no; hee vrgeth 1. Cor. 4. 15: and maketh it speake in this manner, If yee haue tenne thousand Ʋshers in Christ, yet not many fathers.

Heere is a Courtesie perforce, for though this Loyolist neglects the most reverend Primate his honour in State, his dignity in Schooles, and makes him but a Master, though his exquisite knowledge, & eminencie in Church, and styles him but an Vsher, yet his Sanctitie bursts forth, and will not be hid, for hee is acknowledged in Christ. But let him glory in his conceipt, as hee pleaseth, I am sure, though his faction have many Fryars and Iesuites vulgar­ly stiled fa­thers. fathers in Anti­christ, yet they have neither many, nor any such Ʋshers in Christ.

After his Painting and Title, wee finde an Epistle Dedicatory to His Maiestie, which any man reading and beleiving, may thinke a Iesuite a true Subiect, for hee comes not with Antiq. Bri­tan: in vita Thom: Becket. salvo ordine, as their Canterburie Saint, but will vnder-goe the tryall of his cause before His Maiestie, and submit the right thereof to the censure of his excellent wisedome: So that Ireland may rejoyce shee hath found a [Page 5] Iesuite, that giveth Princes Iudgement in spirituall mat­ters, when the whole world besides, cannot produce I thinke an other, that will allowe them an Some give the Pope a di­rect power to despose kinges, Others an indi­rect power. Bellar: de Rom: Pont: lib: 5: cap. 6. Quan [...]ū ad personas non potest Papa ut Papa ordinari [...] temporales Principes depo­nere &c. tamen potest mutare regna et vni au­ferre, at (que) alte­ri conferre, tan­quam summus Princeps spiri­tualis si id ne­cessarium sit ad animarum sa­lutem. et cap 7 Quod si chri­stiani olim non deposuerunt Neronem &c: id fuit quia de­erantvires tem­porales Chri­stianis. vndependant temporall Iurisdiction.

He acknowledgeth his Maiesties vertues, which wee commend in a Iesuite, though it be but a Subiects dutie, and could wish his Pen were as strong as his Sub­iect. But forgetting pistoll, poyson, and Gun-powder, hee imputeth their scaring from his Maiesti [...]s pre­sence to washpish emulation of Adversaries, which truelie proceeded from wel-grounded Iealousie, and loyall feare.

Did you never heare of Benedict Palmio, and Hanni­ball Codrett, two famous Iesuites, that not onely taught Parry that it was lawfull to kill the Queene of England, but also that it was an act meritorious? Williams, Yorke, O Cullen, Savage, & divers others that were executed for the like attempts, Did not they charge Holt, and o­ther Iesuites, to bee their instructors in that practi­call devotion? where did Squire learne the lesson to empoyson the Queene, but from your brother Wad­pole? O [...] E [...]in his breife reply to certaine odious and slanderous libells etc. 411.

These things, are not inventions springing from wash­pish emulation of adversaryes, but they are the confessions of such as were made Martyrs by Popish Doctrine. I will close all with that vglie Powder-plot, which was im­possible to have bene invented, without the Divell, or a Iesuite, and enquire, whether these be not sufficient to barre Iesuites from ever pretending faith, or fidelitie to Princes: and whether they doe not iustly occasi­on Iealousie in true affected mindes, and require them to keepe backe such Vipers from their Masters presence?

Besides this, doe Protestants feare Iesuiticall treach [...]ries alone? do not your owne the same? what made the court of [Page 6] Parliament of Paris, vpon Iohn Chastells attempt to mur­der King HENRY the fourth, to banish the Iesuites out of Paris within three dayes, and out of France within fifteene, after notice giuen, but Garet the Iesuites tray­terous lessons? Was it the Iesuites Vnity and familia­rity with God, or in truth, their confederacie with Hell, that made your Catholickes of France vpon a Pillar O: E: ibid: 117., set vp in detestation of Chastells attempt, to stile your holy Brethren, mali Magistri; their Colledges, Scho­lae impiae; and their Religion, Nova & malefica super­stitio?

Was it an Argument of your awfull engagements to Gods holy annoynted, that you brought your Catholick children to such a bloudie height in France, that it was vulgarly received, That Popes may tosse the French King his Throne like a Tennis-ball, and that Killing of Kings is an act meritorious, not in an inferiour degree, but to purchase the Crowne of Martyrdome: In so much that the De­puties for the third Estate, desired the meanes whereby the People might be vnwitched of this pernicious opinion? These are the words, not of light report, but of our sacred de­ceased King King IAMES his remonstrāce against an Oration of the most illustrious Cardinall Per­ron, in the pre­face., who was a Star of the greatest magnitude in the Church of GOD. Can subiects want feare of these prodigies, vnlesse they want faith to their Prince, fidelitie to their Countrey?

He chargeth vs further with vpbrayding them with the vndeserved Epithites of treacherous and disloyall Papistes. Againe, that we haue altered our tune, and by publicke atte­stations made it knowne vnto the world, that their Religion doth not any way diminish, or weaken the force of their obli­ged dutie to his Maiesties sacred Crowne, no not though the Pope himselfe should attempt to with-draw them from the same.

Who knoweth not Papists haue their kindes? there are Papists in faction, Papists in devotion, some deceiued by your Cheates, others embracing your wiles. That some [Page 7] wee tearme treacherous and disloyall, their deserts merite it. That others we acknowledge loyall and faithfull, our experiences approve it. What doe we acquit all, because we iustifie some? Or haue we altered our iudgments, be­cause we distinguish your persons?

Your Martyr Watson In his Quod­libe [...]. hath published Iesuites fidelity, and some of your selues haue acted it. And for your Cleargie, the King In the pre­face to his Re­monstrance. deceased conceiueth that they deny themselues the ranke of loyall Subiects among the French, why should wee thinke the Clymate alters them?

The most reverend Primate giveth his deare Countri­men, the Irish Gentrie of the Pale, that which they de­serve, the honour of their former fidelitie, and expresseth his hope of their future faithfulnesse. The worthy Iu­stice acknowledgeth in temporall matters their present Conformitie, and both of them I think could wish, they were as tender of their owne soules, as of the Kings safe­tie. Must this iustifie your Religion, in regard they will not generally embrace it? And because their loyaltie wil not close with your doctrine, Is there no Crown-shaving in your profession? That they have not revolted from their obedi [...]e, we impute to their pious inclination, & natiue fidelitie, & not to Papal lines, or Popish doctrines, which in these particulars they haue scorned and abhor­red. Hee proceedes.

And I not onely for my selfe, but in the name of all my fellow-labourers, your Maiesties most humble and faithfull Subiects dar [...] vndertake, that not one of these his words shall euer fall to the ground: but by GODS divine assi­stance you shall finde it dayly more and more aessured, that the free exercise of our Religion, is our strongest tye and vnion to your Crowne.

We feare not their loyaltie, what needes a suretie? if we did, such knights of the Post were poore caution for a regall Crowne; who teach doctrines of deposing [Page 8] Princes? are they not your Brother-hood, your fellow­labourers Marian de Rege li. 1. ca. 6. Certè à re­publica, vnde ortum habet regia potestas, rebus exigenti­bus regem in Ius vocari pos­se, et si sanita­tem respuat, principat [...] spoliari.? who wills and commands Subiects to be ar­med against Princes, but your Holy Father Vide▪ Buil. Pii 5. adver. E­lizab. Regin.? You will not kill a King those Perron stiles Apostat cut-throatsKing▪ Iames his Remonstr. pag. 2.; but vn-king him first, or make him a Tyrant Suarez in▪ defens fid. [...]th▪ advers [...] [...] er­rc: lib 6. cap. 4. Rex haereticus statim per hae­resin ipso facto privatur aliquo modo dominio et proprietate sui regni, etc. At verò post sententiā latā, omninò priva­tur regno, ita vt non possit iu­sto titulo illud possidere, ergo ex tunc poter [...] tanquam om­ninò tyrannus tractari, et consequenter à quocunque privato poterit interfici., & this you shame not to commend Ma­rian lo [...]o su. cit: Ab omni memoria in magna laude fuisse, quocunque tyrannos oppri­mere aggressi sunt.. Parricide is a sinne, this you grant, but while you perswade the▪ world you can par­don Chreichton: Iesuita, ad Brusseum apud Hospinian: Hist: Ies: lib: 4: cap: 4: Caede patratâ, si ad se confessurus veniret, tum se ipsum absoluturum esse. it when it is acted, what can Princes conceiue of this, but as of an Invitation to their butchery?

His late Majestie demanded of Fisher, what subiects should doe in case of Papall deposition of their Prince? but dare a Iesuite resolve this in a Princes eare? no: his Ge­nerall inhibites him to deale in politicke matters, and there­fore he professeth he will pray for Peace, that he will ex­hort others to suffer patiently, and that he will dye himselfe rather then to be accessarie to his Maiesties death, But for resolution of the question, ne vox quidem, he vtters not a syllable. Now these vaine complements our Iesuite for­sakes, and openly professeth for him selfe, and in the name of his fellow-labourers; That the Pope himselfe shall not re­moue them one whit from their allegiance and dutie, which they owe vnto their King and Countrie.

This were worth commendation, if a Iesuite could not equivocate Doli non doli sunt, nisi astu colas, Plaut. in Capt. Prov. 1. 17., but I feare hee thinkes the debt of alleagi­ance and dutie very small, that hee dare▪ where his Bre­thren at the best are tongue-tyed, so easily engage him­selfe vnto it.

And it is not to be omitted, that with one breath hee affirmes their strongest tye and Vnion to the Crowne, to bee the free exercise of their Religion.

So that if the King should but attempt to purge the [Page 9] Countrey of their Idolatry, and suspend their presum­ption therein, they could quickly evacuate their obedi­ence, and as their mocke-Bishop of Chalcedon Doctor Bi­shops epistle to the King. saith, God knoweth what the forcible weapon of necessitie will driue them to at last.

And now hauing presumed himselfe and his brother­hood for good subiects, the next thing he intendeth to declare, is that they be true Christians also.

For my part, as one of their own spake of the Queenes supremacie, if she be not Head of the Church, would she were; So I of Iesuites for their Religion, if they be not Ca­tholicks, would they were; but I confesse, I am as jealous of their sinceritie, as he was of the Supremacie; I distaste to sweare it.

The meanes by which he would confirme it, is the ge­nerall and vniforme consent of the fathers, which hee affir­meth to be the assured touch stone to try all controuersies, and would perswade in some sort that wee jump with them, forced thereunto by our multitude of variances, and licentious wresting of the Scripture.

What dare not impudencie affirme? wee neuer reje­cted Fathers, nor any other testimony of antiquity, nei­ther denyed them their due reuerence and respect; nay, we haue giuen them more then Papists Lud. Vives sch. in Aug. de civit. dei lib: 20 cap: 26: Ita (que) illa demum eis videntur edi­cta et consilia quae in rem su­am faciunt, re­liqua non plu­ris aestimanda quam conven­tum mulier cu­larum in textri­na vel thermis. Index expurg. Belgit: pag: [...]: edir: Antw [...] 1571. Cùm igi­tur in Catholi­cis veteribus a­lijs plurimos feramus erro­res, et extenue­mus, excuse­mus, excogitato commento per­saepè negemus, et commodum iis sensum af­fingamus dum opponuntur in disputationi­bus, aut in con­flictionibus cum adversa­riis▪ haue done, not forced thereunto, as his brazen complexion would per­swade, but out of a due regard to their diuine know­ledge and learning.

Yet as we thinke, that none can know God, but by himselfe, neither how he will be worshipped, but by his owne revelation: So for confirming matters of faith, & those things that pertaine to his diuine worship, no tongue can tell, nor authority confirme, but virtually it must receiue it strength from sac [...]ed Page. This the most learned Primate hath declared, and it is often repeated by the Iesuite, & in fitting place shalbe justisied against him.

Hee hath not yet come to his Dixi, But craues [Page 10] his Majesties Princely clemencie with patience to heare the evidences of each side, and hopeth withall to be made happie by his vpright doome.

What doth this Iesuite dreame of? doth he thinke our royall Princes, like some of their Popes to play fast and loose with religious decrees? what; are his Arguments stronger then Gun-powder, that he hopeth to blowe his Maiestie from his Religion? or would he begge the De­fender from his faith? or perswade the world, that his Highnesse knoweth not her innocency, that he protects and defends?

He closeth vp, and promiseth fervent vowes for his Maiesties compleat felicitie.

And herein I am charitable to believe, that he could heartily desire that his Maiestie and all other Princes of his faithfulnes were as great Saints in heaven, as kings on earth. And so he remaines his Maiesties most loyall subiect; which I will believe ad Graecas Calendas, when Iesuites leave to turne Martyrs Aug: epist: [...]: Vivunt vtlatro­nes, moriuntur v [...] Circumcelli ones, he noran­tur vt Martyres. Cyp: de simpli­citate Praelat: Non erit illa fi dei corona fed poena persidiae, nec religiosae virtutis exitus gloriosus, sed desperationis interitus, occidi talis potest, co­ronari non po­test., and Mr Malone imbra­ceth his Maiesties allegiance by his oath.

The next thing that is presented, is a Preface to the Christian Reader.

What wil hereafter become of Anth: Posse­vin: Atheismus-Protestan­tium, & Guliel: Reig­nald: Calvino-Turcismus, for let this Iesuite speake in earnest, or in iest, Permissu Superiorum; we are Christi­ans in Print.

To excuse his long delay in sending vs this Iewell, hee vseth many pretences, and at last, as to his bulwarke, he flyeth to recrimination; as if it were Apologie sufficient for his vnfashionable and long expected Reply, as he in effect tearmeth it, that the Answere he hath replyed vnto, lay groaning six whole yeares and more, vnder the Authors pen, and little lesse then foure in the Presse.

Here we shall finde newes from Creet: Some ten yeares since at the intreatie of a Protestant Knight, Mr Malone [Page 11] saith, he penned a certaine demaund. Little lesse then tenne yeares the answer was in compiling & imprinting if wee believe the Iesuite: What shall become of the three or foure yeares, since it saw the light? surely, here is Crimen falsi, either Mr Malone, or the Iesuite hath read Graecia men­da [...]. Herodo­dotus. Besides, it plainly appeareth by the In the begin­ning of the Lord Primates Epistle to the Reader. Epistle to the Reader, that there were not tenne whole yeares from the Iesuites Challenge, being sent 1618, to the time of the Jesuites answer, printed 1627, which must needes con­vince the Iesuite of notorious falshood in this parti­cular.

Now, as the Iesuite hath many times kept backe from the most reverend Primate his deserved titles, so in rela­ting the occasion of his proposition or demand, he affor­deth him one that was never his owne, and of a Chancel­lour, maketh him a Deane, & of a new foundation, Deane of Finglas. What might cause this his tender respect? shall we imitate him & enquire whether it was his cha­ritie? Surely wee can not be taken with such a thought: that pen which hath endangered his credit, hath certain­ly crazed his Charitie, it so violently raves. It may be we inquire amisse, whilst we seek at home, did not the Iesuits fellow-labourers of an other clyme being ignorant of S. Patrick his foundation give this courtesie by escape? thinke not such a thought; Master Malone is a learned Divine It hath beene spread abroad by some of the Iesuites famili­ars, that the most learned Primate was a good antiqua­ry: but for a di­vine Master Malone. etc▪, a transcendent Varro, and yet Dignitas Decani is a booke was never in his Library.

But howsoever he escape heere, wee haue iust ground from hence to suspect him in his farre-fetched reportes, his miracles especially, when truth forsaketh him with­in two miles of his owne home.

Hee ceaseth not heere, but repeates his Articles, and cryeth out, Master Ʋsher hath mistearmed his worke, by calling it a Iesuites Challenge, when hee propounded but a simple demand.

I confesse here, the most reverend Primate did mistake [Page 12] in taking him for a Champion, when he proves but a Criple. Yet pardon his escape, hereafter he will take him as hee is, fitter to aske questions, then fight combates, to begge the points controverted, then to purchase the glo­ry and honour of a Triumph.

He declares the preparation to the warre.

Mr Ʋsher vpon his receipt proclaimes this, a Iesuites Challenge, prepares himselfe to the fight, buck [...]ls on his harnesse.

What to doe? to warre with a Pigmie; you are decei­ved; A sling and a few stones *will best answere currish1. Sam. 17. 40. Rhetoricke, alicentious Rayler.

He desires to informe his Reader, that for as much as the maine controversy concerneth the fathers iudgments for the first 500 yeares, in his proofes hee hath kept compasse, howsoever he hath descended to disproove his Adversary.

Here let him know, that we will follow him, in the path, that he should tread; in his extravagant collections, and descent from the rule prescribed wee desert him; and herein, we take no other libertie, then what he assumeth to himselfe; as is apparant in his second information.

He hath enlarged himselfe in that article of the Reall presence: and why I pray you? In regard of the eagernesse wherewith the adverse part doth impugne the same.

Who seeth not that the blind beggar strikes, but hee knoweth not whom? for if he vnderstand by the adverse part, that part of the Catholicke Church, which liveth vnder his Majesties government, as his words import, he is blindlie mistaken, for who knowes not, that many in the Church of England confesse Christs presence in the sa­crament, though they assigne not the manner how? but to entertaine the Catholicke meane (as he tearmes it) pag. 44. to acknowledge, Christs presence in the Eucharist, in a sacra­ment all manner; I thinke he can neither find pen, nor tongue, that contradicteth the same.

Yet what he saith, he will proove by miraculous de­monstration, [Page 13] and surely I thinke he is better able to iusti­fie their doctrine about the Sacrament, by their legends, then the Scriptures, and by new invented wonders Alexand: de Hales in 4. sent. q. [...] In sacra­mento apparet caro, interdum humanâ pro­curatione, in­terdum ope­ratione diabo­licâ., then the venerable testimonie of the auncient Church. And it is not to be neglected what an open way to Atheisme is prepared by their published legends, and approoved mi­racles, whilst they dare averre, that none can beleive the scriptures, wherein are contained Christs miracles, but by their Churches proposall; and that the same hand though not in the same manner, doth deliver their legends for the comfort of her pretended catholicke children; although the consequence be not necessary, may it not fall out, that one finding fraud, and falshood in these wonders, Lyranus in Daniel 14. Ali­quando fit in Ecclesia maxi­ma deceptio populi in mira­culis fictis à Sa­cerdotibus, vel eis adhaerenti­bus propter lu­ciū temporale. Ga Biel in Can: Miss: lect: 49 Miracula dicit fieri ho­minibus, ad i­magines con­fluentibus, non­nunquam ope­ratione Daemo­num, ad fallen­dum inoidina­t [...]s cultores, Deo permitten­te, exigente ta­lium infidelita­te. may entertaine a jealousie of the truth of those miracles that confirme our faith? De tribus mundi impo­storibus. Italy I thinke knowes the effect of this snare, not infecting inferiors alone, but your infallible Chaire Io. 23. Concil: Const. Sess. 2.. And doe not your imaginarie fables herein, next to your images, and idolls, confirme the Iewes in their hardnesse of heart, to thinke Atheisticallie of our faith, and Messias?

For working feeling in the well disposed Protestant Reader by those your pretended supernaturall events, I thinke, vnlesse it be such, as Augustine found in himselfe in rea­ding Dido and Aen [...]as, an imaginarie discourse, a phanta­sticke compassion, you may despaire of. For we are not now to receive new doctrines, or new miraculous confir­mations Stella in Luc. 11. 19.. We have Moses and the Prophets, let vs heare them Luke 16. 29.; if any man preach any other Gospell, then that we have received, let him be accursed Gal. [...]. 9. Wadding: Legat: Phi [...] ter [...]ii &c. sect: 3.. And we need not to be ignorant (Mr Malone) how the Dominicans answe­red the Patrons of the immaculat conception of the bles­sed Virgin, when they brought to confirme their cause miraculous proofes, that they were of the same stampe that Iannes and Iambres wrought in Aegypt, but let this expect its proper place.

I will not yet forsake the Preface. The Iesuite confes­seth that he hath roughly and freelie dealt with the Answe­rer and this he desires might not be imputed to any disre­gard that hee hath, to his person, or learning, which hee ho­nours and highly esteemes.

The Iesuites Common-wealth is not Athens, all ingenu­ous men are not cloystered in their Colledges; The Ie­suite confesseth that we have one; But to deale with one whose person he professeth to honour, and learning high­ly to esteeme in more disgracefull and virulent straines, then Michael did with the Divell, Iude. 9. how can the Iesuite apologise for this?

But here I hope, his Maiestie, and all others of eminent place, will consider, to what a height, this spaune of Igna­tius hath ascended in this kingdome, that they did not onely builde the Babylonian turrets, scorne and outface our true Religion, practised by his sacred Maiestie, establi­shed by the lawes of Church and State, but also revile the most eminent for Pietie, Learning and Prelacy, in our Ecclesiasticall Government.

Yet let him triumph in his snarling language, all good men doe see such eminencies of learning and sincerity in the most reverend Primate, that a Iesuites tongue though more besmeared cannot defile his honour or his name. Neither doth this coelestiall luminary, greeve any more then the Moone, at his Dogge-Rhetoricke:

That which vexeth Lots [...]. Pet: 2. 7. righteous soule is to see his Country made Sodome and Aegipt by blindnes and Ido­latry. An heard of swine he knowes may make a greater noise, then an army of men; and who wypeth her m [...]uth▪ or vseth her tongue more then the harlot? If such things as these will justifie Papall intrusions, Mr Malone will not faile, who hath given vs loud cryes, and a large volume, but praetereà nihil.

Some things else we finde in this preface, as their pre­tence of Ʋnitie, and our Division, which because hee pi­peth [Page 15] it so often in the body of his Reply, we will there take some opportunitie for the consideration of the same.

The Iesuite a vayne Demaundant.

THe Iesuite after his Preparatives addresseth him­selfe to the Reply, and first layeth downe his demaund.

What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religi­on, which the Protestants commend in those of the first 400. or 500. yeares confessing it to have beene the true religion of Christ and his Apostles Reply. pag. [...].. And here, we may see the Iesuites additions.

In his first demaund, he expressed onely the true religion, here he addeth of Christ and his Apostles; which I do not except against, as if I did conceive a religion, might bee true, that is not from Christ and his Apostles, but to stop that which the Iesuite might insinuate, that we confes­sing them of the prime ages, to have had the true religion, should confesse all things practised by them, to be from Christ or Apostolicall, or that they imbraced no error in practise, or in remote deductions, which were not funda­mentall.

To which question (he saith) the Answerer returning a three fold answere, commeth at last very quaintly to prove that which full well he knew before: to wit, that he cannot tell. Reply ibid.

Here the Iesuite thinketh he hath stab'd the Answerer and got the cause, but by the way his follie is apparant; For who knowes not, that a partie may gaine his cause, as­well by excepting against a foolish question, as answering [...]t. Respondere dicitur creditor, cum solvit Cic lib. 16. ad Atticū. epist. 2., much more when he excepteth against the specialtie, and proves it [...]retended onely, and of no faith.

You and your brethren perceiving your owne weake­ [...]esses are from Armes and valour, driven to foxe-holes, [Page 16] turnings and windings, and fearing Gods truth will de­ny you shelter, you hope to stoppe the prosequution of his Prophets by blocks that you cast in their way, as in­terrogating, where Ʋnitie? where Succession? where Ʋisibi­litie? where your Commission to reforme? and here, What Bi­shop of Rome did first alter that Religion &c.? as if there were no certaine assurance of Religion, without know­ledge of these things.

Ahabs false Prophets when they were astonished by the true Prophet Micaiah, interrogate, 1. Kings 22. 24 which way went the spirit of the Lord, from m [...]e, to speake vnto thee? The Prophet answers, neither East, West, North, or South, but manifesteth the truth of his Prophecy by other demon­strations; Behold, saith he, thou shalt see in that day, when thou shalt goe into an inner chamber to hide thy selfe. What, was the true Prophet ignorant of the place of the false Prophet his seduction? if the Iesuite affirmeth this, what makes it for Roman puritie, that a Prophet now is igno­rant of the time of the Roman Apostacie? Did he con­ceale it onelie, and yet satisfied the demand an other way? then the Iesuite expresseth himselfe for a seduced Pro­phet, when he concludes the most reverend Primate can­not resolve his demand, because he hath pleaded by an ex­ceptive answere.

In th [...] strictnes of legall processe, where the least omissi­on nullifies a cause; one may except against the Iudge, the jurisdiction, much more against interrogatories exhibi­ted; and although some exceptions are vaine and frivo­lous, yet some are peremptorie, which turne backe the in­tention of the prosequutor, neither can they be avoyded of the adversary Cal [...]er: Iur: Quae intentio­nem persequen­tis semper peri­munt, nec pos­sunt evitari ab adversario.. And such will these three proove, though he could wish them, as he stiles them, tedious and imperti­nent.

He would further perswade, as if the reverend Primate had wholly travailed against his conscience and there vp­pon chargeth him to seeme ignorant of the originall of that, [Page 17] which otherwise he knoweth &c. and all this least he should give any advantage to their side, and so makes his whole worke to wheele vpon the two fickle poles of want of know­ledge, and want of sinceritie, the first voluntarily affe­cted, the second through extremitie vnnaturallie im­braced. Reply pag. 1.

Papall omnipotence cannot make a stinking breath, smell sweet. What fumes are these, that this Iesuite ray­seth against so sincere and sacred a breast? But let him burst with his Iambicks, I dare say of him, as the Philoso­pher of himselfe, He will so live, that none will beleive his report. Neither doe I doubt, but it will appeare in the examination, that this Iesuite his whole endeavour hath bene, rather to justifie his faction, then to declare the truth; that what he chargeth the most reverend Primate with, as affected and vnnaturally embraced, will bee found naturallie in him, even as inherently, as his pretended Iustice, without any affectation at all.

An examination of his first Section.

THe most learned Primate in answering the question doth except against it, as a vaine demaund, and for confirmation thereof bringeth three reasons.

1. The Roman dunghill was not raised in an age, & therefore vaine to demand, In what Popes dayes? &c.

2. That the Roman Apostacy is a mystery of iniquitie, that stole into the Church disguised, cloaked with the name of Pi­etie, so that those, which were watchfull against open heresies, might sleepe when these entred, or have an hand vnawares to bring them in.

3. Errors have oftentimes but a base birth, which although it was obserued by some, that lived in the age, wherin they were produced, yet intract of time, their beginnings might be forgot­ten.

The Iesuite in his Reply to takeaway these Answeres, asketh another question.

Sect. 1. Whether the abovesaid demaund, bee a vaine de­maund, or no? And then vndertakes to shew,

Sect. 2. How vainely our Answerer prooveth my dema [...]nd to be vaine.

Let vs examine the 1.

Whether the abovesaid demaund be vaine or not

The Iesuites Colledges were not builded when Salo­mon wrote his Ecclesiastes, there can no vanity dwell with them. And because he knoweth, that a Iesuite is not to be trusted vpon his bare allegation, he will proove it by a threefold coard, which he is confident will not easi­ly be broken. The first of which is this.

We charge the Church of Rome with heresies, and there­fore we ought to point out their beginning. He confirmes this by Ierome and Tertullian, that the way to confute and convince heresies, is the reducing of every one to its begin­ning. That heresies want not beginnings, hee produceth Ʋincentius Lyrin: that there was never heresie, but sprung vp vnder a certaine name, in a certaine place, & at a certaine time; and further illustrates this out of Ir [...]a [...], that before Ʋalentinus, there were no Ʋalentinians, nor before the He­retick Marcion no Marcionists Reply pag. 1..

That this proofe wanteth life, is easily apparant; For first a question, may be vaine substantially: Secondly, re­latiuely, and in order to the effect, as Salomon stiles all in­ferior things vaine, yea, vanity it selfe, no way able to pro­duce perfect happinesse.

The Iesuite by this Question, In what Popes dayes, &c? intendeth to free the Church of Rome from all charges of Heresie and Apostacie, and in this manner: it was pure and vndefiled for 500 yeares, and if wee know not when it lost its puritie, she must needes remaine pure, vn­defiled, and perfect in her Chastitie still; Now our lear­ned Ecclesiastes cryeth out, Ʋanitie of Ʋanities, making [Page 23] it clears, that although this question could not be answe­red, yet she might turne Apostaticall and Hereticall, and therefore concludes it, a vaine demaund, which produceth not the expected effect. Neither hath our Iesuite spoken any thing to free his Interrogatorie of this iust charge. What he speakes from Ierome and Tertullian, we deny not, that the way to confute heresies is to bring them to their be­ginnings, (but this is not the only way;) and with Ʋincen: Lyrin: that heresies had euer their sproute vnder a certaine name, in a certaine place, and at a certaine time; yet hee doth not say that they are ever knowne to after-times: Nay, we confesse further, that before Valentinus there were no Valentinians, and before the heretick Marcion, no Marcio­nists: But we are able to produce heresies, whose heads they cannot find ou [...] Alphon: de Castr. adv. Haer: lib: 4. Acephali, fie nominati quo­niam simul in­surgentes, nul­lus repertus est, qui illorum es­set princeps, atq, magister., and yet we doubt not but they had an head; and some that they stile heretickes, and yet by the confession of their owne cannot bee prooved so by this rule Bernard: in Cantic: serm. 65. & 66. (Apostolici.) Quaere ab illis suae sectae aucto­rem; neminem dabunt. Quae haeresis non ex hominibus habuit proprium haeresiarcham? Manichaei Manem habuete principem & praeceptorem, Sabelliani Sabellium, Ariani Arium, Eunomiani Eunomium, Nestoriani Nestorium Ita omnes caeterae hu [...]smodi pestes singulae singulos magistros homines habu­isse noscuntur, à quibus originē simul duxere & nomen. Quo nomine istos titulove cense­bis? Nullo, quoniam non est ab homine illorum haeresis, ne (que) per hominē illam acceperunt, (absit tamen vt per revelationem Iesu Christi) sed absque dubio (vti Spiritus sanctus prae­dixit) pe [...]immissionem & fraudem daemoniorum in hypocrisi loquentium mendacium, prohibentium nuoere. Reiner. cont: haeret. cap. 4. Interomnes sectas, quae adhuc sunt, vel fuerunt, non est perniciossor Ecclesiae, quam Leonistarum &c. Aliqui enim dicunt, quod duraverit à tempore Sylvestri; aliqui à tempore Apostolorum. Many bare false witnes, but their witnesse agreed not together. Mark. 14. 5 [...].; other heresies that are all head, and yet the head of these heresies had a time for revelation 2. Thess. 2. 3. 6. 8.. We confesse this Rule is not vaine, in respect of those heresies that brought amazement in the Church at their first entrance, and were full growne in their first appearance, as that of Arius and the like, as the most reverend Primate ac­knowledgeth; yet it is vaine, to finde out those guilded treacheries, that stole in by deceipt.

Is there no difference betwixt open armes, and secret fraud? betwixt robbing at noon-day, in the sight of the sun, & secret burglaries, when the world is a sleepe▪ Some like Cacus steale heresies into the Church, as he ox [...] into his Cave, backward, perswading the world, that heresie is driven from that place, where it enters in; others cut in sunder the Gordian knots of Vnitie of Faith Alexander-like, with down-right blowes and professed opposition. May not a carefull watchman sleepe with security, and not feare the one, when the other will waken him, by his vi­olence and noyse?

And to answere all, this methode (as before was confes­sed) is good against violent intrusions, which burst forth into loud cryes at their birth, but for those conveyances, which first appeare like an egge, before the Serpent bee hatched, it is a vaine, simple, and frivolous ground.

His second Argument to prove this demaund is not vaine, is because, the Answerer his forefathers, masters, and brethren, have bestowed such labour and toyle in searching & tossing vp antiquitie to shape, if they could, a wiser answere i.Reply pag. 2.

This answeres it selfe, with a non sequitur: Pro: 26. 5. Answere a foole in his follie, least he be wise in his owne con­ceipt, not in his wise interrogations, that like Caiphas Ioh. 18. 14. his Prophecies, may come into his mouth by flashes, but in his folly. What if some of ours have thus far descended▪ to your wisdome to answere this question. I hope you would have conceived it to be rather ex abundanti to stoppe the fooles mouth, then to satisfie his demaund.

Some questions are best answered by heeles, as Ioseph an­swered his Mistresse Gen: 39. 12., as poore oppressed christians your Pandarismes, by flying out of Babylon; Some by sibe [...]ca, as our Sauiour, the high preists Mat. 26-63. Some ironicaly as Micaiah Ahab 1. King. 2 [...]. 13: All this, doth not justifie the Interrogation & free it frō vanitie, because in some sort or other it is answered. It was vsuall with those that could not manifest the truth by solid proofes, to be ever asking questions. So those [Page 21] wretches that saw Christs workes, when they were ama­zed at them, yet could cry, by what authoritie doest thou these things? and who gaue thee this authority Mat. 21. 23.? Our Savi­our answered these questions, by asking an other ibid. 25., what, must this justify the cheife Preists and Elders? doth this banish v [...]nitie from their lippes?

I, but this Demaund hath troubled their braynes, yea even to madnes sometime Reply ibi [...]..

What then? therefore no vaine demaund? What is this but a Bedla [...]s argument? Is this question of such efficien­cie and working, that it turnes the brayne? I should have expected it in their doctrines, which like Henbane and Hemlocke pr [...]ce worse operations, but this question (alas) what hath it done?

It may be gathered out of their severall answers to the same, in which they not onely contradict one another, but even fight most strangely, each man with himselfe. Reply ibid.

This is no argument to proove them mad, that answer the question, if there be any; neither to free the question that is proposed from Vanitie. Humanum est errare, it is mans weaknes that makes him erre, not his madnes: Mad­nes is never right, how can it then erre? That which is e­ver a wandring, can never goe out of the way.

Give me libertie to aske, whether contradiction either of ones selfe, or of his owne profession, be a symptome of madnes? If it be not, what doth he gather from his pre­tences herein? If it be, I dare vndertake to produce, mad Popes, mad Cardinals, mad Bishops, and Preists, and fine Cloisters as full as Bedlam of such commodities.

And here I know not, wherefore I should follow the Ie­suite any further, seeing that this which he produceth is nothing to the purpose, being farre from concluding the question, which he pretendeth to justify. But he that hath vndertaken to waite vpon a mad man, must not refuse to follow the wanderer over boggs and mountaines, the high way being seldome his ordinary road. And I [Page 22] pray you let vs see our contradiction [...] and selfe-fight, from whence he concludes our madnes.

Surely this man was amazed, and dreamed of warre, where there is most true peace. For Whitaker declareth plainely, that the Holy Ghost hath fore-told in Scriptures such an Apostacie and defection, and (saith he) we see it with our eyes, but to inquire of the time when it invaded the Church, non est laborandum, est h [...]c curios [...] & [...] quaestio. De eccle: contr: 1. quaest. 3.

And in like manner Iohn Cameron Cap: 21. hath published a Booke in French, translated into English, whereby hee hath prooved it to bee an vnjust proceeding to deny the change happened to the Church, vnder p [...]tence that the authors, time, and place of it, cannot be specified.

And also Doctor Fulke In his answer to a counter­fite Catho­lick, ar. 11. [...]. 24 hereto agreeth, that when the Scripture telleth vs, that the Mysterie of iniquitie preparing for the generall defection and revelation of Antichrist, wrought even in Saint Paules time 2. Thess. 2. it is folly to aske whether suddenly, and in one yeare, all Religion was corrupted; and if Mr Malone will have more, hee shall not want numbers of our owne, to witnes our consent heerein.

May not this shamelesse Iesuite blush then to pro­duce Fulke and Whitaker, and the rest to have an­swered this question, when they conclude it vaine, and of no necessity, and never dreamed of answering the same. For all the Quotations of the Iesuite out of our Authors doe not expresse one word of answere to his question. Fulke speaketh of the time that the Pope be­gan to blind the world, Napier of the beginning of the Popes Papisticall and Antichristian raigne, Brokard of the Popes falling from Christ; Leigh sheweth his opini­on how long the Popes have beene Divells; Winckelman relates the different opinions touching the beginning of the 42. moneth [...] in the 11. of the Revelation, Whitaker coniectures at the last true and godlie Bishop of the Ro­man [Page 23] Church, and so in like manner, the rest of the learned men, mentioned by him; but there is not one of them, whose words he expressely layeth downe, that answeres the question. What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Reli­gion, which you commend in them of the first 400 yeares? or In what Popes dayes was the true religion over-throwne in Rome? To this question from his owne words, wee may proove a consent, that this observation of times & seasons, doth often fayle, and that they are not so easie to be discerned, as foole [...] are borne in hand they are. For heerein with the learned Answerer doth Powell, and the learned Whitaker a­gree, yea so consonant are they in their resolutions, that the learned Answererin this Iesuites observation seemeth to be spit out of Whitaker his mouth, and Mr Powell (hee confesseth) agreeth with them.

The difference is not in answering this question, In what Popes dayes was the true religion over throwne? but, In what Popes dayes did the revelation of the Antichristian ty­rannie beginne? The Iesuite may know there is a distance, betwixt the blading of Antichrist his tyrannie, whereby it became visible, and the power of it: the blading was but a preparation for evill: the power and authoritie it got afterwards, was that which brought these frauds and cor­ruptions in; whereby it appeareth, that there is great dif­ference in these questions, and that worthy Whitaker was no weather-cock, as this Buzard tearmeth him.

Yet notwithstanding, we doe not deny, that as Hectick agues, (whose beginnings are obscure) declare them­selves to Physitians by divers symptomes of the bodies decay & waste, whereby one Physitian at one time by one signe, another by an other, in a different houre, may judge of the disease, though from divers symptomes, yet all a­right: So have our Divines done; some perceiving the symptomes of Apostacie in the Church at one time, some at another, have declared the appearing of this defection fore-told, some from one Popes tyrannie, some from ano­ther.

Some saw this Apostacie by symptomes of notorious pride, as in Boniface the third: Others by out-daring im­pieties, when Dagon, images, and idols, were put vp in the Church of God: Others by open vilenes and proph [...] ­nesse visible to Parasites Plat. in Io­han, 13. Onuph. annot. in Plat: Iohan. [...]. themselves, when your monstra and pertenta opened heaven gates.

But what is this to the Iesuites demaund? the question that he is to exempt from vanity, concerneth the time of the alteration or overthrowe of the true, or the so much commended Religion of the first 400. or 500. yeares. The A­postacie or defection, began indeed in the Apostles time, and the seedes of Antichristianisme were layde for the sixe following ages See the most reverend Lord Primate in his book de Christ. Eccl. success. & statu. pag. 16. 17▪ 18., and yet no Papist to bee found▪ no such visible alteration, that thereby religion should bee o­verthrowne.

About the sixt Centurie, some of these tares began to blade, and yet all the good grayne not vtterly choaked, whereby the Iesuites question appeareth more vaine. For consider this Apostacie in its beginning, or inchoation, & then it not apparantly altered, much lesse overthrew the Catholick faith, consider it in the encrease, & although it assaulted Religion, yet neither wholly, or in any funda­mentall part did it alter the same: consider it, when it came to more perfect ripenes, (if there be any perfection in Apostacie) as in the latter Centuries, doe not thinke that we conclude the Church of God overthrowne, be­cause that Antichrist playeth the Tyrant therein. So that Mr Covell sayth nothing of the alteration, or overthrow of catholick faith, when he speaketh of the beginning of A­postacie,

His last objection is taken from S. Augustine his rule, that whatsoever the vniversall Church vseth, if no time can be found when that vse began, it must necessarily be derived from the very Apostles themselves Reply pag 4..

We need not to question this ground, although S. Au­gustine gave this rule not to discerne points of faith by, [Page 25] for he knew they were in the divine word plenarily con­tained, but ceremonies and matters belonging to Ecclesi­asticall practise. For can we thinke the Fathers in S. Au­gustine his dayes, were so ignorant of the catholicke rule of faith, that they must leane vpon such a conjecture as this, for points fundamentall & of necessary beleife? Shew me one Councell, that decreed any point of faith, by the bare strength of this rule, if you can: I can shew you a point of practise, that had all that this rule could give it, as Childrens necessary eating the Eucharist Maldon. in 6. Iohan. Aug. de peccator. me­rit & remiss. lib. 1. c. 24., and yet is re­jected both by the doctrine & practise of your Tradition­defenders. Yet may we iustly reproove, this Iesuites as­sertion, that dare affirme, those points vniversally held and practised by the Church, at the time (as he cals it) of Luthers revolt, then which nothing is more grosse; for if he meane the very waiters of the Roman Mistresse (Sylvester Prie­rias his representative Church) the Pope and his Cardi­nalls, they will not be found to agree in the points men­tioned, but▪ did differ amongst themselves; And for the Catholicke Church, let him proove it, if hee bee able, for bare words will not sway it. Yet if this will serve their turne, we shalbe able to proove, that in the Catholicke Church, these points were never generally received, take the Church, for the vniversall body of the faithfull, and not for a handfull of Donatisticall Romanists. Nay this may bee manifested by Romanists themselves, who al­though they yeelded outward conformitie to the pra­ctise, and held communion with the Roman Church, have yet notwithstanding loathed the burden, and complained of the tyrannie In Rhemensi Concilio coram Innocentio II. & anno 1131. Bernard. Etsi reddenda est ratio de his quae quisque gessit in cor­pore suo; heu quid fiet de his quae quisque gessit in corpo­re Christi, quod est Ecclesia▪ Ecclesia▪ De [...] vobis [...]mmissa est, & dicimini [...] sitis raptores. Et paticos habemus, heu pastores, multos autem excommunicatores Et vtinam sufficeret vobis lana & lac, sititis enim sanguinem. Ioh: Sarithur: in Poly cratic▪ lib. 6. cap 24. Romana ecclesia, quae mater omnium eccle­siarum est, se non tam matrem exhibet aliis, quàm norercam, &c. Sed & ipse Romanus Pontifex, omnibus gravis & ferè intolerabilis est &c. Petr. Aliac. de Reformat. Eccles. ad hanc statum venit (Romana) Ecclesia, vt non esset digna regi nisi p [...]reprobos. thereof, as they have expressed in their best and most selected thoughts.

Secondly, where he saith, that we have all [...] Re­cords common amongst our selves, the lives, the names, the nations, tymes, actes, and deeds, both good and bad, of all Popes, so carefully registred, that the least Ceremonies have beene observed, by whom, and when they were first ordained. Reply pag. 4.

We have some, (God be praised) preserved by his gra­cious providence, contrary to the desire of their politick Consistory; yet we make no question, that many were lost which would have pleaded for vs, and confounded them, and not a few concealed by them, who were never so vn­wise (vnlesse by escape) to publish their owne frauds for their enemies advantage. Further it is improbable, that the true Registers of Papall filth, which could not pre­serve their persons from fire or tyrannie, should exempt their bookes and registries from the flame.

So that there might be crosse-legged Popes, and con­tradicting councels, in the midst of the Roman Monarchy and yet not delivered to posterity; For they themselves will perswade, that things that are registred in Councels were not done; and why might not we conceive with more truth and probabilitie, that many things were done in Councels, which were never registred.

Thirdly he vrgeth, that not-withstanding all our curious prying into all sortes of bookes, scroules, papers &c. yet never to this day could any one instance be brought of any Pope, that defined any point of religion, contrary to what his prede­cessors had before declared; nor of any lawfull generall Coun­cell, that ever condemned any article of faith formerly esta­blished by others, or yet established any that had beene before lawfully condemned Reply ibid..

Who doth not see that this is a silly shift of the Iesuite, to confound the vnderstanding of his Reader? For to excuse Liberius their Pope, that subscribed to Arianisme, he puts in [defined.] 2ly to excuse all the rest, he addes [contrary to what his predecessors had before declared] as if any Pope, in the time of lawfull generall Conncels did either decree, or [Page 27] declare, any matters of faith in this Iesuites sence. And therefore casting from him, and his, the ragged mantle, by which they would conceale their attempts and presump­tions, we first charge them and justly for decreeing new additionall articles of faith, which were at first made pra­cticall in the Roman Church onely, and there but by de­grees; Secondly, they obtained the opinion of customes, yet no further but of the Church of Rome, and after­wards, were crowned as of faith, by your non-erring de­crees; and by this meanes many came to be of faith in the Roman Church, as it is declared in your whole dozen by the most learned Answerer, which is sufficient I thinke to shew, that you have corrupted the rule of faith?

Who knoweth not, that never any additionall point of Popery got strength in a day, in a session of Councell, in a Popes tyrannie, neither in a whole age. For these superci­lious Masters, minding themselves, and their temporall monarchy, not that which concerned the glory of God, the successor began where his predecessor ended, never attempting to decree any point for doctrine, till by se­cret and mysticall deceite, those false grounds, by the ge­neralityWadding: sect: 2▪ Nec cō ­sultum tunc putavit vltimâ sententiâ rem definire, aut pro pia opinio­ne definitionis ferre iudicium, quando adhuc [...], & egre­gios habuit af­firmative fa [...] ­tores▪ noluit immodicè, vel amplius Adver­sarios exulcera­re &c. of the factious parasites See the same practise of their Popes at this day in the point of immaculate conception of the blessed vir­gin, had bene presented to, and received by some of the sincerer cleargy.

Further, we charge you not for determining against those catholicke fundamentall truthes, which were ori­ginally and vniversally received; for this had bene too grosse for the bringers in of the mystery of iniquity; such a worke would have bene espied, the person, time, and place, by whom, where, and when this had bene acted would not have bene hid. But this is not the thing that you are charged with, neither, will we say in terminis that you are guiltie of it▪ yet although you have not bene so openly impudent, your practises have not beene altogether ex­empted from filth, though effected by more secret frauds.

We know it is impossible that any councels could de­cree contrary to these new articles of faith, vnlesse they would determine negationem rei, before the thing it selfe were knowne or vnderstood, For doe you not charge vs, that our heresies consist in the denyall of many principall points of faith, calling them negative refutes A. C. his true Relations of sundry Confe­rences. pag. 62. &c? how then can that be denied by an antecedent Pope, or Coun­cell, the affirmative whereof never had birth, but after­wards received life, by customes and decrees of men?

Shew mee a Canon in terminis against Aarons calfe, be­fore it was made and worshipped, or against the doctrine of Balaam before it was published, and we will shewe you Popes, and Councels decreeing against traditions of faith, carnall presence, Images &c. before they were ever heard of in the catholicke church.

So that this, is but a meere device, to save their credits for although the Roman Apostacy be seene a [...]well in the corruption of the doctrine of faith, as manners; yet this corruption is by addition, which may be without any such crosse opposition, as the Iesuite doth suppose. For faith being like gold, it may be defyled by addition, or corrupt mixtures, but all the tyranny of the world, or gates of hell, by crosse opposition cannot destroy it.

Yet letting those points which are specified by him­selfe passe, it will not be so hard a thing to proove, that councels, which you have accounted lawful, and generall, with your Pope also, have defined contrarie to generall practise and custome of the Church, though not in funda­mentals, yet in points of great consequence, as your Coun­cell of Constance sess. 13. against Communion in both kinds, and your Trent Synode for private masse against the practise of primitive times De consecr: distinct: [...]: cap: peracta. Pera­cta consecrati­one communi­cent omnes, qui noluerint eccle­siasticis carere liminibus, sic enim Apostoli statueruntet sancta Romana tenet Ecclesia., not of one particular Roman; but of the vniversall body of the Catholicke Church, so that there might be as good Musicke made of an emptie ves­sel, [Page 29] as the impreg [...]able harmonie you boast of▪ and though there were no crosse definition against the foundation of faith, yet that Pope is not hid, and Councell, which have made that faith from such an interpretation of scripture Scot: 4. [...]: 11. q: 3., which Scotus could see no reason, or authoritie for, but what was in the sic volo, sic jube [...], of the Roman Church.

But further this Argument may bee retorted in their teeth; if these points were not ab initio, but got footing in the Church of Rome, by Papall violence, and decrees of Councels, which were his owne, then they have not the birth of Apostolicall traditions, neither can they bee accounted cheife Articles Suarez Ies: d [...] trip: [...]i [...]t: disput 5. § 4. num: 4. Cum non sit vniversalis in tempore, non potest per se fi­dem facere ca­tholicam, quae debet esse [...] pore vniversa­lis.; but some of the points men­tioned, are by your owne thought to be put Iuris positivi, which I thinke you will not stretch vp to the Apostles times, as confession &c: & all the rest have bene declared quibus gradibus they got footing in the church; by the most learned Answerer, against which the Iesuite hath in the point of Free will spoken little, & to all the rest material­ly nothing, as wilbe declared in the examination of them.

Now the Iesuite thinking hee hath performed some brave exployt, concludes, (he hopes) with triumph.

If we presse them to name those Popes, who so [...] from faith to infidelitie, or brought in but one onely article of reli­gion, contrary to that of fore-going ages: because they cannot satisfie our demaund herein, it must be shuffled vp vnder the tearme of a vaine demaund Reply pag: 4..

First we charge them not with decreeing contrary to the foundation interminis, as that there is not one God, three Persons &c. but that they have added to the faith delive­red by the Spirit of God, many articles of their owne. Nei­ther do we say that they have forsaken the faithabsolutly, (for they professe it) but the purity of it, not contenting themselves with the auncient rule, without mixtures of their own. Such corruptiō; such alteration of the faith they cannot deny, & therefore have laboured to excuse it, that it is not new faith, but a declaration of the old; the birth of [Page 30] some of which [...]aith was 1500. yeares after CHRIST and his Apostles, had delivered the whole councell of God.

So that the Iesuite [...]th marched valiantly, and with Bala [...]m hath expressed his desire to curse Israell, but all his hope is declared, vpon which he founds his confi­dence, that because we cannot satisfie his demaund, hee is therefore secure, that his demaund is not vaine, when as the vanitie there of maketh it vnanswerable. S Augu­stine thought it a vaine demaund to aske, what God did before the creation of the world, and therefore turnes it off with a menacing answere: The most learned Answerer hath the same thoughts of the Iesuites Quare, and casteth it off by just exception, and both most rightly; Yet the Iesuite inviteth vs to see

SECT. II. Reply pag. 5. How vaynelie our Answerer proveth my Demaund to bee vayne.

IN this discourse the Iesuite is blinded, and wanting reason to justifie his De­maund; he will not want his good friend Frons ahenea to give some releife vnto his desperate cause.

The Answerer (saith our Iesuite) by a smooth, and wylie sleight shrinketh from the Question Reply ibid. &c.

But how proveth he this? why, in this manner.

Whereas I demaunded (saith he) What Bishop of Rome did first alter, or corrupt the right faith? He answereth, that it is a vaine demaund, to require the name of any one Bishop of Rome, by whom, or vnder whom, this Babylonish Confusi­on was brought in. And againe, That it is a fond imaginati­on to suppose, that all such changes must be made by some Bi­shop, or any one certaine Author.

And laying downe this, he [...] the [...] how wide this is from that, which [...]e demaunded Reply ibid..

Which I thinke the learned Answerer will not refuse, for although the Iesuite would have this question, which now in his iudgment, is vnreasonable, to have beene f [...]rged by the most reverend Primate, yet it evidently appeares that it is an vnproportioned birth, a deformed Embryo of his owne conceipt; and that the Iesuite herein is dri­ven, not to smooth and [...]ylie sl [...]ights for his defence, but to perverse boldnes and open outfacing, For, first in re­peating his owne question and demaund, What Bishop of Rome did first alter? he not onely addes, or corrupt the right faith, but shamelesly omits that, which woundeth him to the quicke, In what Pope his dayes was the true Religion o­verthrowne in Rome See the Iesui­tes demaund.? Now I would have this Iesuite to declare the difference betweene the bringing in of Baby­lonish Confusion, and the altering the true Religion. He proceedeth.

For (saith he) had he pointed vs out [...]ny one Pope that had changed but one onely article of religion, or true faith, or brought in any one errour, then had hee satisfied my de­maund. Reply pag. [...].

That which the Iesuite here supposeth, containeth two particulars, first, that we cannot assigne any one Pope, which hath changed one onely article of Religion or true faith. Se­condly, that we cannot assigne a Pope, that hath brought any one error into the Church. The first hath received an­swere in the precedent section: The second, the most lear­ned Answerer hath satisfied in all the Demaundants parti­culars, shewing, how this Iesuites holy points of Doctrine and faith, are such, as the Apostles never knew, the fa­thers scarce espied, good men alwayes resisted, and which came to receive authoritie amongst Papalines, but were alwayes rejected by the Catholicke Church; And notwith­standing the Iesuite braves it, there are many other arti­cles pretended by them, to be of true Religion, which are [Page 32] at the best, but superstitious and grosse errors, brought in by their holy Father, or his children in after-ages, to the disgrace of the true received doctrine of the Church in the first times.

But that which the Iesuite doth conclude herevpon, is most chyldish, that the pointing out any one Pope, which had brought into the Church any one errour, would satisfie his demand Reply pag. 5..

Indeed your Religion consisteth of one point abso­lutely and simply [Papall supremacy] and we doubt not, but if that were overthrowne, all the Fabrick of your late Roman erection, would quickly fall to the ground; yet the Catholick faith is not such, it consisteth not of one on­ly article, neither is it everthrowne by the intrusion of e­very errour; for (this being granted) if we can shew you the time; when Indulgences Ro [...]ens: Art: 18. In princi­pio nascentis Ecclesiae nullus fuit Indulgen­tiarum vsus., or any other errour crept into the Church of Rome, you must then conclude catho­lick religion throughout the world was overthrowne; a conclusion forced from shame; And let all men judge, whether this be not a desperate advantage given, to free himselfe from the present danger.

Neither can the Iesuite from his confidence of Roman puritie, glory as he heere hath done, in regard he seemeth to have changed his opinion, before hee printed halfe his booke, curbing his lavishnes, and making the Church of Rome free, not from all errours, (as heere he doth,) but from spots of misbeliefe only Sect: 9., which I feare, he will be for­ced to flye vnto hereafter, when hee shall examine his owne iollity in this particular.

For who brought in that doctrine, that the Pope is Lor [...] over all? or did extend Indulgences to your Purgatory flames, but Boniface the 8: if wee beleive your owne A­grippa De vanitat: scient: cap: 61. Hic est ille magnus Boni­facius, quia tria magna & gran­dia fecit; pri­mum, falso ora­culo deluso Cle­mente, persua sit sibi cedere Apostolatum: secundum, condidit sextum Decretalium, & Papam asseruit omnium Dominum: tertium instituit Iubilaeum, indulgentiarum nundinas, illas (que) primus in Purgatorium extendit.?

Besides this, in Leo Ser. 4: de quadragesima. Cùm ad t [...]gen­dum infidelita. tem suam no­stris audeant interesse my­steriis ita in Sa­cramentorum communione se temperant interdum ut tutius lateant, ore indigno Christi corpus accipiunt, san­guinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurire omnino decli­nant. the great his time, it was a note of a Maniche, to communicate in one kinde; yet now wee fee it is practifed by them, which would perswade the world that they are Catholickes; and al­though they may quarrell, that the cause is different, yet they may see the act of omission onely condemned by Leo the Pope: Also in the Primitive times, the Sa­crament was received by the faithfull in both kindes, in the Greeke Church, till Cassanders Consult: Art: 22. initio. Satis compertum est, vniversa­lem Christi Ecclesiam in hunc vsque di­em, Occiden­talem vero seu Romanam, mille amplius à Christo an­nis in solenni praesertim & ordina [...]ia hu­ius Sacramenti dispensatione vtramque panis & vini speciem omnibus Ecclesiae Christi membris exhibuisse. time, in the Westerne or Roman Church for above a 1000 yeares; and yet in the Councell of Constance, Henricus de Piro & Iohannes de Scribanis Concil: Constantien. Sess. 13. apud Binium. stiled it Mos perversus, and the whole Councell decreed against it.

Concupiscence the Apostle calleth sinne, but yet it is now no doctrine of the Roman Church, for the contrary is de­creed in the Trend Councell Concil: Trident. Sess 5. Hanc concupiseentiam quam aliquando Apostolus pe [...]atum appeilat, fancta synodus declarat Ecclesiam Catholicam▪ nunquam intellexisse peccatum appel­la [...]i, quod verè & propriè in renatis peccatum sit; sed qu [...] ex peccato est, & ad peccatum inclinat; Si quis autem contrarium senserit, anathema sit.; And many more may bee found out, if I did desire to muster vp your iniquities in this kinde. But it shall suffice for the present to referre the Iesuite, and the Reader, to the Catalogue of the right reverend, the Lord Bishop of Derry Lib. 3. de Antich: cap 6. Catalogus veterum haeresum, quas Ecclesia Romana renov [...]it. &c., which when Mr Malone or his whole Tribe hath fully answered, I may conceive he had something besides his wilfulnes, to breed his confidence in this opinion,

In his examination of the second exception against the Demaund, hee hopeth to enervate it by his observations therevpon, the first whereof is, that therein the Answe­rer supposeth our catholicke Doctrine to bee that Apostasie which the Apostle speaketh of (1. Tim. 4. 1. 2.)Reply pag. 5.

And here our Iesuite wisely collecteth, for the learned Primate doth neither acknowledge your Roman Church, either in Diocesse, or ad extra, for Catholick, neither your additions & mixtures, for Catholick Doctrine, any more then Saul 1. Sam. 10. 11 for a Prophet, because he got amongst the Pro­phets, as your deceipts have crept into the Creed: But yet that by your corrupt mixtures and declinings, is truly ac­complished that Prophecy (1, Tim; 4.) hee makes little doubt. And what abuse is done heerein to your glorious Synagogue? why should not false doctrines and novelties fall before the auncient and radicall truth, as Dagon † and false gods before the Arke? Nay, what doth the learned* 1. Sam. 5. 3. 4. Primate suppose, that was not deprecatively expres­sed in your Trent-Councell by a Bishop Cornelius Bi­shop of [...]iton▪ [...]0▪ of your owne? for if to fall from Religion to Superstition, from Faith to infidelitie, from Christ to Antichrist, bee not an Apostasie, let the Iesuite declare what it is?

But the Iesuite would faine know, in what sence wee take Apostasie, whether as it designeth an vtter Revolt from the faith of Christ, which the Iesuite is confident they cannot bee charged withall; Because elsewhere the learned Primate confesseth, that men dying (as hee saith) in our Religion, doe dye vnder the mercy of God Reply pag. 5..

What doth the Iesuite meane by this? Doth he thinke the most learned Answerer [by their Religion] did poynt out Ignatius his plat-forme, or the Religion of their Ho­lies Francis and Dominick? Were any of their other Re­ligions conjectured at, which are imployed to frame Christ a Religion by policie, that their Master might ob­taine a Monarchie by fraude? Surely whatsoever the Iesuite may conjecture, these will finde but little shelter for their securitie in that sermon.

But if this Interpretation square not, who doth hee then meane by men dying in our Religion? if those that [Page 35] lived in the Roman Communion, then his collection is vayne also, For who can doubt, that some may bee saved there, without casheering of the Apostasie t [...]e [...]ce; Many followed Absalom 2 Sam. 15. 11., that were true of heart, and yet the Iesuite will not deny a Rebellion against David, and falling away of the People from him. The high places were not taken away, and yet Asa's [...]. Chron 25. 17. heart, and many others (no doubt) were vpright all their dayes. Iudas Acts 1. 18. may betray Christ, and hang; Demas 2 sim. 4. 10: and others fall from heaven to earth, and yet the Apostles and Diseiples adhere to their Master. When the whole world in a manner, com­municated with the Arians, were none safe but Athana­sius Athanas in epist ad solita­ [...]am vitam a­gentes: Christi standiosi, vt magnus ille P [...]pheta Elias abscondeban­tur, & in spe­luncas & ca­vernas terrae sese abstrude­bant, aut in so­litudine ober­rantes commo­rabantur. Hieronym [...]on, Luciferian. Ingemuerit to­tus Orbis, & Arianum se [...] ­se miratus sit. Gregorius Valent: Analys: l: 6. cap. 4 § Probatio: 4 Novimus &c. cum Arianorum perfidia in orbe penè to to dominabatur. &c? not those which were ignorant of their here­sies, who if they had knowne them, would have abhorred their corruptionsAug. epist. 162. ad. Donat: Qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam & perversam nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt, [...] quam non a [...]daci [...] praesumptionis [...] pepererunt, sed à seductis, a [...]q [...]e in errorem lapsis parentibus acceperunt, quaerunt autem cautâ solici [...]udine ve­ritatem, corrigi parati, cum invenerint, nequaquam sunt inter Haeretico [...] reputan­di.? Were all the Papists in Queene E­lizabeths time damned, which joyned in Communion with the Churches of England and Ireland? The learned Primate is not so vncharitable, as to judge perditi­on to everie one in the Roman Communion, and yet hee doubteth not, but that the Apostasie was there.

Who knowes not that the Roman Pale includeth a Church, as well as a Faction? and though at the best it bee but a Pest-house, as the most reverend Primate fitlie styles it, yet hee doth not thinke it impossible, but that some poore Soules, which had more love to Christ, then knowledge of the Doctrine of Popish faith, might through the mercy of God Cypr. Epist. 63 13. Si quis de anteeessoribus nostris vel ignorantèr, vel simpli­citèr non hoc observavit, & tenuit quod nos Dominus facere exemplo & magi [...]erio [...] docuit, potest simplicitati ejus de indulgentia Domini venia concedi, nobis verò [...] [...] ­terit ignosci, qui nunc à Domino admoniti instructi simus. escape such infection and [Page 36] contagion, which is deadly and mortall; whereas the poy­son of Apostasie will never leave the grand Masters, till it hath brought them to confusion and ruine. And this is all he speaketh for the Iesuite's Religion.

But hoping wee will not charge them with an vtter Revolt, he enquires, whether wee by Apostasie vnderstand Heresies, which doe not so openly oppose the foundation of Christian faith, but come cloked with Hypocrisie, and vnder the name of Pietie? for if wee acknowledge this, then howsoever some Heresies, doe oppose the foundation of Chri­stian faith more openly then others, yet all of them doe still come cloked with the name of Pietie, and have beene alwayes observed by the diligent watchmen of Gods house in their ve­ry beginnings. Reply pag. 6.

How doth this take away the learned Primate's just exception? For while he distinguisheth of Heresies that oppose the foundation, some more, and some lesse openly, and all cloked with Pietie: and vrgeth, that all these open here­sies were observed in their beginnings, what doth hee proove, but that which was confessed before? For wee acknowledge, that Heresie, whether more or lesse, openly opposite to the foundation, hath beene more or lesse observed [...] by the Pastors of the Church: but yours are of an other nature, they were not Heresies at the first, but seedes onely, or at least appeared not to be so; but came in as Pi­etie, when Heresie was closed and sealed vp in a Mysterie, and not seene at all.

Besides this, there is nothing vrged by the Iesuite of any weight to take away this Answere. He sayth, that all Heresies came cloked with the name of Piety, and for this he bring, three examples to proove his generall conclusion. The first of Origen, for the salvation of Divels. The second he imputeth to Tertullian, which was begunne by Mon­tanus Alphons: de Castro adver. Haer lib 11. De nuptiis. Hujus haeresis autho­res sunt Cata­phryges, quo rum princeps fuit Montanus, Eundem erro­rem postea do­cuit Tertullia­nusqui ers [...] pri­us contra Ca­taphryges pro hae re pugna. verat, posteata­men ad Ca [...]a­phryges iediit, eorum defen­dens errorem. Bzovius ann. 172. Porro quod dogmata Montani atti­net; sunt haec de [...]inia quae do­cebat, Secundas nuptias, velut for [...]cationem damnabat, &c., against second Marriage. The third, Montanus his rigorous, fasts Pag. 6..

Which kinde of arguing, as it is not concludent, (for how followeth it, that because three heresies have a shew of Pietie, therefore all?) So the same makes nothing a­gainst the Answerer, it being granted. For who doub­teth, that Heretickes have alwayes pretended Pietie, and that their birthes have beene so presented to the world, that they have borne some shew of truth, and further that judgments not divinely enlightened, have received them many times with religious applause? and yet they have beene resisted and opposed by those which had more cleare eyes, and could see aright. But doth it therefore follow that the bundle of Heresies included in the grand Apostasie wrought by the man of Sinne at different times in a mysterie, which must expect a time for Revelation 2. Thess, 2 [...]. 6. 7., should be detected in the first houre of their birth by cir­cumstances of person, time and place.

Many heresies have carried a shew of Pietie; but some have beene so mystically delivered, that they have received her name. Some with their shewe cannot hide their substance, their expresse contradiction of Scripture, as those of Origen and Montanus, which displeased eve­ry weake eye, and therefore in these circumstances requi­red, might easily be detected; But these mysticall Anselm [...] in [...]. Thess: 2. My­sterium, quia viderur occul­tum: quia tales operarii. osten­dunt se velut ministros, aut famulos Chri­sti, cùm revera sint ministri Antichristi: Nam iniquitas [...]orum est my­stica, id est pi­ctatis nomine palli [...]ta. ones are of another nature, so cloaked, that their impietie was hid, so presented to the world, that they are accompted Piety; if you demaund their mother, as the Saracens Sarah, they dare cry, the Church; if their Father, as the Pharisees to A­braham Ioh. 8. 39., they dare looke to heaven; if you question their Antiquity, they (like the Gibeonites Iosh: 9. 3. [...].) pretend the Apostles and plead the Apocrypha: if Ʋniuersalitie, they are tra­vaylers, and as they say throughout the world, yet this is but Orbis Romanus, the Roman Church. Doe you thinke these Vagrants and Wanderers which can bush and brake for their owne safetie, are so easily detected, as those down-right youths, which in their first appearance tell what they are by their face and comple [...]

Is there no difference betweene a face muffled with pretences barely, and painted with equivocall colours? It is not pretending Pietie in heresie, neither muffling in part, that can give it libertie to keep station in the Church of God without controule, but when Piety is pretended▪ and Heresie getteth in by protection thereof, closed vp and vnespied, this is Iniquitie in a Mysterie 2. Thess. [...]. 7.. Whereby we see, that the Iesuite hath not touched the most learned Primate his answer; who for open heresies, (which like E­dom cry out against the Church of God at their birth, downe with it, downe with it even to the ground Psal. 137. 7.,) confes­seth, that the impietie thereof is so notorious, that at the very first appearance it is manifestly discerned The most re­verend the Lord Primate his Answere. pag. 2..

And whereas he dare challenge his Adversaries to give true instance so much as but of any one knowne and confessed Heresie, which was not at it first divulging, contradicted by some one or other Pastor of Gods Church, how cunningly soe­ver it came muffled in the mantle of Pietie Page 6., making it as a thing impossible to be performed: Heereby every man, may perceive that the Iesuite is willing to close his owne eyes, vpon condition he may pull out other mens. For o­therwise da [...] he be so bold, as that hee should deny this Apostasie to have come into the Church without resi­stance; when the spirit of God doth declare, that the bring­ers in of it, must have a time for detection, not being oppo­sed in the beginning, but revealed and consumed Thess. 2. 6. 2. after­wards?

But leaving this; what the Iesuite desires here, was per­formed to him by the Testimony of Bernard and Reiner [...] ­us in the Answer to the first Section, concerning the [...] and [...], whom they have accounted & con­dem [...] for Heretickes. Yet because this point may bee morefully answered, I will out of their owne authors gratifie him further in this particular.

And first from Pr [...]teolus Prateolus [...]. the Aquarij are knowne and confessed Her [...] and yet qui [...] hujus [...] fuit. [Page 39] & ex quo tempore caeperit nemo est qui indicat. Here the Ie­suite must send for Saint Bridget, for he will neede a Re­velation in regard that as Prateolus acknowledgeth their first beginning is vnknowne; So Alphonsus de Castro Alphon: de Castro adv: haere: lib: 6. DeEucha [...]istia. Adversus hunc errorem tres Evangelistae pugnant, Ma­thaeus scilicet Marcus, & Lu­cas. can­not finde any throughout all the Ecclesiasticall Histo­ry, which opposed their Heresie at its first divulging, and therefore runneth vp to the institution of the Sacra­ment, and makes Mathew, Marke, and Luke, the oppo­sers. A strange thing that this heresie concerning the Sa­crament, should have birth before the Sacrament was in­stituted, or the institution thereof published by the Evan­gelists. The Praedestinati are reputed by your owne for Heretickes, yet Alphonsus de Castro Idem lib. 12. de Praedestina­tio: Quis au­tem suerit hu­jus haeresis princeps, Sigi­bertus subticu­it, nec egoapud aliquem alium reperi., notwithstanding his search, cannot finde their Author, and Prateolus Prateolus E­lench. Haeret. Quis eorum Dux & institu­tor fuerit, ne­scitur. telleth vs, their Captaine is not knowne. So also the Abstinentes were taken for no better then Hereticks, and yet you are so far from discovering the time of their birth, that their spreading is not remembred, as your Prateolus Ibid: Absti­nentes quo tempore vigue­re, non memi­nit Philastrius. observeth. Multitudes of this kinde might be produced, but these shall for the present suffice in answer to the Iesuites chal­lenge.

Hee secondlie observes, that the most reverend Primate his distinction of such like Heresies, and that Apostasie, serve his turne nothing at all, forasmuch as it hath no ground, nor foundation which doth not proove more stronglie against his part, then against vs. This distinction will presage as ill to Rome as a Comet▪ if you faile to proove what you so con­fident he affirme. But to make it good: First he demaunds what can he infe [...]ta out of these sayings of the Apostle, which we may not, with farre more probabilitie apply to himselfe, and to his Revolting Religion, &c: rather then those aunci­ent Fathers, and holy Doctours of the Primitive Church, whom he himselfe, though else where hee confesseth them to [...]ve beene godly [...] yet in this place would have vs to thinke, that they were of those who spake ly [...] in Hypocri­sie, and had a hand in bringing in of damnable Apostasie▪ [Page 40] Secondly he saith; That our Answerer and his mates did in their foreleaders Luther; and Galvin, revolt, and de­part from the Roman Church, yea from all the world, is voluntarily acknowledged by Calvin himselfe. For which cause wee thinke that wee may with reason, hold them guiltie of Apostasie indeed. Reply pag. 6.

In all which observation wee finde him to charge vs, first to further that mysticall iniquitie rather then those auncient Fathers of the Primitive Church: Se­condly, that wee did revolt, and depart from the Ro­man Church, and are guiltie of this Apostasie. But if all this were as true faith as the Iesuite professeth▪ how maketh it to the overthrow of the exception? A deepe charge, but nothing to the purpose; For the question in controversie is not who brought in the Apostasie, but whether there bee such an A­postasie, that concludeth within it, many Heresies like terra filij, begotten wee know not by whom, borne wee know not where, nor when. The learned Answerer saith there are such; and the Iesuite saith nothing materiall to the contrary; and therefore the demaund, to finde out all heresies, onely by person, time, and place, must remaine vaine and ill-groun­ded still.

But whereas the Iesuite by wrastling and strugling, thinketh his demaund is made good; if he can cast this Apostasie from themselves and Rome, it maketh nothing for him, but altereth the question, as if his demaund (ex­cepting these mysticall iniquities) had desired by circum­stance of person, time, and place; to have pointed out all other heresies onelie. And who doth not see this de­fence erected by the most learned Answerer for the Ca­tholicke faith impregnable, and so far without his shot, that he would fasten falshoods which are ridiculous vpon his learned pen, that hee might with some shew and advantage fight against the same? For who [Page 41] chargeth the Fathers that they speake lyes in hypocrisie? let him point out the place if hee can, in which the most reverend Primate would have them thinke that they were of those, or such kinde of men. Hee telleth vs indeed, that when the seeds of mysticall ini­quitie were a sowing, they (the Fathers) that kept watch and ward against the one (open heresies that op­pose the foundation) might sleepe, yea peradventure might at vnawares themselves, have some hand in bringing in this Trojan horse commended vnder the name of Religion Page [...]. &c. But is heere any thing that at­tempts to perswade you, that the fathers speake lyes in Hy­pocrisie? or doth crosse that testimony, which elsewhere hee hath given them for godly men? what is affirmed here, but that the fathers looking alwayes to the advancement of Religion fought couragiously against all that openly cros­sed the same, yet might (which is not absolutely affirmed but) peradventure sleepe, whilst poysonous seeds that car­ried a semblance of Devotion, were sowen, or have some hand vnawares (no way intending hurt, but good to the Church of God,) to bring them in? And that there is nothing spoken to the derogation of the Fathers pie­tie or godlines, I thinke any man; but Mr Malone, will ea­sily conceive. For what offence hath this learned observa­tion committed? Is any ignorant, that wicked wretches may bring good to the Church, who never intended it, as Iehu [...] King. 10▪ 18. 31., Iudas and all preachers for gaine, &c. and that good men might trouble the Church, and broach er­rors in it, and thinke thereby they have done God service as Euseb. eccli hist: lib: 3. Iraeneus, ibid. lib: 7. Cyprian &c. and yet some of them have beene by your selves acknowledged for Saints and Martyrs?

But while the true mens cause is pleading, the Theife must not escape; We acknowledge it an easie matter to excuse the Fathers of this Apostasie: but how will Mr Malone free his owne? For although [Page 42] he may dare and outface much, yet it is manifest, that their cloystered cattell and those of the like hiew, are pointed out by the Apostle to be principall Engineres for bringing it in. And this is so plainely descried, that e­very simple lay-man by this place 1. Tim. 4. 2. 3., can paint them out; for how are those Hypocrites which speake lyes in Hypocri­sie by whom this Apostasie shalbe brought in, discove­red, but by these two open and declaring notes of for­bidding marriage and abstainning from meats? Things which agree so fairely, with the cloystered and Romish Cleargie, that if we should plead any interest therein, we should be cryed downe for sleepers, whilst this Towre was in buil­ding. And although we are charged with Apostasie by the Iesuite, yet being examined by the Apostles notes, wee shall escape very well. For M. Malone knoweth, that Delectus ciborum is no article of our Creed, nor point of our practise. And from the second marke, he hath better reason to excuse vs, for I cannot doubt, but hee that knowes our wives haue kirtles Reply pag. 206., hath surely observed that our Preists have wives.

But (let the Apostle vse what notes he pleaseth) the Ie­suite will prove that we are guiltie of Apostasie, how? be­cause wee have revolted and departed from the Roman Church, for which he vrgeth Calvins Absurdum est postquam dis­cessionem à to­to mundo face­re coacti sumus inter ipsa prin­cipia alios ab a, liis dissilire Cal: ep: 141. confession; but if here be not lyes in Hypocrisie, where are they to be found?

For that which he cites from Calvin acknowledgeth onely that they were forced to make a departure from the whole world, when as the Iesuite would have him that di­ed long before the most reverend Primate was borne vo­luntarily to acknowledge that the learned Answerer &c. did depart from the Roman Church Reply pag. 6.: But pardon this e­scape, Is there no difference, to be forced to depart, and voluntarily to make a schisme Aug. de Bap. con: Donat: lib: 5. Cap: 1. Apertissimum enim sacrilegium omines schismatis, si nulla [...] seperati [...].; to be driven from you by your corrupt doctrines, that you will not reforme; and with pertinacy and wilfulnes to embrace heresies? Wee [Page 43] have washed alone because you will not be cleane; and be­cause your Naaman Dried: de Ec [...]l dog: lib: [...]. cap: 4. Neque te­nentur oves subesse Pastori vlli qui iam sa­ctus est, aut ex pastore lupus, aut saluti gre­gis contrarius. will not wash in Iordan, must we ad­here to your Leprosy still? He is the Schismaticke that causeth Cassan: con­sult Art: 7. de Ecclesia vera Neque vnquam credo, contro­versia apud nos de externa Eccle­siae vnitate exti­tisset nisi Ponti­fices Romani [...] hâc authoritate ad dominatio­nis quandam speciem abusi [...] fuissent eam (que) extra fines a [...] Christo & Ec­clesia praescrip­tos ambitionis et cupiditatis causâ extulis­sent. the schisme, and we are confident, that it was no more revolting Cypr. epist 63. Non debemus attendere quid alius ante nos faciendum pu­taverit, sed quid qui ante omnes [...]st Christus prior fecent; neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed DEI veritatem. for vs to leave your corruptions, then for the Exorcists to fire their bookes Act 19. 19., and to reject their impieties.

And although I will not deny but we were in this manner forced to forsake your corruptions, yet our Iesuit proves it but vntowardly by Calvins confession; for if the world and the Church of Rome be the same with the Ie­suite, why might not we conclude, from his Baptisme and entring the Cloyster, but by vowing to forsake the world in the one, and departing from it in the other, hee hath revolted and apostated from the Roman Church, his Catholicke Brethren? But is not the Iesuite pittifully distressed that would from a Schisme falsly pretended to be confessed by Calvin, prove vs guiltie of the grand A­postasie mentioned by the Apostle?

Now the Iesuite thinking that wee would have swal­lowed his follie, and answered him some other way, la­boureth to prevent vs, by crossing that which his Consci­ence told him, would make for our just defence; for saith he, Neither can it suffice them to say that they departed from the Church of Rome, because she her selfe had gone out of the true Church, vnlesse they declare vnto vs, what true church that was, out of which the said Roman Church departed Reply pag. 7.; As if this were hard to be done; What is the Catholicke Church? doe you know it? not that pretended one con­tracted in a small compasse by Roman ligatures, but that trulie Catholicke dispersed over the [...]ace of the earth Cassand. consult art. 7. Veteres potissimum Catho­licam dictam volunt, quod per vniversum orbem diffusa sit.: This is that you have falne from, and like Dona­ [...]is [...]s [Page 44] Alphons: de Castro advers. Haer: lib: 5. de Eccles: Ab Ec­clesia se divisit, dicens in sola parte Donati esse veram Ec­clesiam, in alijs autem parti­bus, quae Ceci­liano fave­bant, non esse Ecclesiá, quia etsi ibi aliqui essent boni, & communione tamen malo­rum macula­bantur, & ita Ecclesia per­ibat. have condemned her in her particular members, as if no salvation were to be had, but with you Extrav: de maior: & obed: cap: vnam san­ctam. Subesse Romano Pon­tifici omni hu­manae creatu­rae declaramus, dicimus, defi­nimus, & pro­nunciamus omnino esse de necessitate sa­lutis. Bellar: de eccl: mil: lib; 3. cap. 5. Neminem posse, etiamsi velit, subesse Christo, & communicare cum Ec­clesia coelesti, qui nen subest Pontifici, & non communicat cum Ecclesia militante, viz: Romana.; So that we can justly say, that wee have beene forced to depart from your particular Communion, (you declaring your selves schismaticks, and enemies to the Catholicke Church) and that wee doe adhere to the vniversall body it selfe, in which Salvation will be found, notwithstanding all your desperate Decrees cast out against the members thereof.

But our Iesuite sayth, that we are so far from discovering any such thing, that a prime Doctour Doctour Feild in his Treatise of the Church. lib. 3. cap. 13. cited Reply pag. 7. of ours confesseth, that the Roman Church held still Communion with those o­ther Churches, that never fell into error.

We find not this in the place alledged; but allowing it to be so, why might not a perverse company hold Commu­nion & outward Conformitie with the true Church? You make Iudas an Hereticke; wee thinke hee was scarce so good, and yet how long in this Hypocrisie did hee keepe Communion with the Apostles? Arius was worse if it were possible, for as the first would have dissolved his humanity, this attempted with grosse conceits a­gainst his Divinity, and yet his Communion was Catho­licke, and in outward appearance, he Socrat. eccl. hist. lib. 1. and his consorts Carron. in sum: Concil: pag. 39 Vnde [...] consilio inter se habito, acquiescunt ad subscribendum, manu solâ, non mente. subscribed to the Nicene Creed. If this be all that you can say for your faith, that you have held outward Commu­nion with the faithfull, it doth little avayle; For a theife may be with true men, and Heretickes with them that professe the faith; and the Divell himselfe among the sonnes of God; nay, present himselfe before the Lord Iob 2. 1.

But an other Master Bunny in his treatise tending to pacification. sect. 14. pag. 89. of the same ranke, telleth vs, that the Church of Rome hath ever continued after a sort, in profession of the [Page 45] faith, since the time that by the Apostles it was delivered to them &c. And hath also in some manner preserved &c. the word, and Sacraments that Christ himselfe did leave vnto vs (All this will not make Rome Catholicke, or free her from Apostasie & backsliding) which surely, is a very speci­ciall blessing of God, and an evident worke of the holy Ghost, from which confession our Iesuite inferrs, that the Church of Rome, her enemies being Iudges is cleerely freed from all suspition of Apostasie, and is confessed to have held faithfull Communion with the true Church of God. Reply pag. 7:

But all this foolishly, and without ground, even by the judgment of as cunning an Arguer as himselfe, Parsons the Iesuite, for hee doth not thinke Mr Bunny so kinde, Parsons Reso­lution in the se­cond part of his Preface to the Reader. It is such a Pa­cificatiō, as the high Preists of the Iewes wold have made with the Apo­stles after they had whipt and beaten them, vpon condition they should nei­ther teach, nor preach any more the Do­ctrine of Christ. as the Iesuite would have him, neither doth he pick out of those words any such conclusion, as heere is poin­ted out vnto vs, which I have no cause to thinke hee would have omitted, if the words would have afforded any such thing.

Yet we must consider that Mr Bunny was a Pacificator, and would speake as much, as possibly he could, if not more then was fit, for perswading vnion betwixt Rome and other Churches.

Moreover all the good he speaketh of the Romish church is, that after a sort they continued in the profession of the faith which might have beene spoken of the Arians, Nestori­ans, Pelagians, & the most heretickes; that did not vtterly cast of the name & profession of Christianity; for which of them after a sort, did not professe CHRIST to be the Messias, the Saviour of the world.

Further, in some manner it preserued the word, and sacra­ments, but in such a maner, that may stand with Apostasie▪ The word they acknowledge, but with Additions traditio­nall & written, & the C [...]on so corrupted must not speak; but with a tongue of the Pope's making. The Sacraments they reject not, but deny the People in the Eucharist the cup, & the other they have corrupted with many mixtures [Page 46] whereby it appeareth plainely, that they have fallen from the auncient puritie embraced by the Roman church, and that after a sort and in some manner onely, they have had Communion with other Churches, the word and sacraments being preserved▪ not from their desire so much, as from the blessing of God. For if they might have done all at plea­sure, the word of God had beene changed for Evan­gelium aternum Vide hist: ex­plica: reverendis simi dom: Pri­mar: de success: & stat: Eccl: cap: [...]., and what doe you thinke would have become of the Sacraments? So that the Answerer his worke, neither totters, nor wants a supporter as yet.

His third observation is, that the most learned Pri­mate, will not have those opinions wherein we differ from him to be Heresies, but onely a kind of still creeping in Apo­stasie hooded with the name of Religion and semblance of Devotion, and therefore pretendeth himselfe to be excu­sed from discovering vnto vs the author, & time of their be­ginnings Reply pag. 7.. Againe, he chargeth the learned Answerer page 12. to denounce their opinions Heresies far spread, and of long continuance, which he imputeth to forgetfulnes, till hee re­membreth himselfe, that they are not exempted from being Heresies by the Answerer, but from being such, as doe openly oppose the foundation of our faith Ibid.. So that these sayings may stand well together, notwithstanding any thing, he hath as yet vttered. But he telleth vs, if the dif­fering points be heresies, that never any did more openly op­pose the foundation of faith then they. And to prove this, hee produceth the point of adoration of the hoste in the Sacrament, of which he maketh no question, but every man will easily vnderstand, that if Hell were raked vp, a more noto­rious Heresie could not be found &c. and therefore it see­meth impossible in this Iesuites iudgment, that any Bishop of Rome could be able to perswade such an impietie &c. with­out being manifestly discerned. ibid.

That this grosse and idolatrous Practise of Adoration of the Host is founded vpon a grosse and hereticall foun­dation [Page 47] is not denyed by the most learned Answerer; Nei­ther doe I thinke any man will otherwise conceipt there­of, and yet by this concession, the Iesuite getteth no ground for his inference therein, For suppose, this doth fight against Gods divine truth, and in as violent a man­ner as the gates of Hell, or power of darknes, it followeth not that every man will easily espy Rhem: anno­ta: upon the 2. Thess: cap: 2. ver: 6. The mystery of iniquity is com­monly referred to Heretickes, who worke to the same, & do that that Anti­christ shall doe, but yet not o­penly, but in co­vert, and vnder the cloake of Christs name, the scriptures, the word of the Lord, shew of holines, &c. it. Serpents are not seene in the egges, though in their growth they are full of horror; and the most dangerous opposall many times proceedeth from an Ambush, and not from the Army. Who knoweth not, that the fowlest Divell may appeare the fairest Angell; the loosest Abbesse may be inclosed in your chastest vestment; the most licentious Nunne be e­steemed a Saint; and the most trayterous Iesuite face it like a Subiect?

Besides, we know, that Heresies, which in their nature might be damnable, and destroyers of the foundation, to their receivers, many times appeare not, neither are they esteemed so vile: And Heresies that are accompted dead­ly at one time, and to some receivers, have bene but staynes in others, when the intention of the receiver was considered; As Cyprian his rebaptization. So that Error concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father, and not from the Sonne, is fundamentall in its owne nature although to the Greeke Church that hold not thereby the inequalitie of the persons, it is no fundamen­tall Heresie Lomb: lib: 1: distinct: 11. Sci­endum est ta­men quòd Graeci confitentur spiritum sanctum esse filij, sicut & patris, quia & Aposto­lus dicit, Spiritum fili [...]; Et veritas in Evangelio, spiritum votitatis. Sed cum non sit a­liud spiritum sanctum esse patris vel filij, quam esse à. patre et filio; etiam in hoc in e­andem nobiscum, fidei sententiam conveni [...]e videntur, licet in verbis dissentiant. Bellar: De Christo. lib. 2, cap. 27, Respondeo igitur cum Bessatione et Gennadlo, Damascenum non negasse, spiritum sanctum procedere ex filio, quod ad rem attiner, cum dixerit, Spi­ritum e [...]se imagine [...] [...] et per fillu [...] esse: sed existimasse, tutius dici per filium, quam ex filio, quantum. ad [...] loqucindi, propter haeresim Macedonii, et Eunomij, &c. Tolet. in Iohan: cap. 25. annot: 25. Graecus intelligens spiritum sanctum procedere per fi­lium, quod non aliud significat quam quod nos dicimus. at all; So many might adore CHRIST in re­ceiving [Page 48] the Sacrament, that never thought of his bodily presence by Transubstantiation, nor dreamed of your Wafer-god, nor your Preist able to create the Almighty. Moreover the Reall presence may stand, and yet you may be Idolators in adoring the Host; And in Substance the Host may be but onely bread, and yet Christ be present in the Sacrament, and in the same manner as the Iesuite hath confessed Reply pag 44. the same. But this point is considered elsewhere, and therefore may be heere omitted.

Secondly, the question is not about the earing or bla­ding of these tares, for every man can tell this, even hee that asked the question, vnde Zizania Mat. 13. 26. 27., he knew the tares and saw the blade, but not their seeding time; this is a que­stion for the Lord onely to answere, who seeth the secret working of enemies against his kingdome, and not for the servants to lay downe.

The Plot of powder-Conspiracie in the first concepti­on, if it was not observed of the Watchmen of our Israell; yet in the blading it was espied, and the Plotters choaked before Harvest. Many Heresies have beene plotted by the Divell, by Antichrist, but spread abroad by their emissaries, frogges, locusts, with their croaking Rhetoricke. And suppose our learned Answerer knew not all the plots in hell, and Rome, yet he hath layde downe the spreading of these damnable Heresies, when the Church was first trou­bled with them, and when they received strength and hu­mane confirmation.

So this Iesuite closeth vp all, and finding he hath sayd little to the purpose, he adds, that if all alledged by the learned Answerer were suffered to passe, it is but might bee or peradventure Reply pag. [...]., which he taketh to be of little force; But it followeth by this his confession, that his demaund is not absolutely exempted from Vanitie, but lyeth with­in the compasse at least of a might be and peradventure, to be foolish and ridiculous: Whereby we may inferre, that this vnwise man, his owne mouth being his Iudge, doth [Page 49] not know, nor this foole vnderstand the infallibitie of those things, which hee would have vs to be wise in at last.

The third Answere pleaseth not the Iesuite (viz [...].)

The originall of errors is oftentimes so obscure, & their breed so base, that no wiseman will marvaile, if in tract of time the beginning of many of them should be forgotten The most re­verend the Le: Primate. pag. 2.. And what of all that Reply pag. [...].? saith our Iesuit. Sufficient I thinke to declare the vanitie of the Iesuites demand; for if Heresies be ob­scure in birth, and oftentimes not taken notice of; or if taken notice of, yet by the espyers not judged worthy of a Register to continue their memory, but barely of a con­tempt, then it must of necessitie follow, that that de­maund is vaine, which presupposeth the Church to take notice of the father of every ba [...]rd doctrine, and to keep Registry therof, as she doth of those sacred truthes which were legitimately declared to the Church.

I but although they bee oftentimes so obscure as this man saith, must it follow, that they are alwayes so? ibid:

No, it must not. But it is no strange thing, that when your wisdome cannot answer, your wits should be amazed; and although the wise Answerer hath endured many of your bolts, with this answere he hath choked you with the feathers: for he standeth not in need of any such vniver­sals; if some Heresies are of this temper it is sufficient; & if you cannot manifest, that every heresie declareth it selfe in its birth, and is registred to Succession, then that can­not be excused from vanity, which requireth for detecti­on of every Heresie in your Church, their beginning, with the circumstance of person, time, and place.

Arians, Manichees &c. are diligently recorded (saith the Iesuite) why should not those wherewith he chargeth us haue bene more notorius? Reply pag. [...].

He doth not rest heere, but as if all his skill were in de­maunding, [Page 50] he asketh, Above two hundred Heresies have been gainsay [...] by the skilfull watchmen &c. what Doctour did e­ver gainesay any of those supposed heresies by word or writ­ting? ibid.

This Crambe is but of small valew; all this hath beene answered before; the effect is this: Every Heresie in it's birth appeares not, but some expresse their venemous dis­position afterwards. Who knoweth not, that those base birthes which are generated expu [...]redine, are never taken notice of, till they reveale themselves by their filth and motion? And have you not been fai [...]e to derive the Pedi­gree of some Heresies from the Divell? See Bern cited before in the 1. Section.

Besides, i [...] i [...] a good Consequent, Some Heresies have beene detected in their beginnings with the circūstances of person, time, & place; therefore those which have not in like manner beene ma [...]e knowne, are notheresies? Are not false doctrines, many times like false Christians, like Hypo­crites, who are often accounted the best of those which professe righteousnes, whenas afterwards Iudas is detect­ed & their fraud is apparant? were all the Iewish corrup­tions before our Sauiours time vnvailed? was the curtain of painted appearance drawne aside among the Pharisees? were not many good men deceived by thē, as Nic [...] [...] [...] Iohn, 3. 1. that entred their order? who espied their painted Hypocri­sies till Christ layd them open in their colours, making them appeare to every pur-blinde eye what they truely were? Our Iesuite to prove his demaund hath produced two Reply pag. 8. places, first Isaiah, 62. 2. And what saith the Prophet there? The Iesuite I thinke suspects the strength of his quotation, or otherwise he would have layde downe the words nakedly and not with his glosse. I have set watch­men vpon thy walles, O Ierusalem, which shall never hold their peace day, or night. These are the words, but not one syllable, that they should cry out still vpon every arising er­rour, or Heresie. Nay, what is here to confirme that which he would prove▪ God giveth his Church faithfull watch­men, [Page 51] that will neither day, or night, be idle and keepe cloyster, but will labour to build vp Ierusalem, till GOD make it a prayse of the earth. But, (alas) what is this to the roote of Heresies? to the circumstance of their espy­all?

The birth of every Prodigy is not observed in the shep­heards Calendar, but of Comets, & those which are of like nature; neither is every Heresie detected by the Iesuite's rule, but such, as in their first appearing shew themselves to be against faith and good life, as Augustine epist: 119. cap. 19. saith in the words alledged.

Who knoweth not, that little clouds may end in stormes, which without an Elias 1. King 18. 44 cannot be suspected? Yet must God faile in his promise, for his servants not espying the taresower? The Apostle that could cry, 2. Cor 2. 16., quis idoneus ad h [...]c? did not thinke the perfection of Pastors such, that com­pleatly they might performe every circumstance, which their Office doth require. If God give faithfull watchmen that will not be tongue-tyed in Gods service, nor cease to sound, when the enemie approacheth, this is sufficient to repute the watchmen faithfull, & to free their soules: For God requires not the trumpet to be vsed, before the ene­mie be espied; & when your cunnings appeared trechery, they have not wanted opposers in all ages; so that herein God hath no wayes failed his word.

For the other place, Ephe: 4. 11. it maketh no better to his purpose; for who denyeth, but Christ gave some Apo­stles, some Prophets, & some Evangelists, & some Pastors and Teachers? but to what purpose? to espy the person, time▪ & place of hereticall beginnings? no, but for the perfe­cting of the Saints, for the works of the ministery, for the edi­fying of the body of Christ Eph 4. [...]., which might be effected by the faithfull resisting of heresies by scriptures, although their beginning, time, and place should be vnknowne.

For St Augustines words, they are true, & make nothing against the Answerer, for if every Pastor ought not to passe [Page 52] ever in silence their manners and doctrine, which be against faith, and good life but should labour to disgrace and con­demne the same: much more this will be required of the Church in generall, but they must appeare first to be so. Paul did not bitterly enveigh against Elimas, till he ap­peared the child of the divell A [...] [...]3. [...], 10, & resisted the streight wayes of the Lord: Neither are mens opinions resisted till they ap­peare hereticall, for otherwise every Pastor should be Io­hannes ad oppositū, fighting with his own shadow. It is for Christ, that knoweth the secret of hearts to say that Iudas is a divel Iohn 6. [...]0,. And to as much purpose is Dr Fulks confession, That the true Church hath resisted all false opinions with open reprehension. This no man denyes; but first they did appeare to befalse opiniōs. Besides, cannot heresies be resisted with out naming their beginning, time & place? Yes nodoubt, as openly as Luther & Fulke have resisted your errors, whose beginnings you say, they know not; or you the Leoniste, whose genealogy your great Inquisitor Reinerius See this al­ledged in the [...]. Section. could not find out. So that the Iesuite may perceive, it is no gross assertion to avouch such horrible errours, as their opinions are, to have assaulted the Church with most secret & mysticall fraud, although the beginnings of many of them may bee obscured & hid, But that ever we said, they conquered the whole Church, that they obtained vniversall estimation of true faith, without being either contradicted, or asmuch as once ob­served by any Watchman whatsoever, this is no better then Iesuiticall jugling, there remaining no truth in the same.

And now, as the learned Answerer hath prooved this question or demaund to be vaine, so here he goeth further to demonstrate the same by particular illustration, shew­ing that the same things which they desire of vs, cannot in the like case be performed by them. And first saith the most reverend Primate: We read that the Sadduces taught, there were no Angels: is any man able to declare vnto vs, vn­der what high Preist they first broached this errour?

To this he maketh a twofold Answere, one of them is, [Page 53] that if the certaine time of the beginning of this errour of the Saduces were not knowne at all, little could that availe, when as the like circumstance of time, is vrged onely to finde out the truth of an [...]ter in controversy &c. which because you affirme we, who deny the same, doe vrge you to point vs out the time when, &c but, that the Sadduces taught that errour, there is no doubt, nor controversy, it being plainly testified by the scrip­ture. Reply pag. [...]. Which is but a vaine & simple straine of the Iesuite For how can it be, but the reason must be alike in all, even in those, which be not declared expresly in scriptures, as those that are? And it is as plaine that you teach those par­ticulars by your selfe proposed, as the Sadduces did, that there was no Angell; So that if yours cannot be adjudged Heresies by GODS word, vnlesse they be revealed by the circumstance of person, time, and place; Why should this opinion of the Sadduces by strength of scriptures, and o­ther grounds be judge [...]nd concluded to be so? For o­therwise, if any Nathaniel (in whom there was no guile Iohn, 1. 47.,) should have preached against the Sadduces, be­fore Christ revealed the same, that they had beene Here­tickes, for denying Angels and the Resurrection and con­vinced thē 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 [...]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 Concil: Con­stan: Sess: 11. Item quod di­ctus Ioannes Papa vigesmus tertius [...]apeè & saepiùs cora [...] diver [...] praelatis & alijs [...] & probis viri [...] pertina [...]iter, diabolo suadente, dixit, asser­v [...] dogmati [...]avit & ad [...]uxit, vitam aeternam non esse, nequ [...] aliam post hanc: quin imo dixit, & pertinaciter [...], anima [...] [...] & extingu [...] [...]: dixit (que) [...] die [...] contra articulum de resurrectione [...] de premissis fuit &, est dictus Ioannes Papa apud clerum & populuae gravites di [...]a [...]atu [...], Sic (que) vt praedici­ [...]r, fuit dictum, tentum, creditum, & reputatum: dici [...]ur (que) tenetur, creditur, & reputatur palàm, public [...] & notoriê. the XXIIIth did, how would hee stoppe his mouth? [Page 54] 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 [...]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 br [...]ached both that, and the rest of their errours vnder the high Priest Ion [...]has as Machabaeus, who began his raigne about 163, yeeres before the birth of Christ, and raig­ned twenty. 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 Lib. 1 [...]. anti­ [...]. 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 [...] 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 [Page 55] 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 S [...]ius In Tri [...]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, C [...]cassians, Georgians, Syrians, Egyptians, Habissines, Muscovites, & Russians, (saith the most learned Primate) diss [...]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 and, by Gods helpe, performe it also, out of the learned workes of our moderne Catholicke [...]iters. Reply pag. [...].

But before this be performed, the Iesuite must remember what their owne 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 [...]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 [...]ble to shew those points, to have beene hold by more ancient [Page 56] 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 [...]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, thē 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 thē. And seeing the Iesuit hath takē vpōhim the former task; I will bestow the pains, to give him a Cata­logue of particulars, wherin those Churches dissent frō 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. 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 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▪ Zago Zabo i­bid. cit. per c­undem.

4. They teach, that the soules of Infants dying before Bap­tisme, because they are sprung from faithfull parents, and frō the virtue of the Eucharist, received by the mother after conceptiō to sanctify the child in the womb, sh [...]lbe [...] Zag. Zab. ibid. Thom à Iesu lib. 7. pa. 1. cap 8. cit. per cundem..

5. They baptize themselves every yeare vpon the Epi­phany, as the Muscovites, in memorial of Christs Baptisme, whom they thought to be baptized as that day. Zag. Zab. ibid eit: per cun­dem.

6. The Egyptians have a custome to conferre holy Orders to Infants. Thom [...] a Ie­su▪ lib. 7. pa. 1. cap. 5. cit. per cundem.

7. They deny all efficacy to Baptisme, vnlesse celebrated in the Church by the Preist, notwithstanding any necessity whatsoever; neither doe they baptiz [...] till the fourtieth day, though the child dye without Baptisme. Tho. à Iesu ibid. cit. per cundem.

I could name the Iesuit many mo [...], but if he can shew the person, time & place, by whom, when & where, these points received birth, with their opposers, by demonstrable autho­rity; & not by naked grounds, we will spare him the rest, & confesse he may with good reason aske the question he doth, and require our answere to it. But till then let him not expect that from an other, which the whole Roman Inquisition cannot discover vnto vs in the like kinde. Yet for the present, the Iesuite hath performed his promise, as he supposeth in some particulars pointed out by himself.

First concerning the defection of the Greeke Church, which indeed comprehendeth all the rest by you named Reply pag. 9. &c.

Here we have the Iesuite myred in his first entrance. For what hath he tu doe with generals, Saphista versatur in ge­neralibu [...], he followeth not his answerer, but forsakes him here: Particulars are demaunded, & like a false Steward the Iesuite delivereth all in grosse, fearing his prejudice if hee submit to a strict & particular accompt. All that he labou­reth to prove here, are two things. First, the beginning of the Greek Churches defection from the Roman, which was not desired at his hands. Secondly, the beginning of severall errours, which shalbe observed in their place.

For the first; the defection of Paulus Samosatanus, Ma­cedonius Nestoriu [...] &c. was not from the Roman, but the Greeke, a principall member of the Catholick Church.

Secondly, the Greek Church did not fall with thē, but con­dem [...]ed thē; neither doe they adhere to them, or their do­ctrine at this day. That there are in the East, which are na­med from some of those condemned Hereticks, & yet fol­low not their doctrine Onuphr. in Iul: 3. Uerum hie Nestoriani no­men potius Ne­storij haeretici quam errores retinuisse mihi videntur &c., there is no question. But that the doctrine of those Hereticks is taught by the Greek Church, is vtterly vntrue, neither dare the Iesuite say it is, althogh by his obscure generalities he wold insinuat, that in what those differed frō the Roman church, these close with thē. And for the other several defectiōs (as he calleth thē) thogh it were but ajust flight frō their tyranny, he cannot tel how many they were, but stiles them twelve or there abouts. But [Page 58] to what purpose [...] these [...] vnlesse he shew vs the [...], [...] the [...] by [...], they were made? And this will not [...] [...] shew vnto vs, what errour every [...] in with [...]; for otherwise his [...] have [...] then imployed to none [...]ffect.

Whereas he maketh them oppressed by the Turke, in re­gard of their [...] from [...], it [...] Iesuites fancie. I pray GOD [...] the [...] other [...] separation, they cast off▪ [...] though no [...] all their slavery. [...]ut if it be [...] [...] [...] at the cause of their op­pression; which is not [...] [...]aith, where [...] notwithstan­ding their persequ [...]ion they still [...]; but their per­sons, many more probable grounds may be given of Gods putting them to this [...] ▪ then this assigned by▪ Iesuite; vnlesse you have relation to politicke and world­ly prudencyes of that Church, and not to crymes, that bring downe Gods judgments vpon them. For we know some things [...] not altogethe [...] to be approved of, but i­dolatrous, as Image-worship, are practised amongst them▪ They deny (indeed) that which is practised by you, in re­gard of the manner, even Statues of stone or Marble, and yet imbrace with an idolatrous love paper and p [...]inted re­presentations. This their sinne is not the least causer of Gods iudgment vpon them as we may coniecture from the IX. of the R [...]velation if Gods visiting them may bee imputed to their sinne, and not to his secret will, who tryeth his owne by affliction, as the Church of the Iewes in Egypt, and the Primitive in her sincere [...] perfections.

Thirdly [...]s concerning the severall [...] ▪ (few in compa­rison) wherein the Greek Church a [...] this day dissenteth from the Roman, their beginning and contradiction i [...] note­rious. Reply pag. [...]

Here the Iesuite by way of preface makes the Greeke Church at this day to vary from the [...] in regard of vs (for so I conceive he desires to be vnderstood) [...]ut in a [Page 59] few points, which is [...] for they differ at thisday from them in most points; that we [...] them for: So that I doubt not, but they received scardall from your corruption, which because yo [...] pride would not [...]ure they left you [...] [...] your [...] ▪ and adhe­red to th [...] [...] doctrine, which [...] every whe [...] received, at all times [...], in the Catholicke Church. And although they [...] the [...] of [...], yet some of your owne See before▪ thinke their errour therein, to be onely in the [...] of expressing [...] and not in the substance of doctrine it selfe. And [...], whereas he saith, that their begi [...]ning [...] i [...] [...]; I will beleive him, when he hath answered those points, which I have lay [...] before, for what he hath done by his owne election and choyce will declare vnto vs; what great performance we may expect [...] his hands, when an other may have the liberty to point out his taske.

And first he beginneth with their denyall of subjection [...] the Roman Sea &c.

This is the first [...]; and agreat one, and (as he tells vs) was beg [...] by Iohn of Constantinople, and he there [...]pon severally contradected by Gregory the great, and by Pelagius in his epistle &c. Reply pag. [...]

Here are two [...] fashood [...] by this Iesuite in this particular supposed and [...].

First, that [...] ages before [...] of Constantinople his [...], the Bishop of [...] [...] in their sence was v­niversally acknowledged. Secondly, that this controver­sie betwi [...] [...] Gregory was about the denyall of Papall [...]. [...]oth which shalbe [...] to be notori­ously vntrue. For the first [...] the Iesuite orderly procee­ded, he should have proved the Roman Bishop the Mo­narch of the Church, by vniversall confent, before hee should have questioned the Greeke Church, for the deny­all thereof; and that his Monarchy [...] consist not in mat­ter [Page 60] of outward glory and precedency, but of spirituall re­gency and power: for els how could they deny, what was never established or consented vnto by the Catholicke Church, or any famous or glorious member of the same. And further in manifesting the falshood of his supposi­tion, you may conceive, it is impossible to [...] the anci­ent testimonies i [...] [...], that the fathers denyed this spirituall and divine regency of the Roman Bishops, be­cause they never assumed or exercised it: yet all those steps whereby they laboured to ascend vnto this spirituall height, were ever resisted in all times and ages.

For in the first place their attempt of divine derivation of this power is cast off by their owne. Cusa [...]us Cusanus de Concord: cath: lib 2. cap. 13. is so far from giving the Bishop of Rome this spirituall eminency by divine Canon that he denieth it to have beene granted vnto him by any Canon of the Church, and proveth it to have beene onely brought in by cōmon vse & custome. And surely what priviledges the Bishops of Rome enioyed a­bove their brethren (which were far from that oecume­nicall spirituall regency Turrecrem: d. 2 [...]. Constanti­no. Consistebat. hic honor in hoc videlicet quod ad locum in fedendo pri­mo post Rom: [...]oat. & in re­sponsionibus haberet secun­dam vocem, & in subscriptio­nibus., or papall omnipotency) the Councell of Chalcedon Chalced: con­cil. act. 16. Et [...] ­ [...]im [...] [...]nio­ris Romae prop­ter imperium civitatis illius patres conse­quenter privile­gia teddiderum atributed to the guift of their fa­thers; which fathers we may coniecture Pius Aeneas Sylv. epist. 301. the second thought to be the fathers assembled in the Nicene Coun­cell, as Marsilius Defens. pa. 2. cap. 1 [...], Patavinus hath plainely declared.

Now all practises of insurrection to gaine this vniver­sall regency, either before or after they received this li­mited honour of sitting and subscribing first were ever re­sisted by the Catholicke Bishops, as by this one instance wilbe sufficiently cleared.

The Bishops of Rome did many timesstrive, that the fi­nale judicium next to the determination of a [...]cell (for a Papa Concil Con­stan. sess 4. [...]. Consil. Basil. sess 2. Idem assent Cardinal Cameracensis, Ioannes Gerson, Iacobus Al­mainus, Nicolaus Cusanus, [...]anori [...]itan Cardinal: [...], [...], & alii teste Bellarmin d concil. [...] lib. cap. 14. supra was never dreamed of in primitive times) should depend vpon thē in matters (not of faith, which [Page 61] they never pretended authority to declare) but of fact; & this Cyprian Lib. 1. epist. 3. Nam cùm statutū sit om­nibus nobis & aequum sit pa­riter & justum, vt vniuscujus (que) causa illic au­diatur vbi est crimen admis­sum, & singuli [...] pastoribus [...] ­tio gregis sit adscripta, quam regat v­nusquis (que) & guber [...]e [...] rati­onem sui actus Domino reddi­turus; oporter vti (que) cos qui­bus prae su [...]s n [...] circumcur­fare, nec Epis­coporum con­cordiam cohae­re [...] suâ sub­dolâ & fallaci temeritate col­lidere, sed agere illic causam su­am, vbi & ac­cusatores habe­re & testes sui criminis possū [...] nisi si paucis desperatis. & perditis minor videtur esse auctoritas Episcoporum in Africa consti [...]utorum, qui iam de illis judicave­runt, et eorum c [...]scientiam multi [...] delictorum laqueis vinctam judicij sui nuper gravita­te damnârunt. I am caus [...] co [...] cognita est, iam de eis dicta sententia est, nec censur [...] congruit sacerdo [...]um mobilis at (que) in constantis animi levitate reprehendi, cum Domi­nus doceat et dicat: sit sermo vester, est, est, non, non. resisteth, as savouring of usurpation, shew­ing vpon what poore grounds, this practise dependeth, e­ven vpon the judgment of a few desperat & graceless people, who were of opinion, that Bishops were vnequall in their authority: wherevpon the Bishops laboured to restraine these busie-bodies, by lawfull remedy in Councels after­wards as may be collected from the sixt Councell of Car­thage Epistol. concil: Aphricani ad Cae­lest: vrbis Romae Episcopum., & the 8th generall Councell held at Constantinople can. 26..

Secondly, the Iesuite doth falsly point out the Patriarch to deny Papall height, or their spirituall monarchy; for the Popes at that time pretended nothing of that nature, and therfore he could not d [...]ny, that which was never affirmed.

It is true, that Iohn could not be content to enjoy the pri­viledges of his predecessors given him by the Councels of Constantinople and Chalcedon, but that he would be more, the onely Bishop, and vniversall Patriarch: yet that he de­nyed the honour of the Bishop of Rome, no more then the other Pat [...]iarchs, Gregory Epistol: 36. will cleare, in regard he lamen­teth their losse as much as his owne.

Neither is there any thing urged by this Iesuite, that proveth the point of denyall of this Top-gallant of Pa­pall vsurpation, and therefore we may well reject it as to no purpose; For why should Gregory by this, thinke the Patriarchall Sees in their Priviledges violated, if that Papal pride had only bin contradicted by Iohn of Constantinople? Secondly, he assumeth, that their den [...]al of prayer for the dead, was begun by Acrius & contradicted by Augustine & Epiphan. 1. This is boldnes and impudency in the Iesuite to charge the Greek Church to follow that Hereticke, whom they have & do in their practise vtterly abdicate & condemne.

2. He speaketh not any thing to the purpose, for Acrius did never crosse prayer for the dead▪ in the sence that the Greeke Church doth at this time, for they deny prayers for soules in Purgatory Cocci [...] [...] 2. lib. 7 art. 5. (pag. 846.) Gr [...]ci ac Mus­ [...]vitae, etsi fu­ne [...]re sacrum [...], tamen Purgatorium Purg [...]o [...]ium. [...]. art. 1 [...] co [...] Luthe [...] G [...]is ad [...]unc usque diem non est cre­ditum Pur­gatorium esse., which the ancient Church [...] ne­ver dreamed of, nor Aerius ever opposed: but that He­reticke denyed the Commemoration and prayer for the Saints departed, vsed by the ancient Church, which had no relation to Purgatory flames, or soules pretended to be punished there, as willbe seen in handling of the point; and for this, and not the other, was he condemned of he­reticall rashnes. So that the Iesuite is mistaken, framing an answere to that which was not required at his hands, and therefore we desire him to rec [...]llect his thoughts, & tell vs, what person among the Greekes did first deny prayer for soules out of Purgatory, or els he saith nothing to the demaund.

In the third place he tells vs, their defence of marriage of Preists was contradicted against Theodorus by Chrysostome, g Ro [...]en [...]. ibid: Legat, qui ve­lit, Graecorum veterum com­mentarios, & nullum, quan­tum opin [...], aut quam [...]arissi mum de Pur­gatori [...] se [...] [...]em inveniet: sed neque La­ [...]i [...]i sim [...]l om­nes ac sensim hujus [...]i veri­tatem concepe­runt. and against certaine other by Epiphanius h [...]r. 59.

And here the Iesuite without doubt is gravelled, for that which before he saith is notorious, he cannot here lay downe; he saith it was contradicted against Theodorus, &c. but he doth not tell vs that Theodorus was the first who brought that into the Church; neither speaketh hee one syllable of the person, time and place, in what manner this supposed Heresie of Preists marriage was brought in.

But if we can proove this an Heresie as ancient as the Apostles time, as the Church of the Iewes; that the insti­tution thereof is divine. Surely, they were asleepe, that were watch-men in the Church, or else the contradiction hereof had not beene left to their opposall mentioned by the Iesuite.

And to verify this; the two last assertions neede not proofe, it being plaine to every man that God instituted marriage without restraint in Paradise Gen 2. [...]2., and Preists, and [Page 63] Levites His enim cum [...]aeteris omnibus jus connubii jam inde ab initio fuit, vndè scrip­tum est 19, Iu­dicum, Vir Le­vites habitans in monte Ephra im, accepit uxo­rem de Bethle­em Iuda, & Ioiada Ponti­fex ex tribu Le­vi in v [...]rem habuit [...]esa­beth sororem Ahoziae regis Iudae. 22. 2. Pa. ralip. in after-time [...] vsed that lawfull [...]emedy, as well as [...]ai [...]s.

And for the Apostles practise, that they had wives, Cle­mens Alexandr: Clem: Alex: Strom: lib [...]. Philippus au­tem [...] quo­que suas [...] tradidit. E [...] Paulus quidem certè non vere­tur in quadam epistola suam appella [...]e con­jugem, quam non circum [...] ­rebat, quòd non magno ci esset [...]pus [...]inisterii. & in a manner all antiquity doth averte. Neither doth Bellarmine Lib. 1. de Clericis cap. 20. deny it; for if he did, how could he charge the Apostles, postquam vocati à Christo fuerunt, to doe that, which hee can never proove to have beene done, viz: officio conjugali renunciásse, seeing the Apostle testifieth the contrary: 1. Cor. 9. 5. and the Canons of the Apostles Carran: sum: Co [...]c: ca [...]. 5. Episcopus aut presbyter v [...]rem propriam nequaqu [...] sub ob [...]n [...] religionis ab [...]iciat, Si vero rejecerit, excommu [...]icetur: sed si perseveraverit, dejieiatur. and Concil: Gangrens: Caran: sum: cone: can: 4. Quicunque discernit à presbytero qui uxorem habuit, quòd non oporteat co ministrante de oblatione percipere, anathema sit. expresse their distaste of such practises; the first inhibiting Preists sub obten [...] reli­gionis to put away their wives; the other, the people for the like cause to contemne their ministration.

But if hee maketh Chrysostome and Epiphanius to re­proove this errour or heresie in Theodorus and certaine o­thers, as the first opposers of necessity of Preists their single lives; Alphonsus de Castro Advers: hae [...] lib. 13. De Sacerdo: haer: 4. may learne, that Lu­ther is not Hujus haeresis primus author. And Innocent the third might have received instruction, (if he had had but as wise Councell as this Iesuite) that before the time of Theodorus Monachus, the Orientall Church did receive the vow of continency, at least virtually, (which this holy fa­ther Titul: de Cler: con: cap: cum olim, cit: ibid: per Alphon de Castro. could not finde out) and that it was first opposed by him.

And how shall wee give credit to their compilers of Councels, in their other narrations, when Gratian in this particular is casheered by this Iesuite, as an Ignoramus, or a pettie observer? for he telleth vs, that Distinc. [...]. cap. syracusanae cit: ibid: per Alphon: de Castro. Orientalis Eccle­sia non susc [...]pit votum castitatis.

Surely the Iesuite saith in effect, that Innocent the Fa­ther, and Gratian and Alphonsus de castro the sonnes, were children in these affirmations, and did not wisely observe precedent times; for if they had, they should have found Preists to have beene restrained either by law or vowe, vntill Chrysostome and Epiphanius their time, when Theodorus Monachus and some others did onely oppose this doctrine.

But Chrysostome was not so affected to oppose the mar­riage of Preists or Bishops; as may appeare in his second Homile vpon the first chapter of the Epistle to Titus tom: 4. Obstruere prorsusintendit [...]reticorum ora, qui nuptias damount, often dens eam rem culpa carere, immò ita esse pretiosam vt cum ipsa etiam possit quispia [...] ad sanctum e­piscopatus soli­um subvehi. whatsoever he thought of Monks.

And for Epiphanius, as he contradicted the marriage of Preists; so did many Priests in his time practise the same, as is confessed by himselfe. Epiph haer. 5 [...].

He tels vs, also their denyall of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the father and the sonne, was begunne, and gainesayed a­bout Anno 764. as witnesseth our Adversary Keckermanus in System. Theolog. pag. 68. Reply pag 10 [...]Pag. 9.

The Iesuite promised s, out of the learned workes of their moderne Catholick writers, to shew vs in what Bishops dayes these differences did first arise: but yet heere, he is willing to imbrace the testimony of their Adversary Keckerman, and for necessity we presume, because he can have little e­vidence elsewhere. Whereby we may see how convin­cing a rule that is, which is taken from person, time, and place, to detect Heresie, and errour: when as our Iesuite cannot by these circumstances point out from the evi­dence of good stories, the prime Greekish errour, for which they pretend A. C. his true Relations, pag. 49. principally to cast off the Greeke Church, and to make it hereticall.

But if Keckerman be observed, he saith not much to the purpose, for which the Iesuite hath produced him; for whereas a set time, a set place, a notorius person, ought to have beene produced, Keckerman for time, brings the whole compasse of 764 yeares pag. 6 [...]. annis post Christ [...] natum 764., the age of along-liued [Page 65] Pope; and for the person, the Iesuite nameth him not: and for the place where this errour received birth, if the Iesu­ite will have vs to conceive the Greeke Church, the place is as much extended, as the time, as containing a larger circuite (vnlesse he hop over to their new plantations of America) then the Roman Catholick Church,

And heere let the Iesuite either confesse, that he vnder­stood not his Adversary; or plead guiltie of wilfull a bu­sing his author. For Keckerman never sayd, that the Greek Church denyed the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father; neither doth he appoint the yeare, when their denyall of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Sonne was begunne and gainsayed. And therefore wee must conceive hee read this Author with a squint eye, and a corrupt minde, when he maketh him to point at the time for the beginning of this errour, to bee about anno 764. it being plaine, that this opinion had ground in the Church, long before, even in the judgment of this Author Ibid. cited by him­selfe.

In the next repeated errour of the Greekes, hee mix­eth Papists and Protestants, and yet both put toge­ther; they are not able to shew the distinct time, with­out a circum circa, and turne about, for so hee expresseth it.

The denyall of vnleavened bread in celebration of the Sa­crament, was begunne about anno Domini 1053. as ap­peareth by Leo the 9. in his Epistle to Michael Bishop of Constantinople. Reply pag. 10

The Iesuite hath produced nothing but vanity for the finding the beginning of this notorious heresie. For Leo the 9. saith no such thing, viz: that Michael was the first, that broached this errour, neither doth he cite the first au­thor of it▪ For it cannot follow, because Michael did op­pose the Azymes used in the Latin Church, about the yeare 1053. therefore about that age it did beginne. For that Pa­triarch charged the Church of Rome with other practises, [Page 66] quod Sabbat a quadrage [...]m [...] observ [...] [...], quod suffo­cata comederunt gentiliter, & quod [...] tantùm in Paschate, nunquam vero in quadragesimali tempore decanta­rent Brovius in anno 1653.. All which I thinke you will not say, were first di­stasted by Michael at that time.

The Iesuitè runneth from his path, and vainely without any relation to the thing in controversie, telleth vs, that the Greeke Church doth vehemently professe to detest the Protestants Religion Reply pag: 10. &c. Wherein we have no reason to beleive him, in regard he bringeth not any particular out of the Authors cited by himselfe, to convince the same▪ which I make no question but hee would have done, if they had fairely offered it vnto his hands.

Secondly, there would not be that freindly entercourse betwixt some of the Patriarchs of the Greeke Church, and our Bishops, as there is; neither would they have sent their Preists, to our Vniversities for instruction, omitting yours which are nearer to them; neither would the Gre­cians that are amongst vs, frequent our Chappels & Chur­ches, when they avoyd yours: if they conceived them e­qually polluted, or held vs in equall detestation Concil▪ Late­ran: 4. sub In­no. 3. apud Bin. c. 4. In tantum Graeci coepe­runt abomina­ri Latinos, quod inter a­lia quae in de­rogationem [...] in [...] committe­ [...] si quando sacerdotes La­tini super co­rum celebrâs­sent altaria­non prius ipsi sacrificare vo lebant in illis, quam ea tan­quam per hoc inquinata la­vissent. Bapti­ [...]atos etiam à Latinis, & ipsi Graeci rebaptizare ausu re­merario praesu­mebant, & ad­huc (sicut ac­cepimus) qui­dam agere hoc non verentum. with [...]selves.

Neither doe they differ from vs in the fundamentall points of Doctrine, we giving them (as we ought) a cha­ritable interpretation; although in some of the points in the Iesuites Catalogue, taken from the Divines of Wittem­berge, they may be censured somewhat to savour of super­stition and errour.

And that it may appeare, whether the Greeke Church doth most favour Papists or Protestants, I will insert here a Confession of faith of Cyrill, Patriarch of Constantinople, translated into English, and published at London 1629. An other translation whereof, I have seene, vnder which is written;

This Copy hath beene translated out of the origi­nall, made done by the hands of the most reverend Pa­triarch [Page 67] Cyrill, which I know well. The writing it selfe being in my hands, and having examined it my owne selfe, I doe testifie that it doth agree with it word for word.

Corneille Hague, Embassadour of the vnited Pro­vinces of the Low-Countreyes, at the gate of the Grand Seig­nour.


VEE beleive one God Almightie and infinite, three in Persons, the Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost; the Father vnbegotten, the Sonne begotten of the Father before the World, consubstantial with the Father: the Holy Ghost procee­ding from the Father by the Sonne, having the same of­sence with the Father and the Sonne. wee call these three Persons in one essence, the Holy Trinity, ever to bee bles­sed, glorified, and to bee worshipped of every creature.

Wee beleive the Holy Scripture to bee given by God, to have no other Authour but the Holy Ghost, which wee ought vndoubtedly to beleive: for it is written, Wee have a mere sure word of Prophecy, to the which [...]ee doe well to take [...]eede, as to a light shining in a [Page 68] darke place. Besides, we beleive the authority thereof to be aboue the authority of the Church. It is a farre diffe­rent thing for the Holy Ghost to speake and the tongue of man, for the tongue of man may through ignorance erre, deceiue, and bee deceiued: but the Word of GOD neither deceiueth, nor is deceiued, nor can erre, but is alwayes infallible and sure.

Wee beleiue that the best and greatest GOD hath predestinated his Elect vnto glorie before the begin­ning of the World, without any respect vnto their workes, and that there was no other impulsiue cause to this election, but onely the good will and mercy of God. In like manner before the world was made hee hath rejected whom hee would: of which act of repro­bation, if you consider the absolute dealing of God, his will is the cause; but if you looke vpon Gods orderly pro­ceeding, his justice is the cause, for God is mercifull and Iust.

Wee beleive that one GOD in Trinity, the Fa­ther, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, to bee the Creator of all things visible and invisible: Inuisible things wee call the Angels, visible things the Heauens and all things vnder them. And because the Creator is good by nature, hee hath created all things good, and cannot doe any evill: and if there bee any euill, it proceedes from the Diuell and man: for it ought to bee a certaine rule to vs, that GOD is not the Author of evill, neither can sinne by any just reason bee imputed to him.

Wee beleiue that all things are governed by GODS Prouidence, which wee ought rather to adore then search into, sith it is beyond our capacity, [Page 69] neither can wee truely vnderstand the reason of it from the things themselves; in which matter wee suppose it better to embrace silence in humilitie, then to speake many things which doe not edi­fie.

Wee beleive that the first man created by God, fell in Paradise, because neglecting the Commaundement of God, hee yeelded to the deceitfull counsell of the Serpent: from thence sprung vp originall sinne to his posterity, so that no man is borne according to the flesh, who doeth not beare this burthen, and feele the fruits of it in his life.

Wee beleive that IESVS CHRIST our Lord hath made himselfe of no accompt, that is, hath assumed mans nature into his owne Subsistence▪ that he was con­ceived by the Holy Ghost, that hee was made Man in the Wombe of Mary alwayes a Virgin, was borne and suffe­red death, was buryed and glorified by his resurrection, that hee brought salvation and glory to all beleivers, whom wee looke for to come to judge both quicke and dead.

Wee beleive that our Lord IESVS CHRIST sit­teth at the right hand of his Father, and there maketh intercession for us, executing alone the office of a true and lawfull Preist and Mediator: and from thence hee hath a care of his people, and governeth his Church, adorning and enriching her with many blessings.

Wee beleive that without Faith, no man can bee saved▪ but that wee call Faith, which in CHRIST IESVS justifieth, which the life and death of our Lord IESVS CHRIST procured, the Gospell published, [Page 70] 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 st [...]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 [Page 71] 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 [Page 72] 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, [Page 73] 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 bless [...]dnesse, or in damnation, according as every [Page 74] 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 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.

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. 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. [Page 76] 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. 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. [...], 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 Apost [...]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 [Page 77] after the said Councel could not lawfully be called in quèstiō. 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 †, Ʋalentia, if by the choysest. Why shallf 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 ro [...]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 Carran. in sum: Concil [...] can. 59. performe their obligatiō but in the repetition of the Canon, leave the book of Iudith to be placed amōgst the Apocrypha, not acknowledging it the more authenticke, for that imaginary decree mentioned by the Iesuit? Besides, there is no questiō, but the denyal of those books of the new testamēt were blameworthy, else [Page 78] Epiphanius Har. 51. 75. would not have charged the Alogi with He­resie, for denying the Revelation of St Iohn.

The most learned Answerer goeth further to expresse the blindnes of this Rule to finde out Heresie by.

Gregorius de Ʋalentia, one of your principall Champions, doth confesse that the vse of receiving the Sacrament in one kind, began not by the Decree of any Bishop, but the very vse of the Churches, and the consent of the faithfull. To which the Iesuite maketh Reply.

And is not that vse of the Churches and Consent of the faithfull, a sufficient warrant, I pray you, to cleere it from the odious tearme of Sacriledge, wherewith you vnadvisedly doe stile it. Reply pag. 12

And here, if that which the Iesuite doth insinuate, were granted for truth, it were no sufficient warrant against CHRISTS institution; but that justly it might bee styled Sacriledge, even as the Answerer hath done.

What brought in the high places in Israel? doe you sup­pose, they were erected by any decree of Councell? or o­therwise? if not so! then by the Consent and practise of the Israelites? and yet I doubt not, but you will style that sinne Sacriledge, or as bad: vnlesse you thinke it piety to keepe backe from the temple, what GOD had appointed for his service there. Compare the omission of a typicall sacrifice, with the removing of one of the Sacramentall expressions of Christ his death and passion instituted by himselfe: and then judge which deserveth the baser Epithite.

But if you further question with Valentia, when first did that Custome get footing in some Churches? he returneth you for Answere, (saith the most reverend Primate,) Minimè constat, it is more then he can tell.

1. And yet (saith our Iesuite) hee largely and learnedly there proveth, even by the expresse word of God, that it was vsed in the Apostles times &c. Reply pag. 12

Did he attempt it? his learning was exercised without [Page 79] his conscience: Did he prove it? the Iesuite saith so: but I will thinke him worthy to be Generall of his Order, if hee can doe either the Pope or the Diuell so much service, as to perswade the world to beleive the same.

2. Ʋpon which vse the ensuing Customer, which got foo­ting in some particular Churches, were grounded. Reply pag. 12

This is as true as their new Creed: for who will say, that Ʋalentia knew the ground, vpon which this Custome was received in some particular Churches, that hath his Minimè constat, his know not wh [...], for the Person, that brought it in?

3. The Councell of Const [...]ce from this chaine (viz. Cu­stomes so grounded) and other good reasons made it a la [...] &c. ibid▪

True it is, that your [...] Orbis, or Catholicke world never received it before; and he that readeth their law, must see, that wilfulnes and not reason perswaded it. For first they have a non obst [...]e for Christs institution. Second­ly, they reject the Primitive practise Concil: Con­stan. sess: 13. a­pud Bin: Licet Christus post coenam institu­erit, & suis dis­cipulis admini­straverit sub v­trâ (que) specie pa­nis & vini hoc venerabile sa­cramentum, ta­men hoc non obstante: &c. licet in primiti­va Ecclesia hu­jusmodi sacra­mentum recipe­retur a fidelibus sub vtrâque specie &c.. Thirdly, they are forced to invent or confirme the poore deceitfull Couse­nage of Concomitancy. And all to make good this faith ne­ver heard of before.

Further, what needed that to be made a law at Constance which Gods expresse word hath declared to be the vse and practise of the Apostles times? how could that come into the Church by degrees, which was brought in first by them that converted the whole Catholicke Church? How ordained in the first Councell of Ephesus, about a thou­sand yeares before the said Synode of Basil &c. if but made [...] law from Customes so grounded onely at Constance?

And now let Mr Malone consider how far he slideth [...]rom that he ought to aime at, the wisdome of his inter­ [...]gation: and let him also apprehend, how he is forced by [...]ecessity to seeke protection from the Apostles, omitting [...]mpora intermedia; which they scorne in vs. And I could [...]kewise wish him not to be vnmindefull how this Coun­cell [Page 80] doth [...] Antiq [...]ty, which he so much desires to magnify and defend. But if none of these considerations may worke any mutation in him▪ let him vse his Ʋrbanus Regius Cited by the Iesuite ibid., who for my part I know not, neither will be­lieve, if hee were ever so prime a Doctour, that should fa­sten so false a calumny on the Ephesi [...] Councell.

But grant the Iesuit all that he desires, which is to make his Doctrine of receiving in one kinde, as auncient as the Councell of Constance: for opposition of their Decree wee are able to produce the Bohemian [...] not long af­ter.

Gregorius de Ʋalentia, (saith the most reverend Pri­mate In the an­swere to the Ie­suites challenge pag. 3. 4.) confesseth that it is more th [...]n he can tell, when the Custome of receiving the Sacrament in one kinde began in some Churches. The like doth Fisher and Cai [...]tan giue vs to vnderstand of Indulgences, that no certainty [...] be had, what their originall was, or by whom they were first brought in. Fisher also further addeth concerning Purgatory: that in the auncient Fathers, there is either [...]none at all, or very rare mention of it▪ that by the Grecians it is not beleived even to this day, that the Latines also, not all at once▪ but by little and little received it: and that, Purgatory being so lately knowne, it is not to be marvailed, that in the first times of the Church there was no vse of Indulgences; seeing these had their beginning, after that men for a while had beene af­frighted with the torments of Purgatory. Out of which confession of the adverse part you may observe: 1▪ What little reason these men have, to require vs to set downe the precise time▪ wherein all their prophane novelties were first brought in; seeing that this is more then they themselves are able to doe. 2. That some of them may come in podetentim (as Fisher acknowledgeth Purgatory did) by little and little, and by very slowe steppes, which are not so easie to be discerned, as fooles bee borne in hand they are. 3. That it is a fond imagi­nation, to suppose that all such changes must be made by some B [...]or any one certaine author: whereas it is confessed, th [...] [Page 81] some may come in by the tacite cōsent of many, & grow after into a generall custome, the beginning whereof is past mans memory.

Here the Iesuite observes first want of Truth, when he saith that we required him to set downe the precise time, wherein all our prof [...] novelties were brought in: &c Reply pag. 1 [...].

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? 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 Ʋalentia cannot tell therefore none else can tell 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, Ʋalentia, 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 cānot find out the time when these Customes &c. were first brought in, it is a vehemēt, if not a violent presūption, that poore Punies cannot finde that out. If a Sheriffe, that hath posse Cōmitatus [Page 82] returne non est inventus vpō a persō; a Catchpole will scarse find out the fugitive. And I thinke it is good logick, for I am sure it is good reasō, that if Fisher, Caietan, & Valentia cannot tell, this Iesuite (as he hath done) may well hold his peace. Yet here is more logick, thē the Iesuite [...] see, or at least, thē he hath observed; for Valentia saith minimè cōstat, it doth not appeare, whē that Custome of receiving the sacra­mēt in one kind did first get footing in some Churche; Fisher & C [...]ietan say that no certainty can be had, by whō Indulgences were first brought in, or what was their original 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 Reply pag. 13.

Here is impudēcy would make an Ethiop blush; for what can be more fowle, thē to fastē those things vpō this most reverend Lord, which, he never intended, neither can bee collected frō his wordes? But the Iesuite frames argumēts, that he may with more facility answer thē; the most reve­rend Primates are not so easily digested: That which hee collecteth frō 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. Secōdly, 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▪ [...].

Which observatiō 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 whē first that infectiō did get footing in some Provinces. Doth it not necessarily follow that all men must be ignorant when the Contagiō or Leprosie first infected the Empyre? So that if this Iesuite had framed his argumēt 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 Sacramēt 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 thē your selves can do to tell whē this custome got footing in the Church at all: And further if Valentia did cōtradict 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, whē as both Fisher & Caie­tan ground thē 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 Reply pag. 13.

Here the Iesuite is drivē to the like inventiō, for the lear­ned Answerer maketh no such inferēce: His intentiō 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 [Page 84] alone but all your other after-byrthes also yet proveth thē 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 wilbe 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 were first brought in, whether by Balaam or an Apostle, though the Iesuite & his fellowes could pro [...]e it by Apocrypha to be as auncient as the towre of Babe [...], it wilbe prophane and new in the opinion of any Christian iudgment and vnder­standing still.

And here it is not to be omitted, how the Iesuite flyes to (that which they cōtemne in us,) the sacred scriptures, de­serting the successiō of this article of glorious Romā faith, suspecting the fathers so much boasted of by him, to prove it of universall beleife: must we be urged then in reason to tell you, at what time Purgatory and Indulgences were first brought into the Church; whēas the Greeke Fathers seldome mentioned Purgatory, & never received it Ro [...]ens. ar. 18. Graecis ad hunc vs (que) diem non est credi­tum Purgato­rium esse., when some of the Latine apprehended it not Ibid. Sed ne (que) Latini simul omnes ac sen­sim hu [...]us rei veritatem con­ceperunt.; when sometime it was vn­knowne Ibid. Ali­quandiu Pur­gatorium in cognitum., and but lately knowne to the Church Ibid: Sero cognitum ac receptum Ecclesiae fuerit v­niversae.; when it got strength pedetentim, by little & little, & not from scriptures or fathers interpreting them onely, but partly ex revelatio­nibus Ibid., by some whisperer in a trunke, or a worse Gipsy?

But if these notable points in the opiniō of Valentia, Cai [...] ­tan, & Fisher, had their original frō Christ & his Apostles, the word of God; why should the Iesuit desire any other medium to examine the truth of their report, but their own levell?

The word of God is sufficient to canonize these of faith, could you but finde them delivered there; But we are sure of your disability herein, vnlesse you fly vnto the ayde of your pro ratione voluntas your will-guiding Interpreter.

And the Iesuit might have forborn to charge the Answerer with untruth, in regard he but only repeats Fisher & Caietans [Page 85] opinions; and the Iesuite himselfe thus farre jumpeth with them, that there is some uncertainty, when first their vse be­gan, Besides, I would gladly know, whether the word of God (without succession) be able to point us out the cer­taine original of the Doctrine of faith? if it be, what will be­come of his demaund? if it be not, where findeth he the vn­truth, that he doth falsly charge the Answerer withall▪

Finally, Because Fisher affirmeth that the knowledge of Pur­gatory came in pedetentim, by little & little, therefore it ought not to be admitted, nor esteemed. For by the same Logick he may prove, that S. Iames his epistle ought not to be admitted for Canonicall Scripture, because (as S. Hierome Paulatim tempore pro­cedente meruit authoritatem. Hieron. de vi­tis illust. verbo Iecobus. doth wit­nesse) by little and little, in processe of time, it obtained autho­rity & credit Reply pag. 13:

This is another brat of the Iesuites begetting, let him fo­ster it: the most learned Answerer concludeth no such thing but shewes that this profane Novelty crept pedetentim like a snaile to the height of Papall faith, and therefore is not easy to be discerned. But the Iesuite had a great mind to make vse of Ierome's words, and without a forged preparation hee was not able to bring them in. Yet as he vrgeth them, there is great difference betweene these two instances; For the Epistle of S. Iames was first received by the Catholike Church Eusebius a­pud Sixt. S [...] ­nens: Bibl. Sanct: lib. 7. haer. 9. No [...] ta­men scimusi­stam (epistol [...]m Iacobi) cum caeteris ab om­nibus Ecclesijs recipi▪, though doubted of by some particular members thereof Sixtu [...] Senens: ibid. Nec ita perperàm se­quentia verba Hieronymi in­terpretanda sunt, ut ex his—dedueamus, Epistolam hanc, vel temporum successu, vel Ecclesiae di [...] ­ [...]imulatione divinam factam, & Ia [...]obo ascriptam cum tadis ipsa non esset. (hoc enim impossibile prorsus est) sed sic potius juxta veram Hieron mi mentem exponenda sunt, quod Epistolam hanc, de qua primum inter ALIQVOS ambigebatur, an divino spi­ritu, & a [...] ab Apostolo Iacobo scripta esset, Ecclesia Christi paulatim tempore proce­dente [...]mperit esse veram, et canonicam, etipsi [...]s Iacobi germanam.; But Purgatory was not received (so far as they can manifest) but by degrees, in particular Churches only & ne­ver (at the best) esteemed as of faith, but among Romanists.

Secondly, Purgatory partim ex revelationibus, came to be beleived of some particular Churches, when the Epistle of S. Iames from the worth & divine light that was in it selfe meruit authoritatem got authority, not in the Catholicke, [Page 86] but amongst those doubting Churches which had not re­ceived it. So that heere is the difference of paulatim and pedetentim: S. Iames his Epistle was knowne and received by the Catholicke Church, and did by degrees remove the jealousie of those particular Churches, that suspected it. Purgatory being vnknowne at sometime to the Catholick Church (which must either be in the Apostles dayes, or never, vnlesse this point were more vnhappy, then any o­ther point of Doctrine,) got to be knowne afterwards in the Roman Church, not from Scriptures, which knew it not, but by revelations, and tales of a Ghost.

When our Answerer then &c. doth demand of us, whence tho foresaid points of Purgatorie, Indulgences, & Communion in one kind, have their Originals, we can shew, even out of the ve­ry authors alledged by himselfe, that they have their Originals from the institution of our Lord, howsoever it be granted that there is some uncertainty, when first began their publique and frequent use. Reply pag. 13

What doth the Iesuite get by this? he affordeth us mat­ter sufficient to prove his Demaund idle: For first, what little reason hath he to aske, What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion, which wee commend in them of the first 400. yeares, and In what Pope his dayes was the true Religi­on overthrowne in Rome: when they themselves are forced to distinguish in regard of time, the practise of their faith, from the person that instituted the Doctrine thereof; con­fining this vnto the age of Christ, acknowledging the o­ther to have beene brought into the Roman Church, they know not when [...] con­stat.?

Secondly, what ground hath the Iesuite & the rest of his profession, to require the circumstances of person, time, and place to find out heresies by; but because the true auncient faith hath beene ever continued in the Church by perpe­tuall succession, being beleived & practised therein with­out interruption? And yet here our Adversaries confesse, that a doctrine may be taught by Christ, & yet never pra­ctised [Page 87] in the immediate following times; but as a thing forgotten begin in particular Churches after the Aposto­lick times, and from thence slyde into the Roman (never into the Catholick) at such a time which they are not able to designe unto us without some uncertainty 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. 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 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, [...]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 i [...] all their profession, wee cannot sh [...]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 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 inveni [...]mus innumerabiles rationes [...] & dark­nes. [Page 88] 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 Answer to the Fisher catched in his own n [...]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 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 preci [...]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 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 Reply ibid▪.

Gods grace assisteth truth, not herefie; the breath of his [Page 89] 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 Reply ibid..

But he hath left the most learned Primate's answere, (not because a fogge, but) because the light thereof of­ [...]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 hi [...] 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 frō the holy comandement given them 1. Pe [...] [...]. 21. &c. [Page 90] 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 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 disadvantage.

Secondly, it is acknowledged by your owne that a long time after S. Peters death, Preist and People communicated together; Vasq. disp. 216. cap. 3. Negare non possumusetiam in Ecclesia La­tina fuisse vsum vtrius (que) speci­ci, & vs (que) ad tempora Sancti Thomae du­rasse. and therefore your assignement of lacke of De­votion, should have followed the Devotion of the people, and not have run vp to the Apostolicall times, before they perfectly knew the faith. So that the most learned Answe­rer hath no need of your parenthesis, but when this generall decay of Devotion is declared by you, he will then be able to tell you, when your private masse began.

But howsoever the Iesuite halts in this, yet he saith, Wee can tell him without chance or doubt (if he know it not alrea­dy) when, and by whom the private masse was first impugned, and reproved; which it seemeth God most wonderfully ordayned should be made knowne to posterity by the very confession of him, who was the Protoplast of Protestancy. &c. Thus then saith Luther. I will beginne to tell tales of my selfe Reply pag. 14. & 15. &c.

Doe you thinke this Hypocrite thinketh, as he speakes, that the Divell should have his part to oppose that pra­ctise, which one of their best Champions fetcheth from no other ground then lacke of Devotion of the peoples part. Hard. answer to the first ar­ticle of Iuells challenge, fol. 26. A kingdome divided against it selfe cannot stand: Mat. 12. 25. if the Divell resiste his servants, or his servants the Divell, then farewell Popery.

But what reason have we to beleive any thing, that Ie­suites, or other Papalines Nic. 1. epist. 8. §. Igitur. Quod suspecti & inimici, Iu­dices esse non debeant, ipsa ratio dictat. An Iudicium potest apud ip­sos agitari? ut ijsdem sintini­mici, Testes, & Iudices? conceive of Luther, whenas [Page 91] his beating downe of their Antichristian Pride hath filled their mouthes with abusive reportes, and their bookes with reproachfull calumnies; Bzovij An­nales Eccles: in anno 1517. Reply pag. 330 331. Cochl. vit. Lutheri. Calvino-Tur­cism: Defence of the Censure. Sect. 5. For some of them report his father to be a Divell Incubus, & his mother to be a wo­man that spent her tyme fricandis in publicis balneis homi­nibus; that before his birth like Hecuba (the mother of Pa­ris) his mother dreamed she conceived a firebrand.

They further seeke to disgrace him, making him to change his name, in regard that in certaine languages it pro­mised evill, comprehending in it the number of Antichrist, and therefore (as they say) he tooke vpon him the name of Lu­ther, which signifieth pure in the German tongue. Neither doe they onely taynt his birth, but they staine his life also, by seeking to impeach his writings, which are justified by their owne Erasm. Epist. l. 12. Alb. archi­ [...]p. & princ Mogunt Card. Illud video, ut quis (que) vir est optimus, ita il­lius scriptis mi­nime offendi [...] paulo post. Com­pertum est ab his damnata ut haeretica in li­bris Lutheri, quae in Bernar­di, Augustini (que) libris; ut ortho­doxa, imo ut pia leguntur.; his behaviour and carriage, when his life was approved by consent of all, and the integrity of his man­n [...]rs by his enimies Idem Epist. l. 11. epist. 1. Thomae Card. Hominis vita magno omni­um confensu probatur, iam id non leue praeindicium est, tantam esse morum integritatem, ut nec hostes reperiant quod calumnientur. Eras [...]mus in epistol [...] ad Freder. El [...]ct Saxon teste Hospinian▪ in histor. sacr. par. altera, pag. 5. De Martino Luth [...]ro, Nil nisi lenitatem in eo desideravit.. Neither could his death which was Christian and pious escape their calumny; some falsly re­lating, that going drunke to bed, he was found the next mor­ning dead, his body blacke, his tongue hanging out as if he had beene strangled; some imputing it to his wife, some to the Di­vell. Neither have they spared his Corpse, but report that those which carried him to his funerall, were faine to throw him in a ditch: Inventions against all truth Sleid. com. lib. 16., and straines of malice, their being no ground or reason for these infor­mations against him; and to declare that they were beyond all malice malitious, before he was dead, they invented from the father of lyes a notorious falshood which is suf­ficient to manifest, what Spirit raysed the vulgar accusati­ons against him; The whole story is related by Lonicer Theatr. pag. 246.. as followeth.

A horrible miracle, and such as was neuer heard of before, that God who for ever is to be praised, in the fowle death of [Page 92] Martin Luther, damned in body and soule, shewed for the glo­ry of Christ, and the amendment and comfort of the godly. When Martin Luther fell into his disease, hee desired the bo­dy of our Lord Iesus to be communicated to him; which having received, he died soone after. And when he saw his end ap­proach, he desired that his body might be layd on the altar, and worshipped with divine honors. But God willing at the length to make an end of horrible errors, by a huge miracle warned the people to desist from the impiety that Luther had brought in. For his body being layd in the grave, on the sudden such a tu­mult and terror arose, as if the foundation of the earth had beene shaken: Wherevpon they that were present at the funerall grew amazed with feare, and lifting vp their eyes saw the ho­ly hoast hanging in the ayre. Wherefore with great devotion they tooke it, and layed it in a holy place▪ which being done, this hellish noise was heard no more. The next night after was heard a noise & cracking about Luthers tombe, much louder thē be­fore, which waked all that were in the citty out of their sleepe, crembling & almost dead for feare. Wherefore in the morning opening the sepulcher where Luthers detestable body was lay­ed, they found neither body, nor bones, nor cloathes, but a stinke of brimstone comming out of the grave, had well-nigh killed all the standers by. By the which miracle, many being terrified, reformed their lives to the honour of the Christian faith and the glory of Iesus Christ. This fable travailing out of Italy, from whence many lyes proceed, into Germany met with Luther, from whom it received this entertain­ment.

I Martin Luther, by this my hand writing confesse and testi­fie, that vpon the 21. of March I received this fiction, concer­ning my death, as it was full of malice and madnes: and I read it with a glad minde, and a chearfull countenance, but yet detested this blasphemy, whereby a stinking lye is fathered vp­on the divine Maiesty of God. As concerning the rest, I can­not but laugh at the Divells malice, wherewith he and his [Page 93] rout, the Pope and his complices pursue mee. And God con­vert them from this divelish malice. But if this my prayer 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 tēptation, 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 thē, 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 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 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. [Page 94] Further hee makes Iudas Ibid. Vti cogi­tatio illa, quae Iudae cor per­cussit, vera, Tradidi san­guinem justum. & Caius 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 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 Histor de tri­bus Energume­nis edit. Paris­anno 1623. pag 04. Et Daemon ex ore sororis Francis [...]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 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 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 Ibid. pag. [...]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 [Page 95] the Dominicans and the Franciscans, concerning the im­maculate conception of the blessed Virgin Marie, is on both sides confirmed by revelations Wadding: Legat De Con­cept. Virg. Ma­riae, sect. 3. orat. 10. §. 4. Haec sunt quae ex D. Catharinae S [...] ­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 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 See the Iesuites Preface to the Reader and his Reply pag. 283., and Alexander of Hales 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 quando (que) accidunt humanâ procuratione & sorte Diabolicâ.)—Ad illud quod objicitur: quod caro, quae apparet, quando (que) 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 of Purgatory, Bellarmine enquires, Whether the soules therein, are sure of eternall salvation, and tells that Dionysius Carthusianus denyeth it in regard of certaine visions Bel­larm lib. 2. De Purgato cap. 4. Quidam Catholici existimant varias esse in Purgatorio poenas, & unam esse omnium maximam incertitudinem salutis, qua dicunt quasdam solùm animas multari, quae licet revera certò salvandae sint, tamen ipsas hoc ignorare▪ ita videtur [...]entire Dionysius Carthusianus ob quasdam visiones, quas ipse refert libro de 4. novissimis, ar. 47.; and yet this crosseth the opinion of their Divines Ibid. At communis Theologorum sententia est omnes animas quae in Purgatorio sunt habere certitudinem suae salutis., so that either the Divell doth teach some of their Divines, or else the troupe of their Divines resist the visions from God.

But what neede wee to runne about to finde, who hath taught Papists so much of their new faith, when they have Divells allowed Preachers, and justified to bee the mouth and instrumentall oracles Histor. de tribus Energume­nis supra citat. pag. 935. Oraculum potest a [...]cipi instrumentaliter, ut eraculum idem sit quod o [...] Spiritus sancti, & in hoc sensu sicut in creaturis insensibilibus &c▪ ita nihil ab­surdi sequitur ex hoc quod Deus facit Daemonem os suum. of the spirit of God. Yea so lively [Page 96] and zealous is Verine the Divell reported to be Ibid. pag. 797 Constat Dae­monem Veri­num multas a­ctiones fecisse in quibus Chri­sto ministravit, sanctos lauda­vit, & beatam Ʋirginem, & multa disseruit de vitijs & vir­ [...]utibus, de vitâ aeternâ, infer­no, & concilijs Evangelicis quae benè vive­ro docent. In quibus duo ad­mir [...]tione dig na concurre­bant. Primò, quod sermo ip­sius erat arde [...]s & vivens, & crediderim, quod si Ange­lus de coelo, aut Apostolorum quispiam descendisset, non potuisset aliter loqui. loquebatur enim ut po­testatem habens, & erant verba illius ut faculae ardentes, & corda illorum [...]epida inflam­mabant. Vnde qui audiebant eum, ubertini flebant, & obliviscebantur vitae prae [...]eritae, alij [...]undeb [...] pectora, alij extra se rapti, altâ vo [...] cl [...]mabant, [...]iserere Domine, Domine [...]iserere, alij vitam in melius mutaverunt, alij saeculo re [...]tiârunt. Possum dicere, quod plures audiveram in Ecclesiâ Praedicatores, viros sanctos & valdè illuminatos: & hujus comparatione, voces emortuas dixisses., that nei­ther Angell, nor Apostle could speake otherwise, praysing the saints, the blessed Virgin, disputing of vertues, vices, life eternall, hell, and Evangelicall Councells: So that some of his hearers wept, some did beate their brests, some cryed Mi­serere, some changed their lives, some entered the Cloyster; Yea so excellent is he in preaching, that the Popish Prea­chers, which were holy and illuminate, were (but like the white of an egge) without relishe if compared with him.

But will you see what Doctrines these infernall oracles be approovers of? They teach the great Doctrine of Po­pish Idolatry, by their word, and practise the adoration of the Ho [...]st Ibid pag. 3 Compulsi fuerunt duo ex dae­monibus dare gloriam & honorem Domino Iesu christo, & adoraverunt cum sub sacra Hostia verbo & gestu corporis.

Secondly, they defend the Doctrine of the Papall extent and use of the will Ibid. pag. 101 et 102. V [...]us daemonum dixit, non est qui possit h [...]mini adimere liberum arbitrium. & paula post. Et dixit unus daemonum, non vult ipsa uti suâ libertate, et si vellet uti suâ libertate, non incideret in m [...]la qu [...] commit [...]t..

Thirdly, their practise instructeth to sweare by the vene­rable Sacrament Ibid. pag. 104. Daemon—jurabat s [...]lenniter per venerabile Sacra­mentum, quòd sic res se haberet. & postea. jurav [...]t juramentum so [...]nne per venerabi­le [...]acramentum..

Fourthly, they confute the Protestants generally in the point of Antichrist,

1. That his name is not as old Irenaeus intimated, and we teach [...], but Tu es Deus coeli at (que) terrae Ibid. pag. 71. Be zebub et Leviathan dixeruat principi mo­derno, et Lodo [...]co quod nominarent cum hoc nomine, Tu es Dius coeli atque terr [...]..

2. The two beasts, Apoc. 13. and 17. are not the same. but [Page 97] the first Lucifer, the second Antichrist Ibid. pag. 94: De duabus be­stijs Apocalyp­s [...]oslocuta est in hunc mo­dum: Audivi [...] Diab [...]lo quod duarum bestia­rum quae venire habent sub fi­nem mundi, alter est Luci­f [...], alter Anti­christu [...]..

In the generation of Antichrist, see how Bellarmine and the Divell agree; Antichrist is borne of the Divell. Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. 3. cap. 12. Non esset tamen er­ror, si quis di­ceret, Antichri­stum nascitu­rum ex Diabo­lo & mu [...]ere &c. Histor. de tribus Ener­gum. pag. [...]. Nunc natus est, & non ex coi [...] viri, sed per o­perationem diaboli., His mother a Iew Bellarm. ibid. Sententia est Antichristum nasciturum de tribu Dan. Histor. de tribus energ. pag. 59 Mater ejus Iudaea est.; The Iewes will receive him as a Messias Bellarm ibid. Quòd Antichristus sit futurus Iudaeus, & circumcisus, certum est, & deducitur primùm ex dictis Nam Iud [...]i nunquam reciperent hominem non Iudaeum, aut incircumcisum pro suo Messià. Histor de tribus energ. pag. 61. Vocatur etiam Christus, Rex, Messias; He shall not raigne at Rome, but at Hierusalem Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. [...]. cap. 13. Vera sententia est, Antichristi sedem fore Hierusalem, non Romam Histor. de [...]bus Energ. pag. 59. Non ha­bitabit Romae, mater [...]jus nutrit eum; Hee shall not receive Baptisme in the Church, but bee circumcised Historia de tribus Energum. pag. 59. Non in Ecclesia nomen impositum est ei [...], neque in Ecclesia baptismum accepit. Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. 3. cap. 12. Antichristus sit futurus Iudaeus & circumci­fus., He shalbe Monarch of the whole world Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. 3. cap. [...] dicunt.—Antichristum omni [...]m Princi [...] [...] Histor. de tribus energum. pag. [...]9. Dominabitur per univer­sum [...] ad omnes perveniet principatus ejus.. Now let the Reader behold, who is most beholding to the Divell for their Doctrine, Rome, or the Catholicke Church; Antichrist, or the Protoplast of Protestancy?

And to shew us how confirmed they are to follow lyes, the Iesuite doth margine his citation against Luther with a note, The Divell alledgeth Scripture, as if it were no bet­ter then a Divelish practise to be instructed from God & his Word. I will say nothing in answere to these blasphe­mies, onely Increpet vos Deus Iude 9., the Lord rebuke every proud tongue, that dare attempt so high despight against God and his truth. The Iesuite proceedes, L [...]c heere the Divells disputation against the Private Masse, which I thought good to lay downe thus at largeReply pag. 17 [...].

Here the Iesuite beginneth to triumph, but upon what reason, the precedent discourse will declare; yet his in­tent is pious, that my poore deluded Countriman may un­derstand whither his new Masters doe leade him. Ibid.. [Page 98] The Owle might leave preaching, unlesse it be to night birds; for the Iesuite may assure himselfe, that this most re­verend Lord will never bee so deceived Ruffin. Hist. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 11. Dolis apud ignoran­tes locus est, sci­entibus vero dolum inten­dere non aliud est quam risum movere., as to be taken with his delusions, which are grounded vpon so filly a perswasion as Dabunt signa monstrous miracles, and tale-Divinity. His masters are CHRIST and his Apostles, neyther doth hee refuse the sacred Chorus of the auncient Church; these have not beene seducers, they neither delude, nor drawe into errors; they will con­sume your man of sinne; and because you feare the con­sumption, you disgrace their effects and operations, making the reading of the sacred scriptures Reply pag. 17, the cause of most horrible impieties, reviling with your tongue-prodigies GODS heavenly lampes, least they should declare your filth by their celestiall light.

The holy Sacrifice of the Masse hath triumphed in the Church of God even from the beginning, and shall continue mangre all Opposers, unto the end Reply pag. 17. &c.

If the Iesuite meane by the sacrifice of the Masse, the ad­ministration of the body and blood of Christ, whereby the sacrifice of Christs death is commemorated unto us, he hath no Adversary: For we know it was instituted by Christ and hath beene continued perpetually by the Ca­tholicke Church, even to these very times. But if hee meane, by the sacrifice of the Masse, that outward visible sacrifice made by the Preist alone, Concil: Trid. Sess: 22. cap. 6. Sacrosancta Synodus Missas illas, in quibus solus sacerdos sacramentaliter communicat, non modo non damna [...] ut illicitas, sed etiam probat atque commendat.: wherein CHRIST is pretended really to be sacrificed; this was never in the auncient Church, much lesse triumphed therein: and although the Iesuite would have it auncient, yet it was not borne in the fathers time Erasmus de concord. Eccles. versus sinem. Sunt qui in Missa comm [...]nio­nem requirant: sic, fateor, a Christo suit institutum, & ita olim consuevit observari Cas­ [...]ander Consult. art. 24. §. De iteratione, pag. 223. Certe ex tota Canonis compositione manifestè apparet, totam ill [...] [...]ysticam, in qua Canon adhibebatur, actionem vel pub­licam, vel certe inter plures semper celebratam suisse. Quod si [...]odie [...] queat, facile verus [...]ius intellectus restitui possit., but brought into [Page 99] the Church, by the decay of Devotion on the peoples part Erasmus de amab. concord. Ecclesiae. Ve­rum id quo mi­nus fiat, haud stat per sacer­dotes sed per laices, in qui­bus h [...]u nimi­um refrixit cha­ritas., which defection it hath still nourished.

The word sacrifice (indeed) was in use amongst the fa­thers▪ though Calvin thought it was abused; neither did they, or the Church of Rome, thereby hold it a reall sacri­ficing of Christ, but a commemoration of his death Lombard. Sent. lib. 4. Dist. 12. par. 2. Quaeritur. Si quod gerit sa­cerdos proprie dicatur sacrifi­cium vel im­molatio: & si Christus quoti­die immoletur, vel semel tan­tum immo­latus sit: Ad hoc breviter dici potest, il­lud quod offer­tur & conse­cratur à sacer­dote vocari sacrificium & oblationem: quia memoria est & repraesentatio ve [...]i sacrificii, & sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis. Et semel Christus mortuus in cr [...]ce est, ibique immelatus est in semetipso, quotidie autem immolatur in sacramento: quia in sacramen­to recordatio fit illius quod factum est semel., and therefore Calvin himselfe saith, that your impiety in that particular being considered with the abuse of the auncients, there would appeare betweene them and you an unmeasurable distance Calvin lib. devera Eccles. reform. ex­tat in Tractat. Theolog: Calvini &c. pag. 389. Vtrumque illis concedo veteres non m [...] ­do sacri [...]ici [...] [...]oce abuso [...] esse, sed. etiam caeremoniâ. Verum, sireputemus quantum a ve­terum corruptelâ distet quae nunc abipsis fucatur [...]pietas, immensum est ferè interval­lum., and therefore the Iesuite abuseth their adver­saries, in making them to impute that to the fathers, which they knew these never held. Whereby the Iesuit might see how vaine he is in making us to be enemies of this myste­ry, when we onely oppose their popish innovations and defiling of so sacred an institution. And whereas the Ie­suite would make Luther the first oppugner of private Masse, it is a good argument, that many were a sleepe when it first came into the Church, seeing many of themselves forced by the testimony of the auncient Fa­thers, confesse, that it was not according to the auncient use of the Church of God.

Ignatius maketh all to communicate, and all in both kindes Ignatius ad Philadelphenses Vnuspanis omnibus confractus & vnus calix, qui omnibus distributus est., in receiving of this blessed Sacrament. Chryso­stome Chrysostomus in: Cor: Homil. [...]8 Est autem ubi nihil dif­fert sacerdos à subdito, ut quando fruendum est ho [...]endis mysterijs: similiter enim om­nesut illa percipiamus digni habemur: Non ficut in veteri lege, partem quidem sacerdos comedebat, partem autem populus, & non licebat populo participer [...] esse corum quo­rum particept erat sacerdos: sed nunc non sic, verum omnibus unum corpus propon [...] & poculum [...]um; maketh Preist and People all alike. This is acknow­ledged [Page 100] to be the practise of the primitive times by Innocent the third Innocent. 3. lib. 6. Myster. Missae cap. 5. In primitiva quidem Eccle­sia singulis die­bus, qui cele­brationi Missa­rum intere­rant, communi­care solebant: sed excrescente multitudi [...]e &c, and by Durand Dur. ra [...]. l. 4. c. 53. In p [...]mitiva Ecclesiâ omnes, qui celebrationi [...]issarum inter­ [...]rant, singulis diebus commu­nicar [...] ( [...]lebant, co quòd Apo­stoli omnes de [...]alice biber [...]. Domi [...] dicen­ce, Bibite ex [...]oc [...]mnes., And to preserve pious mindes from embracing this fond perswasion of the Iesuites, that Luther first impugned Private Masse, I desire that they would consider with what impatience Chrysostome would have prosecuted the same, when he expresseth bitternes e­ven against the peoples neglect of communicating. Indeed he could not actually dispute against that which was not, yet we may cōceive by his words, how he would have ap­proved of Private Masse, if it had received being in those times: For he with vehemencie declareth, that it is in vain for the Preist to attend the Altar, where the people doe not communicate Chrysost. homil. 61. ad populum Antiochen O consuetudinem, [...] [...], [...] frustra quotidi anum. Incassum a [...]sistimus altari, nullus qui communi­cetur.. And Cassander will tell you, that this D [...] ­pravation of the Sacrament in the Popish Church, was dis­tasted in two several Councels, & the Preist forbiddē to ce­lebr [...] alone Cassander consult. a [...]. 24. §. de solitarijs missis pag. 21, Ex Canone quodam c [...] ­cilij Nanetensis Sacerdos solus Missam celebrare vetatur, absurdum enim est, ut dicat, Dominus vobiscum, Sursum corda, Gratias agamus Deo Domino nostro, cùm nullus sit qui respondeat, -aut Oremus, cùm nullus si [...] qui secum oret. Itaq. concludit ridiculos [...] [...]perstitionem illam maximè à monasterijs monachorū exterminandā esse.▪ Et huic [...] decreto simile reperitur in conc▪ Papiensi, cap. [...]32. ut [...]llus [...]resbyter sol [...] [...] celebrare praesumat.. But if Luther had first opposed this practise, did he not well? was it not better to reduce things to that good order, frō which they were fallen, then to curse them who will not have things to cōtinue unorderly stil? See the whole face of the ancient Church; see the confessiō of your own Doctors, C [...]hl [...]us Cochlaeus de [...]acr [...]ficio Mi [...]sae. Quòd, inquit [...] tam fre­quentes non [...] Missae, inde accidisse arbit [...]or, quòd olim omnes tum Sacerdotes▪ [...] inter [...]rāt sacrificio Missae peractâ oblatione, cum [...]acrificāte [...] ex C [...]. Apost. & ex lib [...]is at (que) epist antiquissimor [...] Ecclesiae Doctorū perspicuè co [...] ­ [...]oscitur. Tum adjungit: Nunc verò postquam Cōmunionis ordo à nobis observa [...] [...], id (que) propter negligentiā at (que) so [...]diā tam plebis quā sacetdotū, Spiritus Sanctus missas privatas celebr [...]do, [...] remed [...] [...]ic defect [...] invenit. Teste Hospin. l 4. hist. sacr. pag. 330. 331. & Cassander Cassa [...]. con [...] a [...] [...]4. §. De iteratione, pag. 223. Dubiū non est, quin unà cum ipso Sacerdo [...] ali qui ad [...]rint, qui haec [...] laudis offerebant, & Sacramentū [...]. Id enim [...] verba manifestè significant, ut cùm dicitur, Quotquot ex ha [...] [...]ltaris participatione sacr [...]sanct [...] corpus et [...] tui sumps [...]ri [...] [...]t [...]m, Prosi [...] [...]obis Domine, Sacramenta quae sump [...]imus: Certè ex totâ Canonis cōpositione manifest [...] apparet, totam illam mysticam, in quâ Canon ad [...]bebatur, actionem vel publica [...], vel­ce [...] inter plures semp [...] celebratam suisse, Quòd si [...]odiè quo (que) impetrari qu [...]at, facil [...] verus ejus intellectus restitui [...]., & tell me whether [Page 101] this bee the doctrine of Divells, that was instituted by Christ, and practised by the Fathers of the first ages; or those practises which were brought into the Church by prescripts of men (though imputed to the holy Ghost) propter negligentiam & socordiam [...] plebis qu [...]m sacerdo­ [...] Vid [...] lit. [...], by the negligence & sloathfulnesse aswell of the people, as of the Preists?

The Iesuite now commeth to the second instance, and would perswade, that the Answerer doth farre more idlie range from the matter in this instance concerning the time, when the People fill first from their vulgar lan­guages Reply pag. [...]8.

The end of the most learned Answerer his whole dis­course, is to point out the vanity of the Iesuites demaund, and to this purpose, he manifestly declareth, that all their prophane Novelties were not effected by any one Bishop of Rome, or in one Popes dayes; But that some alterations within the Roman territories, are to be attributed to the ve­ry change of time it selfe, not being prevented by the Ro­man Pastors whom the Iesuite pretendeth to have beene so diligent and watchfull. An experiment whereof we may see in the use of the Latin service in the Churches of Italy, France and Spaine, which was used in those Countries from the begin­ning (the Latine tongue being at that time commonly under­stood of all) and afterwards by little and little degenerated into those v [...]lgar languages which now are used. This peir­ [...]ing Argument of the most learned Answerer against the Iesuites Demand, is thought to bee avoyded by him with an idle chatt.

First he telleth us, that this abuse belongeth not to any point of Religion Reply pag. 18, which we confesse; but it is a great helpe and pillar to irreligion Aquinas com­in 1. Cor. 14. fol. 100. Du­plex est fructus orationis.—Ali­us est spiritualis consolatio, & devotio con­cepta ex orati­one. Et quan­tum ad fructum devotionis sp [...] ­rituali [...], priva­tur qui non at­tendi [...] ad [...]a quae [...]rat, [...] non intelligit., that the service of the Church should be continued in a language, which keepeth men from hea­ring God, and knowing his will. And yet what belongeth to Religion, if this doth not, that the People should both pray to God intelligently Lyra in cap. 14. 1. Cor. Hic▪ consequenter idem o [...]endit in oratio [...] publicâ. quia [...]i populus inte [...]li­gat [...]r [...]tionem, [...] benedictio­nem sacer dotis, melius reduci­tur in D [...]m, & [...] der Amen., & receive instruction frō him [Page 102] in a language which they familiarly vnderstand? Secondly he saith, that this change was unadvisedly brought in by him for an example Reply pag. 18. I pray you tell us, of what this was pro­duced an example? Thirdly, he perswadeth, that it was untruelie affirmed that the Latine tongue in the beginning of the Church, was commonly understood of all in Italie, France, and Spaine, for the two last had their proper vul­gar language, farre differing from the Latine Ibid.. But is not English common in Ireland at this day? and com­monly understood? and yet the Irish have a proper language of their owne. Why may not the same bee af­firmed of France and Spaine in the Primitive times? were not they vnder the Roman government? were there not severall Colonies in each of them? doe you thinke they left their language when they departed their Country? Doe not the Latine remaines shew their usuall Speech? Any may see who is not blinde, that although the Gothes, Ʋandalls, and Moores, by their intermixtures have somewhat corrupted the same Bellarm▪ libro 2. cap. 15. De verbo Dei. An­te M. C. annos (Hispania) sepe­rata [...]it à Romano imperio & subj [...] pa [...] ­tim Gothis, partim M [...]uris, qui novam lin­guam [...] du­bio invexerunt., yet they brought their Religion and language at first from Rome. And there­fore what the Iesuite taketh from the concession of the most learned Answerer, maketh nothing for his advantage vizt. that when be graunteth that the Latine service was used in those Countryes from the beginning &c. full well and freindly doth hee justifie our use of the Latine service Reply pag 18 &c. For this is farre from freely justifying the present Latine service, because it was in primitive times unlesse hee can make it as generally to be vnderstood in France and Spaine at this day, as it was sometime in Spaine before the Latine ceased to bee the vulgar language in that Coun­trie Bellarm. de v [...]bo Dei. lib 2. cap. 15. A multis jam se­culis des [...]t in Hispaniâlingua latina esse v [...] ­garis..

But our Iesuite confident in his variety resolveth, not to trouble the most learned Answerer with any more demands untill such time, as he shall have thought upon some better An­swerer to my challenge, for as we have seene (saith he) hitherto he hath well plaied the answerlesse Answerer indeed, conclu­ding [Page 103] at last out of Arnobius, thus, If I be not able to declare un­to you by what Bishop of Rome, and in what Popes dayes, the simplicity of the auncient faith was first Corrupted, it will not presently follow, that what was done must needs be undone Reply pag. 18▪ and 19..

Can there be a better Answere then what hath been gi­ven him? For the Demaund is not onely prooved vaine by the most learned Answerer, but he hath moreover answer­ed the foole in his folly, and satisfied the vaine Demaun­dant, not confessing his disability therein, (as the Iesuite would perswade) but pointing out the originall of those bastard birthes, which he doth struggle to legittimize. Yet the Iesuite being hard pressed with Arnobius, who direct­ly affirmeth that the truth of a matter of fact, doth not depend vpon any mans knowledge, or detection, replyeth.

Indeed I grant, that, if wee had agreed that it was done, wee ought not to pose you about the time when it was done, but wee denying that it is done, and having already proved that vnlesse it be shewen when it was done, it must needs follow that it was never done, without doubt when you confesse that you are not able to shewe when it was done, you declare plainly, that it is not [...] yet done Reply pag. 19. But is here any syllable that answereth Arno­bius? is not the answere answerlesse indeed? For first Arno­bius is produced to prove that a thing may be don, though it cannot be shewen how it was done; and the Iesuite for answere thereof, telleth us, that he hath proved the contra­ry; but we are not tyed to beleive him, vntill he pointeth out the time when, and the place where it was done, this being necessary by his own rule. Besides the Iesuite doth not consider, how hee shakes the foundation of their Ro­man faith; (Peters seat, and Peters successor) by this his as­sertion. For the first, Have the Protestants agreed that Pe­ter placed his seat at Rome? The Iesuit knoweth, they alto­gether oppose the same: yet if we argue frō the vncertain­ty of time, when Peter did that grea [...] worke, that it was never done, Bellarmine answeres us, that though their Di­vines disagree when it was done, yet it doth not at all wea­ken [Page 104] the matter of fact, but that it was done De Rom. Pont. lib. 2. cap. [...]. Respondeo, discordiam de tempore, si qua esset, quo Petrus Romam venit non infirmare sententi­am nostram, quòd Petrus Romam vene­rit. Nam saepis­simè accidit, ut constet de re, & non constet de modo, vel a­lia circumstan­tia.. Further it is the great foundation of your Roman faith, that S. Peter left the Bishops of Rome his successors, which we beleive was not done: shall this article together with the Romā church fall to the ground, unlesse you can certainely lay us downe his immediate successor to whom he delivered this Com­mission? Bellarmin is a greater friend to the Papacy, then so: Etiamsi plane ignoraremus quis Petro proximè successerit, non tamen proptereà in dubium revocari debere an aliqui [...] successe­rit Bellarm. de R [...]m. Pont. lib. 2. cap. 5.. Although we be ignorant (saith hee) of the person that immediatly succeded Peter, yet doth it not breed any scruple, that he had no successor at all. Now compare these har­pers together, and you shall perceive, that either our Iesuite wanteth skill, or else his instrument is out of tune, for otherwise he would not jangle thus against their Master-Musitian, that unlesse we can shew him the time when a thing is done, it must needs follow that it was never done.

Whereby also it appeareth how farre that parable of the good and bad seede (saith the Iesuite) by you alledged, is from furthe­ring of your cause Reply pag. 19.. Here is a discourse laced with wise observations. First because the demaunders acknowledged the bad seede Ibid.. But how knew they that seede to be bad, which they never saw? was it not by the blade, as evill trees by their fruite? or was it by comparing it with the blade of the good seed, as we examine heresies, by Apo­stolicke doctrine? Secondly, (saith the Iesuite) the Master [...]old them the party by whom it was s [...]wen [...]. Yet the Ser­vants told the Master that they were tares, before the Ma­ster told them who was the seedesman: and why in like manner may not we discover heresies before the hereticks that brought them in? Thirdly, by the text (saith he) wee [...] when it was sowen, to wit, when men were asleepe [...].

But will such a time satisfie the Iesuite, if it be layed downe by us? will this answere the Iesuites demands, What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion which you com­mend [Page 105] in them of the first 400. yeares? In what Pope his dayes was the true Religion overthrowne in Rome See the Ie­suites preface to the Reader.? if it do not, he abuseth the parable: if it doe, let him receive his answere in the second page of the Answere to his Challenge, where this most reverend Lord, telleth him, that they who kept continuall watch and ward against heresies which openly oppose the foundations of our faith, might sleepe while the seeds of the Roman Apostasie were a sowing. And now let the Reader consider, how slightly and shif­tingly the Iesuite hath cast off this parable of the seed.

Well then our Answerer telleth us (saith the Iesuite) that in the tenth age, men not onely slumbred, but snorted also, by the testimonies of our owne Authors Genebrard, Baroni­us, and Bellarmine, and what then? must this (sayth hee) inforce mee to yeeld that the Divell brought in no tares all that while, but let slip the oportunity of so darke a night, and slept himselfe for company? No Sr the case is cleare, hee did not sleepe, but bestirred himselfe most busily in soweing then his tares abundantly. Then brought hee in all those vices, which at that time raigned both in Prin­ces and Prelates, and made that age so unhappy, yet Gods divine providence (saith Bellarmine in the very place alledged by you) did so worke that no new heresies did then arise Reply pag. 19..

Here we have many things seemingly confessed by this Iesuite. First, that the visibility of the Roman Church hath passed through an obscure age. Secondly, that the light of the Roman Church could not free that age from darkenes. Thirdly, that the Spirit which assisted Popes & Princes in those times, was the Spirit that worketh in the Children of disobedience Eph. [...]. [...].. Fourthly, that Heresies might have come into the Church of Rome, for any care the Pope had to keepe them out, if GODS divine provi­dence had not prevented them. Fiftly, that the Divell a­boundantly sowed his tares of vices in Princes & Prelates, [Page 106] yet Gods divine providence did so worke, that no new Here­sies did then arise. Is not heere a brave defence to make the Answerer his argument to languish and sleepe for e­ver? Surely the Iesuite was betwixt sleeping and waking, that he said he knew not what.

But did the Divell thinke no ground fit for his tares, but Princes and Prelates? Surely we are able to demonstrate, that this bad blinde sleepie age, did give seed-time for in­numerable corruptions in others also: yea, so flourishing were the blossomes, and prodigious the fruite; which sprung from that seed husbanded by the Divell; that it in­fected the whole Roman Church in such a manner, that Gerebertus in his Apologie for the Councell of Rhemes, put his petition up to Christ in Heaven, as having no hope for good in the Roman Church upon earth, it being so far infe­cted, that loosing the nature of a mother, shee cursed the good, blessed the evill, communicated with those, whom shee ought not to salute, bound them with excommunication, whom Christ had freed, being accepted of him and zea­lous of his lawe Gereber. A­polog. pro Rhe­mens. Concil. post acta. Concil. Rhem. Sed una salus hominis; ô Christe, [...]e [...]. Ipsa Roma omnium Eccle­siarum hacte­nus habita ma­ter, bonis male­dicere, malis benedicere fer tur, & quibus nec Ave dicendum est, com [...]icare: tuamque legem zelantes damnare, abutens ligandi & solvendi potestate à te acceptâ..

And so corrupt was that age, that all vertue was consumed both in head and members Io. Stella in vitâ Benedicti [...]. Pa­pae 122. Acciderat illi aetati quòd omnis virtus tam in capite quam in membris, ex homi­num ignaviâ consumpta suerit.; nay, so farre was Religion out of date, that Preists and Bishops durst not speake of Iustice or righteousnes, in regard they neither loved nor practised it A [...]lfric. serm▪ ad Sacerdotes MS. in Biblioth. Colleg. Benedict. Cantabrig. His diebus tanta negligentia est in Sacerdotibus & Episcopis, qui deberent esse [...]o [...]umnae Ecclesiae, ut [...] non audent de justitia loqui; qui justitiam nec fa­ciunt, nec diligunt.. But the Iesuite thinketh all is well, if Princes and Pre­lates were defiled together; Yet Wernerus their owne Carthusian may assure us, that our Iesuite putteth Princes (causelesly) into a lewd company, when as hee coupleth them with Popes; for hee telleth us, it was most apparant that Holines had left the Pope, and fled to the Emperours Werner. Fascic. temp [...]tat. 6. circ. an. 944. Sanctitatem Papam dimisisse, & ad Imperatore [...] accessisse hoc tempore;—clar [...] apparet., [Page 107] which is cleare on the one side also by the testimony of their owne Baronius, who saith, that most sordide whoo [...]es governed at Rome, their lustfull mates ascending the Chayre Baron. tom. 10. Annal. an. 912. §. 8. Quae tunc facies sanctae Ecclesiae Romanae? quàm foedissi­sima, cùm Ro­mae domina­rentur poten­tiffimae ae què ac fordidissimae meretrices qua­rum arbitrio mutaren [...]r se­des, daren [...]ur Epis [...]opi, & quod auditu horrendum & infandum est, intruderentur in Sedem Petri earum ama [...] p [...]eud [...] pontifi­ces..

Here first this Iesuite hath abused Princes, as their usuall practise is, in joyning them with such filthy and foul-lived wretches, as their Popes are confessed and acknowledged to be; when Princes have reprehended and loathed them, labouring to bring them to reformation, as Otto and the Ro­man Synode did Iohn the 12. or 13. (for you agree not whether he is) calling him to purge himselfe of most fear­full offences, as Homicide, Perjury, Sacriledge, Incest, drink­ing the Divels health, Dicing, invocating Iupiter, Venus and other Divels [...]uitprand. Ti [...]inens. Hi­ster. l. 6. c. 9. [...] ▪ 10. Summo Pontifici et u­niversali Papae. Domino Iohanni. Otto divinae respectu clementiae, Imperator Augustus cum Archi­episcopis Liguriae, Tusciae, Saxoniae, Franciae in Domino salutem. Romam ob servitium Dei venientes dum filios vestros Romanos scilicet Episcopos, Cardinales, Presbyteros, Diaconos, et universam plebem de vestra absentia percontaremur, et quid caussae esset, quòd nos Ecclesiae vestrae, vestrique defensores, videre noluissetis; talia de vobis tamque ob [...]oena protulerunt, ut si de hi [...] o [...]ibus dicerentur. vobis verecundiam inge­rerent. Quae ne magnitudinem vestram omnia lateant, quaedam vobis sub brevitate d [...] ­scribimus, quum si cuncta nominatim exprimere cuperemus, dies nobis non sufficeret u­nus. Noveritis itaque non à paucis, sed ab omnibus tam vestri quam alterius ordinis, vos homicidij, perjurij, sacrilegij, et expropria cognatione, atque ex duabus sororibus incesti crimine esse accusato [...] Dicunt et aliud aud [...] ipso horrendum, Diaboli vos in a­more [...] vi [...]um bibisse &c.. Neither let the Iesuite thinke, that the Di­vell made them so evill men, and yet left them good Bi­shops to preserve the purity of Catholicke doctrine, this surely would bee a Paradoxe in all places but at Rome; where they acknowledge, doctrines were not as the auncient Prophesies delivered to the Church by holy men, as the Spirit gave them utterance, but brought in by such, that were not able to rule their owne houses well, and therefore farre unfit to be governours of the Church of God.

And as the Iesuite was deceived in the Divels arable land, so with Bellarmine is he mistaken in the seede also. For i [...] i [...] probable; that he who did sowe seedes of Here­sie in the slumbering age before this snorting nap, would [Page 108] bee idle when hee was altogether without resistance? If Image-worship got footing when their eyes were open, may wee not expect, that other heresies came in, when they were fast asleepe? In what primitive times durst an Image by rowling eyes, and sweating knavery require ad­oration from the people? Durst any godly Bishops de­cree for this idolatry in the first sixe ages? No: this Here­sie was resisted by three hundred thirtie eight Bishops at Constantinople, Anno 754. And though afterwards it got strength at Nice, was defended by Rome, and at last got to be Roman faith; yet was the same disliked, denyed, oppo­sed, resisted by all the good men that lived in that & after­times, as Charles the great, the Councell of Franckford▪ Lewes his son, the Synode of Paris; Alcuinus, the Church of England and the Waldenses &c.

Neither did the English distaste it, as an ordinary folly and superstition onely, but as contrary to true faith, & such an opinion, which the Church of God did execrate and abhorre. All which is fully justified out of ancient monu­ments by the most learned Answerer See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Answere to the Iesuites challenge, pag. 461. 462. 463. And his booke De successione & statu. cap [...]., the Iesuite being tongue-tyed, replying nothing thereunto.

But were there no seedes of Heresie in that age? Bellar­mine is willing to have it so, and the Iesuite is confident in the same opinion; but the truth is, Heresie was embraced of them which should have resisted it; otherwise there would not have been so many fruitlesse complaints, as ho­ly men powred forth in the immediate following times. Yet how shall wee make a true search for Heresies in this age, when Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that it was vn­happie, as affording neither writers of any worth, nor Coun­cells Bellarm. in Chronol▪ V [...]de hic, Seculum in­felix: in quo nulli Scriptores illustres, nulla Consilia.? It seemes, wee must be beholding to their experi­ences which did observe somthing when they did awake. Genebrard (then) telleth us, that for almost 150 yeares, Pon­tifices circiter 50. à virtute majorum prorsus defecerint Apo­tactici Apostaticive potiùs quam Apostolici, About fifty Popes altogether fell away from the vertue of their An­cestors, [Page 109] being disordered and Apostaticall rather then A­postolicall Genebrard. Chron▪ in An­num Christi. 901. Others relate, that the Devill got power to elect him, whom Papists now would have to be as an infal­lible oracle to direct to Heaven Platina in vi­tâ Silvestri se­cundi. Gereber­tus ambitione et diabolicâ do­minandi cupi­ditate impulsus largitione pri­mò quidem ar­chiepiscopa­tum Rhemen­sem, inde Ra­vennatem ad­eptus, Pontifi­catum postre­mò, maiore co­natu adiuvante Diabolo, conse­cutus est; hac tamen lege, ut post mortem totius illius es­set, cuius frau­dibus tantam dignitatem ad­eptus erat▪ Aenaeas Sylv. in comment▪ de gestis Basil Con­cil. lib. 1. Nec [...] fugit Marcellinum iussu Caesareo idolis thurificàsse: alium vero, quod majus & horri­bilius est, diabolicâ fraude Romanum pontificatum ascendisse.: Others amazed, mourned for the Church, as if in Rome Sathan had beene at liberty in perniciem totius Ecclesiae, to the destruction of the whole Church Baron Annal. to [...] ▪ 12. an. 1170.. And many not long after wondring at the face of the Church, concluded that Antichrist had placed his seate in the Church of God Vide reverendum & doctissimum Episcop. Derens. de Antichristo; l; [...] cap. 9▪. Could all this be effected, and not one error creepe into your Church, to bespot the Roman Puritie? I might tell you that the opinion of the grosse and carnall eating of Christ in the Sacrament, had so little ad­mittance in the Church before this carelesse and snorting time, that in the precedent age it was scorned of the most learned in the Christian Church, Rabanus Bertramus, Iohan­nos Scotus &c. I might name you Purgatory, if the most learned Primate had not declared it to be a new devise ne­ver heard of in the Church of God for the space of a thousand yeeres after the birth of our Saviour Christ In the answere to the Iesuites challenge pag. 178.. And it were no great matter to shew you the Hildebrandine Heresie, which must have had his seeding in this age, or not farre from it. By all which the Iesuite may perceive, how sleepy a defence he hath made for a snorting age, and how vainely he deduceth arguments to make good his Popish Religi­on, from our nescience of person time and place, it being cleared that his demaund in respect of these circumstances is meerely vaine, and that his Digressions doe nothing be­nefit his cause.


IN this peice of Ʋanity, the Iesuite proceeds to discover, How vaynelie our Answerer be­taketh himselfe to the Scriptures Reply pag. 19, and the Iesuite hath shewed more vanity in his en­trance into this third Section, then I am perswaded he wil be able to declare against the Answerer throughout his whole Reply; for he confes­seth, that the most learned Answerer hath thus farrerun on answerlesse Reply ibid.; a wonderfull thing, that hee, who hath so do­mineered, should acknowledge here for a part, as before for the whole, that Responsa ejus which were replyed unto sine responsionibus, were answerlesse, notwithstanding the Reply. Secondly, he telleth us, that the most reverend Pri­mate in betaking himselfe to the Scriptures, and shewing his copiousnes of Abilities, hath abandoned all that he hath formerly said Reply ibid.: But if this were forcible and not Vanitie, surely wee should have vaine Answerers amongst their Schoolemen, their Commentators especially, and the more learnedly and fully they expresse their thoughts, the more vaine should they be demonstrated to bee, by this line and measure. Thirdly, he insinuateth, that this most reverend Lord is hereby brought to confesse, that he cannot by the Iesuites way give them satisfaction Reply ibid▪, when as he hath most learnedly and punctually answered each particular of his demaund: which sheweth in him not Vanity onely, but Ie­suiticall impudency, and out-facing falshood.

There are other meanes left, (saith the most learned An­swerer) whereby wee may discerne the tures brought in by the instruments of Sathan, from the good seed which was sowen by the Apostles of Christ, besides this observation of times and seasons, which will often faile us. But the Iesuite would know, what other meanes are these that yet remaine? and the [Page 111] most reverend Primate, hath manifested out of Tertulli­an Tertull prae­script. advers. Haeret cap. 32., that their very Doctrine it selfe being compared with the Apostolick [...], by the diversity and contrarietie thereof will pronounce that it had for author, neither any Apostle, nor any man Apostolicall Reply pag. 20..

I hope, this meane is no new invention, but Tertullians advice; no upstart direction, but the practise of his times; whereby the Iesuite may see, that the repugning of the vaine pretences of Heretickes, may bee as well or better performed by comparing their heresies with that do­ctrine, which is Apostolicall, then by the circumstances of person, time and place; which convicteth him of notorious vanity, in making his vaine demaund, the necessary square to measure heresies by.

And whereas this Iesuite saith, hee is content to winke a little for this time, at the Answerers converghance Reply pag. 20. The Ie­suite for one promise keepeth faith, he is not alwayes of Carthage, his speech doth not here bewray him, for hee winkes indeed, and is so wilfully blinde, that he will not take notice of Christs practise in convincing Pharisaicall novelties urged by the most learned Primate In his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge. from Mat. 19. 8. from the beginning it was not so: neither Apostolicall Councell to prescribe against the infection of Seducers crept in at unawares, earnestly to contend for the faith which was first delivered to the Saints Iude v. 3. 4.: neither the instrument, Gods Booke Luke 1. 4. written for this purpose, and continued for this end, that it might be a memoriall of Gods truth for the time to come for ever and ever Esai 3 [...] [...].. Doe you thinke, that if all or any of this, had made for him, or given advantage to his cause, the Iesuite would have closed his eyes? I cannot be­leive that it was courtesie which made him for beare, but the brightnesse of the testimony, which this [...] his tender eyes durst not behold: whereby you may take no­tice of the Iesuits practise, in leaving convincing grounds untouched, that he might the better, and with the lesse re­proofe, stile that a vaine betaking to the Scriptures, which [Page 112] truely is done in imitation of Christ, and by Apostolicall di­rection. And furthermore who amongst his owne will not be ashamed of his wry mouth and cloven tongue, that dare stile that a conveighance which this most reverend Father urgeth from antiquity, citing Tertullians wordes? Is this the honourer of the auncient Church, that accounteth the iudgement of the fathers as the assured touchstone to try all controversies betwixt us In his Epistle to the King.? Here wee see what esteeme they may expect at his handes, if they crosse his way; for though he forbeare to question Tertullian whom he can­not answere, yet you may perceive his direction followed by the most learned Answerer is persecuted by this Mountebanke with a base invective.

But although the Iesuite dare not absolutely submit his cause unto this tryall, yet for the present he will accept his motion, upon condition, that, if the Answerer come short of pro­ving this way that a change hath beene made, that saying of Tertullian shall point at him and his doctrine, and all the rest which he casteth at us, shall fall upon his owne head Reply pag 20. I under­stand not this condition, nor I thinke he himselfe; but if the Iesuite convict us by Tertullian his rule, we are content that he shall triumph and be acknowledged a Victor.

The first instance then produced by the most reverend Primate is this: In the Apostles dayes, when a man had exa­mined himselfe, he was admitted unto the Lords table, there to eate of that bread and drinke of that cuppe: as appeareth plainely, 1. Cor. 11. 28. In the Church of Rome at this day, the people are indeed permitted to eate of the bread (if bread they may call it) but not allowed to drinke of the cuppe. Must all of us now s [...]t our eyes, and si [...] As it was in the beginning, so now., Sic [...] erat in principio & nunc▪ unlesse we be able to tell by whom, and when this first in­stitution was altered See the most reuerend the Lord Primate his answere to the Iesuites challenge.? And the Iesuite would perswade, that this is a weake argument, by his crosse pleading of foure things practised by us.

1. In the Apostles dayes the faithfull received the sacra­ment after meate in the euening 1. Cor. 11. [...]1., in the Protestants Church [Page 113] at this day it is commonly received fasting and in the mor­ning, therefore it is not with them, sicut erat in principi [...] & nunc.

2. In the Apostles dayes the sick were annointed Marke 6. 3. Ia. 5. 14. with oyle, and a commandement given so to doe, the Protestants practise no such thing, therefore &c.

3. In the Apostles dayes the faithfull were commanded to obstaine from eating of bloud Act. 15. and strangled meates. Among the Protestants there is no such abstin [...]nce observed. There­fore &c.

4. Christ when hee ministred the sacrament, said Mat. 26: 6., Take, eate, this is my Body, the Protestants now adayes say not so, but take, [...]ate this in remembrance, &c. And from this he concludes, that it is not with the Protestants, sicut erat in principio Reply pag. 20 &c.

Heere any man may see, that this Iesuite dare not stand, to his accepted motion, to bee tryed by Moses and the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles, the sacred Scriptures, and therefore hee laboureth to weaken the strength thereof; but let him mantle himselfe in his pretences ne­ver so much, this is sufficient to declare that a change hath beene made, which is all that the most learned Answerer desireth to conclude. So that if wee can declare that Papists, not Protestants in their changes made, have fallen from the puritie of Doctrine and practise of primitive times, the Iesuite will rest like a Franciscan Novice, demure and tongue-tyed for e­ver.

For the three first instances, wee confesse that a change hath beene made, and that heerein wee have followed the practise of those that brought them in. But for the fourth, hee deales like a shuffler, and would seeme to insinuate, that we have dealt with those words, This is my Body. Hoc est corpus [...], as they haue done with some of the Commandements, either cast them out, or put something [Page 114] in the place thereof, as their owne [...] and Ribad [...] ­n [...]yra The second they have left out; and [...]ut in stead of the fourth Com­mandement, Remember to sanctifie the holy Dayes. have done: Whe [...] our Church teacheth Chil­dren before Confirmation, that the Body and Bloud of Christ (which is the inward part or thing signified of the sacra­ment) are verily and indeed taken and received of the faith­full in the Lords Supper See the Ca­t [...]chisme in our Common Pray­er Booke., and in the celebration of the Communion, the whole institution is repeated in these words expressely, Take, [...]ate, this is my Body which is given for you See there, the Order for the Administration of the Commu­nion.. So that this is but an imaginary change preten­ded, having no truth in it at all.

For the Changes confessed, they are not but in things indifferent and ceremonies, which no Papist dare deny but the Church of God had and hath power to alter; CHRIST, as in the Sacrament prescribing the sub­stance, leaving the Ceremonie to the ordering of the Church Augustin epistol. 118. Salvator non praecepit, quo deinceps ordine sumeretu [...], ut Apostolis per quos dispositu­rus erat Ecclesi­am, servaret hunc lo [...]m. Nam si hoc ille monuisset, ut post cibos alios semper accipe­retur, credo quòd cum mo­rem nemo va­riâsset, as is apparant in those wordes: This doe (not thus) in [...] of [...]ee. Luke 22. 19.

This Answere the Iesuite knew would put a period to his vaine flourish, and therefore by repeating it, hee thinkes to avoyde the same; as if the rule by Scriptures were of no force, if this answere were permitted: for saith hee,

What force leaveth he to his owne argument made against us in a matter of the like indifferency Reply pag. 20..

If the Iesuite could prove it so, it were something to the purpose, but lame Ignatius heere leaves his armes, and fals to crutches; For what are the Arguments hee contendeth with?

1. That there was never any commandement given that the Cup should be given to the Laytie.

2. That the use of celebration of the Cuppe was not s [...] generall in the Apostles time &c. And for this hee cites a Iesuite: and tells us that Cardinall Per [...]n in his Reply to the King of Great Brittaine, hath unde [...]yabli [...] proved, that uppon just cause the Church might change the Com­munion of both kindes into one, that Cardinall Bellarmine [Page 115] hath most largely disputed he [...]reof, and clearely prooveth, That Christ in the Sacrament is wholly contained in one kinde, and that under one kinde, there is found the full substance and ver­tue of the Sacrament Reply pag. 20. 21. &c.

Loe, heere is the brave confirmation of his indiffe­rent Chalice, If Christs Bloud, how [...]lightly is it valued when they fight to avoyde it. which, if allowable, I wonder hee should take so much paines in his Reply, but have re­ferred all the Controversies to his Predecessors paines, because, nihil dictum est, quod non [...]it dictum pri [...]. But as hee prooves, so shall his answere bee sutable. His referments shall bee answered with referments. For their Peron, I referre him for answere to M [...] ­lin. And for Bellarmine, I could name him an hoast.

But this sacriledge of theirs, I will truely lay downe, and breifly in a few wordes; that the Reader may see the ground of our Churches practise; and the base and simple shiftes that they are forced unto for their de­fending of the surreption of the Cuppe. And al­though our Iesuite declareth himselfe to have beene borne in a full Moone, or the Dogge-dayes by his folly and reviling, calling our Cleargie, the Cupping Ministery Reply pag [...], yet (GOD bee thanked) wee defire not the cuppe for our owne selves (in that their ap­petite is seene) but for the people also, that all things may bee ordered in the Church. according to Christs institution. And heerein all may see, that hee might as justly revile CHRIST and his Apostles, as hee doth those whom hee styles the C [...]pping Ministery. And I thinke a Papist and a Preist might best of all men let that scorne have passed, seeing the Cuppe (not of the New Testament) might [...]it them for their armes, with a Po [...]u [...] non [...] for their Motto. For a man may be in the act of [...]eriting with them, that is none [Page 116] of the soberest Less. de Iustie & [...]u [...]e. l. 4. cap. 2. dubitat. [...]: nu: 10 p. 718. 719. Si tantus [...]it ex­cessus, ut pec­cet mortiserè, amittit meri­tum [...]junij, sicut & alio­rum bonorum▪ operum. Si a [...] tem non pec­cet mortiferè, non amittit ab­solutè, sed so­lum ex parte. Quia quâ par­te voluntariè abstinet à cib [...] vetitis et à se­cundâ refectio­ne propter Ec­clesiae pr [...]cep­tum, meretur; quod meritum non eliditur, etiamsi in usu cibi vel potus non se [...] d [...]i [...]am mode [...]tionem: quâ [...]amen parte excedit, non [...]e [...] [...].; nay, a man may be drunke, and yet fast truly [...]llarm: lib. 2. de bonis operibus. in partic. cap. 1. Iejunium Ecclesiasti­cūm est▪ ab [...]in [...]ntia cibi secundum Ecclesiae regulam assumpta. & pa [...]le post. Ie­junium igitur Ecclesiasticum dicitur abstinentia cibi, quo [...]iam hoc [...]junium, neque POTVS, neque medicamentorum, sed solius cibi abs [...]n [...]ia [...] per [...]se r [...]qui [...]i [...]., if Bellar [...]ine his definition of a Fast be adequate to the thing that is defined.

But (letting all this passe) I will shew plainely, that the Cuppe cannot be taken from the Sacrament, but the per­ [...]e [...]tion and integriti [...], if not the substance thereof, is ut­terly overthrowne. And to deale with a Iesuite from Ie­suiticall grounds▪ we may observe, that if it crosse the sub­stance either of Christs institution, or of his Sacrament, [...]r his precept, or of the practise of the primitive Church Reply to Iesuite Fisher by Dr Fran White pag. 466. 467▪, it can no lesse then vitiate the whole action.

That it crosseth these, what tongue can deny, which impudencie hath not appropriated to its selfe? For did CHRIST exhibite a double thing to the Apo­stles faythes and memories? and did hee not likewise for the effecting thereof consecrate two materiall ele­ments, bread, and wine? was it not the practise of the pri­mitive Church Lyran [...] in 1. cor▪ 11, Fit hic (1. Cor. 11.) mentio de duplici specie: nam in primitiva Ecclesia sic da [...]atur [...]idelibu [...], Cassander consult. ar 22. pag. 168. Satis con [...]at occidentalem se [...] Ro­mana [...] mille à Christo [...]nnis in [...]olenni et ordinaria h [...]jus Sacramenti dispensatione [...]tramque pa [...] et [...]i [...] spec [...]em omnibus Ecclesi [...] Christi members e [...]hibui [...]e: i [...] quod ex in nu [...]i [...] ve [...]rum scriptorum ta [...] Gr [...]co [...]um, quam Latinorum testimo­ [...]s manifes [...] est, atq. ut ita facerent inducto [...] fuisse [...] institu [...] exemploque Christi., and of the Latine, for a thousand or more yeares, to administer it in the same manner; not onely to the Cleargy, but to the people also by the institution & example of Christ [...]ellar [...]. De Euchar. l. 4. c. 24. Ecclesia autem. vetus ministraba [...] [...]b duplici specie, quando Christiani [...]rant p [...]i, [...] Crescente a [...]t [...]m multi [...] ­ [...]ne magis [...] magis [...], [...]t sic pa [...]lati [...] def [...] [...]s [...] [...].? was the contrary ever received by the Church deliberatly & upon concluding grounds? or did it steale das [Page 117] the rest of the tares, into the Romish Church by Custome? If the Iesuite can shew us better grounds to acquite it from intrusion, let him declare it? this was the cheife reason the Councell of Constance Concil. Con­stantien. Se [...]. 13. Licet Chri­stus post [...] ­nam insti [...]erit. & suis discipu­lis administra­verit s [...]b [...] que specie pa­nis & vini hoc venerabile [...] ­cramentum, tamen hoc non obstante, sacro­rum Ca [...]o [...] [...]thori [...]a [...] la [...] ­dabilis & ap­probata cō [...]e­tudo ecclesiae servavit, & ser­vat &c. Et sicut haec cons [...] ­do ad evit [...] ­dum aliqua pe­ricula et scan­dala est ratio­nabiliter intro­ducta, quod li­cet in primiti­va ecclesia huju [...]odi sacramentum reciperetur à fidelibus sub utraque specie, pos [...]à à confi [...]ent [...]bus sub utraque, et à laicis tantu [...]odo sub specie panis s [...]cipi [...]ur▪ &c. Vnde cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia & sanctis patribus rationabiliter in­troducta, & di [...]issimè observata sit habenda est pro lege., had for its defence, and what strength it hath against Christs institution, and the Primitive practise, any may conceive.

What hath mooved the Roman Church to this surrep­tion of the Cuppe from the people, no man can without doubting imagine; for if those wife motives repeated by Gerson should bee the cause, wee may see how weake arguments will moove the Apostolicall power against CHRISTS institutions. For first he tel [...]ethus, of the danger in the effusion. 2. The inconvenience of the porta­tion of it from place to place. 3. The vessell might bee as filth [...] as Iudas his trunke. 4. There may be want of a Barber amongst the Laicks. But the killing Argument is this, that if the Cuppe be given to the people, there wilbe no difference betwixt the people and their PriestsGerson. d. com sub utraque specie. Primum periculum in effusione. Secund [...]m, in depo [...] ­tatione de loco ad locum. Tertium, in vasorum sordidatione, &c. Qua [...], in longis ba [...]bis laicorum. Item, quod tanta esset dig [...]itas laicorum circa sum [...] ­ [...]m corporis Christi, sicut e [...] Sacerdo [...]um. vide plura ibid.. Would not this moove a Saint (thinke you) to scorne Christ and his institution, and embrace that, which is but a Cu­stome, and had no better a stile before the Councell of Constance?

But that we may further manifest this truth; One thing may be said to be of the substance of another two man­ner of wayes, either integrally, or essentially. And first, who doth not see, that the sacrament is deprived of an integrall member by taking away the Cuppe?

For the second, it is no difficult thing to be manifested: for any Iudgement will determine the Sacrament to bee maymed, when it is received according to mens plea­sures, leaving that prescript forme which is layed downe by Christ himself in such a part, that doth conferre graceVasques t. 3. in 3. disp. 215. c. 2. Vnaquae (que) species hujus Sacramenti, quatenus Sa­cramenti para est, suam habet significationem diversam,—hinc sequitur unamquamque speciem in hoc sacramento su um effectum per se operari.. Besides, they must acknowledge themselves either viola­tors of Christs TestamentMat. 26. Hoc est sanguis me­us Novi Testa menti: Luc. 2 [...]. Hoc poculum est novum illud testamentum per sangu [...]em meu [...]. Durand rat. l. 4 c 42. Christus post coenam corpus & san guir em suum dedit Aposto­lis: ut [...] hoc sa­cramentum velut ultimum testatoris mandatum arctius memoriae commendaretur., or that hee revoked what hee first instituted by some subsequent act. Nor can I see how the Sacrament may be without the signe, to wit, the bread and wine, any more then without the thing signified, which is the Body and Bloud of CHRIST, when both are required to the conficiency of a Sacrament, as a body and soule to the constitution of a manBonaven. l. 4. D. 11. p 2. ar. 1 q▪ 2, Vt perfectè esset vel signaretur redemptio, & ex hoc perfecta refectio, debuit signari corpus in pane & anima, cujus sedes est i [...] sanguine, & in vino..

Neither doth this institution alone crosse the Romane practise, but the Precept of Christ also Mat. 26. Drinke yee all of this, which pointeth not onely to the Apostles, but to the people also, notwithstanding their pretences to de­fend their fraud, as is apparant by Paschasius Paschas. cap. 15. de corp. Christi. Accipite & [...]bibite ex hoc omnes, tam ministri quam & reliqui credentes. Damas [...]. orth. fid. l. 4. cap. 14., who inter­preteth this precept not of the Ministers onely, but of all beleivers. And yet Becan one of our Iesuites owne socie­tie, will not have this a precept to the Apostles them­selves (so fearefull they are to heare our Saviours com­maunds) but telleth us that CHRIST his wordes, Drinke yee all of this, are of the same strength with those of Luke 22. 7. Take this and divide it among your selves. And (as if our Saviour had suspected the Apostles to have beene as Cupping a Ministery, as this Iesuite now char­geth us true Catholickes to be) hee maketh CHRIST to deliver all the wine to one, with this caution, that hee should not drinke it all, but taste a little of it, and afterwards de­liver [Page 119] it orderly [...]o his fellow Apostles Becan. Manual contr. lib. 1. c 9. p 340. Calvinistae ob­jiciunt illud, Bibite ex hoe omnes Resp. Hoc solis Apo­stolis dictum est, qui erant praesentes: cùm enim▪ Christus divi [...]isset pa­nem Euchari­sticum in va­rias partes, & singulis Apo­stolis singulas porrexisset; calix autem co modo dividi non posset; uni ex Apo­stol [...]s integrum porrexit, cum hâc cautione, ut non puta­ret totum sibi ebibendum esse, sed ali­quid inde gu­standum, ac deinde reliquis ordine porrigendum. Itaque verba illa, Bibite ex hoc omnes, perinde valent, atque illa Lucae 21. 7. Accip [...]e & dividite inter vos, id est, unus non exhauriat totum calicem, se [...] singuli aliquid bibant, that they might partake of the Chalice with him; whereas the direction was a precept unto all there present to communicate in the Cuppe, and not a caution onely for him that first re­ceived, [...] forbeare drinking of all, as that Iesuite would perswade.

And although the Precept Luke 22. 19. This doe in remembrance of mee immediately followeth the conse­cration of the Element of Bread; yet it is plaine, and pressingly evident, that it hath relation to the whole in­stitution, in which the Cuppe is contained, as may bee convinced from an other Evangelist, Mat. 26. 27. Besides this, the Apostle Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 11. 23. maketh the whole institution (not excluding either E­lement) to bee delivered from CHRIST to him, that the practise thereof might bee observed in the Church. And though it bee a finne for a Papist to con­fesse it, Ruard: Tapper. ar. 15. Ruard: Tapper: ar [...] 5. Concludunt enim utilius esse, habito scilicet respcetu ad efficaciam & virtutem sacramenti sub utrâque specie Ibid. Plus gratiae spiritualis sub utrâ (que) conseratur, quam sub alterâ tantum specie. Ibid▪ Et cum Sacra­menta conferant gratiam quam significant, quando completior et perfectior est significatio; plen [...]orem oportetesse effectum. cannot deny, but to communicate in both kindes is of greater efficacie, then in one, it being acknowledged, that the Sacraments con­ferre that grace which they signifie, so that when the signification is more full and perfect, as hee confesseth it to bee, being received in both kindes, the effect must answere thereunto. And Alexand. Halensis per­emptorily affirmeth the receiving under both kindes to be of more merite, for increase of Devotion and faith Alex Al. p 4. q. 11. Sumptio quae est sub duab [...] speciebus, est majoris meriti, tum ratione augmentationis devotionis, tum ratione fide [...] di [...]atationis actualis, tum ratione sumptionis completioris. & rursus ibid. Sumptio sub utrâque specie quem modum sumendi tradid [...], Dominus est majoris efficaciae, & complementi.. [Page 120] So that while our Cuppe by which our Iesuite hath de­nominated us to be a cupping Ministery, proveth to bee a Grace-Cuppe, we may with more patience deryde the re­proach of his scorningfolly.

And not to dwell on the examination of this sacriledge any longer, it is plaine both by the testimony of Bona­venture Bonaven. lib. 4. dist. 11. part. [...]. ar. 1. quaest 2. Quantum ad signationem vel significanti­am:—sunt de integritate, quia neutra per se exprimitur res hujus Sa­cramenti, sed in utraque simul: et hoc patet sic: Hic significatur Christus cibus perfectè refici­ens manducan­tes Sacramen­taliter, & spiri­tualiter: perfect a autem refe­ctio non est in pane tantum, nec in vino tan­tum, sed in u­tio (que): idco non in uno tantum perfectè signa­tur, ut reficiens sed in utro (que). and Aquinas Aquinas part. 3. quaest. [...]0 art. 12. Ex parte quidem ipsius Sacramenti convenit, quod utrumq. sumatur, scilicet & corpus & sanguis: quia in utro (que) consistit perfectio Sacramenti., that wee cannot expresse CHRISTS death truely, which is the thing signified in the Sacrament, without the use of both the Elements, because therein the perfection and integritie of the Sacra­ment doth consist. Whereto let bee added and well noted what Tapperus affirmes. That having respect to the Sacra­ment, and the perfection thereof, it were more convenient the Communion should be under both kindes, then one alone. For this is more agreeable to the institution and integritie thereof, and to bodily refection, yea and to the example of Christ, and the Fathers of the Primitive Church, who dispensed the holy Eucharist under both kindes even in the Romane Church it selfe Ruard. Tapper, ar. 1 [...]. Habito respectu ad Sacra­mentum, ejus (que) perfectionem, magis conveniret sub utraque specie sieti communionem, quam sub altera tantum. Hoc enim magis consonum est ejus institutioni & integritati & refectioni corporali, imo & exemplo Christi & patrum primitivae Ecclesiae, qui—sub [...]raque specie sacram Eucharistiam dispensabant in Ecclesia etiam Romana..

But if any Good-fellow Protestant (saith our Iesuite) should bee the loather to embrace our Religion for beeing so scant of the Cuppe: wee give him to understand, that with us hee shalbee partaker of as good a Cuppe every way &c. for wee present unto every one a Cup of the best wine, to wit, the Ablution, and the Protestants confesse theirs to bee no more then meere wine: and therefore hee thinkes our charge of Sacriledge which wee cast uppon them for with-holding the Cuppe from the People to bee un­just; and that it is surely to be layed upon us, who (if [Page 121] wee might beleive him) have most sacrilegiously defrau­ded Gods Church of the Communion of the true bloud of CHRIST, giving no sacramentall blessing to the Cuppe at all Reply pag. 21. 22..

Iesuites had never such an Advocate; where truth af­fords him not matter to plead, hee wanteth not impuden­cie to reply Aug. d [...] Civit. Dei lib. 5. cap. 27. Facile est cuiquam, videri respondisse, qui tacere noluerit. Aut quid est lo­quacius vanita­te? Quae non ideo potest quod veritas, quia si volu [...]rit etiam, plus po­test clamare quam verit [...].. But will it endure examining? let us see, A good fellow Reply pag. [...] must be converted, and with a cuppe of abluti­on A cup of Ab­lution is water in most of our Irish parts.. Here is a reason for a tankard-carrier. Your argument would have beene more perswasive to good-fellowes (Mr Malone) if you would allure by an other Medium; that what wanteth in your feasting, shalbe sure to bee made up in your fasting, having in your strictest workes of mortifi­cation, not onely wine Azor. Instit. part. 2. l. 7. cap. 10. q. 7. pag. 562. Consenti­ens est opinio, potionem vini, siue manè an [...] prandium five post prandium vesperè jejunium non solvere. and strong drinke which you may take freely Less de Instit. et Iure, l. 4. c. 2. Ex his infertur primò, Potus sumptionem crebriorem non vetari; quare▪ etiam [...] qui [...] co [...]ine utatur, etiam immoderatè, non violabit praeceptum Ecclesiae de jejunio, etsi con­tra temperantiam peccet., and when you please, without violating your strictest devotion Io. Medina Cod▪ de [...]ejuno. q. 2. In Ecclesiastica Qu [...] ­dragesima unica refectio tantum est concessa, et in potatione nulla est opposita limi­tatio.; but all other choyce electuaries and pleasant confections Less. de Instit. et Iure, l. 4. c. 2. [...]u. 10. Infertur secundò non prohi­beri [...] Electuariorum et cond [...]torum, &c. in like manner also. These had beene Arguments would not onely have turned a Good-fellow Protestant, but Sodome and Gomorrha to bee Papists in Profession, and of your Order also.

And whereas hee chargeth us, that wee give meere wine in the Sacrament Reply pag. 21. Wee answere, that this may bee true when a Iew or a Iesuite doth receive it, or one equally af­fected with them, as Saint Augustine in like manner spake of Iudas, that he received Panem Domini, not Panem Domi­num: But to a faithfull receiver, we know, as we offer them the bloud of Christ, so they really receive it, and therefore we justly charge you with sacriledge for detaining the Cup; [Page 122] Neither doe we alone charge you herewith but your owne law De consecra­tione dist. 2. Comperimus autem quòd quidam sump­tâ tantummo­do corporis sa­cri portione à calice sacri cru oris abstineant. Qui procul du­bio (quoniam nescio qua su­perstitione do­centur obstrin­gi) aut integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris ar­ceantur: quia divisio unius e­jusdem (que) my­sterij sine gran­di SACRI­LEGIO non potest prove­nire:, layeth the same condemnation upon you.

But (saith he) our Answerer and his Symmists, have most sacrilegiously defrauded Gods Church thereof Reply pag. 22.

Gods Church? what meanes the Iesuite by this Phrase? conceiveth he heereby the Roman? surely no: All theirs have the true blood of Christ, at least by Concomitancy. Are the Protestants that Church, wherein this fraud is committed? doubt you of this? How then can Gods Church bee so ma [...]acled, that all must to Hell, not one permitted to clime to Heaven, to ascend to salvation?

And now he hath confessed us to be Gods Church, let him prove our Sacriledge if he be able, as also that we va­ry from the practise in St. Paules dayes, in giving the true blood of CHRIST to our Communicants; or that wee celebrate the Sacrament without consecrating it, and wee will confesse guilty. But if this be but a Iesuites charge, a strayne of impudency, kinde men may preferre him before Esope, but none will thinke him fit to register the truth. The Iesuite telleth us, that the most reverend Primate his second Argument is framed thus. By S. Paules Order, who would have all things done to edification, Christians should pray with understanding, and not in an unknowne language, as may be seene in the fourteenth chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians. The Case is now so altered, that the bringing in of a tongue not understood (which hindred the edifying of Babell it selfe and scattered the builders thereof) is accompted a good meanes to further the edifying of your Babell, and to hold her followers together; is not this then a good ground to resolve a mans judgment, that things are not now kept in that order, wherein they were set at first by the Apostle See the most reverend the Lord Primate in his Answere to the Iesuites challenge, pag. [...].. And hereunto the Iesuite replyes.

I have alwayes esteemed our Answerer so both for learning and sincerity, that I preferre none of his ranke before him, yet doe I not see how in this obiection he can escape a blemish, in one of them at the least Reply pag. 21.

We have had good experience, that the Iesuites jealou­sies are not crimes; nor his words, slaunder; and therefore if he proves nothing, he sayes nothing. But he is ready in his armes.

For where he sayth, that by S. Paules Order, Christians should pray with understanding, and not in an unknowne lan­guage, alleadging for the same the 14 chap. of his 1. epistle to the Corinthian, it is most certaine that neither in that fourteenth chapter, nor yet in all S Paules Epistles, there is any such order (as he meaneth) to be found, which if he knew not, his ignorance is to be wondred as: if he knew it, his integrity must be stayned, for wronging the Apostle and deluding his Reader Reply pag. 22..

It were vaine to bestowe time to defend this most lear­ned Primate, from this unjustly charging Iesuite, especially in either of these dreames of want of learning or sincerity; when his owne tongue and pen have manifested such deepe knowledge, his life so sacred sincerity, that a legion of Iesuites extracted cannot expresse the like. And who is there, that hath stood at the feete of this learned Gamaliel, that hath not heard him to declare more learning, then this Iesuite can boast of, and seene in him more truth and candidenes of divine conversation, then Iesuites and Fry­ars by their demure and painted out-side can challenge to themselves? Nay, whose conscience (that knowes him) doth not testifie of him, that what is or may be required in a good man, learned Doctor, and faithfull Bishop may bee found in him Epistol. Bap. Mant. ad Ioan. Picum Miran­dulam. In uno codem (que) homi­ne viderer vide­re Hicrony­mum & Augu­stinum revix­isse.. Neither doth this Iesuite deserve so lear­ned an Adversary, who slighteth those things, which be­foole his indeavours to answere; and falleth into violent straynes against the Proposer. But let us see what gro [...]d our travailer now treades uppon. No, he will demaund first.

When he sayth that by S. Paules order Christians should pray with understanding, what kinde of prayer doth hee meane? Reply pag. 22..

To this we answere him; All prayers which as well re­quire [Page 124] the understanding as the will, knowledge as De­votion.

But the Iesuite sayth, if private prayer, such as Christi­ans by themselves doe exercise, cleare it is that the Apostle in that fourteenth Chap. speaketh of none such, and say he did, it is well knowne that amongst us the use of praying in a vulgar tongue is left as free to each one, as amongst the Protestants themselves Reply pag. 22.

The most learned Primate interpreteth not those words of prayer, as publick, or private, but in regard of the act of praying with what circumstances soever it be used: and that by St. Paules order no prayers ought to be made, of what kind soever, which the parties invocating understād not, be they publicke, or private, for the whole Church, or for particular necessity. But for that freedome of praying in a vulgar tongue, which you say, is left to each one a­mongst you; we know it false by experience, unlesse your directions for saying of Ave's, and Pater-nosters, bee ar­bitrary and left to the discretion of your Catholicke children, which I thinke no Popish father will admit. For your Rhemists conclude, that praying either publickely or privately in Latine, is thought by the wisest and godliest to be most expedient Vpon the 18▪ verse of the 14▪ chap. of the first Epistle of Paul to the Co­rinthians.. and though they confesse, that their church hath commanded in some Councells, that such as cannot learne distinctly in Latine (specially the Pater noster and the Creed) should be taught them in the vulgar tongue. Yet the wisdome of the Church hath better liked and allowed of Latine Primars, Beads and Prayers Vpon the 1 [...]. verse▪. from whence the Iesuite may collect, that the Rhemists stick closer to the Latine, then himselfe, insomuch, that they would have the people to use not one­ly Latine Primars and Prayers, but Latine Beades also, All which (without doubt) are alike availeable.

Againe the Iesuite saith, if he meane the Publicke Prayer and service of the Church: certaine also it is, that the Co­rinthians had theirs in the Greeke, and not in any unknowne language, and therefore the Apostle speaking of prayer in [Page 125] an unknowne tongue, cannot be said to meane the publicke Service of the Church Reply pag. 22.

And wherefore in Greeke? was it not, because that lan­guage was more generally understood? and did not the A­postles for the same cause make use of that tongue in re­vealing the mysteries of God? But at length our Iesuit con­fesseth all which hee so violently fighteth against, by di­stinguishing betwixt prayer which is directed to the edi­fying and instruction of the hearers, upon which Prayer, the Apostles Doctrine in that Chapter runneth altogether: and their publicke Church service, which cannot any way be said to be such Reply pag. 23: For hereby we get this, that our prayers both publick and private are agreeable to the Apostles grounds, which are generall; and that their prayers both publicke and private doe oppose the same. And yet they thinke all wilbe made up, by a more grosse uncovering their shame and nakednes, and therefore he telleth us, that their publicke Church service is directed principally to the worship of Al­mighty God, and not to instruct and edifie the hearers Reply. ibid..

What▪ Gods service, and no way for instruction? what? Darke Church? Darke soules? all in obscurity? Gods worship also? Hath the Church beene without Vrim and Thummim since her captivitie in Babylon? The Ie­suite will have it so; But wee know that as GODS wor­ship is an act which GOD accepteth for his honour; so thereby man doth increase in saving graces, not of those onely which are appropriated to the will, zeale and de­votion, but to the understanding also being made conformable to GODS Image in wisedome and know­ledge Thomas 22 [...]. quaest. 92. ar. 2. Ordinatur pri­mò divinus cul­tus ad reveren­tiam Deo exhi­bendam. Se­cundò ordina­tur▪ ad hoc, quod homo in­struatur à De [...], quem coli [...] ▪ Tertiò ordina­tur dirinus cul­tus ad quan­dam directio­nem. humano­rum actu [...]m se­cundùm insta­tuta Dei qui colitur.: and surely if every action, especially that which is christian and divine, ought to be done to edification, wee may see where our Iesuite is, that in the supreame act of divine adoration, denyeth any thing but darkenesse to remaine.

Moreover (saith the Iesuite) when S. Paul in that Chap­ter speaketh [...] a strange tongue, certaine it is that hee [Page 126] meaneth an unknowne language, miraculously imparted to the speaker, by the gift of tongues; but the Latine—is none such &c. Reply pag. 23..

This is false by the Iudgment of their owne Dionisyus Carthusianus upon the x. verse of this Chapter. But sup­pose it were not, yet in effect it is the same crossing the ge­nerall rules of the Apostle, as those tongues which were given by miracle. The Iesuite doth further from the Rhe­mists make the Co [...]tents of this Chapter to be this that men though they had strange tongues by miracle, yet should not preferre the same before prophesie, the speaker of languages be­ing inhibited to vtter his inspiration unlesse there were an interpreter.

It were not much if this were in part granted the Ie­suite, but is there nothing else driven at by the holy Apo­stle? surely if their practise durst indure tryall, the Apostle speaketh to other endes also. Bellarmine maketh the A­postles words to signifie prayer, singing and giving of thankes, and confesseth that Chrys [...]st [...]me and Theophilact, Ambrose and Haymo understand this place of prayer Bellarde ver­bo Dei lib. 2. cap. 16. Nam [...] & [...] & [...], quibus voci­bus Apostolus utitur, non sig­nificant conci­onari, fed pre cari, & canere, & gratias age­re. Quncirca▪ Chryso [...] & Theophila­ctur, nec non Ambros [...] & Haymo Haymo hunc locum de pre­cibus intesti­g [...]t. Ve [...] [...]isp. [...] [...]. [...]. Que vis [...]es mundi▪ ex na­tura [...]ei, & se­ [...]so periculo [...] cum Deb, sicut [...]ago ip­siu [...] adorari po­test.. The Iesuite also observeth that the Apostles doctrine in this Chapter run­neth altogether uppon such a prayer, as is directed to the edify­ing and instruction of the hearers: and yet hath the face to deny, that the Apostle either meaneth publicke, or private in this Chapter. Howsoeuer surely the drift of the Apostle here, must be something else, then that cited from the Rhe­mists; For if the understanding of the party, that either prayeth, or assenteth to the prayer, be not exercised▪ why may not God be worshipped with any words as you con­fesse he may be adored [...] Image, or representation, be it, of beast, or man [...]? and then why may not the Church make use of one of Ariosto's Poems in a strange tongue, or such sleight phantasies, seeing the mindes might per­forme their [...]eale, where the wordes signifie nothing to the purpose at all?

But whatsoeuer Prayer is meant here in this chapter ei­ther [Page 127] publicke or private, it is plaine that it ought not to be used, but in such a manner that it might be understood: for saith the Apostle ver. 15. I will pray with the Spirit, I will pray with understanding: Neither hath this relation to him that prayeth, but to all those that communicated with him in his prayer. So ver. 16. Else when thou shalt blesse with the Spirit, how shall he which occupieth the roome of the un­learned say Amen▪ at thy giving of thankes, seeing he under­standeth not what thou sayest. And although this Iesuite thinketh he doth wisely, when he telleth us, that those tongues which the Apostle inhibites, were not such as the Latine, but such as the Apostle spake by miracle, having the gift of tongues: this maketh more against him, for if God would not have those tongues which did principally give honour unto his name, to be used in prophesying or praying without an interpreter, where the people could not understand them; much lesse other tongues which were onely obtained by industry and paines. And the A­postle giveth the reason by expressing the inconvenience, that thereby they shalbe Barbarians to each other ver. 11. and be like a Trumpeter that strikes amazement, but stir­reth up no Devotion, unlesse a blind and a distracted one, when the Trumpet giveth but an uncertaine sound [...]. 8.. Whereby, it is apparant, that all popish prayer, whether private, or publick, is made in opposition of these grounds layed downe by the Apostle, under these poore pretences, that the efficacy of the prayer consisteth in the very vertue of the worke [...]hum. vpon the 13. verse of this chapter. &c. that the publicke Church Service is directed principally to the worship of Almighty God, and not to instruct and edifie the hearers▪ Reply pag. 23.; that it per [...]neth much more to uni­ty Rhem. vpon the 11. verse of this chapter., that men should in their devotion pray like Parrates, and the Preists read the Exhortation with an intent not to be understood. And as this opposeth the Apostle his dire­ction how to pray; so doth it contradict the generall pra­ctise of the primitive Church founded upon this rule. For Origen sayth, that the Greekes truely doe call upon GOD in [Page 128] Greeke, the Romans in Latine; and euery one also doth pray unto him in their native and vulgar tongue Origen. Con: Celsum. lib: 8. At Grae [...]i qui­dem graece hunc nominant & latinè Ro­mani: & singu­li item nativâ & vernaculâ linguâ Deum precantur., And also the Councell of Lateran under Innocent the third, (by reason that in many parts, people of diuers languages were mingled within the same cittie and diocesse, having divers [...] and manners under one faith,) did straitly commaund, that the Pre­lates of such citties or diocesses, should provide fit men, which according to the diversityes of [...] and languages should ce­lebrate divine service, & minister the ecclesiasticall sacraments unto them, instructing them aswell by word as by example Concil Late­ranen: 4tum Oecum. sub In nocen: 3o. cap. 9 Quoniam in pleris (que) parti­bus intra ean­dem civitatem atque di [...]ce. sin permixti funt populi di­versarum lin­guarum, haben­tes sub una fide varios ritus & mores, districtè praecipimus, ut pontifices hu­iusmodi civita­tum, sive di [...] ­cesium, provi deant viros ido­neos, qui se­cundum diversitates rituum & linguarum divina officia illis celebrent, & ecclesi­astica sacramenta illis ministrent, instruendo cos verbo pariter & exemplo.: which Decree must needs crosse their subsequent practise. Further, although Aquinas doth justifie the service of the Roman Church which the vulgar understand not, yet he a [...]irmeth this to have beene madnes in the Primitive times A­quin. in 1. Cor. 14. Dicendum est ad hoc, quod ideo erat insania in primi­ [...] [...] Ecclesi [...], quia erant rudes in ritu ecclesiastico.. And if understanding be not requisite in your Church service, wherefore insert you in your missall the prayer of St. Ambrose, Make me by thy grace alwayes to be­leive and understand that of so great a mistery Missa [...]. Roman. Orat: sancti. Ambro: ante missam. fac me per gratiam tuam semper illud de tanto mysterio credere & intelligere &c. &c, if (I say) for his owne edification in spirit and affection, there bee no difference, whether the Speaker understand any thing he speaketh, or not, as the RhemistsIn ver. [...]. cap. praed:, would interpret the Apostles words▪ Besides if the People should learne no­thing, nor understand any thing that is there done, where­fore doth the Priest turning himselfe unto them say, Let us pray, the Lord be with you? why doth the People answere you, and with thy spirit Missal: Ro­man. Celebrans versa facie ad p [...]pulum▪ cum dicturus est, Orate fratres, Do­minus vobiscum. Res. Et cum spiritu tuo.? Or why did the Councell of Ba­sill decree against those that say Masse in secret prayers with such a lowe voyce, that it cannot be heard of the [Page 129] standers by Basil. Concil. Sess. 21. Abu­sum aliquarum Ecclesiarum in quibus-Missa e­tiam privata si­ne ministro aut per secretas o­rationes ita submissâ vo [...]e dicitur, quod à circumstanti­bus audiri non potest, abolen­tes, statuimus, ut qui in his transgressor in­ventus fuerit, à suo superiore debitè castige­tur., if some in that Councell had not thought it convenient, that the People should understand the prayers that were read? So that let our Iesuite contend as he plea­seth, Chrysostome concludeth, that the Common people cannot say Amen to a prayer which they doe not understand Chrysost. in Epist. ad Corin. 1. cap. 14, homil 35. Si peregrinâ linguâ gratias agas, quam nec intelligas ipse, nec caeteris item interpre­teris, subjicere Amen, plebeius non potest, & illud, in secula seculorum, quifinis precum est, [...]udiens Amen non dicet., which dutie both the Apostle 1 Cor. 14. 6 & the ancient practise Iustinus sub finem secun [...]ae Ap [...]logiae pro Christianis, disertis verbis dicit totum populum in Ecclesia re [...]p [...]ndere consuevisse, Ame [...]; cùm Sacerdos rerminabat orationem, vel gratiarum actio­nem. [...]dem etiam p [...]stea l [...]ngo tempore ser [...]a [...]um esse [...]am in Oriente, quám in Occiden­te. [...]aret ex li [...]urgiâ Chrysostomi, quae habetur in fine operum ejus, ubi apertissimè distin­gunatur quae Sacerdos, quae Diaconus, & quae populus in divin [...]s officijs canebant. Item ex Cyp [...]ano serm d [...]oratione Dominicâ, ubi d cit plebem respondere: Habemus ad Do­minum, & ex Hierony ni praefa [...]. lib. 2. in Episto. ad Galat qui scribit in Ecclesijs urbis Romae quasi coeleste [...]omtru audiri populum reboantem, Amen. Bellarm. de verbo Dei. lib. -. cap. 16. supposeth as necessary for the people to performe. And therefore our Iesuite may leave to triumph, unlesse it be in his scars, & to boast any further, unlesse he be cōfident of his impudency; & let the trophy rest where it should be, upon the Victors head, who hath shewed the ground to resolve a mans judg­ment, & hath further manifested, that Papists being unable to justifie their practise thereby, must confesse, if ever they expect acquittall from their perverse and incrept innova­tions, that things are not now kept in that order, in which they were left at first by the Apostle.

Moreover, whereas the learned Primate sheweth the practise of Popish contrivers, in that, the case is now so alte­red, that the bringing in of a tongue not understood, which hin­dered the edifying of Babell it selfe, and scattered the builders thereof, is accompted a good meanes to further the edifying of their Babell, and to hold her followers together: Our Iesuite would have us to espy,

How many absurdities are couched in these words, unwor­thy truly of such a penne Reply pag. 3.. Indeed it ill befits [...]o slender a braine-pan to charge that penne with absurdities. but how perswadeth h [...] his fictions?

First (saith he) those words [the case is now so altered] as charging us to vary from S. Paules order are most vaine, seeing that we finde no such order at all Reply ibid..

The Order 1. Cor. 14. 37. 40. of S. Paul is evident to any that will not counterfeite blindnes: for (saith he) let all things be done to edification v. 26., that is, to the cōmodity of many, euen of the whole Church, as S. Chrysostome observeth, this (saith that auncient Father) is as it were a Canon to the Apostle in all things Chrysost. in e­pist. ad Cor. 1. cap. 14. homil. 35. Idem ubi­que viri institu­tum vides, mul­torum, ac toti­us ecclesiae sci­licet commodi­tatem: hic illi est in rebus om­nibus veluti canon.. And accordingly the Apostle ordereth that no tongue shal have priviledge to be used among the faithfull that doth hinder knowledge1. Cor. 14. 28., by which the people are edified & instruct­edv. 22., the gift of tongues being a signe to thē that beleive not*: And professeth, that in the Church he had rather speake five words with his understanding, that so he might teach others al­so, then ten thousand words in an unknowne tongue v. 5.. Now the practise of these primitive times is not imitated by you, but opposed by your practise, howsoever accidentally and not by Papall decree it first got footing in your Church.

Secondly those others, [that the bringing in of a tongue not understood] containe two grosse mistakes: for neither is the Latine a tongue not understood Reply pag. 23..† v. 19.

That the latine is a tongue not understood. We will bring two witnesses from Rome, Roman Preists, Roman People, which wilbe sufficient to vindicate the most learned An­swerer from this mistake, which the Iesuite layeth against him. For wherefore did you accent the Masse-booke, but because your Preists could not rightly read it? and will you perswade, that they could understand, what they could not read? 2ly. For your People, if you will not confesse that they are generally ignorant of the Latine, observe, how they mumble their Mattens and this will suffice. But the Ie­suite well knowing, that the Latine is a tongue not under­stood, doth restraine his speech, that it was not such a one [...] St. Paul speaketh of; that is, imparted by miracle; But this is nothing to the purpose, whether the Roman lan­guage were miraculously imparted, or no, For St. Paul [Page 131] maketh that language to be unknowne which needethan interpreter, and I doubt not, but you will confesse, that your Latine hath neede hereof, especially when the ig­norant people are your auditours. And further let us con­sider the Iesuite mistaken, in making a language to bee knowne or unknowne in regard of it selfe; whenas it is so reputed onely, in regard of the hearers, which doe not understand the same. Balaams Asse spake by miracle, and yet his language was not unknowne: and many spend their lives in your Latine Masse, and yet beget but ignorant hearers.

Moreover, if the Iesuite had not mistaken himselfe, he might have found the Latine to have beene a tongue un­knowne, and a tongue imparted by miracle also, as we may see in the Acts of the ApostlesAct. 8. 10. 11., where the dwellers in Phrygia, and Pamphilia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Lybia, about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Iewes and Proselites &c. did heare the Apostles speaking in their tongues the wonder­full workes of God. whereunto S. Chrysostome agreeth, af­firming more then once, the Latine tongue to have beene imparted by miracle to the Apostles Chrysost. in Epist. ad Cor. 1. cap. 14. ho­mil. 35. Idem Persarum RO­MANO­RVM Indo­rum, & multo­rum praetereà linguis, Spiritu susurrante, lo­quebatur, at (que) id munus, mu­nus tum voca­batur lingua­rum. E [...] paulo post. Erant enim jam olim, qui precandi do­num, & linguae conjunctum haberent multi, & precabantur quidem, & linguâ sonabant, vel Persarum vel ROMANA utentes.. Neither (saith the Iesuite) was it brought in by us, but by our Answerer himselfe confessed to have beene from the beginning Reply pag. 23..

For this your second mistake; the learned Primate saith, that the Latine service. was used from the beginning in those countries; and who doubteth of it? but was it not al­so understood? if the Preists had then Latine tongues, had not the people Latine earesAzor. Ies. Instit. Mor. par 1. lib. 8. cap. 26. Nos tan en libe [...]ter fatemur, tunc temporis laicos in Scripturarum lectione fuisse versatos, quia sacra eloquia fue [...]unt Graeco vel Latino sermone con­scripta, quem sermonem vulgus quoque callebat: nunc vero plebs fere rudis est, & imperita Latini sermonis; at Laici qui Graecè vel Latinè noverunt, Scriptura [...] jure optimo lectitant.?

But this (as the Iesuite pretendeth from the Answerers [Page 132] confession) hath remained in the Church without alterati­on (no such syllable in the Answerer) when the people in their vulgar speech departed from it Reply pag. 23..

Imagine at the mistake; the people departed from the vulgar speech: who brought it after them, or in amongst them that had departed from it, but Popish Engineers? For doth not the departing of the people make an altera­tion? can this be denyed? for although the Latine remaine the same, yet is it not fit in these times for the same use & purpose, whereunto it was before appointed. Is it not all one, whether faith ranne from the people, or the people from the faith? Doth not both of these make infidels? if the Candlesticke bee taken from the people, or the peo­ple forsake the light; will there not bee an operation of the same effect? Wee confesse, Latine service hath remained in some Churches, like Saul in his Kingdome, but the people have beene strucken with blindnesse, as hee was possessed with the Divell, ever since the spirit of truth and knowledge departed from them.

And heerein who cannot see that our great Logician in pleading for obscure Church-service, deprives himselfe of reason? for who will say, because the Latine Church had their Latine Liturgie, when that language was under­stood generally, therefore they ought to have it so now: or that there is no alteration among the people, but that they are the same in knowledg & devotiō now, when they understand nothing, as they were in the primitive times, whē they were well instructed: or that because some chur­ches within the Roman Empire had the continuance of a Latine Liturgie, which at first they understood; that there­fore Popish Contrivers cannot as criminous bee charged with bringing in and continuing of a strange tongue a­mongst other Churches, that were afterwards converted? So that the Answerers charge is iust, that, that service which was lawfully practised, when it was vulgarly [Page 133] understood, hath by your carelesnes and negligence of the peoples instruction remained amongst you: But for ma­ny other Churches, as Ireland, the Indies The Iesuite argues, that Latine was not commonly un­derstood in France and Spaine, because they had their proper lan­guages. &c. who brought in those preparations to darkenesse amongst them, but your Bab [...]ll [...], not indring light, least your workes of darkenesse might bee detected or overthrowne? And doth not your mistake lye in your way, it being true that by your negligence it hath continued in some Churches, where it ought to have beene changed; and by your impudencyes, it hath beene intruded upon others, where it ought not to have beene admitted?

Thirdly (saith the Iesuite) the words following, (which hindred the edifying of Babell it selfe and scattered her builders) are of the like nature, for it was not one onely tongue, that hindred the edifying of Babell, as it is well knowne, but ma­ny: Finally, [...]e absurdely concludeth with manifest contradicti­on; for if Babell, was called Confusion, and her builders scat­tered by a multiplicity of different tongues: whilst we in one tongue, and faith hold united together, can any wiseman say that we build confused Babell Reply pag. 24.?

But if one onely tongue confounded, and not many hindred the edifying of Babell, as it is well known; or, if Babell was cal­led Confusion, because that one only tongue was confounded; will not the Iesuite bee ashamed to charge that pen with absurdities, which he can no way resist; but by such ig­norant boldnes, which here and in other places most free­ly and liberally he useth against it? And that this is true, St. Chrysostome affirmeth Chrysost. in epist: ad Cor. 1. cap. 14. homil. 35. Cum n [...]ris extr [...]retur, u­na lingua in multas secaba­tur., & Iosephus doth fully declares where hee telleth us, that the place of the towre was called Babel, or Confusion, not for the multitude of tongues which were then given, but propter confusam linguā quae priùs omnibus ex aequo clara fuerat, because that tongue was confounded which before was indifferētly understood of all the people Iosephus l. 1. Antiq. cap. 5. Locu. vero tur­ris nunc Baby­lon vocatur propter confu­sam &c: nam Hebre [...] confu­sionem nomi­nant Babel.; which your vulgar Bi [...]le expresseth, Venite igitur, descendamus & cōfundamus ibi linguā corū ut non [Page 134] audiat unusquisque voc [...] [...] sui Gen. 11.. G [...] to, let [...] goe downe, and there confound [...] language, that they may not * Gen. 1 [...]. 7. understand [...] spe [...]h; and therefore (in the 9. verse) is the name of it [...], [...] the Lord did there [...] the [...] all the earth▪ which Tor­ni [...]llus telleth us was done by [...] bringing upon them a soddaine and [...] forgetfuln [...]s of their first speech [...]. Annal. sacr. in an. a [...] Orbe cond [...] 1931. n. 10. [...] dicimus, quòd Deus inductâ mirabiliter in cunctis illis ho­minibus subitâ quâdam & omnimodâ prioris idioma­tis obli [...]ione, illicò divinâ suâ dispensati­one & omni­potent [...], in co­rundem [...] novo [...] dire [...]s­que indidit ha­bitus, juxta va­narum lingua­ [...] genera [...] distri­buta, ita ut sta­tim [...] il­ [...] [...] promptum ex­peditumque ac [...] illius ser­monis, qui [...] Quare [...] confusionis [...], quo non semel Scrip­ [...]ra [...] est, ac si denotare [...], [...] in s [...] ipsis [...]., for who is so wilfull to affirme this confution to consist in the gift of new tongues, but in making the former un [...]ntelli­gible, as your Latine is now to the people, [...] formerly they vulgarly understood? And yet uppon this confused foundation hee seeketh not onely to justifie their owne blindnes, but hee would make us scattered wights and Babelists also. May not Protestants (saith hee) bee rather tearmed Babelists, whose diversity of languages and daylie ja [...]es amongst themselves, give good testimony that their [...] of [...], built against the true Church, the Saints and Sacraments, the t [...]ppe thereof ay­ming at heaven it selfe, will [...] bee dissipated, and left [...] ­lated. Reply pag. 24.

May not Mr Malone bee rather tearmed a Babelist, that so confusedly falleth upon us, without any ground whence to force this conclusion? For, first our divers languages make no more confusion amongst us, then the extraordinary gift of tongues did in the Apostles dayes; in regard wee retaine your Latine unconfused, and have many other languages which are [...] acquainted with the faith of CHRIST. Secondly, our jarres are not e­quall to yours, although they many times are passionate­ly exprest; neither are they of any other nature, then those which have beene among the members of the Church of CHRIST; neither destroying faith nor the [Page 135] foundation thereof. Thirdly, the Iesuite is vaine in his f [...]aunting tearmes, [...] towre of Protestancie,—the toppe whereof ayming against heaven it selfe, (when all the world is but gleabe-land sufficient for their towre of S. Angelo) built against the true Church, the Saints and Sa­craments Reply pag. 24. As if there were a true Church, where CHRIST is not Monarch; or that their Universal Master could make Saints, as he hath done Sacraments.

But if wee consider all aright, the ambitious towre of Protestancie will not be a mole-hill, i [...] compared to your mountaines; for the whole world cannot containe Po­pish ambition, although the greatest honour uppon earth must stoope before it Extra de Ma­jor, & Obed. cap. Vnam Sanctam. Porr [...] subesse Roma­no Pontifici omni huma [...] creaturae de­claramus, dici­mus, di [...]imi­mus, et [...] omni [...] [...]sse de necessi­tate [...]; No tearmes will su [...]ice the Papa­cie, but those which wee expresse God withall, as wee may see variously out of [...] De Patriarch. & Primat. orig. l [...]b. 1. Exercit [...]. 1. V [...] quema [...] ­modum Di [...] ­cesani i [...] Episcop [...], Episcopi in Metropolita, Metropolit [...] in Patriarcha unum [...]; it [...] Tri [...]taa Patriarcharum in Vnitate Pontificis coalesceret, sicq, sedis Principis Apostolo­num esset in Trinitate VNITAS, & in Vnitate TRINITAS.. But this is little to that which followeth; for you have made your Monarch after the manner of serpents, to cast off his slough, yea his nature it selfe Alvae. [...]. de [...] Eccles lib. [...]. cap. 37. Papa igitur participatutra [...] (que) naturam cum Christo.; hee must not be barely man, either you must take him for God and man, or compounded of [...]th Clemens. [...] in gloss. Papa [...] mundi:—Qui maxima [...] nec Deus [...], nec homo: quasi Neuter es inter Vtrumque;. Where will you finde his Preisthood, when his Majestie is stiled divine Ludou. Luisius ab Alca [...]ar. in Apoc. in car­mine ad [...] Apost. D [...] [...] 5.—Quem numinis instar vera colit pietas—., which cannot stand with a mi [...]steriall du­tie? Did he affect divinitie as the Emperour thought Aven­tin. lib. 7.? The Pope will tell you, that Peter, (and you may conceive for whose sake) is assumed into the society of the individuall Vnitie Nicol. 3. de Election. cap. Fundamenta in [...] Hunc enim in [...] in­dividu [...] unitatis [...] &c., and the Gl [...]sse will give his succe [...]or the tittle of our Lord God the Pope Extravag. Ioan. 1 [...]. de verb rum sign. cap. [...] in gloss. Credere au [...]m [...] DEVM [...] Papam &c., and as if this were too little, a Cardinall of their owne hath told us, that Popes have been [Page 136] perswaded, that they might doe unlawfull t [...]gs, and so, plus quam Deus, more then God himselfe Francisc. Za­barel. deschism. Innoc. 7. & Be­nedicti p. [...]0.. Now let the Iesuite consider, what reason hee had to stile true Religi­on, an ambition [...]towre, when as (if he cast an eye upon them­selves) the towre of Papacie hath a foundation as low as Hell, and an height more loftie then the towre of Babell it selfe.

For the Iesuites invectives of spirit of giddines, severall sects, varying opinions, Reply pag. [...]4 &c. His testimonies are not his freinds. First he urgeth Lavatherus, but as it seemeth from Genebrard and Staphylus See the Margine. ibid., men of excellent credite and repute, (no doubt) su [...]ficient by their bare testimonie to divide all Protestancie; but the Iesuites text is mode­rate if his margine truth it, for the one divides Protestan­cie but into above 100. sects and varying opinions, when the other maketh the sects 180. and both differ from Gene­brard the author that he citeth, who saith there are more then 200: but we see the Iesuite, lest hee should be taken lisping, placeth sects and varying opinions together: Now in this sence, who is there that is acquainted a­ny thing in Popish writings, but can point out many thou­sand varying opinions amongst the Papistes themselves (which they condemne not, as wee doe those follies men­tioned by Genebrard) and not goe out of the compasse of the Papall Creed? And to give them a taste in their Hie­rarchie, there hath beene eleven points of Popish Irish di­vinitie Censura propositionum ad sacrae Theologiae facultatem allatae per Pa­tricium Cahil. Rectorem S. Michaelis Du­blinensis &c. condemned by above 60. Doctors of Sorbon late­ly Actum apud Sorbonam in congregationi­bus publicis sacrae facultatis Theologiae Pa­risiensis, habitis diebus se­cunda & septima [...]a [...]arij 1632. Et con­firmatum in Co [...]itiis extra­ordinariis deci [...] quinti ejus­dem mensis, & anni, praesenti­bus sexaginta Doctoribus & ampl [...]., with such tearmes as these, lame Censura▪ In ista [...]. propositi­one [...]numeratio membrorum Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae—est manca., false [...]. Falsa., contrary to common right 4. Iuri communi con­traria., ambiguous 2. Ambigua.; injurious 7. Inju [...]iosa., inept, ridiculous, against the sence and use of the Church 6, Inepta, ridicula, contra communem Eccle­si [...] sensum & [...]sum:, contrary to divine, naturall and positive law 10. Iuri divino, naturali & positivo contraria., seditious 1 [...]. Sediosa., scandalous 9. Scandal [...]sa., schismati­call [...]. Sc [...]is [...]atica., Hereticall &c. [...]. Haeretic [...]. But suppose there were as many sects [Page 137] as the Iesuite pretends, to disturbe the peace of the Prote­stant Churches; what concludeth he in reproach of us, when he acknowledgeth that before S. Augustine's time there were many more heresies that oppugned the Primi­tive Roman Faith Reply pag. 8., then hee nameth sects to discredite ours? For Perk [...]; 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 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.


THe most learned Primate, as he hath suffici­ently shewed the meanes whereby tares that have crept into the Church might bee detected, viz. 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 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? 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 [Page 139] 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 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 Pri­ [...]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 spa [...]e He­brew. To this purpose it was, that Moses commaunded the Israelites to Deut. 6. [...]. 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 [Page 140] 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 Poly [...]arp. ad Philipp [...]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 Origen: in Le­vit. hom: 9. Nu­trimenta igi­tur spiritus sunt divina lectio, orationes assi­duae, sermo do­ctrinae. His ali­tur cibis, his cō ­valescit, his victor efficitur. of God increased his graces in the hearts of his children; and in after ages this practise conti­nued in the Church, and the negligence of Christians in not teaching their children the scriptures was complained of by the auncient Fathers Espencaeus Episcopus in 2. Tim. 3. in haec verba (Et quia ab infantia li­teras nosti) pag 116. Nequè e­nim haec mea, aut nova, sed est patrum or­thodoxorum querimonia..

Eusebius Caesariensis also in commending of Pamphi­lus amongst other things saith, that hee did not onely lend the scriptures to bee read, but also gave them to men and weomen, which hee sawe were addicted to reading Scripturas quoque sanctas non ad legen­dum tantum sed & haben­dum tribuebat promptissimè, nec solum [...]iris, sed & foe [...] nis quas vidisset lectioni deditas in vi [...]a Pam­phili, [...] per Hieron in Apolog. contra Ruffin. ad Pamachium & Marcell.. Chry­sostome finding the opinion to beginne in the Church, that the reading of the Divine scriptures belonged onely to the Monks, because others had wives, and children, and care of families, bitterly resistes and reprehendes this evill in the people, affirming the reading of the scrip­tures [Page 141] to bee much more necessary for the laye people then the Monks, in regard they having more open conversation, and dayly receiving spirituall wounds, doe stand in more neede of spirituall Physicke Chrysost. ho­mil. 2. in [...]. ca­put Matth. Sed est ne horum criminum tan­dem aliqua de­fensio? Non sum, inquit, ego monachus, uxorem habeo, & filios, & cu­ram domus. Hoc enim est, quod omnia quasi unà qu [...] ­dam pesse cor­rumpit, quoni­am lectionem divinarum scripturarum ad solos putatis monachos per­tinere, cum multo magis robis quam illis sit necessaria. Qui enim versantur in medio, & vulnera quotidiè accipi­unt, magis indigent medicamine.. And S. Hierome commendeth the rea­ding & meditation of the holy scriptures to many holy persons of both sexes, in divers Epistles to them, as is confessed by the Rhemists themselves In the Preface to the Reader before the new t [...]sta­ment.. Yea Chrysostome accounteth it a grea­ter absurdity for his auditors to receive his doctrine with­out examining it by the scriptures, then for a man to re­ceive money upon an others word, and not to reckon it himsel [...]e Chrysostom. Homil. 13. in epistol. ad Corinth. cap. 6. Quo [...]do autem non absurdum propter pecunias alijs non credere, sed ipsas numerare & supputare, pro rebus autem amplioribus aliorum sententiam sequi simpliciter, praes [...]r [...]im cum habeamus om­nium exactissimam t [...]utinam & gnomonem, ac regulam, divinarum, inquam, legum asser­ti nem. Ideo obsecro & oro omnes vos, ut relinqua [...]is quidnam huic v [...]l [...]lli vid [...]atur, de­que his à scripturis haec omnia inquirite.. Gregory likewise sayth of the scripture, as if it had beene given to that purpose, It is a river shallowe and deepe wherein the Lambe may wade and the Elephant swim Gregor. mag. Epist. ad Leand. in expositione [...]ob Est fluvius planus & altus in quo agnus ambulet, & Elephas n [...]tet. But cheifly Chrysostome urgeth the practise of this holy duty. Because the Spirit of God hath so disposed and tem­pered the sacred scriptures, that Publicans, Fishers, Car­penters, Pastors and Apostles, idiots, unlearned, might bee saved by these bookes, least any of the vulgar might fly to the excuse of difficulty; that those things which are delivered might bee easie to bee seene of all, that both the work [...]man, and the servant, and the widdowe-woman, and the most unlearned of all men might carry away some gaine or profit by hearing of the word read Chrysostom. conc. 3. de Lazaro. Propterea siquidem spiritus gratia dispen­savit illa tempetavitque, quo publicani, piscatores, tabernaculorum opifices pastores, & Apostoli, idiotae, illiterati, per hos libros [...]a [...]vi fierent, nequis [...]diotarum ad hanc difficultatis confugere possit excusationem, ut omnibus facilia conspectu [...] quae dicuntur ut & opi [...]ex, & famulus, & vidua mulier, et omnium hominum ind [...] ­ct [...]ssimus ex aud ta lectione aliquid lucri utilitatisque reportaret.. And lastly to disco­ver [Page 142] the Iesuites vanity in charging the most learned An­swerers just assertion with untruth; Azorius the Iesuite in the name of all, doth willingly confesse, that the lay-people were conversant in the reading of the Scriptures in the primi­tive times Azorius Iesu­it. tom. 1. Mo­ral. l. 8. cap. 26. Nos libenter fatemur tunc temporis laicos in Scriptura­rum lectione fuisse versatos..

For the second; It is manifest that the Papists teach and practise the contrary; This the Iesuite doth beleive, as will be manifested by many passages in his Reply; yet he will give us leave to prove it, least confessing so great an altera­tion, he might seeme to acknowledge the Roman Church to have fallen from the practise of the auncients, to wit, in making ignorant people wise to salvation by the reading of the Scriptures. Now the first which I will produce to confirme this, are your Preists at Rhemes, who deny the holy scriptuees to be ordained by God, to be read indifferently of all, & say that in the peace of the Church, vulgar translati­ons were neither muchrequisit, nor perchance wholly tolerable: that the Roman Church alloweth not the publishing or rea­ding of any Catholicke translation absolutely and without ex­ception, but that such as read them must have expresse license thereunto of their lawfull ordinaries In the Preface to the Reader before their te­stament.. And Azorius tells us, that Clement the 8. hath prohibited the reading of any part of the sacred Scriptures, or any comperdious historie thereof in a­ny vulgar language whatsoever Azor. inst. moral l 8. c 26. Et in Indice novissimè edito jussu S. D. N. Clementis 8. in observatione circa quartam regulam prohibentur sacrae Scripturae partes tam novi quam veteris testamenti, quâvis vulgari linguâ editae: ac insuper summaria, & compendia etiam historica [...]orundem Bi bliorum, seu librorum sacrae scripturae, quocunque vulgari idiomate conscripta: quod quidem inviolatè praecipitur servandum.. Yea so farre they are from giving the people this libertie, that Sanders maketh it He­resie to determine the necessary conversion of the Scriptures into vulgar tongues Sander. vis. Monarch. haer. 191 Haeresin esse si quis dicit scripturas necessa [...]ò debe [...]e in vulgares linguas converti.; and Peresius accounteth it the Divels invention to permit the reading of the Bible to all sorts of peo­ple Peresius de tra: par. 2 asser. 3. Credo [...]quidem institutum hoc sub pictatis quâdam umbrâ à Diabolo esse inventum.. And howsoever the Iesuite will not heere speake [Page 143] his minde, yet his thoughts burst from him afterwards in this section, for hee acknowledgeth it no better to afford the people free libertie to reade the scriptures, then to cast Pearles before swyne Reply pag. 27., which he hath received from Hosi­us De expresso Dei verbo. Sed sic visum est haeresiarchae nostri temporis, qui primus dare sanctum cani­bus, & ante porcos ausus est projicere margaritas.. And it is no marvaile, that they so much desire to in­close these commons of Gods people; in regard they find not any to bee made Papists by the Catholicke Doctrine contained in them. For experience it selfe hath taught them what fruite the reading of these divine mysteries in a vulgar tongue hath brought forth Hosius de sa. vern. leg. Expe­rientiâ magi­strâ didicimus quid fructus ea res attulerit—Tantum abest, ut acces­serit ad pieta­tem aliquid plus, ut etiam diminutum esse videatur.. The People (saith Bellarmine) take no profit out of the Scriptures, but hurt Bellarm. De verbo Dei. lib. 2 cap. 15. Po­pulus non so­lum non cape­ret fructum ex scripturis, sed [...]tiam caperet detrimentum.—Experimento idem compro­batur.. And the Iesuite telleth us a whole legend of tales, to confirme this Do­ctrine Reply pag. 27.. So that it is most apparant by what hath beene al­ready said, that the auncient Church not onely permitted all Christians, without exception, or dispensation, to heare and read the sacred Scriptures, but also earnestly exhor­ted them to the practise of those holy duties; and that the present Roman exhorteth none, permitteth very few, to be acquainted with those heavenly Oracles. And shall we [...] then deny, that Papists have remooved the bounds set by the auncient Fathers, and fedde the people with huskes of superstition, whom they ought to have nourished with the sincere milke of the word of life, unlesse we can point them out the Pope that first attempted to bereave Gods people of so great a blessing?

But the Iesuite hath an other frame for his defence. That scripture, which those of the auncient Church had free libertie (as he saith) to reade, was onely such as was approved to bee true, and lawfull by the same Church; the reading whereof a­mongst us at this day, is as free as ever it was amongst our fore­fathers Reply pag. 25..

How tenderly doth the Iesuite tread here? if this Ice breake, sure, he will be swallowed up. He dare not graunt, that the auncient Church gave free libertie to reade the scriptures, and therefore pointeth it out as the most lear­ned Answerers assertion (as hee saith) neither dare he con­fesse [Page 144] the truth concerning themselves, that they deny them to the people, (as hath beene fully proved) yet de­claimeth of the desperate effects, that are produced by the reading of them, & neverthelesse would perswade us to be­leive. 1. that they vary not from their forefathers; 2ly. that their adversaries have removed those bounds, which were set by the Fathers in this point, leading, yea, and driving Christ his flocke out of the wholesome pastures, wherein formerly they were fed unto Salvation, into the marish, weedy and poysoned grounds of their new fangled vulgar Bibles Reply ibid..

For the first of which, I willingly assent thereunto, if by forefathers he understand those wise, grave, learned fathers, which in watching the Church, lost Religion, learning, lan­guages, and suffered Barbarisme and superstition to invade the same: But if he meane those auncient lights, the vigi­lant Bishops and Preists of the first and best times; as wee take them to be none of your fathers, so is it made good that you altogether in this practise vary from them, it be­ing most evident, that the prime fathers (for the edifying of Christs Church) exhorted the people to the reading of the scriptures; when your forefathers (Mr Malone) for the advancement of their Templum Domini (in which is ado­red your Lord God the Pope,) were forced blasphemo [...]sly to inhibite the same See this pro­ved before in this Section..

For the second, he will never prove it, although hee at­tempt to performe the same by a two fold argument. 1. Because our vulgar Bibles are not approved for holy Scrip­tures by the Church of God Reply pag. 26, Whereunto I answere; first that any m [...]y perceive, the Iesuite cannot deny those bookes, which we offer to the Church to be divine and revealed from God, although [...]e dream [...]th that they have lost their nature by their translation. Second [...]y, hee doth calum [...]iate us; for the o [...]iginal [...] Canon, o [...]t of which wee translate, is allowed by the catholicke Church, (which they cannot say for theirs) and the translation by a renow­ned member thereof; which is sufficient for the approba­tion [Page 145] of the same. Yet it may be he would have ours to bee allowed (as their vulgar Latine hath lately been) by canon in the Roman Church, as if the Spirit of God remained at Eckron, & no word of God were to be found in Israel 1. Kings. 1. 2▪ 3: But we know if it were in their power to approve or disprove it, Gregory & Sixtus Consilium E­piscopi Bono­niae congregat. de s [...]abiliend. Rom. eccl. Consilium no­strum esset, ut tua Sanetitas Cardinalibus illis at que Epis­copis, quos in suis residere ec­lesij [...] contige­rit, praeciperet ut—Decreta­les, Sextum, Clementinas, Extravagantes, & regulas Can­cellariae, in [...] quis (que) civitate legi ac doceri publicè curet. Vtinam legen­dis hujusmodi libris, homines ubi (que) diligen­tisù incubuis­sent. Neque e­nim res nostrae in hujusmodi deploratissi­mum statum ad ductae essent. should bee the Canon which should governe the Church, the Scriptures should not onely bee cast out, but Gratian Ibid. Ac non item Decre [...]i quod minimè mirum videri debet. Est enim perniciosus liber, & author ta­tem tuam valde vehementer imminuit: licet alicui extollere videatur. Nam inter alia, ne­gat multis in lo [...]s, posse Papam vel tantillum ad eam Doctrinam adjungere, quam nobis Christus ipse tradidit, & Apostoli docuêre. also, as too opposite to their intents. The titles which they have given to Gods divine Oracles will declare how great affection they beare to the appro­vlng of them. Besides, if no translation be the word of God before the Roman synagogue hath approoved it, I would know whether Sixtus or Clemens his edition be the word of God? As for their vulgar edition; by this rule it was no Scripture before the Trent assembly, and the Rhemish Translation no Scripture to this houre.

His second Argument is, that as it is not confirmed by Rome, so it is disproved by Protestant Doctours them­selves Reply pag. 26..

But herein two things are fit to be observed. First, that the Churches under the government of our sacred Prince did never propose any translation absolutely, as with­out all kind of errour (they being the workes of industri­ous and painfull, and yet but men) but as a faire helpe and means to convay those heavenly lampes into the most simple mans conceipt and understanding, and in such a manner that they should alwayes stoope to the originall tongues wherein God delivereth thē to the people. 2dy, we must make difference betwixt extreames of passion which did many times befall good men when they apprehended some small error with too much feircenes of conceit; and their more selected judgments; the one bursting frō them; [Page 146] the other being a true birth. Now if this bee truly appre­hended, what can the Churches of England and Ireland suffer, who in proposing the Scriptures to the people have used all diligence, viewing and amending those errours which time hath detected, not defending them; as the Ro­manists have & doe their corruptest Latine Praesatio Sixti Quinti praefixa Biblijs sui [...]. Tanta per se est Vulgatae e­ditionis aucto­ritas, tamque excellens prae­stan [...]ia, ut ma­jorem desidera­re, penitus inane videatur.. It is far from the practise of ours to commit wilfull errors in translati­ons, and if any such are once found out, (be they never so light) we are willing to amend and follow the truth. If our late Soveraigne of ever blessed memory did find some errours in our translation, & amended them; if the learned Dr Reynolds saw the same, & perswaded reformation; what, must this conclude, that there was no truth in our Church? no Scriptures there?

For his other citations, some are passions, others are of like nature with the first. But esteeme them as you please, your jealousies doe more bring your vulgar Latine into suspition, then these testimonies can disgrace ours. For you seeke to justify it, because it commeth nearer the Hebrew then the Septuagint Iacob. Gor­don. Huntl. E­pit. controvers. contr. 1. Dever­bo Dei cap. 1 [...]. Interpretatio▪ septuaginta [...]n­terpretum lon­gè magis rece­dit ab Haebrco textu, qui jam extat quam nostra vulgata.; a muddie argument for him that chargeth the Hebrew text with corruption Ibid. cap. 6. Hebraicus tex­tus—vitiatus sit & deprava­tus.. Secondly, they say, that the best sence in the obscure places of the Scripture is not alwayes to be sought after: for then, there would be no end of translations Ibidem cap. 15. Si interpres in manifestis & apertis locis Scripturae omnia rectè interpretetur, & in obscuris aliquem sensum literae con­gruum exprimat, etiamsi fortassis non assequatur optimum sensum, sed posset alius melio [...] affer [...], non ob id censendus est errâsse, aut officium boni Interpretis non impl [...]sse— [...] si semper optimus sensus quaerendus esset, nullus unquam erit finis interpretationum: sed oportebit nos singulis ferè annis novam cudere interpretationem, aut certè priorem [...]men­dare., whereby they declare that all transla­tions are subject to errour, & that the best interpretation is not alwayes to be reputed the authentick in the Church of Rom [...]. And are they not driven in their defence of the vulgar, to confesse errors Ibid Hinc diluuntur omnia argumenta desumpta ex pa [...]vis erratis vulgatae edi­tio [...] is, quae velex libra [...]iorum incuria, aut aliunde irrepserunt., though they would have them to be small? and that, that Church doth not erre which holdeth such a version of the Scriptures which may be corrected in some [Page 147] particulars, when there is nothing to bee found that crosseth faith and good manners Ibid. Conse­quitur, Ecclesi­am illam non errare,, quae re­ [...]inet versionem Scriptur [...], quae in quibusdam corrigi possit, dummodo ni­hil sit in ea, quod fidei aut bonis moribu [...] adversetur.? Doe they not goe further, telling us, that translations of Scripture are not to be reprehended for their diversity in the manner of expression; so they bee not contrary Ibid. Non sunt reprehen­dendae transla­tiones sacrae Scripturae ob id duntaxa [...], quod sint inter se diversae, dummodo non sint contrariae. to the truth?

If you for the justifying of the vulgar translation cast from you as corrupt, the Greeke, and Hebrew, (from which you differ in tenne thousand words Vide Bellum Papal. in ap­pend. ad Lecto­rem Super­sunt. corri­genda [...] docc [...] millia verbo­rum in utroq▪ testamento, quae differre quantum ad sensum à Graecis & Hebraeis fonti­bus, Chaldaico (que) Paraphraste observatum est & annotatum jampridem à Lovaniensibus in notis marginalibus.) and all the Latine Co­pies that were found amongst your selves before that put forth by Sixtus 5. by which they should be amended Praefatio Sixti Quinti, praefixa Biblijs suis. Auctoritate & te­nore praemissis mandamus, ut Vulgatae editionis Biblia, posthac non nisi uniformia impri­mantur, nec aliquid à textu diversum in margine scribatur. Quae verò antehac quibus­cun (que) in locis impressa sunt, iu [...]ta hunc nostrum textum ad verbum & ad literam corri­gantur.: where will you find in the Roman Church the word of God for many ages together, (unlesse you be beholding to the cor­rupt Hebrew & Greeke) seeing your owne Pope presuppo­seth that your Latine Copies in some places can neither bee reconciled nor understood Ibid. Nostri Codicesipsi perse aut conciliari, aut intelligi non possunt.. And notwithstanding your vi­gilant Pastours were 22. yeares before they performed what was necessary by your Trent-Councell Ibid. Per hosce jam 22. annos, quia dicto T [...]identini consilio decre [...]o ad nostri us (que) Pontificatus exordium interfluxerant, licet hujusmodi opus aliquando coeptum fuerit, tamen ob alias fortasse occupationes intermissum., (so carefull they were to bring the Word of God into your Church) yet so poorely did Sixtus then performe his taske, that Clement did afterwards put forth the same according to the Greeke and Hebrew fountaines Praefatio ad Lecto: ante Bibliam Sixti [...] recognit. at (que) edit▪ per Clement. In hac Bibliorum recognitione in codicibus manuscriptis, Hebraeis, Graecis (que) fontibus, & ipsis veterum Patrum commentarijs con [...]erendis non mediocre stu­dium adhibi [...]m fuerir, in hâc tamen pervulgatâ lectione—nonn [...]lla consul [...]ò [...]tata.; with many 1000. vari­ances, crossings and contradictings of Pope Sixtus his for­mer edition. I shall not need to lay downe any particulars, seeing the whole catalogue of their discrepancies is made up by the labour and industry of Doctor Thomas Iames in [Page 148] his Bellum Papale. So that the Iesuite may see what little reason they have to question our translations.

But what is all the Iesuites digression to the purpose? the most learned Primates observation whereunto hee should have replyed, is, that all sorts of people had free liber­tie to read the holy Scriptures, in the ancient Church, & that the contrary is now practised amongst Papists: if the Iesuite con­fesse this, we will presse him no further; for this sufficeth to prove, that although we cannot name the Pope that first spoyled Gods people of this heavenly treasure, yet it is most certaine, that they are defrauded of their right; which undenyablie demonstrates the Iesuites demaund to be fri­volous and vaine, that concludeth the Church of Rome doth remaine pure and undefiled still, unlesse we can point out a Pope, that brought in every corruption wherewith she is tainted.

Neither will it serve the Iesuites turne to exclaime a­gainst our translations; for although wee should confesse that some of ours have as many faults as we know to be in the vulgar Latine, or they charge the Originalls withall; & that some expresse it with more impatiencie, then Clemens did the omissions of Sixtus Praefatio ad Lectorem ult. citat. Non pau­ca in sacra Bi­blia praeli vitio irrepsisse, quae iteratâ diligen­tiâ indigere vi­derentur., yet this is not sufficient to to make our translations no Scriptures, to excommuni­cate them out of the Church, or to deprive the people of the true use thereof. For, is any ignorant, that vulgar translations in primitive times, were in many parti­culars faultie, and more grosse then any translation, which is allowed to bee read in the Church of Ire­land Ibid. S Hie­ronymus tem­pore suo acci­disse testatus est, tot scilicet fuisse exemplaria, quotcodices; cùm unusquisque pro arbitrio suo adde­ [...]et vel detraheret▪. Did not Lucian and Hesychius at severall tymes correct the Septuagint Hieron. in libr. Paralip. praefat. Alexandria & Aegyptus in Septu­aginta suis Hesy [...]ium laudat autorem. Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat; mediae inter has Provinciae Palaestinos codice [...] legunt, quo [...] ab Origine elaboratos Eus [...]bius & Pamphilus vulgaverunt, totusque Orbis hâc inter se triphariâ varietate compugnat.? Were all the translations out of Greeke into Latine, without [Page 149] faults, as they were without number Augustin. de Doctr. chr lib. 2. cap. 11. Qui enim Scriptu­ras ex Hebraea lingua in Grae­cam verterunt linguam, nu­merari possunt, Latini autem interpretes nul­lo modo▪? The vulgar Latine now in force by decree in the Church of Rome, abounded with errors; or els your Popes were full of impiety, that kept all the learned traine of the Roman Church 22. yeares in worke to correct is, before it could bee fitted for an im­pression, & then let it passe not without downright errors, as by Clements altering, adding, detracting, contradicting of it in thousands of places in his after-edition, is most ap­parant, and hath beene formerly declared. Vid. lit. [...]. & [...].

Further, whereas▪ the Iesuite urgeth St Hierome, that the Gospell of Christ, by p [...]rverse interpretation, is made the Gospell of man: or which is worse, the Gospell of the Divell Reply pag. 26.. Our Iesuite hath forgot himselfe: for what hath inter­pretation to doe with our translation? we confesse Arius and Pelagius used the Scripture in this manner, & that your great Roman Interpreter hath so behaved himselfe, that he needeth not to give place to any precedent Hereticks See the right reverend and most learned the Lord Bi­shop of Kil­more his Epistle to M Wads­worth. chap. 3. pag. 62. 63. & ad pag. 69,. But for which of our good workes would hee stone us?

Now you may see how great cause our Iesuite hath to complement it. Hath not then our holy mother the Catho­lick Church good reason to barre her children from reading of such dangerous bookes, as lead their Readers head long into per­dition, and doth shee not h [...]reby regard that Christian reve­rence and respect which is due unto the Majesty of Gods sa­cred Word, more by keeping it from defiled hands, then our Adversaries doe, by casting that pricclesse pearle before such (wyne &c Reply pag. 27..

Here our Iesuite is out of his coule (like a Fencer) in his flourish; For they are not corrupt translations which his faction detesteth▪ (for none are more corrupt [...]e hath [...] authentick) but vulgar, and even now our vul [...]mpleh, [...] were but poisoned grounds, new fa [...]gled d, deserv [...]d train? [...] Reply pag. 26 name of holy Scripture, yet here they shall haveger▪ [...] of pricelesse pearles, which (as the Iesuite saith) [...]n his [...] before s [...]yn [...]. Surely if our translation be no Scrip [...]es, where is [Page 150] the breach of reverence, of Christian respect? where is the Majestie of the sacred word prophaned, if ours be the true word of God? Let the Iesuite returne to his vomite which he hath disgorged against God and his Oracles: I would know whether it is more honour to Gods Booke to bee re­served in close Libraries; or in the hearts or hands of his Saints. Whom he meaneth by Swyne, every one may per­ceive; even those that Christ prized at the high rate of his precious bloud; the laytie, and all others to whom this li­bertie by the Adversaries is denyed: But our Iesuite must learne, that the word of God is of that efficacie, that it can make cleane wallowing swyne, and those which are now dogges, and without, it will force to cast up their vomite; and in time it will purge and consume Antichrist, and that foule fabrick of iniquity, your A [...]gean Roman stable.

And further our Iesuite deales like the Iewes with the Inhabitants of the towre of Syloam, Luke 13. 4. p [...]ving quidlibet de quolibet, particular doctrines by desperate events. First he telleth us, that since the most learned Answerer printed his booke, there fell out an example among our selves, which might sufficiently condemne this their perni [...]ious licensing of e­very giddie braine to reade their Bibles. But I pray you what example is this? why, of one Gray, who not long ag [...], [...] ­ving inhumanely murthered his owne sonne, excused his bloody fact by the example of Abram, whom God commanded to sa­crifice his sonne Isaac. Reply pag. 27 Who will excuse the bloody fact of that distracted wretch? But yet who can collect any such thing from the Iesuites fond premisses, as he laboureth to conclude? Nabal was his name, and folly was with him; e­ver [...] [...] knoweth that it was cōceived discontent which [...] his soule in that speculative desperatnes, & that [...] Divels suggestion & not the scriptures▪ which [...] to that evill. And I pray the Iesuite to tell me the [...] why amongst them images (the Laye-mens bookes) [...] not wrought the same effect; seeing by them [...]he historie [...] of the Bible are likewise represented? Further [Page 151] will the Iesuite argue, the Divell hath abused scriptures by suggestion, therefore the scriptures should bee taken from the tempted for their ordinary use? If this were good Logick, the Iesuite might debarre Christ of his scriptum est Mat. 4. 4. 7., because the Divell cited text. Neither can the Iesuite shew such grosse abuses in the interpretation of scriptures by those which have beene indifferently learned, as have beene committed by the learned themselves; some of them prooving to be the greatest Architects of Villanie. It may be the Anthropomorphites did embrace their o­pinion simplicitate rusticâ; yet we cannot deny▪ but Origen (besides divers Hereticks) did abuse it more▪ [...] enquiring after Allegories, never dreaming of the letter. Now if the simple, because they mistake the literall sence, & the lear­ned, because too much given to allegories be inhibited the use of scriptures: How can St Iohns words be true, These things are written, that ye might beleive that Iesus is Christ the Son of God, & that beleiving, yee might have life through his Name Ioh 20. 31.?

But he proceedes in his storying, In like sort doth Fran­ciscus Costerus in the preface before his Dominical sermons, pro­duce examples of grosse enormities proceeding frō this liberty Reply pag. 27..

The Author is of such worth, that we might easily cast off his testimony; but give him leave to relate his observatiōs.

First, a certaine Painter in Prussia, who having read how Lot lay with his daughters, learned▪ thereby to defile his owne daughters also Reply ibid..

Suppose we have one ignorant Prussian, that imagineth every example in Scripture equivalent to a Rule; must Gods word upon this ground be denyed the Laytie? sure­ly, there is no bon sequitur heere: What if a Iesuite hath conceived King Butchery lawfull by Ehud's example Io. Mariana, de Reg. instit. lib. 1. cap. 7. Ita (que) apertâ vi & armis posse occidi tyran­num, sive impe­tu in regiam fa­cto, sive com­missâ pugnâ, in confesso est. Sed & dolo at (que) in­sidijs excep tum: quod fe­cit Aiod. &c., must the Scripture therefore be denied your learned train? the reason, truly, is the same, the consequent stronger.

Secondly, Iohn a taylor of Leyden, found out in his Bible that he should be a King, and that he might lawfully have two [Page 152] wives at once, and that all temporall goods ought to bee com­mon amongst men Reply ibid..

Who knoweth not, that the Church hath had, even as a­mongst the learned, Hereticks and those which have raised Schisme; so also amongst the Laytie, Phantastickes even in her best ages and times? Must the Church seale up her trea­sure from the people, because they have fond and strange imaginations? Every eye may perceive that those very bookes which you deliver for the peoples instruction, are as subject to vaine imaginations as the Scriptures, & ther­fore why permit you them to the people, if you condemne us, when as Gods word is lesse subject to abuse then the frames of sinfull men? And for your setting up images in Churches for Lay-mens bookes, besides their occasioning idolatrie, what error and blindnesse bring they among the People, as that Moses hath hornes, &c. and yet which of these are separated from them? Must Lay-people with us for ever loose the comfort of Gods truth for the errour of one seduced fancie; & must images by you be pressed upon the people, which occasion in the Church such fearefull e­vents of Idolatrie, superstition and errour?

But I pray you tell me, what hath the Taylor of Leyden done more then your Roman Bishops? where have his mistakes beene more grosse? Hee by his Bible found hee should be a king: They by their wresting their Bibles, that they are above Emperours [...] de Ma­ior. & obed. c. Vnam sanctam. In hâc ejusque potestate duos esse gladios: spiritualem videlicet & [...]em­poralem evangclicis dictis instru [...]mur. Nam dicentibus Apostolis, Ecce gladij duo hîc, in Ecclesia scilicet cum Apostoli loquerentur, non respondit Dominus nimis esse, sed [...]atis. Certè qui in potestate Petri temporalem gladium esse negat: malè verbum attendit Do­mini proferentis. Converte gladium [...]um in vaginam. E [...] paulo post. Nam veritate testante spiritualis potesta [...] terrenam potestatem instituere habet & judicare: si bona non fuerit: si de ecclesiâ & ecclesiasticâ potestate verificatur vaticinium Hieremiae▪ [...]cce constitui [...]e hodie super gentes & regna: &c. quae sequnntur. Ergo si deviat [...]er­ [...] potestas judicabitur â potestate spirituali. vide plura.. He, that hee might have two wives: They for Catholicke ends, can dispence with a [Page 153] brother to marry his brothers wife Antiq. Britan. p. 307. Sed quia jure divino [...] ­tris sui relictam viduam haud liceret ducere, it ur ad Papam Iulium—Is—Theologis Car­dinalibus etiam dissentientibus, instante Ferdi­nando ad con­trahendum in­ter Henricum [...] Regem, & D. Catharinam matrimonium Iuris divini dis­pensationem produxit.. &c. and permit many Stewes Agrip. de van. scien. cap. 64. Sixtus Pon­tifex maximus Romae nobile admodum lu­panar extruxit. also. Hee would have all things common. They, will have nothing so appropriated to others, that some way at least in ordine ad spiritualia may not belong to them Bernardus Mornalensis in 3 libro de con­temptu mundi. Heu, sua pro­pria deputat omnia REX BABYLONIS.. Now let any indifferent judgement deter­mine, whether there bee not as good reason to de­prive the Romish Cleargie of the use of Scriptures in the originall for the Papall abuse of it; as the Lay-people for the default of a poore crazed, though an Academicall Taylor.

Hee tells us further of one David George: that by the same reading was bolde to affirme, that hee was the sonne of God; of an other in Germanie, that reading the manner of Baptisme prescribed Mat. 28. thought him­selfe obliged in conscience to baptize such young dogges, as his Canet had lately whelped: and under the pretext of a commandement given in those wordes, Crescite & multiplica­mini &c. the Anabaptists exercise their abominations in dark­nesse Reply pag. 27.

I need not to examine the truth for the bare matter of fact of this learned Iesuites variae historiae; for it being granted that all is true, what can be concluded against the libertie of using the Scriptures? But in regard this foule mouth imputeth all these mischeifes to the reading of Gods booke, hee hath onely declared himselfe an enemie to that light, which in time will obscure and consume him and his faction. God stiles his Word to be a lanthorne to our feete, and a light unto our pathes Psalme 119. v. 105., And who they be that Tertul­lian calleth Lucifugae Tertul. de re­surrect. carnis cap. 47., let the Iesuite enquire. For opinions and practises of like nature with the Iesuites examples, Ie­suites & such kind of enemies to God, may impute them to the reading of the Scriptures, but the Holy Ghost pleading for himselfe (whose words they are) giveth another reason Rom. 1. 21. Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankefull; but became vaine in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. [Page 154] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fooles, and chan­ged the glory of the uncorruptible God, into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds and f [...]are-footed beasts, & creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to unclean­nes, through the lusts of their owne hearts, to dishonour their owne bodies betweene themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lye, and worshipped the creature more then the Cre­atour, who is blessed for ever, Amen. Whereby wee may see, from whence such fearefull practises and opinions pro­ceede, not from Gods truth; but from the contempt of it, when men had rather adhere to their vaine imaginations, then that heavenly light. Which is further declared Rom. 1. 28. Even as they did not like to retaine God in their know­ledge, God gave them over to a reprobate minde, to doe those things which are not convenient. And what ground this Ie­suite hath to charge the scriptures with these fearefull ef­fects, he saith not. But let him tell us, whether doth Gods booke afford one syllable to justifie any of these practises layed downe by him? nay, doth it not deterre them from such wickednes? That corrupt men in the maliciousnes of imagination may pervert the Scriptures to their own de­struction; as we deny it not; so it maketh nothing at all a­gainst the vulgar use thereof. And heerein our Iesuite is worse then Adam, Eve, the Serpent, or hee that possessed them in their corruptest nature; none making God the cause of their fearefull wickednes, as the Iesuite in these particulars doth his Word. And I thinke the pollution of Popish Preists might with as much truth bee objected un­to them, as to Anabaptists; nay, I dare say, (though I hate to give them a word for defence) that there is as much suffe­rance for notorious pollution within the Papal command, as under any government and confusion in the world, as will be cleared by their stewes, incestuous dispensations, filthy Sodomies, and mincing those sinnes which a chaste minde is distempered to thinke on Sanches lib. 4 de debito con jugali, disp 46,, and modestie for­biddeth me to name.

But our Iesuite will conclude the matter, and tells us, if our Answerer cannot prove (as sure he cannot) that ever a­ny such liberty was granted to the people, to read such like Scripture, as is allowed amongst them at this day, let him tell us himselfe, how farre he is from agreeing with the practise of ei­ther first or middle ages of the Church, wherein no such Bibling, nor Babling amongst the common people was ever beard, or dreamed of Reply pag. 27.

If this Iesuite by such like scriptures would have the same translations prooved to have beene in practise in the first or subsequent ages; or if he would have us to proove that there were others, which were as corrupt, as he pre­supposeth ours to be, in common practise; then he requi­reth us to proove what we affirme not. Yet this wee may justly say, that there was never translation in the Latine Church before Hierome's time, but was more corrupt, then any he can finde allowed in the Church of Ireland since the Reformation, which may bee demonstrated by their owne measure or rule; for if our translations be nea­rer the Hebrew, out of which they were translated, then those afore-mentioned Versions out of the Septuagint, it cannot bee denyed, that they are more agreeable to the truth. And that they come nearer the Hebrew we need not to goe farre▪ for manifestation thereof, in regard they are more agreeable to the Vulgar Latine, which in the judge­ment of Papists is nearer to the Hebrew then the Septua­gint, and by consequent then any translation from thence whatsoever. But it hath (this notwithstanding) beene for­merly shewed in this Section, that the Fathers not onely permitted the same scripture for the people to read, as we doe now, but exhorted them also to that dutie. And this did continue in the Church of God, untill (God and his truth being neglected and contemned,) humane inventi­ons and superstitious customes, (which did better consent to Papall tyrannie then the Scriptures could any way doe) invaded the Church. And notwithstanding our Iesuites [Page 156] pretences, wee know, it is not because the Scriptures are so dangerous in their use, that they are not permitted by the Romish Faction, but because by their light every weake judgement may discerne Papall Hypocrisy Verger. secre­tar: Pont. act 1. pag. [...]1. Et scio quidem te non ignorare pru­dentissimos ho­mines qui diu in hâc causâ versati sunt, ita sentire, ut si ea judicanda sit ex verbo Dei in veteri & no­vo testamento scripto juxta e­um sensum quem ex Epi­stolis atque a­ctis Apostolo­rum agnoscimus ipsos Apostolos t [...]nuisse & docuisse fore ut vincamur à Lutheranis., and thereupon▪ bee inclined to cast off that Usurper which raigneth in their conscience Consilium quorund. Epis­cop. Bonon. congregat: de stabiliend: Rom Eccles. Denique (quod inter omnia consilla, quae nos dare hoc tempore beatitudini tuae possumus, omnium gravissimum ad extremum reser [...]avi [...]us) oculi hic aperiendi sunt, omnibus nervis admittendum erit, ut quam minimum E [...]ange­li [...] poterit (praesertim vulgari linguâ) in [...]s legatur civitatibus, quae sub tuâ ditione & potestate sunt. Sufficiatque tantillum illud, quod in Missa legi solet: nec co amplius cui­quam mortali [...]m legere permittatur. Quamdiu enim pauculo illo homines contenti fue­runt, tamdiu res tuae ex sententiâ successere, eaedemque in contrarium labi coeperunt, exquo ulterius legi-rulgò usur patum [...]st Hic ille (in summa) est libes, qui praeter caeteros has [...]e nobis tempestates ac turbines concitavit, quibus propè abrepti sumus. Et sane, si quis illum [...]iligenter expendat, deinde quae in nostris fieri ecclesijs consueve [...]unt, singula ordine contempletur, videbit plurimum inter se dissidere, & hanc doctrinam nostram ab illâ prorsus diversam esse, ac saepè contrariam etiam..

So that whether you have made a change, or our selves, let the Reader determine; and whether Bibling in a lan­guage that may be understood doth not better agree with the auncient practise; then Babling in an unknown tongue, where the people and the stones are equally edified. I also desire the Reader further to conceive, how the Iesuit hath behaved himselfe in this controversie, that when hee should have freed his Church from the change mentioned, and so have avoided the most learned Primates argument, he doth nothing labour to prove their agreement with the Fathers, as he should haue done, but onely goeth about to perswade, that the Fathers never permitted such translati­ons, or as he tearmeth it, such like Scriptures to be read of the people as are allowed amongst us at this day. Al which is nothing to the purpose: in regard the change consisteth in their different practise from the auncients; and not in our agreement with them; For if all sorts of people did reade the Scriptures in the primitive times, being invited thereunto by the Christian practise of the faithfull, and the exhortations of the Bishops then living; and that the [Page 157] Churches under Popish government have beene for many hundred of yeares without vulgar Bibles approoved and appointed to be read of the people, whereby they might be exercised in the like auncient Christian duty; doth it not then follow, that (let our custome bee what it will) they denying free libertie unto the people to reade them without dispensation, disagree herein from the practise of the auncient Church, although wee doe not point out the Pope that did first seale up this treasure from the people; and consequently that the Iesuites demaund is vaine?

Yet the Iesuite continueth his pursuite and his Vanitie also. By an other instance (saith hee) no lesse vaine then the former he endeavoureth to tell us againe, how wee differ from the middle ages of the Church Reply pag. 27

If no more vaine, then the former, the learned Answerer needeth not to feare: well; where is this enclosure of Va­nity? I heare S. Hierome say: The Church doth read indeede the bookes of Iudith and Toby, and the M [...]chabees; but doth not receive them for canonicall scripture Hieronym. Praesat. in li­bros Salomon. Epist 113. I see that at this day the Church of Rome receiveth them for such. May not I then conclude, (saith the most learned Primate In his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge. pag 9.) that betwixt S. Hierome's time and ours, there hath beene a change; and that the Church of Rome now, is not of the same judge­ment with the Church of God then: howsoever I cannot precisely lay downe the time wherein shee first thought her selfe to bee wiser herein then her fore-fathers?

What Vanity can the Iesuite espye heere? why, saith hee, Our Answerer playeth Bopeepe, with his Reader, af­fecting ignorance to wrong the truth; for well hee knoweth, that the same S. Hierome, not long after, did testifie unto the world, that the first Nicen Councell declared the booke of Iudith for Canonicall, which hee had not heard of when hee wrote the former words alledged by our An­swerer. Reply pag. 2 [...]

Here the Iesuite had need to be active, for his weapons [Page 158] are but reedes. The place he urgeth is Hierome in the pro­logne to the booke of Iudith. And surely there will bee small grounds to make Iudith reputed canonicall in Hie­rome's time. Paula and Eustochium desired Hierom to trans­late this booke of Iudith into Latine, (where, by the way, you may see, if you make it canonicall Scripture, wee may conclude, a woman might have and reade the same in the vulgar tongue) to whom St Hierome answereth; that a­mong the Hebrewes, tht booke of Iudith was taken amongst the holy writings, but yet of no authoritie to resolve a controver­sie, being written in the Chaldey, & reckoned among the Histo­ries; yet because it is read, that the Nicene Councell did take this booke in the number of the sacred Scriptures, hee did yeild to translate the same Hiero in Pro­log. ad librum Iudith. Apud Hebraeos liber Iudith inter Hagiographa legitur, cujus autoritas ad roboranda illa quae ad con­tentionem ve­niunt minus idonea judicatur. Chaldaeo tamen sermone conscriptus, in­ter historias computatur. Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicena in numero sanctarum Scripturarum legitur compu tâsse: acquicri postulationi vestrae imo exactioni.. But where was it read? non ex canone de sacris libris confecto, not out of the Canon made up of the holy bookes Baronius in appendice decimi tomi. notatione ad annum 32, Haud affirmandum omnino existimarem Canonem de libris sacris statutum esse à Nicaeno Concilio, à quo neminem ausum fuisse recedere, jure debet existimari. Sed non ex Canone de sacris libris consecto, id asseruisse S. Hieronymum, verum potius ex a­ctis cjus, in quibus obiter citatus idem liber inventus [...]uit, this Baronius affirmeth: where then? in some obscure pamphlet, for any thing the Iesuit know­eth: and so farre was St Hierome from testifying to the world, what the Iesuite so confidently affirmeth, that it cannot be manifested, St Hierome gave any credite to what he saith was onely read. Yea, their owne Lindanus from St Hieromes uncertaine manner of Speech, [Legitur com­putâsse,] seemeth to conclude, that St Hierome beleived it not, though he might reade it Lindan Panopl Evangel. l. 3. c. 3. Vehementer ut dubitem, facit quod apud Hieronymum Praefat in Iudith reperi­tut. & paul [...] cost Sed legitur computasse, ait Hiero. quod mihi dubitantis suspicionem subindicate videtur., and saith, if the Nicene Councell did aunciently reckon the booke of Iudith in the Ca­non, why did not the Councell of Laodicea reckon it? why did not Nazianzene make mention of it? What meant the same St Hierome to say, the Church at that time did reade the bookes [Page 159] of Iudith, Tobic, and the Maccabees, but did not receive them amongst the Canonicall Scriptures Idem ibid. Si Ni [...]aena Sy­nodus olim hunc Iudith li­brum cum alijs in Canonem redegerat, cur annis 80. post [...]um non ac­censet Laodi­caena? cur Na­zianzenus ejus non meminit? & paulo post. Quid sibi vult quod idem Hi­eron in libro­rum Salomoni [...] praefatione scribit, Ecclesi­am libros Iu­dith Thobiae, ac Machabeo­rum legere qui­dem, sed inter canonicas scrip­turas non reci­pere?. And Erasmus in his Censure upon this Prologue saith, that St Hierome doth not affirme the booke of Iudith to have beene approoved in the Nicene Synode Censura Pro­logi ad librum Iudith. Non af­firmat appro­batum hunc in Synodo Nicaena, sed ait legitur computâsse.. So that it is most apparant, who it is that playeth Bopeepe, with his Reader, that affecteth igno­rance to wrong the truth. Further, what did St Hierome af­terwards, that might cause the Iesuite to conceive it in his subsequent esteeme Canonicall? He translated it: but did he not the like to others which he denyeth to be in the Ca­non? and where then is his retractation, which hee ought to have performed for abusing the Canonicall booke of Iulith, if he had committed violence against Gods sacred truth? Neither ought it to amaze the Reader, that this booke should be said to be taken in the number of sacred writings; for who knowes not that Bookes were estee­med Hagiographa, holy and divine from their matter, and in opposition to prophane writings, and yet were farre from the authoritie of the Canon? And if it be a true rule, that one falshood makes the whole testimonie suspected, what shall we say to the corruption of this prologue to the booke of Iudith, wherein Hagiographa is put for Apo­crypha, as may bee prooved by Lyranus Lyrs. Prolog. in Bibl. Neque al quemm veat; quod in Iudith & Thobiae prologis dicitur, quod apud Hebraeos inter H [...]giographa leguntur, qui manifestus error est, & apocripha non hagiographa est legendum qui error in omnibus quos viderim codicibus invenitur & inol [...]uit (ut pu [...]o) ex pi [...]tate & devotione exscribentium, qui devotissimas historias horrebant annumera­re inter apocrypha. and Iohannes Driedo Dried: l. 1. c. 4. Alterum difficultatis nodum, qui est super libris Iudith & Tobiae, conatur dissolvere magister in historijs, cuius sententiam se [...]ui­tur & alius quidam expositor in prooemio Bibliae, dicens in prologis illis duobus Hierony­mi super Iudith & Tobiam. mendosum esse codicem, & in [...]oloco, ubi legimus hagio­grapha, legend [...]m esse ap [...]crypha..

Here is a solide truth for Iudith's virginitie; no witnesse but an heare-say; and we know not from whom: So that our Iesuite ought to seeke an other answere: for this is [Page 160] lame, halting and of little strength.

But suppose the Nicene Councell in S. Hieromes opini­on did receive Iudith into the Canon, yet he will not say the same of Toby and the Maccabees: how can our Adver­saries then deny the change? Why, Gods owne are not so much bound to our compassionate Iesuite, as these suspici­ous birthes; but how will he array them? with a canonicall coate. The auncient Church (saith he) received them for ca­nonicall Reply pag. 28. S. Hierome his ignorance were then much to be wondred at: but this testimony will not be rejected, if the Iesuite can make good, what so generally he affirmes. By the auncient Church, hee must exclude neither age, nor iudgment, unlesse some straglers: wherefore then doth hee leave out the first 300. and almost 400. yeares, affording us not one testimony, but a pretence or two out of Cyprian to no purpose: and in his proofes, why doth hee afford us onely particular testimonyes, private men, when the Chur­ches declaration is to be expected at his hands? But let us examine his testimonies. First, he produceth the third coun­cell of Carthage Can. 47. We say, this is but a private testi­mony, and at best but a declaration, of a particular Church; and a Councell that they allowe not themselvesBellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. cap. 21. At ob­jicit Calvinus—Concilium Car­thaginense ter­tium. can. 26. ubi vetatur, ne quis princeps sacerdotum, aut summus sacerdos di­catur: sed so­lùm primae se­dis Episcopus Respondeo, Concilium statuisse solum de Episcopis Africae, inter quos multi erant Primates a quales ne vllus corum summus Sacerdos, aut Princeps aliorum diceretur. Nec enim Concilium hoc provinciale, Romanum Ponuficem, aut aliarum provinciarum Episcopos obligare poterat.. Second­ly Innocent ad Exuperium. But if this be his Epistle what doth he declare therein but his private judgment? what finde we there but an answer that he gave not ex cathedrâ, but as he expresseth himselfe pro captu intelligentiae meae, at the intreatie of a Brother? Gelasius his decree, hath not one word of Canonicall in it; onely they are stiled of the old testament, which is a phrase used many times by our selves, because they are comprehended in one volume to­gether, and yet we esteeme them not within the Canon. S. Augustine doth not take canonicall, for those scriptures [Page 161] which were inspired by the Spirit of God, and delivered by the Catholick Church for such; as [...] appeare by his words, before the [...] of those bookesAug. de [...] Christi l. 2. c. [...] In canonicis [...] scriptu­ris [...], [...] quas [...] Apo­stolicas [...].. For first he perswades those to be cheifly respected, quae A­postolicas sides habere, & epistolas [...]; that were received of those Churches, in which the Apostles themselves did [...], and [...] they directed their Epistles.

Secondly, amongst th [...]se which he [...] Canonicall bookes, he could have this [...] Ibid [...] In scri­pturis [...]. to be observed, ut [...]as, quae ab omnibus [...], quas [...] non [...]; that those which are received of all Churches, should be [...] before those which [...] Churches did not receive. Certainely, by this we may see what St Augustine [...] by his Canon, not those which were generally received onely; but those also which were [...] of a few Churches, and those [...] of lesse [...] Ibid., which were the same that wee accompt [...]. So that Canonicall in Augustines sence is [...] those which abound with lyes and [...] Ibid. [...] occupen [...] [...], & [...] den [...]s [...] dicent [...] contra [...], [...] is [...] by his words, & not to those which is godly bookes were premitted to be read by the people, though (because not divinely inspired) they were not to con­firme any point of Doctrine, whereby the same Father interpreteth the meaning of that Councel of Carthage ur­ged by the Iesuit, in case he had subscribed therunto, as our adversaries perswade. And that this agreeth with S. Augu­stine mind, it shineth forth in many places: For although S. Augustin saith, that the Church had them [the Maccabees] for canonical, yet he tels you, how; not because they were divinely revealed, but for the [...] & [...]: which must needes interpret that the church [...] them for canonical, that is, of that canon which was fit to be read only for the moving of the peoples affe­ction, by declaring the passions of the [...]: for he ma­keth them not of that [...] which were [...] inspired, [...] Aug. de [...] Dei [...] [...] opposeth thē to it [...], non [...] [Page 162] [...], [...] in [...], [...] quibus [...] & Macho­b [...]rum [...] Aug. con. Epist G [...]ud [...]. l. [...] 31. [...] [...]pe quidem scripturam quae appella­tut, Mac [...] non habent [...] & [...], & psalmes quibus Dom. [...] testi­bus tuis—Sed recepta est [...] Ecclesia non [...], si so­briè legatur vel audiatur. libri, [...] non Iudas, sed [...] canonicis [...] propter [...] passiones [...] [...] ­rabiles. This is found (saith that Father) not in the holy Scriptures which are called Canonicall, but in others, amongst which are also the bookes of the Macchabeas; which not the I [...]wes, but the Church hath for Canonicall, for the vehement and wonderfull sufferings of [...] Martyrs.

And so in an other place [...]aith, that the Scriptures of the [...] were not received of the Iewes as the Law, the Prophets and Psalmes, to which God gave testimony [...] to his owne witnesses: Yet he denyeth not but the Church recei­ved them not unprofitably; But wherein lay their profit; S. Augustine declareth, s [...] [...], in the sober reading and hearing of them read▪

For Isiodorus & Cass [...]dorus, their testimonies make no [...] the received Doctrine of the auncient Church.

Neither can those tearmes of holy and divine wherewith [...] Bellarm. de Verbo Dei lib. l. [...] 4▪ Po [...] de ijs, [...] [...] [...], [...]; [...] vino [...] &c [...] illo [...], quae [...] ab [...]. epist. 3. ad [...]per. [...] 15. [...] [...] Romana. Athanasius [...] hist. cap. [...]. S. [...], Basil, & Augustine stile th [...]se writings ( [...] ­ving his counterfeit Calixius at Rome) make these bookes Canonicall, it being plaine that they were so tearmed in respect of other corrupt writings, which were read in the Church at that time, which practice was excepted against by the Third Councell of Carthage; [...] (as it is ur­ged by the Iesuite) wherein it was decreed, that nothing should be read in the Church under the name of divine Scriptures, and I thinke you will not conceive, this inhi­bition had any relation to any of those bookes we call A­pocryphall, they being never condemned to be read by the Church Besides Bellarmine telleth us, the title of divine [...] given by most [...] and most [...] to the Prayer of [...], the 3 and 4. of [...], the 3. and 4. of [...]? and the booke of Pastor [...]. &c.

And the calling of [...] Propheticall Scripture by S. Ambrose, is to like effect, it being given to the fourth booke of E [...]ras, which the Iesuite will not have Canonical Scri­pture, though it be lifted up with as great a testimony from that Fa [...]her Sixtus sene [...] Bibl. sancta. lib. 1. de Esd [...] lib. 3. & 4. Di­vus Ambrosius etiam quartum librum putat editum ab ipso Esdra non sine divinâ revelati­one., as the booke of Tobie, which hee is willing to justifie.

But leaving Tobie with his dog, the Iesuite hath some further proofe for the Macehabees: They are alledged (saith he) as other Canonicall bookes of Scriptures are, without any difference. And who are the alledgers? Cyprian, [...] [...]en, and Ambrose Reply pag. [...]. Two things are here to be examined. First, whether every booke cited by a Father, be Canoni­call? Secondly, how and in what manner they be urged and cited by the Fathers? First, it is evident, that there is no ground, that the citing of a booke by a Father should turne his nature, when an Apostles pen hath not that vir­tue in it selfe: unlesse he will conclude all those Poets ci­ted in the Scriptures, and the booke of E [...]ch by Iude to be reckoned within the Canon. Besides, if this Argument have any life in it against us, why [...] it not have the same strength against Papists, to prove the booke called Pastor to be Canonicall, which (as Bellarmine observeth) [...] by the Fathers, Irenaeus, (who giveth it the name of Scriptures) Clemens Alexandrinus, and Origen. For theBellarm de scriptor. eccles [...] Hermen five Hermes librum. scripsit apud veteres valde celebrem, [...] inscripsit Pa­storem. Is lib [...] quamvis à san­cto [...] re [...]o lib. 4 cap­rino, & Orige [...] et divinorum title Divine, given by Cyprian, and his testimony out of Augustine, there needeth no further illustration, [...] answered in substance before.

Our Iesuite from these grounds; the principall whereof i [...] S. Hieromes ignorance, beginnes his [...]

What wonder then if the Church at Rome [...] them also for Canonicall [...]

The slightest cause hath two or three witnesses, & those▪ without exception, that directly agree one with an other in giving testimony to the proposed articles. The Iesui [...]e, that pretended the auncient Church, hath not given us [...] compleat proofe from the same: and those which he [...]th produced, are but particular men, with one Provin­ [...]ll Councell, which they themselves generally approve [...]o [...], and some of his private testimonies say little to the p [...]rpose, So all that our Iesuite can expect is this, that in some private judgements these bookes might be judged. Canonicall, but never so delivered by the auncient Church, which defence the booke Past [...]r hath from [...] confession; and the fourth of Esdras by the confession of your owne Sixtu [...] Senensis [...] lib. 1. de [...]. [...]. [...] [...] [...].. And therefo [...]e there is reason sufficient, that our Iesuite should [...] do [...] his [...], whichupon so vaine a confidence he [...] hath [...]rected, and acknowledge their change; although they have do [...] it upon so good a ground as the imbracing of some private judgments three or foure h [...]dreth y [...]es after Christ, leaving the streame of the ancient Church, & [...]he [...] of the same. Thus the charge app [...] ­ [...]th to be [...] & not [...] as the Iesuit hoped to have proved it, that the Church of Rome hath le [...] the g [...] ­ [...]rall practise of the [...]cient Church, and hath imbrac [...] [...] private [...], not for love of their persons, but [...] in the [...] themselves they finde some shelter [...] their [...].

[...] s [...]ing he cannot declare them scriptures by [...]; neither by the testimony of the ancient [...] all is sure, if we cannot manifest▪ that [...] bookes (held now [...] by the Church of [...]) [...] a contrary sentence by the [...]cient church [...] [...] all his skill, [...] [...] [...] (saith the [...]) [...] [...] th [...] ev [...] the Church of God did [...] [Page 165] [...] before the Church declared them for Canonicall by [...] authoritie Reply pag 2 [...].

The Iesuit must tell us what he me [...]th by the Churches declaring them by publicke authority. For if he understand a, generall Councell, it is idle, for they never came to be soy Canus loc: Theol. l. [...]. c. [...]. Cyprianus ( [...]) in ex­positione sym­boli [...]osdem sex libros pa­trum anctori­tate, a quibus se [...] a [...] Quod id [...] [...] ci [...] [...] [...] [...] [...]ordium: Cu [...] (que) dilige [...] ­ter de omnibus exploraverat, omni investi­gatione com­perit, hos lib [...] esse a veteris instrumenti am in Psalmum [...] [...] Sed & i▪ [...] Cyril [...]. [...] [...]. Ca [...]. [...] audacious in the primitive times, as to claime the privi­ledge to [...]eepe into the Canon, Besides he is as fo [...]d in the consequent, that they have made no change herein frō the practise of the [...] Church, unlesse we can shewe that the ancient Church of God did give judgment, or senten [...] contrary to their Trent declaration in a generall councell▪ For if this were good reason, the councell of [...] have [...] the 3. & 4. booke of Esdras, Pastor, their de­cretall epistles, Gregory, Si [...]tus, (yea what not?) & plead in the same manner that they had made no change, they never being in your judgment, (I think) condemned by the pub­licke authoritie of any generall councell in the ancient ca­tholicke Church, that did give judgment, or sentence con­ [...]ry thereunto. But if the Church might be said to give [...] judgment, against the bookes of Iudith, Toby, and the [...] by keeping them out of the cano [...] as no doubt [...] may, practise being the best declare [...] of mens judge­ments) it shalbe manifested sufficiētly, that they have long [...] received their doome. For first they were alwaies dif­ [...]med in regard of the canon & rule of faith, [...] that the Iesuit hath not produced one privat [...] that is plaine and convincing for almost [...] yeares [...] Christ, Secondly▪ In the [...] Catalogue [...] by [...] [...]all of the a [...]cient Fathers and the Councell of [...] Canone [...] [Page 166] these bookes are omitted; [...] [...] part of the [...] Scripture.

Thirdly, the reputed 47. Canon of the third Councell of Carthage (which is their cheifest testimony) by the indge­mēt of their own, was never determin [...] that Synode [...]arclaij Pa­raenesis l. 1. c. [...]1. Refertur [...]ic cano [...] con­cil. 3. Cartha­ginensi, cui Augustinus in­ter [...]it; sed ex [...] con­stat, posterioris Concilij esse, quod paulo post sub Boni [...]cio convoca­ [...]m..

Fourthly, in after ages they were by many rejecteda, ne­ver getting authority till the Trent decree.

Besides, these bookes will by their owne light declare, of what authority they are. The [...] (I hope) will grant that God is as true in his word, as the Pope infallible in his decrees; & if upon this ground, these bookes deserve credit, let the Reader conclude. first, for Iudeth, whether it were [...]squam or ull [...]bi, we cannot tell, neither I thinke the Iesuite himselfe. Again, she honoureth that fact of Si [...]on Ca [...]s loco [...]pra citat. Constat au [...]em [...] doctis­ [...]imo [...] in con­trariam senten­tiam [...], qui tamen semper in Ecclesia Ca­tholica sunt habiti▪ Nich. Ly [...]an. super [...]. [...]. 1. & super Tobi [...] Abule [...]s su­per Math. c. 1. D. A [...]on. 3. p. [...]. 1 [...]. [...] lo [...] tum ma [...]ime in fine [...]. super [...], [...] etiam sex [...]cros esse [...]. Gela [...] P [...]pa rejecit [...] Macha. Di [...] autem Gregorius l. moral. [...] rejjo [...] [...], [...] de T [...]poribus & Rich: l. 2. Exceptio [...]. c. 9. & Ocham. [...] [...] Di [...] [...] 1. l. 3. [...] Ac D. Aug:—docet a [...] Ecclesia esse quid em receptos, se [...] [...] certa side, [...] 9. 2, and Levy, which the Spirit of God abhorreth as appeares by Moses Gen. 49. 5..

And we may see, that Iudeth fitting her selfe for lyes and deceit [...] 9. 10,, desireth God to give a blessing thereuntoVer. 13., which action as it condemneth the person that doth the same; so doth it disgrace this booke, which speaketh [...] directly opposite to the Apostolicall ruleEph. 4. 25..

And as Iudeth doth detect her selfe; so doth T [...]bit also, by his vaine story of the Rivall Devill Tob▪ 6. 14., & the driving away of a devill or an evill spirit which should trouble any with the smoke of the heart, and the liver of a fish T [...] 6. 7▪, contrary to Christs doctrine, that there are some devills which will not be cast out, but by fasting and prayer Mat. 17. 21.: And wherefore should the Apostle Eph: 6. 13. have left this out of his a [...] ­moury, if it had bene of such for [...] & e [...]icacy, as is here ex­pressed? Further we have an Angell lyeing chap. 5. verse [...] and a fish travailing on Land chap. 6. verse 2.

The Ma [...]chabees containe many things, which decla [...] the author of them not to write with confidence of God [...] Spirit asisting him▪ as first, that he was an Epito [...]ist of [...] ­son 2. Maccàb: 2. 23.. Secondly he excuseth himselfe2 Maccab. [...]5 39., as if the holy Ghost might deserve a censure. Thirdly, it appeareth, that his end is to delight his Reader 2. Maccab. 2, 25. 15. 40., and to get honour to himselfe2. Maccab. 2 [...]6. [...]7.. Lastly, he justifieth Razis in killing himself2. Mac [...]ab. 14 41. 42. 43.; a commenda­tion fitter for the [...], then the patient Mar­ [...]rs of Christ, as S. Augustine Aug. c [...]n. G [...]ud. l. c 31. Dictum est quod [...] nobiliter merit me [...]us veller h [...]militer, [...] enim [...]. Illi [...]autem ver­bis historia gentium [...] ­dare [...] sed viros [...] huius [...]culi, non martyr [...] Christi. observeth.

To these many more may be added, but this which hath bene spokē will suffice to shew, that they have dealt with­out all conscience in obtruding those bookes upon the church, which were never (as canonicall) received from the Iewes, unto whom were committed the oracles of God Rom. 3. 2., ne­ver delivered to the primitive Church from the Apostles; never aproved by any father of the church for almost 400 yeares, never thought of when the Canon was repeated; & such which by their Physiognomy detect themselves. Whence we may gather, that the Church of Rome now, hath varied in her judgment from the church of God then, althogh we be not able to lay down the precise time, when she thought her selfe wiser then her forefathers heerein.

Neither will his turning to the Epistles of Iames, Iude, the second of Peter Reply pag. 2 [...] &c, any thing availe his cause; in regard there is a great difference betwixt those Epistles, & these bookes of Iudeth, T [...]bit and the Macchabees; for although some private men did doubt of the former, yet the church in generall did receive and approve the fameSee before pag. [...]5.; whereas on the contrary, the Iesuite after all his search cannot finde [...] testimony either of Father, or Councell, that accoun­ [...] the latter Canonicall for well-nigh 400 yeares after Christ. And therefore most indiscreetly did the Iesuit vrge [...] and [...] to prove the like doubt to have bene held of these Epistles, with those bookes, which they absolutely call Apocrypha. Secondly he abuseth his Rea­der, when he would perswade, that they were ouely par­ticular [Page 168] Fathers that doubted of these bookes; when the Iesuite cannot finde that they were received, either of the Iewes, or the Apostles, or Primitive Fathers for certaine ages after Christ. Thirdly, to what thoughts of desperati­on is he and his fellowes driven to defend this adding to the Canon? as first, that doubtfull writings which have beene accompted Apocryphall for certaine hundred of yeares, which our Iesuite calleth somtime, may by the pub­lick authority of the Church be declared Canonicall: and secondly, that particular Fathers, (which indeed are all the Fathers that lived in the first 300. almost 400. yeares, the Iesuite citing none within that compasse but Cyprian and their bastard Calixtu [...] as hath beene formerly decla­red) might doubt of the authority of those bookes with­out prejudice, till the Church had declared them for Ca­nonicall by publicke authority. But if the Canon was not compleate in the first times, I would know when it was made perfect? and whether in those times tradition was enabled to declare the same? or whether the Fathers were negligent to testifie this truth: and also whether Canoni­call and Apocryphall, is a distinction lately invented? All this the Iesuite must resolve, or else acknowledge the Ca­non of the Church in the Primitive times to be certainely knowne and setled; which will declare their vanity and change in these last times, to adde unto the sacred Canon and rule of Faith, upon pretence that the Church hath power to declare canonicall Scripture: A Doctrine inven­ted in after-ages by the Roman faction; who as they loo­ked for unlimited power, so to defend their practises, they desire an unrestrayned rule, making Scriptures what they list. & interpreting it according to the times how they pleas [...] Epistola 2. Nich. de Cusa Card. de usu commu. ad Bo­ [...]emo [...]. Ecclesia hodierna non ita ambulat in ritu communi­onis. sicut ante ista tempora, quando san­ctissimi viri u­trius (que) speci [...]i Sacramentum, necessarium esse vi praecepti Christi et ver­bo & opere a­ [...]uebant: Po­ [...] ne tunc Ec­clesia [...]rrare? Certè non: Quod si non: quomodo id [...]diè verum non est, quod tunc omnium opinione affir [...]abatur, cùm non sit alia Ecclesia ista quam [...] Ce [...] hoc te non movent; quod diversis temporibus alius & alius ritus sacrisiciorum at etiam [...] stante veritate invenitur, scripturas (que) esse ad tempus [...], et va [...] intellectas, ita [...]uno tempore secundùm currentem universalem [...] [...]po [...] ­rentur mutato [...] iterum sententia mutaretur..

SECT. V. How vainely our Answerer betaketh himselfe to the Scriptures againe.

IN all this Section we finde nothing, but what the most learned Answerer before stiled a sleight In his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge. pag 11.: for where will he mani­fest the most reverend Lord scared with the auncient Church, whose testimonies he is assured, afflict these worst and last times? but that he might first give the sacred Scriptures the precedencie; which is due to the word of God, and that he might not erect a new faith, which was never buil­ded upon the foundatton of the Apostles and Prophest Ibid..

Now let us see to what purpose the Iesuite hath heere spent his paines. He (it should seem) was willing to finde out a way, whereby the true Religion might be knowne; and first hee taketh it for graunted, that the Primitive Church of Rome held the true Religion for the first 500. yeares. Secondly, that this true Church of Rome did ge­nerally hold the chiefe Articles of Religion, pointed out by himselfe in his demaund: and then would have men to judge of true points of Religion, by the testimony of that Church See the [...] ­ites Reply pag. 29..

The most learned Answerer in this place saith nothing to these things in particular, but to the Iesuites whole frame, which he maketh a rule to finde out true Religion by; ar­guing it first, as a needlesse labour; secondly, as a tedious rule, in regard matters in controversie might be brought to a shorter tryall; thirdly, as derogating from the Word of God, that Rocke upon which alone wee build our faith; from which no sleight that they can devise (saith he) shall e­ver draw us See the [...] reverend Lord Prima [...] his Answer pag. 11

Vpon this the Iesuite hath almost spent a whole page to prove that the sayings and authorities of those auncient Fa­thers are sufficient to prove what their opinion was Reply pag. 29. in the points controverted: as if the most learned Answerer had denyed that which in the very place alledged by the Iesu­ite, he undertaketh to make good, vizr, that the Fathers writings fortifie the Catholicke cause against the Pope & his party: And this we say (saith the most learned Answe­rer) not as if we feared that these men were able to produce better proofes out of the writings of the Fathers for the part of the Pope, then we can doe for the Catholicke cause, (when we come to joyne in the particulars, they shall find it far other­wise In his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge. [...] Gregor. de Valen. Analys. Fidei l. 8. c. 8. Fatendum est raro accidere posse, ut quae sit Doctorum omnium uno tempore viven­tium de religi­one sententia, satis cognosc [...] ­tur. Sunt enim Catholici Do­ctores in Eccle­sia ubi (que) diffu­sa plurimi, qui proinde omnes nec facile con­gregari, nec in­terrogari pos­sunt quid sen­ [...]i [...]nt..) Whereby it is cleare, that the Iesuite hath altoge­ther fought with his owne shadow, or the Iesuite Ʋalen­tiag, having not assaulted either word or passage of the most learned Answerers.

For if this most reverend Lord had accepted the rule, I doubt not, but he would have acknowledged the Fathers able to relate their owne beliefe, and would further have accepted them as sole Umpier; but accompting this but a Iesuiticall shift, to avoide the true touchstone or ground of faith, the holy Scripture, he tells him, that alledge what authority you list, without Scripture, and it cannot suffice: which the Iesuite did observe, al­though he is unwilling to take notice of it, in regard hee supposeth that the Answerer will not be satisfied herewith Reply pag. 29. This dispute sheweth, that the Iesuite hath not beene so well imployed as the Emperour, for in all this his fishing ne musca quidem, he hath not caught a Fly, and therefore the good man is sleepie that thinketh the Answerer hath for got himselfe; for although he should graunt the first▪ that the primitive Church of Rome held the true Religion of Christ for the first 500. yeares, it will not needes follow, that whatsoever points the Fathers of that Church gene­rally held without the Scriptures, should be points of true Re­ligion: For then every point of Morality, Philosophy, Rhe­torick, [Page 171] [...], should be points of true Religion: and this is crossed in the Greeke Church, which is a true one, but yet notwithstanding may not bee justified in every particular that they generally handle. Neither dare the Ie­suite admit the consequent: for then the points of the blessed Ʋirgins conception in originall some Canus [...]o [...]. Theol. l. 7. c. 1; n. 1. n. 3., receiving of the Sacrament by children Rejoynder pag. 25., and the opinion of the Millenaries Sixtus Se­nens. Bibl. san­cta. l. 5. c. 233.: of the vulgar reading of the Scriptures Rejoynder p. 139. 14 [...] 145., communion in both kindes Rejoynder pag. 116., that the bookes of To [...]y, Iudith, and the Maccha­bees are Apocryphall Rejoynder pag. 166., must be points of true Religion. Nay, further, the Iesuite urgeth, that the most learned Answerer elsewhere confesseth, that those which dye in the commu­nion of the Church of Rome at this day dye under the mercy of God Reply pag. 5▪; which surely this most reverend Lord would not have granted to them, if he had not beene per­swaded that they beleived aright in the foundation of faith: and yet he doth not take any Church since the Apo­stles times to have beene more corrupt, or full of errour then your owne. So that a particular Church, as the Ro­man, may in some of her members be true in the founda­tion of faith, and yet tainted with many corruptions both of manners and doctrine; Is not this plaine by many of S. Paul his Epistles? by the Church of Perga [...]s Revel. [...]. [...]4.? And therefore the Iesuite may consider how weake a rule hee would perswade us to follow; as if this argument were concludent, because we hold a particular Church a true Church, therefore that Church must be the measure and square of our faith.

Further, you shall see he is taken in the traine, whereby he thought to intrappe, for in answering S. Augustine al­leadged by the most learned Answerer, he telleth us, that the pretence of Scripture onely in such a matter of fact as this, is [...] a [...] [...]i [...]king from the question in hand Reply pag. [...].. Indeed, if the question in [...]d were, whether the Fathers of the pri­mitive Church held these points, or not; then who would deny, but it were a s [...]inking from the question in hand [Page 172] to fly to the scriptures▪ But if the contro [...]ersie heere bee concerning the rule, whether the Iesuit hath rightly framed an invention to finde out true religion by; then the produ­cing of the true rule, the sacred scriptures, that a defe­ctive one framed by the Iesuit may be de [...]ected, is neither from the matter, or question in hand. And if the points proposed by the Iesuite bee points of Doctrine, as I doubt not but hee would have them, yea doctrines of Faith, and fundamentall also, why should not hee try them by the Scriptures, in regard hee confesseth, that S. Augustine o­mitting the Fathers provoked the Donatists, and Pelagians, to the try all of Scripture, for as much as he then disputed of a point of Doctrine onely [...] 29?

But (saith our Iesuite) if it be demaunded, to what p [...]pose then doth he fill up whole volumes with the Fathers saying, if nothing but onely Scripture may suffice? he answereth, that he doth it to the end we should not thinks, he is any whi [...] afraid of all whatsoeuer we can produce against him out of the Fathers: and no wonder he should be so confident heer [...], when as he layeth this ground for himselfe—No Father but God, doe wee know upon whose bare credite wee may ground our consciences in things that are to bee beleived Reply pag. [...]0 &c.

If the Reader please to consider he shall finde the most reverend Primate in answering the Iesuites demand to de­tect 2 things; first, the vanity of his invention in assigning a rule that God never instituted, to find out points of true Religion by. Secondly, his foolish considence in that rule, that layeth them open to heresie and shame. Now by this they may know to what purpose the most learned Answ [...] ­rer doth fill up whole volumes with the Fathers [...] [...] with that sword, which they [...] to be their [...] to wit, the anncient Fathers, [...] might [...] those rayling Heresies, that revile the [...] of the [...] ­ving God. For although your rule be not [...] of it [...] wherupon to ground our [...] [Page 173] of [...] yet it wilbe [...] to shew that you are but [...] traditions, reall [...], prayer [...] [...] [...] [...] ­roso [...]. [...] he [...]. 4. Ne mihi ca [...]bi proferen [...] SIMPLI­CITER si­dem adhibe [...] nisi de divi [...] Scripturis eo­rum quae [...] ­cam [...] [...] yo [...] Roman [...]nce to be allowed by the [...] Fathers. And the most learned Answerer will never oppose the generall [...] of the anncient Fathers in points of Faith, which they have generally received out of the word of God; but the Iesuite may consider, that this is not to depend upon any authority with­out Scripture.

The Iesuite further revileth us for leaving the Fathers, and cleaving to God, (although we most firmely adhere to them, where they joyne in a generall consent with the sa­ [...]red Scripture, which is as much as the Fathers [...] professe to do) telling us that in appealing to scripture the most lear­ned Answerer disagreeth with those of his own profession &c. And to manifest this he b [...]geth in (as he [...] him) Dr Hooker saying▪ Of all things necessary, the v [...]ry [...] i [...], [...] know what [...] we [...] holy, which [...] the Scripture i [...] [...] to [...], [...] if any [...] of Scripture did give [...]; yet still that Scripture which [...] unto the rest, could require an­other Scripture to give [...] unto it: neither would we [...]ver [...] to any [...], [...] our [...]ssurance this may; [...] that unlesse [...] somthing which [...], we could not [...] we do [...], [...] Scripture i [...] a [...] and holy rule of [...].

This place of the learned Hooker presupposeth but [...] [...] and that historicall; and what [...] this against the [...], their [...] of the Church▪ or being a [...] Umpier and sufficien [...] [...] to square our [...]aith and actions by? For who knowes not that the Heavens cover all things, and yet cover not themselves? and what may hinder the Scriptures in like [...] to teach all [...] doctrines of faith and manners, and yet not to point out themselves? S. Augustines words are in every Papists mouth, viz. that he would not bele [...]ve the scriptures, unlesse the authority of the catholicke Church had moved him there­unto; and yet he [...] all things [...] [...]aith and [...] to be [...] in the [...]. [...]

But this necessary point of [...]aith is a [...] o [...] [...] in [...] [...] Secondly, the Iesuite abu­seth his [...]; for the Churches testimony harely and a­lone begotteth but opinion in Hookers judgement [...] For (saith [...]o) the more we b [...]stow [...] reading and learning the [...], the more we [...] thing it [...] [...]th answere [...] received [...] that the [...] with [...] before [...] [...]w much more [...] ▪ when the very thing [...] ministred further [...] And therefore Hookers▪ words make [...] ­thing against the [...]; for [...] the [...] of Gods [...] to [...] the way by [...], [...] which convinceth to beleive the scriptures to be the word of [...] Lib. [...]. [...]. [...] God, [...] And thus, Gods [...] give witnesse to his word, doth not take [...] s [...] ­ciency [Page 175] to declare whose words they are and from what [...] they [...] any more then it doth the suffi­ [...]cy of their rule which consisteth of scripture and tra­dition also: Whereby the [...] may see he hath produ­ced this worthy Author to no advantage▪ [...] being plaine, that although there be something else to prepar [...] the way [...] sid. form. disp [...] 3. sect. 12. n. [...] Admitti potest ex hum [...]na au­thoritate ge [...] ­rari quandam fidem huma­nam praevia [...] ad fidem [...] non [...] ­quam [...] vel rationem [...] ejus [...] tanquam [...] ­ditionem & applicati [...] objec [...], yet the minde is altogether [...] by the [...]ght o [...] the scriptures themselves, the Church pointing [...] ou [...], and they themselves [...] the Churches [...]. So that the scriptures remaine the onely [...] upon which a man [...] his faith, for any thing the Iesuite hath pick­ [...] out of this learned Divine.

[...] [...] D. Field [...] his Appendi [...] to the booke of the [...] par. 2. §. [...].

[...] [Page 176] will [...] and [...] all [...] [...] any way [...] the [...] where [...] I have in my Epistle [...]: That all m [...] [...] carefully [...] which is the true [...], that so they may [...], follow her directions, and rest in [...] chargeth [...], that [...] my fourth [...] following, I [...] her of almost all such [...] a [...] I [...] unto her; so that [...] safely follow her [...], [...] rest in her judgement, in th [...] I say generall Counce [...] may [...] in [...] of [...] the Church her selfe from [...] [...] of Christian Religion, and [...] in all. This is a [...]ad beginning, being a [...] the [...] him, I lay down [...]: first, that the Church including in i [...] all [...] Christ appeared in the [...], [...] and [...] of [...] Secondly [...] all those [...] that [...] Apostles times i [...] [...] all [...] happily not from all ignorance. Thirdly, that the Church including [...] the [...]eleivers living [...] free not onely from [...] in such things [...] to [...] and [...]; [...] thing that any [...] to Christian [...] and religion. [...] without all doubt [...] the judgement of the Church, in [...] so [...] to the thing [...] [...] in Scripture, or [...] by the [...] that [...]ath beene [...]. Because as [...] [...] the Church [...] [...] Church [...] of [...] [Page 177] or Rome, but the Vnivers [...]ll Church: neither that Vni­versall Church which [...] be gathered together in a generall Councell, which is [...] sometimes to have erred, but that which dispersed through the world from the Baptisme of Iohn continueth to [...] times▪ Sixtly, that in the judgment of Wal­densis, the Fathers successively are more certaine judges in matters of faith then a Generall Councell of Bishops, though it be in a sort the highest Court of the Church, as the Treati­s [...]r saith.

But (saith the Iesuite) if yet for all this our Answerer will not be brought to build his conscience upon any other authori­ty Reply pag. 32. I perceive a little thing will beget con [...]idence [...] Iesuite, that is so lifted up with producing two old obje­ctions to little purpose, but what then? why, majora his, agreat one of our owne shall schoole him a little better. Poo [...]e [...]edant, in what manner? By telling him out of Lyri [...]ensis, that the auncient consent of godly Fathers is with great car [...] (not onely) to be searched (but also) to be followed of us, cheif­ly in the rule of Faith Reply ibid.. As if the consent of Fathers were the absolute rule of Faith without Scriptures; when you yourselves dare not attribute to any Fathers, authority & power to expresse the rule of Faith by their bare consent? For Durand saith, that although the Church hath power of G [...] on [...], yet that doth not exceede th [...] limitation of the Scriptur [...] Durand. [...] Dist. 44. q. 3. [...]. 9. Ecclesia licet habet in terris dominationem Dei. illa tamen [...]on excedit li­mitationem Scripturae.. Universall extent of Doctrine is a good di­rectory to truth, but the absolute foundation of Faith are the sacred Scriptures: Neither are we at all to give credit (saith the Author of the imperfect worke upon Matthew amongst the workes of Chrysostome) unto the Churches themselves, unlesse they teach or doe those things which are agreeable to the Scriptures [...]. Com­mentar. in Mat. homil. 49. intes oper [...] S. Chrys. incerto auctore Nec ipsis (eccle­sijs) omnino [...]redendum est, ni [...] [...]a dicant vel faciant, quae conveni­entia sunt Scri­pturis;.

No testimonies have any strength, that walk without God & his word. The Fathers adhere to the Scriptures, & ther­fore we ought to adhere to them; & so are we to embrace the authority of the ancient Doctors & Councels, as those that embraced the holy Scriptures in their faith & doctrin; [Page 178] and for that cause this learned Bishop coupleth them to­gether; Wee rest (saith he) upon the scriptures of God, upon the authority of the ancient Doctors and Councels Reply pag. 31; inferring thereby, that those which fixe their faith, have not onely divine testimonies, but also the judgement and beliefe of the best men to declare the same, as good subsidiarie helps to their convincing grounds: which doth not conclude, that any authority besides the Scripture is necessary▪ but that it is a faire & convenient rule to bridle mens fancies, least the Scriptures should be wrested by them which are too much wedded to their owne conceits, to patronage their errours. And what Augustine gave to Bishops and Councels, this learned Bishop assenteth unto: but I am as­sured, that the Iesuite will not bee able to prove, that S. Augustine ever embraced such a thought, as to believe that the receiving of humane testimonies should disable the Scriptures from being the onely concluding and suffi­cient rule; for he is of a quite contrary opinion, as is ap­parant in many places of his writings A [...]g [...]. Donat. post collat. c. 1 [...]. Qu [...]si Epis­coporum Con­cilia Scripturis Canonicis fue [...]int aliquand [...] comparata?.

Neither will our Iesuite have us in our app [...]le to Scrip­ture to betray our cause by our disagreement with our selves alone, but also by our agreement with ancien [...] Here­tickes: and who are those Hereticks? The Valentinians, Ennomians, Marcionists, Arians, and others, wh [...] as it is well knowne (saith this Iesuite) were w [...]nt to reject all other authorities, and to [...]nce with Scripture onely Reply pag. [...].

If this Iesuite be not a fencer, judge by his weapons both edge and point being rebated? for his most power­full performance ends not so much as in a scratch or scarre. And whereas he saith we fence with Scripture onely; it seemeth he knoweth not the nature thereof, otherwise he would repute it with the Apostle, a sword for a [...]ouldi­ [...]r, yea sharper then a two-edged sword. We acknowledge many subsidiarie helpes, but indeed none sufficient to con­troule the conscience, but Scriptures onely: And herein we follow these ancient Hereticks: 1. August [...] cited [Page 179] by the most learned Answerer, and unanswered by the Ie­suite, Let humane writings be removed, let Gods voice sound Aug. de Pa­stor. c. 14. A [...] ­ferantur char­tae humanae, son [...]t vo [...]s divinae. ede mihi unam Scripturae [...]o­cem, pro▪ parte Donati.; and further in his booke of the Ʋnity of the Church hee saith, Let them declare their Church if they be able, not in the speech and rumours of the Africans, not in Councels of their Bishops, not in the passages of their disputes, not in their [...]ignes & deceitfull wonders, because even against these things the word of God hath perswaded us to be [...]a [...]y, but in the Law, Prophets, Psalmes, the Pastors voyce, the Evangelists preach­ing, and labours, that is in all the canonicall authority of holy Scriptures Aug. de Vnit. Eccle. c. 88. Ec­clesiam suam demonstrant si possunt, non i [...] sermonibus & rumoribus A­frorum, non in concilijs Epis­coporum suo­rum, non in li­teris [...] libet disputa­torum, non in signis & pro­digijs [...]alla [...]i­bus, qui etiam contra ista ver­bo Domini pr [...]parati & cauti [...]ddi [...]i sumus. sed i [...] praescripto le­gis, in prophe­tarum praedi­ctis, in psalmorum cantibus, in ipsius pastoris vocibus, in Evangeli [...]a [...]um praedication [...] ­bus & laboribus, hoc est, in omnibus Canonicis sanct [...]um libr [...]m authoritatibus.. How fairely this Heretick Augustine oppo­seth this Catholicke Iesuite! And further the same Father in a point of controversie openly professeth; We ought not to depart from the authority of the divine Scriptures, to which ALONE in this matter faith is to be given Aug de Gen. ad li [...]. l. 12. c. 33. Ab authoritate Divinarum Scripturarum, quibus [...] lis de hac r [...] fides habenda est, recedere non debemus..

And before this Heretick Irenaus a more auncient one, in the same booke which the Iesuite directeth us to s [...]e, a­greeth with us. We have by none others knowne (saith he) to obtaine salvation, but by those that brought the Gospell to us; for what first they preached, that by the will of God they deli­vered to us in the Scripture, that in aftertimes it might be the FOƲNDATION and PILLAR of our FAITH Irenaeus l. 3. [...] [...]. Non per [...] dispositionem nostrae sal [...]tis cognovimus, quam pereos per quos Evangelium per­ [...]nit ad [...]o [...] quod quidem [...]un [...] praeconiave [...]nt postea [...] per Dei [...] in [...] crunt [...]..

By this which hath beene spoken we find our Appeale to Scriptures alone, as the absolute rule of Faith not to bee the onely practice of Hereticks, as the Iesuite would have it, but of the most Catholick Fathers themselves: & indeed so uncontrouled a rule it was in points of faith to be jud­ged by God in the Scriptures, that never any Hereticke did deny the same, till Papists tyrannizing over the truth, [Page 180] brought in new faith which could not be justified by the old rule. And as all acknowledged this rule most absolutes so Hereticks as well as Catholicks used to justifie their o­pinion by other meanes also. It is probable that E [...]nomius was more beholding to his Logick then Scriptures; for he is painted out by Alphonsus de Castro▪ as a most cunning Sophister Alphons. Castro; adv. Haer. l. 5. De Deo. haer. 10. Eunomius artis dialecticae cal­lidissimus.. Besides, the Montanists, when they were over­come by force of argument, fled for shift & refuge unto Mar­tyrs, reporting themselves to have many Eusebius Ec­cles, hist. l. 5. c. 14. Quando i­gitur in cunctis iftis redarguti, argumentis de­stituunt [...]r, ad­martyres con­fugere nitun­tur, multos se martyres habe­re, ar (que) il­lud certum prophetici spiritus, qui apud ipsos sit, documentum esse dicentes.. Nay, what practi­ses have the Papists for the most part, that Heretickes had not? somtime they pleaded the ChurchOpus imperf. in Mat. hom. 49. Nunc autem singulatim professores haeresium diversarum dicunt. Ecce hic est Christus, id est Ecclesia. Et illic, id est Ecclesia. Quia jam non audiendo dogmatum verba, sed videndo eorum Ecclesias Christiani scandalizantur infirmi., somtime FathersSee Dioscorus cited by the most reverend, the Lord Primate, pag. 24. Alanus Copus Dial. 6. c. 22. Veteres hae­retici cum Patres ipsis apertissimè adversarentu [...] cos tamen à se stare magnâ contentione clamab [...]nt. Baron. Annal. an. 431. num. 170. Sed mirum dictu, quam calumniose ad su­am ipserum haeresim astruendam citare ijdem Nestoriani consueverint sanctos Patres, quantâ (que) mentiri jactantiâ, universos fermè Orbis Episcopos secum sentire., somtime TraditionEuseb. Eccl. [...]ist. l. 5. c. 25. Dicunt (Samosateni,) Majores omnes etiam ipsos Apostolos [...]a sensisse ac do [...]nisse, quae ipsi nunc dicunt, servatam (que) eam praedicationis veritatem us (que) ad tempora Victoris, qui 13. â Petro Romanorum Episcopus fuit. Irenaeus advers: haer. l 3. c. 2. Non e­nim per literas traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem., somtime CouncelsEpi [...]tola quorundam [...] ad Episcopum Rufu [...]. apud Binnium inter Acta Conc. Ephesin. O Ecumen. Tom. 3. c. 13. No [...] au­tem in sanctorum Patrum, qui apud Nicaeam convenerant, caeterorum (que) qui post illos in Ecclesia claruerunt Eustachij Antiocheni; Basilij Caesariensis, Gregorij, Ioannis Athana­ [...], Theophili Damasi Romani, Ambrosij Mediclanensis, reliquorum (que) qui cum memora­ [...]is consentiunt, doctrinâ perseveramus &c., somtime Mira­clesAugust. in Iohan. tract. 13. Pontius-fecit miraculum, & Dona [...]us ora [...]it. & respondit ei Deus decoelo., somtime VisionsAugust. ibid. & de uni­ [...]at, eccles. c. 18., neither were they so naked, but they had your great argument of succession Aug. Epist. 165. ad Generosum. Synod. Lateran. apud Bin. Secreta [...] ­sive Consult. 4. Haec pi [...]tatis dogmata tradiderunt nobis, qui ab initio praesentialiter vide­runt, & ministri verbi facti sunt, eorum (que) discipuli & successores, & sequenter à Deo in­spira [...]i Ecclesiae Doctores, id est sanctae & universales quin (que) Synodi bea [...]orum & à D [...] inspiratorum Patrum, qui in [...] & in hanc regiam civitatem, nec non in Ephesium primùm, & in Chalcedonā, & iterum in Constantinopolim in 5. congregati sunt concilio [...] also: & yet we must be Hereticks, because we appeale to the Scriptures as [...] most absolute rule of faith. Vaenitas vaenitutū! I would have [Page 181] the Iesuit consider that although some of these blind wret­ches he nameth could not see God in the flesh, yet none of them were so blind that they could not perceive light in the Sun, the holy Ghost in the word, in the sacred Scriptures: & they whose impudency durst deny any thing, could not deny Gods rule to be the Scriptures. For the heretick Max­imus, (as he calleth him) if he speake no worse then in de­fence of the sacred Scriptures, we may give him the privi­ledge allowed to the Devill; that sometime he may speake truth, as the other acknowledged Christ to be the son of God. And to agree with an hereticke in truth, is not to be here­ticall, but (as the Iesuite interpreteth his meaning) not any whit to regard those sayings which are not Scripture; and herein if the Iesuite did us right he would a [...]quit us; for we give the auncient Church so much honour, that we make her the greatest witnesse of Gods truth, though we deny her to be the truth it selfe, or rule of faith.

And whereas S. Hierome is brought answering the Luci­frians, that they should not flatter themselves too much be­cause they seemed to have Scripture for what they affirme: for even the Devill hath alledged Scriptures, which consist not in reading, but in understanding Reply pag. 3 [...]; what is this to us? nay; with what corruption and falshood doth the Iesuite dragg this place of Hierome against the authors▪ intent and meaning? for the Iesuite urgeth it against the authoritie of the Scrip­tures and their determinative power: when that Father presseth the same against a shew 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 [Page 182] 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 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 Ire [...]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 ambig [...] and cannot afford the [...] to them, that are ignorant of Tradition Ir [...]eus lib. 3. cap. 2. Haere­tici cùm ex scripturis ar­guuntur, in ac­cusationem convertuntur ipsarum scrip­turarum, quasi non re [...]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 Reply pag. [...].. 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 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 IudgeAugust. Con­fess. l. 13. c. 23. Non enim o­portet de tam sublimi autori­tate judica [...], ne (que) enim de ipso libro tuo etiamsi quod ibi non lucet, quoniam sub­mittimus ci nostrum intel­lectum, cer­tum (que) habe­mus etiam, quod clausium est aspecti [...] nostris rectè ve­raciter (que) di­ctum esse. Sice­ [...] homo; licet jam spiritualis & renov [...] 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 potesta [...]m habet. Clemens Alexandrinus strom. l. 7 Non enim absolutè e [...]ciantibus hominibus fidem habucrimus, quibus licet etiam c [...] ­tiare contrarium—Sed oporte [...]etiam probare quod dictum est, non expectamus testi­monium quod datur ab hominibus, sed voce Domini probamus quod quaeritur, quae est magis side dig [...] 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 in [...] niendas. Wadding L [...] ­gat Philippi 3. &c. [...] multa sunt hujusmodi quae re [...]agantibus aut circ [...] ­ca [...] Doctor [...] sunt à Pontificibus; nec enim parvum. Docto­rum aggerem, sed Dei sapientiam et spiritum pro regula, etrectore veritatis habet [...] ­cta haec [...] quae falli non potest, Mater Ecclesia.. That which God hath left his Church, is, the blessed Spirit in his word [...], 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 [...]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 [...] [...], for defining any new matters (saith your Cardinall Bellarmine) for then hee doth not believe against any thing defined by the Church 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 sen [...]it con­tra aliquid de­ [...]nitum ab Ec­clesia.. And suppose he could not erre in expounding the Scrip­tures; may not they which receive his exposition, mi [...]in­terpret the same, and the people upon report be carried out of the Romane faith?

Our Iesuite proceedes; It will be worth the marking also to observe, how this manner of tryall by onely Scripture, hath ever beene pretended by such, as not onely interpret the same to their owne lust, but also reject what parcels or bookes they please; and for this he cites the Marcionists rejecting the Old Testament. the Manichees; the New; [...], and Cerin­thus, the Acts of the Apostles; the Ebionites the Epistles of S. Paul: Luther, that of S. Iames &c. Yet would these men (saith he) be tryed by none but by the Scriptures, when as they had▪ discarded all such S [...]riptures, as were found any way to make against their Errors. In like sort deale our Adversa­ries at this day Reply pag. 32▪.

But if we doe neither interpret the Scriptures after our own lusts; neither deny any part of the sacred faith that was once delivered to the Saints: if we adhere to that perfect rule which of it selfe is sufficient, and more then sufficient ad omnia, for all things Vincen. Ly­rin. Cùm sit perfect [...] Scrip­turarum cano [...]. fibi (que) ad omnia sati [...] super (que) suffielat.: Surely the Iesuite is a Calumnia­tor, and we are no Hereticks, not so much as in similitude onely. We know Hereticks both adde to the Scriptures, and detract also: This we see at Rome; let the Iesuite espy it amongst us, if he can, in Ireland. Further, i [...] [...] ignorant, that Heretickes, in discarding all that makes against them, have rather forsaken Scriptures, then pleaded try­all by them? for what is this but the Preparer of an Index [Page 185] Expurgatorius? so that we may see from whence Papists had their so profitable inventions. And where can you finde a greater agreement in this kind, then betwixt your selves and Heretickes? for you admit no Scriptures but with your owne glosses, which is as much in effect as to deny all. And if the r [...]e concerning God, be as true con­cerning Scriptures, Non est minus Deum fingere quam ne­gare, It is no losse error to feigne a God; then to deny the Dei­tie; what will your additions to the Scriptures merite? You embrace not onely Apocryphall bookes, but what­soever superstitions your corrupt practice hath produ­ced; and these, because God will not justifie them, you will have to be Apostolicall Traditions.

His accusation, that we admit what Scripture wee like of. and cast out what displeaseth Reply pag. 3 [...] us, is the report of a Iesuite; Italian newes; a thing which he will never manifest, as you may perceive by his proofe. Ecclesiasticus with them is no true Scripture (saith the Iesuite) and why? it approveth Free will too much Reply ibid..

The Iesuite argues but with his owne impudencie, and no reason of ours. Ecclesiasticus hath no authority to con­firme points of Doctrine, and therefore was justly cast off by Whitaker. That it is so reputed by the Church of God, is, because it was never written by any of the Pro­phets, 2. Peter 1. 19. never received by the Church of the [...]ewes, to whom were commended the Oracles of God, Rom. 3. 2. Further, it had never approbation by the Apostles in the Church of God: and besides these gene­rals, there are many other particulars for which wee re­ject this booke; as from his owne mouth, who in the beginning thereof doth not assume to himselfe that ho­nour, which the Iesuite would conferre upon him; for he acknowledgeth his owne weaknes and disability in translating it out of the Hebrew In the Pro­logue., which I thinke is not comely for that mind to doe, which was assisted by the Spirit of God: for when Moses said, I am not eloquent, [Page 186] God questions, who made the tongue Exod. 4. 10. 11? Besides this, chap. 46. ver: 23. it is not agreeable to the truth of sacred Scrip­tures, which is there spoken of Samuels prophecying after his death, and other things. But I would know, if your ad­ditions and traditions were not, where would you finde that new Fabrick of the Roman Creed, published by your infallible guide?

But saith our Iesuite, Cyprian, Ambrose, August. Clemens Alex. and other holy Fathers, account Ecclesiasticus to be ho­ly Scripture Reply pag. 33.

If this were proofe sufficient, a small authority would suffice to prove the Canon; for we may as well confirme the booke Pastor and divers others from Bellarmines Bellarm. de script. Eccles [...] pag. 34. See this testi­mony cited be­fore pag. 163. te­stimony, as the booke of Ecclesiasticus &c. for any thing he urgeth from these Fathers to determine it within the Canon, in regard he acknowledgeth, that it hath the same Epithites from many Fathers as he professeth this to have. So that if this be the Iesuites best Apologie for Ec­clesiasticus, it is much beholding to his free will, but no­thing to his industry.

This manner of proceeding (saith the Iesuite) Tertullian doth discover in those Heretickes of his time, and withall will teach us how we are to proceed with those of our dayes, who tread so right the steppes of their forefathers▪ The conflict (saith he) with the Scriptures, is good for nothing, but to turne either the stomacke or the brayne. This heresie receiveth not certaine Scriptures; and that which it receiveth it draweth to her owne purpose, by additions and substractions: and if it re­ceive the whole Scriptures, it depraveth them by divers expo­sitions. Where as the adulterous sence doth no lesse destroy the truth, then doth the corrupted letter. What wilt thou gaine that [...] cunning in Scriptures, when that which thou defend­est is denyed, and that which thou denyest is defended? thou shalt indeed loose nothing but thy voyce with contending, nor shalt thou gaine any thing but choler hearing blasphemies. The Heretickes will say that [...] [...] the Scripture, [Page 187] and bring lyeing interpretations, and that they defend the truth. Therefore must not appeale be made to Scriptures, nor must the conflict be in them, by which the victory is either un­certaine, or little certaine, or none at all Reply pag 3 [...].

What Tertullian and other auncient Fathers thought of this rule hath beene formerly declared: and this quotati­on doth not make Tertullian a despiser of the rule of Scriptures; but proveth Hereticks to be shifters and for­sakers of the same; Whereby the Iesuite may espy the he­reticke. All that beareth any shew for the Iesuite is in the taile of his allegation; Ergo non ad Scripturas as provocandum est, therefore must not appeale be made to Scriptures, but the Iesuite dare not put in the whole, nec in ijs constituendum certamen in quibus nulla aut parum certu victoria, which is as much as, if I were to deale with a Papist in points of re­ligion & should urge the scripture to him; it were in vain; why? because although they receive the Scriptures, they accept them not as the rule of faith; besides they adde, de­tract, and what they receive they must onely interpret. They not onely corrupt the stile by a vulgar authenticke, but the sence by a Papall violence: and in this case what shall a man get from a Papist, but cholerike blasphemie and licentious rayling? Doth not the Iesuite make this good in his owne particular calling Bibling Babling Reply pag. [...].

We know in this sence every meane may be despised, not onely Stephen Acts 7. [...]4. and Paul Acts 28. 24. Socrates histe Eccles: l. 1. c 6. Sabinus, qui haerefis Mace­donian [...] prin­ceps est, dedi [...] operâ his refragatur: immo vero, cos qui Nicaeae coacti crant impetitos & [...] vocat. [...] de vita Constantini. l. 2. c. 71. Magis, magis (que) lis ac­crevit & [...] provincias mali illius imperus invaser [...]t., but Christ himselfe. What Councels ever choaked Hereticks, but they croaked af­terwards [...]? It is sufficient if the Scriptum est may stupifie a Devill Math. 4. 4. 7., amaze a Pharisee [...] 17. [...]. [...] [...] Eccles. l. 1. c. [...]. Cum amplius [...]recenti Episcopi [...]unam can­dem (que) [...] & [...] & exquisitis legis devin [...] testimoniis vera fides esse confirmatur) [...], [...] [...], [...] [...] [...] victus▪ ab [...] pe [...]itu [...] de [...]eiverit., convict an Arian, consume Antichrist 2. Thess. 2. 8. in the effect or judgement of others: What [Page 188] they themselves conceive hereof is nothing to the pur­pose; the Rule is the Rule, though a perverse Hereticke cannot be made to acknowledge it.

Thus (saith the Iesuite) we may easily espy the reason, why our Answerer refuseth to stand to the verdict of either Church Councell, or Father [...], admitting onely Scriptures for the judge of his cause Reply pag. 33.

Indeed by this place of Tertullian we may easily espie, it is the same reason that mooved the auncient Fathers to urge the generall tradition of the auncient Church against certaine Heretickes of their time, which perswaded the most learned Answerer to make use of the like weapons against the Iesuite, in regard Papists, as ancient Heretickes shift off the Scriptures many times by additions, substracti­ons, depravations, adulterous sences, corrupted stiles &c: But to charge this most reverend Lord with refusing to stand to the verdict of either Church, Councells, or Fathers &c. is one of the Iesuites truths; He refuseth them indeed as judges of our faith, as the absolute rule, seclusis sacris lita­ris, (so do your owne Marsilius def. Pa. pa. 2. c. 28. Quas vero ip­sorum auctori­tate propria prae ter Scripturam protulerunt sententias, scripturae sive canoni conso­nas, recipiam: quas vero disso­nas, reverenter abjiciam. Non tamen aliter quam auctori­tate Scripturae cui semper in­nitar. Aquinas, 1. part. sum. q. 1. ar. 8. Auctori­tatibus autem canonicae scrip­turae utitur propriè & ex necessitate ar­gumentando: Auctoritati­bus autem ali­orum docto­rum Ecclesiae, quasi arguen­do ex proprijs, sed probabi liter; Inniti­tur enim fides nostra revelationi Apostolis & Prophetis factae qui canonicos libro [...] scripserunt: non autem revelationi si qua fuit alijs Doctoribus facta, that have any conscience) but not as good testimonies to assent to the truth. And so farre are they from patronizing the Popish cause, that you dare not accept them, nisi ex cogitato commento, but with mentall re­servation of a false comment, or a worse interpretation Index Expurg. Belgic pag. 5. Quum igitur in Catholicis veteribus alijs plurimos feramus errores, & ex­ [...]enuemus, excusemus excogitato commenso persaepè negemus, & commodum [...] sensum assingamus, dum [...] in disputationibus, aut in confliction but cum adversarijs. Reply pag. 33.. What followes, to wit, that by the confession of his own fore­fathers, masters, & fellow Protestants they (the fathers) were no better then meere Papists a, is both falshood and froath: for which of our accompt the fathers Papists? if the Iesu­ite knowes them, let him produce them: but we beleive his weaknes wilbe seene, before his detection. And sure­ly he dreameth, to thinke we esteeme the Fathers Papists [Page 189] and slaves to that Tyrant whose usurpations their wri­tings alwayes resisted. And how can this hang together; Wee acknowledge that for the first 400. or 500. yeares the Church of Rome remained a true Church free from Papall impostures; and yet (as the Iesuit spareth not to accuse us) charge the fathers of the primitive Church &c. as Papists, to favour of that leaven, which they ever cast out and expel­led? But this the Iesuit hath referred to another place, till which time we will leave it. Yet whereas the Iesuite still insisteth upon the most learned Answerers words, no other Father (but God) do we know, upon whose bare credit we may ground our consciences, in things that are to be beleived, & that rocke upon which alone we build our faith is the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets: from which no sleight that they can devise, shall ever draw us, and thinketh the same are uttered for no other end but to cast by the fathers, as little respe­cting their authority Reply pag. 33 We take this but for a wizards sur­mise and a vain repetition: we having shewen before, that the most learned Answerer hath given the Fathers their due respect, and if he should do more, hee would deny to God his due reverence. You that give too much to Saints and Angels, dare not justifie, but distinguish your worship; How much better is it then to deale plainely, and to give unto Fathers that which is theirs, and to God and his word what belongeth to them? Yea, whether is it greater disparagement to the Fathers, to make them stoop to God or man? We doe the first; you doe the last: where you dare, you purge them; they shall not speake one word against Babylon, but by inventing some device you will deny them Vide lit. ., and if such dealing will not serve, then downe with their buildings, giving them no honour at all Index expurg. Hispan [...]ard. Qui [...]ogae. edit. Madilti ann: 1584. (in fine literae [...]) Delea­tur tota Epi­stola Vdalrici. Episcopi Au­gustini, de [...] ­libatu cleri. I­tem totus liber Bertrami pres­byteri de cor­pore & sangui­ne Domini, pe­nitusauferatur..

Lastly, the Iesuite saith, we will now discover for conclu­sion of the whole, how farre herein the Answerer differeth from those Fathers of the auncient Church of God, with whom he pretendeth to have so great affinity. And this we will declare [Page 190] by the expresse words of an auncient learned Father, Ʋine [...] ­tius Lyrinensis Reply pag. 34 &c.

How willingly the Iesuite would have the auncient Church to be as corrupt as themselves may appeare by this his strugling with one onely Lyrinensis, whose words largely translated speake not any thing in effect to prove his intention: for who is ignorant that heresies are novel­ties, and that Hereticks would justifie their new follies by the auncient testimonies of the sacred Scriptures? neither by them alone, but the auncient Fathers also? Yet must this prove the Answerer to differ from the Fathers of the auncient Church, because with them he useth the rule that was ever received in the Church with more truth and faithfulnes then Hereticks have done? Surely, the Iesuite hath payed it here; for he that every where dreameth of false logicke in others, doth not here speake true sence himselfe.

Lyrinensis maketh 1. one generall sufficient rule for all things, the sacred Scriptures Lyrinens. Du­plici modo munire fidem suam Domino adjuvante de­beret: Primo scilicet, divinae legis autorita­ [...]e.—. Cum sit perfectus Scrip­turarum canon sibique AD OMNIA sa­tis super (que) sufficiat.. 2ly. another▪ usefull in some cases onely Ibid. Tum deinde ecclesiae catholicae traditione.—Sed ne (que) sem­per, neque omnes haere [...]s hoc modo impugnandae sunt., yet never to be used in those cases without Scriptures, which is, the tradition of the Universall Church Ibid. Multum necesse est prop­ter tantos tam varij erroris anfractus, ut Propheticae & Apostolicae interpretationis linea, secundum Ecclesiastici & Catholici sensus normam diriga [...]ur, In ipsa autem catholica Ec­clesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubi (que) quod semper, quod ab om­nibus creditum est, hoc est etenim verè, propriè (que) catholicum.. The first was used by the auncient Church from the worth that is in it selfe Ibid. Sibi (que) ad omnia su­per (que) sufficiat., the other from the perversnes of Hereticks that many times abuse the sacred rule Ibid. Quia videlicet scripturam sacram pro ipsa sui altitudine non uno cod [...]m (que) sensus universi accipiunt, sed ejusdem eloquia aliter atque aliter alius atque a­lius interpretatur—Aliter namque illam Novatianus, aliter Sabeilius.. Bring us now one Scripture expounded (according to Lyrinensi [...] his rule Ibid. Quod ubi (que) quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.) by the universall consent of the primitive Church, to prove traditions, confession, Purgatory, prayer to [Page 191] Saints, image-worship, Free-will &c. in your sence, and wee will receive it: if you cannot, confesse the truth, that you deale like hereticks; and acknowledge that we follow the practise of the auncient times.

And here I would have the Iesuite consider how many of their owne doe cry, the Scripture Sanders. Rocke of the Church, chap. 8. pag. 193. They have most plaine Scriptures in all points for the Catholicke faith, and none at all a­gainst the same. Bristo. Mot. 48: Most certain it is that from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Apoca­lypse, there is no text that maketh for you against us, but all for us. (though it be, more Iudeorum, as they templum Domini) and further with grea­ter pretended reverence kisse antiquity, not that they love either, but because the one is not so light as the o­ther to lay open their errours and detect their deformi­ties.

Moreover whereas Christ made it a note of his sheepe to heare his voyce, this good man would have it to bee the signe and token of an Hereticke; but if Hereticks make use of Scriptures, this confirmes the rule to be what God made it, though it cannot justifie their practise that abuse the same. And for brutish and wilde interpretations of Hereticks which this Father makes woolvish, let the Iesu­ite cast an eye to their owne, and who hath dealt so gross­ly as they have done See before pag. 149 [...]it. b.? And although they bragge of U­nity and interpretations of good consent, yet (for any thing we see) it is to be suspected when their Popes could not agree about the Text, that he (as his schollers) may faile to accord in interpretation thereof. Further I could wish it were examined, whether we or they faile in the Rule of interpreting the Scriptures according to the uni­versall tradition of the Church and analogie of faith, and then it would easily appeare (if this be a note of He­resie) who the Hereticks are. For the Fathers beleived but halfe the faith according to that you interpret; and to make those points, traditions of the universall Church which needed decrees to authorize them 1500 yeares af­ter Christ, must needes conclude egregious vanity. But who knoweth not that you had rather be tried by the Moone and seven Starres, which cannot so easily detect the workes of darknes, then the Scriptures, the fountain [Page 192] of light, that will declare the least errour in your doctrine or practise Clem. Alex: Serom. l. 7. Si­cut improbi oueri exclu­dunt Paedago­gum: ita etiam hi arcent Pro­phetias a suâ Eccles [...]â, suspe­ctas [...]as haben­tes propter re­p [...]eh ensionem & admonitio­nem. Quam­plerima certe consarciunt mendacia & figmenta, ut jure videantur non admittere Scripturas.? So that we disclaime not the Fathers, but in your Phantasies; for we allowe them at all times what they ought to have; and when by an universall consent they de­clare what the Apostles delivered to the Church wee grant them a more centrouling authoritie. Yet we are not ashamed to distinguish betwixt God and man, (though you blush not to equall them) and to make Gods ipse diceit a convincing rule, which we cannot grant to man, or the best of men, the Fathers and Bishops of the auncient Church, where they come alone without the Scriptures.

Our Iesuite hath done much in this Chapter, to wit; proved that we preferre God before men; and I have shewed that we deny not to men what God hath allowed to them.


AND least Vanitie should be absent for a little, here the Iesuite proceedes to take a veiw. How vainely our Answerer excuseth his disclaime from the Fathers Reply pag. 36? But how vainely he chargeth the Answerers most learned observation will presently ap­peare.

Here (saith the Iesuite) our Answerer meeteth us with the same auncient Father Vincentius Lirinensis who though a great Commender of the methode of confuting Heresies by the consent of holy Fathers, yet is carefull herein to give us this caveat, that neither alwayes, nor all kinde of Heresies are to be impugned after this manner, but such onely as are now and lately sprung, namely when they doe first arise, while by straitnes of the time it selfe they be hindred from falsifying the rules of the auncient Faith, and before the time that their poyson spreading farther, they attempt to corrupt the writings [Page 193] of the auncient. But far-spred and inveterate heresies are not to bee dealt withall this way, for as much as by long continu­ance of time, a long occasion hath lyon open unto them to steale away the truth. Out of which saying our Answerer inferres that our Heresies being farre-spred, and of long continuance, have had time enough, and place to coyne, and clipp, and wash the [...] of Antiquitie, wherein (saith hee) they have not bene wanting, and therefore must not be impugned by con­sent of holy Fathers Reply pag. 36.

Here is little Vanitie to be seene as yet; how the Iesuite will make it appeare remaineth to be done; and this hee will accomplish by espying a manifest contradiction in his words against himselfe: for above he more then once (saith the Iesuite) [...] our opinions prophane novelties, and here­ticall novelties. If Novelties, how are they now become Here­sies farre spred, and of so long continuance, that we are bold to make duration the marke of our Church Reply ibid.?

The Iesuite imagineth here Contradiction, and why? be­cause [...] opinion of long continuance cannot be stiled a No­veltie: So that if we can manifest, that a Noveltie may bee of long continuance our Iesuite is deceived in his slippery hopes. And what will he make novum in Religion, but that, which is not antiquissimum? Our Saviour when hee would declare Pharisaicall traditions to be Novelties did not respect their long continuance in the corrupt estate of the Church, but saith, ab initia non fuit sic Mat. 19 [...]8, that they were not from the beginning delivered by God, or practised by the Church. So that if the duration and antiquitie of your opinions be but humane, that is, not Apostolicall, neither from Apostolicall grounds▪ It [...]inke and justly, that they may be esteemed new and novelties Terrullian [...] de praescrip [...] pan­lo ante medi­um. Si haec i [...] sint, constat pro [...] de om­nem doctri­nam, qu [...] cum illis Ecclesijs Apostolicis matricibus & originalibus si­dei conspiret, veritati depu­tandam id sinc dubio tenan­tum, quod Ec­clesiae ab Apo­stoli, Aposto [...] à Christo, Christus à D [...] suscepit, relj­quam vero omnem doctri­nam de men­dacio praejudi­candam, quae sapia [...] contra veritatem Ec­clesiarum, & Apostolorum, & Christi, & Dei., for a point is [...] in religion that did not proceed from God and his blessed Spirit either in terminis, or by deduction from his word that is the Ancient of dayes whatsoever pretences of du­ [...]tion and continuance may be supposed.

[...] was never generally received by the [Page 194] Roman faction themselves before the Councell of Lateran [...]corus in 4. d. 11. q. 3. apud Bellarm. de Euchil. 3. c. 23. ditis, ante La­teranense con­cilium non fu­isse Dogma fi­dei transub­stantiationem. [...] Rhem. An▪ not. upon the 1. of. Tim. 6. [...].; and yet wee are condemned for calling this a Noveltie; whereas it crept in many hundred yeares after those words which they themselves account▪ Novelties both in the Arrians which had their Similis substanti [...], and Christ to bee ex non existentibus, and also other Hereticks that had their Christiparam and such like [...], new coyned tearmes agreable to their sects. Wherefore it is not enough to free your doctrines from being Novelties: because they are of long continuance: seeing the words of ancient here­ticks being of more long continuance and auncienter in birth, even many hundred yeares before them, might bet­ter claime that priviledge and are neverthelesse stiled No­velties by your selves. And as the Rhemists acknowledg of words, so we say concerning points of doctrine, that, wee are to esteeme their newnes or oldnes by the agreeablenes or disagreeablenes they have to the true sence of Scriptures, the forme of catholick faith and doctrine [...]hem▪ ibid. &c. and not because it is long since they had their birth in the world. So that you see Novelties are new doctrines which are neither de­livered in Scriptures openly and in expressetermes, or lye couchant in the same, but had their births in aftertimes be­ing framed by the phantasticke illusions of Sathan, the pro­ducer of falshoods and heresies; which is conformable to the Apostles doctrine; for what 1. Tim. 6. 20. he tearmeth prophane novelties, Gal. 1. 8. he expresseth to be new do­ctrine, [...] ibid. which is not the same, but besides as the Rhemists [...], or against that which the Apostle did deliver to the Church. And therefore our Iesuite and his contradicti­on, contradict his imagined▪ Vanity and not prove or con­firme the same.

For his other Collectaneas; that if they be prophant No­velties then by the Rule of Lyrinensis they ought to bee im­pugned by producing and confirring the agreeing sentences of auncient Doctours. Secondly that the consent of auncient Father is called the rule of the auncient Faith by Lirinen­sis [Page 195] in the place alledged Reply pag. 36.

1. Wee have shewed before See before Sect. 5. prope finem. that we dissent not from Lyrinensis being rightly understood: For all kind of here­sies are prophane Novelties howsoever they differ in ex­tent or age; Yet all kind of Heresies are not to be impug­ned (though prophane Novelties) after this manner in Ʋincentius Lirinensis his judgement. Besides Lirinensis maketh not the Fathers rules absolutely, but because they assisted at that time the Scriptures to rule unruly hereticks that would wrest the same; so that when the Fathers can­not do the worke for which they were used, that is, stop the Hereticks mouthes, because that having corrupted an­tiquity, they will also pretend it, then he thinketh such he­resies (though prophane Novelties) are not to be dealt withall this way. And for his second observation (although the Iesuit collecteth untruly,) yet who will deny consent of Fathers to be the rule of faith according to that Fa­thers meaning? For in the immediate quotation follow­ing out of the same Father we finde, that it hath beene the custome of Catholicks to try their faith two manner of wayes; FIRST by the authoritie of the Divine Canon; next by the tradition of the Catholicke Church Vine [...]. Liri­nens▪ adv. Pro­fanas Novati­ones. Primò scilicet divine legis auctorita­te, tum deinde Ecclesiae Ca­tholicae tradi­tione.; not for that the Scripture is not sufficient in it selfe: but because very many interpreting the divine word at their pleasures do conceive varying opinions and errours Ibid Hic for­sitan requirat aliquis: cum sit perfectus Scrip­turarum canon sibi (que) ad om­nia satis super­que sufficiat▪ quid opus est ut eiecclesiasti­cae intelligen­tiae, iungatur autoritas? Quia videlicet Scripturam sa­cra [...] pro ibsa sui altitudine, non uno codemque sensu universi accipiunt▪ quod [...]—Confideratio temporis— [...].. Now in these words, who doth not see, that Lyrinesis doth make consent of Fathers not to be an absolute or sufficient rule of Faith, as he doth the Scriptures, but a directive rule to the right understan­ding of the absolute and sufficient rule of faith which is the holy Scriptures? Neither can we otherwise confecture, but that Lirinensis giveth, this directive Rule for his owne time Ibid. Ad and not to all succeeding ages▪ for by many particu­lars it is apparant, that the foundation and ground of his whole discourse received being from those wise experi­ences [Page 196] which the present age hee lived in, and precedent had afforded him. Besides wee have many Mathematicall instruments which are rules in their kinde, as the Globe, Quadrant, &c: and there are many bookes written to as­sist us in their use: now I hope you will not say, the rule to use the instrument, is the absolute rule it selfe to draw a Conclusion in the Mathematickes! And why likewise may not the Fathers that assist and direct in understanding of the Scriptures, be Rules (as Ʋincentius Lirinensis onely stileth them) in their kind, & yet give place unto the word of God, as the absolute and sufficient rule of faith?

Moreover Rules & Measures are either originall, which we call the Standard, or those which are proportioned and fitted thereby: and might not this Father make the Scriptures as the Standard, the onely absolute rule, suffici­cient of it selfe (as he tearmeth it) to try points of Catho­lick Faith; and yet graunt the generall consent of all Bishops and Preists of the Catholicke Church in a generall Councell to be a Rule proportioned, fitted and squared thereby? Who knoweth not also that the Standard is a most abso­lute and controuling Rule, without doubt and exception, when there are many things that may call in question the truth of the other, so that it may need to bee corrected thereby?

Now what doth the most learned Primate say that crosseth Liriuensis? This auncient Father acknowledgeth the authority of the divine Canon sufficient of it selfe to trye the Catholicke Faith: His learned Penne confes­seth, Gods Word to be that rocke alone upon which wee build our Faith. Lirinensis to avoyde jarring interpretations, would likewise from the Custome of Catholicks have the Traditions of the Catholick Church, to wit, the generall consent of Fathers to be requisite at some times to the un­derstanding of heavenly Scriptures: And for any thing I can find, the most reverend Primate doth not urge a sylla­ble against it. So that untill the Iesuite can shew further [Page 197] then he hath done, Vanitie I thinke will turne Fryar and remaine with him.

And although this Iesuite doth make the Fathers upon Lirinensis his experiment the absolute rule; yet a further experience perswadeth them to leave Lirinensis at some­times; which although they will not doe with open face, yet by covered shifts they labour to avoyde what they pretend to be his direction. For they make the Fathers do­ctors not judges; to be followed, for their reason, not for their authority Bellarm. de verbo Dei. l. 3. c. 10. Aliud est interpretari le­gem more Do­ctoris, aliud more judicis: ad explanationem more Doctoris, requiritur cru­ditio, ad expli­cationem more judicis requiri­tur auctoritas Doctor enim non proponit sententiam su­am ut necessa­rio sequendam fed SOLVM quatenus ratio suadet., (which destroyes their judgship;) to be rejected where excogitato commento they cannot helpe Vasquez. Ies [...] l. 2. de Adora disp. 3. c. 2. ini­tio Recentiores aliqui pondere hujus (Concilij Elibertini) quasi oppressi, tanquam opti­mum [...]ffugium elegerunt, authoritatem Concilij negare, quod Provinciale fuerit,—nec a Pontifice confirmatum: &c.—Et sane, si aliâ viâ Concilio satisfieri commodè non possit, hoc nobis effugium sufficeret.. So Maldonate upon the xvi. of Matthew Maldonat. in 16▪ Mat. Portae inferni non praevale­bunt. Quorum verborum sensus non videtur mihi esse, quem omnes praeter Hilarium quos [...]gisse m [...]mini authores putant., Bellarmine upon the vi. of Marke and the v. of Iames Bellarm. de Extrem: Vnct. c. z. Duae Scripturae prose­ [...]tur ab omnibus, una ex cap. 6. Marci, altera ex cap. 5. Iacobi. De prio [...] non omnes con­veniunt, an cum Apostoli ungebant. oleo infirmes, & curabant; illa fuerit unctio Sacra­mentalis, de quâ nunc disputamus: an solum fuerit figura quaedam, & adumbratio hujus Sacramenti Qui tuentur Priorem sententiam, ut Tho, Waldens. loco citate, & Alphons. de castro. l. de Haer verbo. Extrema Vnctio, ca ratione ducuntur, quod Beda, Theophila­ [...]us & OE cumenius in commentarijs Marci & Iacobi videantur dicere eandem esse un­ctionem, cujus fit mentio in utro (que) loco. Sed profectò probabilior est sententia posterior que est Ruardi—& lansenij—& Dominici a Soto—& aliorum. Et mihi certe eo etiam no­mine gra [...]or, quod videam Lutherum, Calvinum, & Chemnitium locis citatis esse in priore opinione: existimant enim illi eandem esse unctionem Marci 6. & lu [...]i 5., reject the authorities of Fathers, and any may tell me, wherefore.

Besides the suspition of this rule is detected; that when a wrangling Papist will question the true sence of the Fa­thers (as it is easie to be done even where the minde is convinced) how can the fathers be the assured touchstone to try all controversies when the Pope may order all mat­ters as he pleaseth Gregor. [...]: Anal. Fidel l. 8. c 8. Quod si per sententiam Doctorum aliqua, fidei controversia non [...] commodè componi posset (eo quod de illorum confensu non [...] constare [...]) [...] tunc constat authoritas Pontifici.?

But hereby we may see who feare the judgement of Anti­quity, you, or our selves; Wee receive them without ap­peale, if true and not forged, if cleare and not ambiguous, in points that they were bound to beleive, and teach from the sacred Scriptures upon paine of damnation: You not at all, unlesse, when you please, they will stoop unto and un­dergoe a Papall explanation.

Yet thirdly (the Iesuite tels us) Lirinensis, as we see doth not so withdraw the tryall of inveterated Heresies from the consent of holy Fathers, that he will have it brought to Scrip­ture onely, as our Answerer pretendeth: but giveth us to un­derstand that when they cannot sufficiently bee convinced by holy writ, then the authoritie of generall Councells (wherein by the consent of catholick Priests, and Prelates of the Church they have beene condemned) should suffice us to avoyde and detect them Reply pag. 37.

Lirinensis maketh the sacred Scriptures the onelie ab­solute rule fit for all times and occasions Vincen. Li­rin: adv. profa­nas Novat Cum sit perfe­ctus Scriptura­rum canon, [...]ique ad om­nia satis super­ [...] sufficiat, but this dire­ctive helpe of Fathers he applieth to sometimes onely Idem Sed no­que semper ne­que omnes hae reses hoc mo▪ [...] impugnan­ [...] [...].. But will the Iesuite perswade us, that, when Lirinensis doth withdraw the tryall of inveterated Heresies from the consent of holy Fathers, it is left to other judgement on earth besides the Scriptures? Surely, the Iesuite did bet­ter adhere to the Fathers in his Epistle Dedicatory, then in this place, for there they were the assured touch stone to try all controversies betwixt us, whether wee varie about the true sence of holy writ, or about any Article of Christi­an beleife whatsoever▪ but heere they may be suspended as hee acknowledgeth in Lirinensis his opinion, and in some reserved cases neither Scriptures nor Fathers must be the rule, but the authoritie of generall Councells &c. So that you see their rule is that which best befreinds them. The Fathers at one time shall helpe and bee the as­sured touchstone; A generall Councell (not auncient I hope but of the Popes calling) when the Fathers fayle; But for the Scriptures, their confidence hath not beene so [Page 199] great therein, as to make them alone a rule for the least ar­ticle of their new faith.

And this Iesuite that even now would perswade others to beleive that we adhere to the Scriptures onely, because we would not be subject to the sentence of any▪ judge, doth here detect himselfe, what judge he will allow; The Scrip­tures must be locked up, Bibling is Babling, and generall Councells must do the worke, well! why then doe they not confirme Constance and Basill? If they dare not submit to them, why do they vainly pretend their authority? But it may be they are not confirmed by the Pope; So that you may see by the Iesuit's wavering, his aime is onely to have that Exlex (who ought at this time principallie to be cor­rected for his heresies) to be both the rule and the Iudge.

But we are as free (saith the Iesuite) from the imputation of Heresie, as our Adversaries are farre from finding out any such generall Councell, in which wee have beene con­demned Reply pag. 17.

Have you no better Apologies then this to exempt you out of the Catalogue of Hereticks? The Pelagians had as good, and pleaded the same against S. Augustine, who answered them with scorne: Aut vero congregatio­ne Synodi opus erat, ut apertu pernicies damnaretur? quasi nul­la haeresis aliquando nisi Synodi congregatione damnata sit Aug. con. [...]. Epist. Pelag 4, 4 c. 12.. What, is it needfull to assemble a Synode that a manifest cor­ruption should be condemned? as if no Heresie hath at any time beene condemned without the calling of a Sy­node.

And they are as surely branded for Novelists and Sectaries (saith this Loyolist) as their opinions have beene certainely condemned by many the like generall Councells Reply pag. 37.

I wonder where the Iesuite will find them; nay, what have they besides the names of generall Councells that may honour the assembly of their so many Bishops? Some of these you dare not confirme, why then should they have generall faith and esteeme amongst us? If you dare not [Page 200] subscribe to your Councels, for what reason should they have power to condemne us? Some against Faith given▪ have martyred those which you acknowledge ours: Your Trent Synode hath anathematized the Catholick Church & Doctrine; And I am perswaded if that faction had as much power as they give to their Head, the Church Catholicke should not bee long from martyrdome al­so.

Besides, whose opinions have Generall Councels con­demned? ours? Surely, then our pretended Heresies are an­cienter then Luther: he is not the first that taught our do­ctrine. But where are your Councels (Mr Malone) that condemne the holy Scriptures, the foure first Generall Councels, the three Creeds? These are ours, to them wee subscribe. If these are Novelti [...]s, we are Novelists; if this be doctrine of Sect [...]ries, the Hereticke hath justly stiled us: But if the Iesuite cannot bring Councels, that have con­demned God in his Word, the Primitive Church in her De­crees, and the generall Confessions of Faith, I hope hee will upon better thoughts except Noveltie from our Faith, & Schisme from our Persons. Neither let the Iesuite runne a­bout as in other-places he hath done, to coyne us an other Faith, when as he himselfe revileth us for adhering to the Scriptures Reply Sect. [...].; when as our Lawes justifie our embracing the foure first Generall Councels, and our Liturgie doth en­close the Creedes. The Iesuite continueth his vaine dis­course.

And as (saith he) they never yet assembled any Generall Councell of Catholick Preists and Prelates of that Church which is dispersed through many Nations, neither by reason of their fatall discord amongst themselves will ever be [...] able to assemble the same, so wee may for ever live se­cure Reply pag. [...]7.

Every Iesuite is not a Prophet; We may have a Co [...] ­ [...]ll, such a one where your Papa shall not be Presid [...]nt, [...]or your Clo [...]ke-bagge carry the Spirit that shall direct [Page 201] i [...]: when the Church of Rome it selfe shall be fr [...] from that Factio [...] which now doth tyrannize over it, and the true Bishops thereof shall enjoy that authoritie which most truely is their owne by divine institution, and Fry­ars and Iesuites may tur [...]e Turkes for any station, that they shall have in the Hierarchi [...] of the Church of God Censura [...] ­positionum ad sacram Facul­tatem Theo [...] ­giae Parisi [...]. sem allat. &c. Pri [...]a Proposi­tio. Hierarchia Ecclesiastica constat ex Pon­tifice, Cardi­nalibus, Archi­episcopis, Epi­scopis & Re­gularibus. C [...] ­sura. In istâ prim [...] propos [...] ­ti [...] [...] ratio mem [...] ­rum Hierar­chiae Ecclesia­sticae, seu sacri Principat [...] di­vinâ ordinatio­ne instituti, est manca, & re­dunda [...] at (que) inducens in errorem..

Finally (saith the Iesuite) the reason of this his [...]ergiv [...]r­sa [...]ion from the Fathers authority is vaine and idle, when hee saith that we have coyned, clipped, and washed their monu­ments. And why, I pray you? For though (saith he) he en­deavour to proove this by severall instances, yet not one doth he produce that will serve his turne, and therefore tells the most learned Answerer, that he is bound to bring forth [...]und proo [...] of this his accusation, under paine of incu [...] ­ring the brand of forgerie and spitefull calumnie him­selfe Reply pag. 38.

We may perceive the Iesuite is unwilling to enter in­to dispute concerning these particulars, and therefore [...]sts them off as wanting proofe: Yet indeed the matter is so notorious in many of the instances, that your owne have espied the counterfeits, and branded them with their Censures. But the Iesuite might have forsaken his selfe flatterie, and have taken notice, that there is more proofe against the particulars, then hee had answered unto. For is it possible, that there should bee little respect given to the Church of Rome before the Councell of Nice, as their Cardinall and after-Pope urged by the most reverend the Lord Primate, affirmeth, when wee finde the first Bishops of that Church, writing such controuling Epistles; Councels before that of Nice, giving such unlimited power, and the Ro­mane Emperour qualifying with such unmeasurable Principalitie their Romane Bishop?

But because the Iesuite desires a further manife­station of these Counterfeit [...], I will take them as [Page 202] they are layde downe in order by the most reverend the Lord Primate, beginning with your Craftie Merchant, Isidorus Mereator, that is justly charged with counterfei­ting Decretall Epistles &c.

Our Iesuite hath a minde to justifie these bratt [...], and to make Isidorus his merchandize to passe for good wares, yet Bellarmine confesseth, that they are infected with Errour script into them Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 14. Aliquos errores in eas irrepsisse, non negaverim, nec indubitatas es­se affirma [...]e audeam. [...] Cusanus de Concord. cath. l. 3. c. 2. Sunt meo judicio illa de Constanti­no apocrypha, sicut fortassis etiam quaedam alia longa & magna scripta Sancti [...] Cle­menti & Ana­cleto Pap [...] at­tributa. In quibus volen­tes Romanam sedem omni lande dignam, plus quam Ecclesiae sanctae expedit & decet exaltare, se pe [...] ­tus, [...]t quasi, fundant. Si quis illas omnes Scripturas [...] Sanctis attributas diligenter perlegeret, et eorum tempora ad illa scripta applicaret, ac deinde in opusculis omnium sanctorum Patrum, qui us (que) ad Augustinum, Hieronymum et Ambrosium fuere, ac etiam de gestis Conciliorum, ubi authentica scripta allegantur, usum et memoriam h [...]beret: hoc inveniret verum, quia nec in illis omnibus Scripturis, de illis praefatis Epistolis mentio ha­betur, et etiam ip [...] Epistol [...] applicatae ad tempus eorum sanctorum scipsas produ [...]t.. Cusanus doth downe-rightly stile some of them Counterfeits, and doubteth not that they all would betray themselves, if diligently read & applyed to the timesh. Contius wrote a Preface, which is suppressed with his rea­sons, that he was confident would have declared these E­pistles Counterfeit Contius Annot. in dist. 16. c. Septuaginta, dicit, [...] a [...] supra in [...] ratio [...] ad­du [...]i, quibus omnes Pontificum qui Syl [...]strum [...], [...] esse manifeste o­ctendi. Vide colloq Rainoldi cum Harto▪ c, 8. divis. 3.. Besides, they shame themselves; For would these Fathers speake like Barbarians, when the Heathen Rhetoricians were ready to oppose them? Could they speake in one stile & forme of wordes, when they had so many different pennes and diverse tongues? Were Popes so obscure, or their Epistles so contempti­ble, that they were not knowne in the first 500. yeares? Were they of so sleight perswasion, that they could not moove the Bishops of Africk to give their Successors, what those blessed Martyrs possessed? Did they cite Hieromes Translation by Prophesie, which was not extant while any of them were [...]iving? Did any Author in those times speak such tearmes as are mentioned in those Epistles? Finde me Primatus and Apocrisiarius in Anacletus his time, Pa­ga [...] [Page 203] in Caius his daye [...]. Finde me a Preist with a shaven Crowne in Anicetus his Government.

Much more may be gathered from our learned obsen­vers: but these things may sui [...]se to declare of what breed these Epistles are.

Secondly; If the Nicen [...] Fathers have not ampli [...]ed the [...]ounds of the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome, in so [...]rge a manner as shee desired: the most learned Primate ob­serveth, she hath had her well-willers that have supplied the Councels negligence in that behalfe, and made Canons for the purpose in the name of the good Fathers, that never dreamed of such abusines In the An­swer to the Ie­suites challenge pag. 13.. But in regard the Iesuite hath underta­ken to justifie them in the Eight Section, I will there (God willing) discouer their corruption.

Thirdly; If the power of judging all others will not content the Pope, unlesse he himselfe may bee exempted from being judged by any other: another Councell (saith the most reve­rend the Lord Primate) as auncient at least as that of Ni [...], shalbe suborned, wherein it shalbe concluded by the consent of 284. imaginarie Bishops, that No man may judge the first seate▪ and for failing in an elder Councell then that, consi­sting of three hundred Bu [...]kram Bishops of the sel [...] same [...] ­king, the like note shalbe sung: quoniam prima sedes non judi­ [...]abitur à quoquam; The first seate must not be judged by any man Ibid..

Now that these tr [...]ly be as they are reported, no man [...]n doubt, that will seriously enter into consideration of them, unlesse he leave his wits and wisdome also. For the first, to wit, the Councell of Sinnessa; it was never heard of till the time of Pope Nicholas the first, about the yeare 860. unlesse the Iesuite hath better evidence then Bellarmine could finde Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. [...] 2. c. 26. In Conci­lio [...] dicunt Patres: [...] se [...] [...] [...] judica­tur. Resett haec verba ex isto Concilio Nico­la [...] in [...] ad [...], and yet the supposed Session of this preten­ded Councell, was many hundred yeares before, even in the time of the Emperour Dioclesian. And the number of Bishops that are urged for the glory of this Councell, de­ [...]ect the forging of it; for could it be that the Church in [Page 204] her cruellest persequution should cause 300. Bishops to as­semble together, when afterwards in her full prosperitie at Nice, in the most urgent cause that ever the Church had, there were assembled but 318. Neither are we with­out other just exceptions againstit: Did this Councell tell truth that Dioclesian being in the Persian warre heard of the condemning of Marcellinus, when that warre was ended 2. yeares before? No; Binnius condemneth this as no part of the Acts of the Councell, unlesse he may helpe the lyar by making him speake as he pleaseth Binius Not. ad Concilium Si­nuessanum. (Cum esset in bello Persa­ [...]m) Haec nisi [...]mendentur falsa sunt. Ete­nim cum (sen­tentia Eusebi [...] & quorundam aliorum) hoc anno 20▪ impe­rij sui, imperio se abdicaverit, & quod magis est, ante bien­nium de Persis superatis & vi [...], Romae una tum Maximia no collega suo triumphum e­gerit quomodo, quaeso, hoc anno, cum exercitu adversus Persas in procinctu & expeditione [...]ss [...] p [...]tuit? Di­cimus igitur, [...]c omnia quae sequuntur, non esse exactis Concilij; sed (ut apparet) ad ip [...] a [...]a appendicem superadditam: [...]el s [...]ectio ista resti [...]atur, [...] erat [...] be [...] Per­s [...]rum▪ germana esse videbitur, & [...] consenta [...]ea. V [...]de Ba [...]on. [...]n. Christi. [...] [...]. [...].. And lastly, it is appa­rant that as wise as our Iesuite, hath accompted these [...]ckram Bishops (even Donatists) the Acts spurious and of [...] weight Ibid. [...]) Virorum [...], [...]c acta [...] & [...] esse, validis sa [...]e argumentis pr [...]bare conati funt, adco (que) [...] nihil [...], [...] a [...] c [...]l [...]dè excogita [...]m..

For your second Councell held (as you pretend) at Ro [...] under Sylvester, it had neither other Bishops, nor more au­thenticke acts. For first it is infected with Constantines [...] Act. 1. c 1 Cum [...], quod Constantinus [...] a Sylvestro Episcopo urbis Romae, & [...] suit a lepra., a tale, and indeed beyond all folly ridiculous, [...] knowne to the Church many ages after Constantines death Platina in vita Ma [...]ci. 1. Q [...]od ver [...] in lepram [...], [...] [...] si [...], confictâ prius de [...] nescio quâ [...], [...] [...]do, [...] [...]ee in re secu [...], qui [...], [...]bi [...] [...] quintum aetatis [...] attigisset, [...] ex urbe Constanti [...] [...]oli ad a [...]as [...]alid as [...] causa, [...]ll [...] de lep [...]à mentione habitâ. Praeterea [...] [...]ac de re à [...]ullo scriptorum [...]t mentio, non dico ab his, qui ethni [...]i [...], [...] [...] a [...] quide [...].. Secondly, this Councell sub Sylvestr [...] must be the yeare before Sylvester was Pope (an idle conceite) for that is the third Consulship of Constantine Augustus [...] hist, Ecel. l. 4. in [...]. 313. & 314▪. Besides we may see how often memory faileth an imaginer, by his [Page 205] [...]aking Priseus Constantine's Collegue•. Moreover, veiw the Councell, and tell me, is the forme like the Councells of that Age? Did the Bishops at Nice without giving their su [...]ages, or discussing the controversies, submit to your Roman Bishop, or Legats; sig [...]i [...]g whatsoever they should say [...] Not [...] in Synodu [...] [...]om, 2. sub Sylvestro. li [...]. 1. Constantino Augusto 3. & Prisco con [...]s. Hîc legendum esse. Crispo & Constantino 3. [...]. ipsi Fasti consulares do­cen [...].. No, this discovereth for whose sake this Coun­cell was invented.

Fourthly, If the Pope doe not thinke that the fulnes of spiri­tuall power is sufficient for his greatnes, unlesse he may be Lord [...]aramount in temporalibus: Our most reverend Lord con­ [...]udeth, he hath his followers ready at hand to frame a faire donation, i [...] the name of Constantine the Emperour, whereby his holinesse shalbe estated not onely in the City of Rome, but also in the S [...]igniorie of the whole West Synodus R [...] ­man. 2. sub. [...]yl­vest. cap. 11. Responderunt cum omnes Episcopi & dixerunt, claman [...]es universis Presby­ [...]tis; Glericis (que). In te justitia, & pietas à te non discedat, quon [...]a [...] à nobis nihil judicubi­tur in [...] dictorum [...], quoniam [...]apientia non est, nisi in patienti [...] [...]er [...] [...]: Dixit autem Sylvester Episcopus: Quon [...] si sapientia non est, nisi [...] patientia quicquid sermone [...], vestro chyrograph [...] confirmatur, [...] In the An­ [...]er to the [...] Challenge..

Will this need proofe too? The Iesuite will acknow­ledge nothing. But can any man thinke that a poore perse­ented Bishop could be changed into a potent Prince, be adorned with a Diademe Crowne, and all other Imperiall ornaments; and yet neither Eusebitu, Socrates, Theodoret, E [...]grius, Ruffinus, (that wrote passages of that time in their stories) should take notice of it? Would Zosi­mus an hater of Constanti [...]e and Religion also, have omit­ted to reproach him for his Leprosie and bloudie Bath; if it had not beene a foolish frame, an after invention? Further this Donation will have Constantiue bapti­zed in the strength of his age, by Sylvester, Pope of Rome: when many Fathers and Historiographers r [...]late it to have beene done in his olde age, by [Page 206] Eusebiu [...] of Nicomedia Hieronymus in chronicis. Eusebius de vi­ta Constantin. l. 4. Socrates hist. ec. l. [...]. c. 39 Theodoretus hist. Eccles l. 1. c. 31. Zozomen l. 3 c. 34. Cassi­odorus, qui hi­storiam ab his tribus ecclesia­sticam compi­lavit. Pompo­nius Laetus, alij (que) scriptores hujus ordinis Constantinum tradunt non Romae à Sylve [...], sed Nicomediae ab Eusebi [...] ▪ sac [...]um baptisma recepisse. Canus loc theo. l. 11. c. 5..

Neither need we to conclude here, in regard we abound with proofe against his Counterfeit. For how could the Emperour give the West by his Will unto his Sonne (as many Historiographers So­crates hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 25. Ad maximum natu que [...] suo ipsius nomine nuncupaverat Con­stantinum, decimo anno regni su [...], partibus imperij in Occidente sitis praefecit. Melchi­or Canus loc. theol. l. 11. c. 5. §. Quod deinde. E [...]sebius, Ru [...]inus, Theod [...]. Socrates, [...], Eutropius. Victor, caeteri (que) p [...]obae fidei authores, qui omnia Constantini ge­ [...]a scripsere diligentissimè, non modo nullam donationis ejus mentionem [...] [...]ed trad [...]nt etiam orbem Roman [...] [...] inter tresillius filios distributum, ut Italia uni corum tota contigerit. affirme) when before he had gi­ven the same to Sylvester & his Successors for ever? How could he give power over the Sea of Constantinople, when the City was not builded, or the name knowne Baronius tom. 3. ad annum 324. Quomodo potuit in [...]o Imperator meminisse Constantinopolitanae fedis, [...] n [...] nomen quidem Constantinopolis tunc erat exortum?? And if this will not satisfie the Iesuite, but that he will have the West for the Pope; let him know there are many that pleade against this title at Rome it selfe, as Laurentius Val­la Laurentiu [...] Vall [...]m scimus integrum librum adversus receptam commu­ni opinione sententiam declamasse, [...] quae vulgo circumfertur ejus Donationis formula, cam commentitiam esse satis indicant cum palec inscriptiones denotant. Mel­chior Canus loc. th [...]ol l. 11. c. 5. §. Quod inde., Raphael Ʋolaterran Raph, Volater-Anthrop. l. 23. De dono ejus aut [...], [...] nullos extat authores, praeterquam in libro Decretorum: id (que) in antiquis [...] minimè contin [...]ri author est Antonius Praesul Florentinus in Chronicis. ▪ [...] de elephantia, de (que) sanguine puerorum, & [...] baptismate omninò rejiciendus., Cusanus Cusanus de [...]. cath. l. [...]. c. 2. Sed i [...]veritate▪ supra modum admiror, si [...]es ita est; eo quod in authenticis libris, & in historijs approbatis non invenitur. Relegi omnia quae potui gesta Imperialia ac Romanorum Pontificum, hi­storias sancti [...], qui ad [...] colligendum [...] suit, Augustini▪ Am­brosij ac aliorum opuscula [...], revolvi gesta [...] qu [...] po [...] [...] fucre: & nullam invenio concordantiam ad ea, [...] de illa [...].—Ego etiam ad longu [...] hane Scripturam in [...] inveni, qu [...] multò plut continet, [...] decreto [...] loco [...], & diligenter eam exa­minans, reperi ex ipsâ [...]et Scripturâ, argumenta manifes [...] [...] is & [...]—Sunt [...]o judicio illa de Constantino Apocrypha., and diverse others, [Page 207] and condemne it as chaffe; a fr [...]me without any author of antiquity, [...] without concordan [...], false, [...]igned.

But that which inflames the Iesuite [...]s, that the most lear­ [...]ed Answerer should charge them with forging so many base tractutes, d [...]cretals and Councells, as to name them onely would require a volume, without producing any other proofe then this. Mari [...], the [...] Doctours themselves if they were now alive would be deposed that they were [...] pr [...]vy to their begetrings. To the which (saith the Iesuite) might it not with as good reason be replied, that the [...] [...] [...]ient Doctors, if they were now alive; would laugh at this i [...] ­ginary reason of his, as proceeding from a [...] Bishop indeed Reply pag. 3 [...].

I perceive the Iesuite wo [...]ld fame be ridd of this lear­ [...]ed Bishop; (what title so ever he giveth him:) He had ra­ther, that this most reverend Lord had bene employed in detecting base tractats, decretals and Councells, then in an­swering his Challenge. But let him rest satisfied for a time his Challenge hath not wanted an Answere; and those [...]ase Tractats &c. invented for the glorie of the Roman Sea by their well-willers (for they serve to no other purpose) will not be long without their revelation. Yet the Iesuite is not reasonable to require proofe against all their Forge­ries here; [...] that must performe the worke, is too large for a [...]. Let him be assured, that as it was promised by the most learned Answerer See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Epistle to the Reader, b [...] ­fore [...] [...] ­swere to the Iesuites Chal­lenge., [...]o he is not un­mindefull of his promise, but (God giving life and strength) will send it unto them. Wherein he will mani­fest (I make no doubt) that the Bishops of Rome have clymed to their great height, not without the furtherance of counterfeit and buckram Bishops indeed: and that it is a shame for Iesuites (who so much desire to be accounted holy and learned) to produce this Buckram and blacke guard, (as [...] from h [...]ll.) to howle for the unspotted purity and [...] of their Catholicke cause.

B [...] whilst he [...] so [...]; and proveth so [...]eebly, [Page 208] he maketh me remember (saith the Iesuite) what S. Augu­stine saith of his like; They seeme (saith he) to thinke that they have not to doe with men, but as if they were [...] beasts, who heare them, or reade their writings they abuse the igno­rance or dulnes of them, or rather their blindnes of minde. And so I need not to stand longer with our Answerer in this point, for as the same holy Father said to such another, why should I labour to make good my excuse, when he endeavoureth not any way to prove his accusation Reply pag. 38. More Serpentum lubricus un­di (que) Iraeneus adv. hoer. l. 3. c. 2.; The Iesuite being deepely charged, thought it most expedient not to answere, and he that passed by one argument grounded upon the words of Aeneas Sylvius, what would he have done (thinke you) had he bene pres­sed with a multitude? What we conceive of them, it is not materiall to be exprest, whether beasts, or men: The Apo­stle fought with beasts as Ephesus after the manner of men. And for his excuses we are more acquainted with them then his answeres, and therefore care not here to spare them, if he afford us nothing else. Yet putting on a brazen face; and carried away with the Spirit of Calumnie (saith this Iesuite) he saith further, thus, neither hath this corrup­ting humour stayed it selfe, in forging of whole Councels and entire treatises of the auncient writers, but hath, like a Canker, fretted away divers of their sound parts, and so altered their complexions, that they appeare not to be, the same men they were. As he forced me to storme a little at his vanitie, when without proofe he chargeth us with forg­ing of whole Councells and entire treatises; so now I cannot choose but smile to see what simple proofes hee bringeth for this his charge of cankering, and fretting, the monuments of the auncient Reply pag. 49.

Is it possible that a rayling tongue and a smiling counte­nance at one time can accompanie a Iesuite? When hee stormes, the Answerer must be a [...] Bishop; when he smiles he must put on a brazan face, and bee carried away with the Spirit of Calumnie. Surely Salomon could see [Page 209] farre from him, that telleth us, When a wiseman con­tendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest [...] 29. [...].. But let us see, what simple proofes those are which make this wise man merry.

To instance (saith the most learned Primate) in the great question of Transubstantiation wee were wont to reade in the bookes attributed to S. Ambrose de Sacramentis lib. 4. cap. 4. Si ergo [...] vis est in sermone Domini IESƲ, ut inciperent esse quae non erant, quanto magis operatorius est, ut sint quae [...] ­rant, & in aliud commutentur? If therefore there be so great force in the speech of the Lord IESƲS that the things which were not, began to be (namely at the first Creation) how much more is the same powerfull to make that things may still be that which they were, & yet be changed into an other thing? It is not unknowne (saith our most reverend Lord) how much those words, ut sint quae erant, have troubled their braynes, who maintaine that after the wordes of Consecration, the E­lements of Bread and Wine bee not that thing which they were, and what devices they have found to make the Bread & wine in the Sacrament to be like unto the Beast in the Reve­lation, that was and is not, and yet is. But that Gordian knot which they with their skill could not so readily untye, their Masters at Rome (Alexander-like) have now cut asunder, paring cleane away in their Romane Edition, (which is also followed in that set out at Paris, Anno▪ 160 3.) those wordes that so much trouble them See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Answere to the Iesuites challenge. pag. 13..

In this instance of our Answerer (saith the Iesuite) it is easie to espy, how wilfull spleene and affected ignorance doe tyrannize his minde and penne Reply pag. 39.

The Iesuite here playes the Orator [...]. [...]: institut. l. 5. c. 13. Haec si­mulatio hucus­què procedit, ut quae dicen­do refutar [...] non possumus, quasi [...]., fleights what hee cannot answere, reviles where he wants patience, & like a frantick, without sence; for if his spleene be wilfull, his ig­norance affected, how will he make them tyrants? how can they tyrannize his minde and pen? Hee is a King, no Tyrant, whom wee willingly obey, and when wee a [...]ect sinne, it raigneth, not tyrannizeth over us. [Page 210] But let us consider his pretences. First he telleth us that Ambrose giveth the Answerer a s [...]ronde bobbe in those words, & in aliud commutentur &c. as hereafter shalbe more at large declared Reply pag. 39. To which place we will referre him for his Answere.

Secondly he laboureth to free these two editions from clipping. First in regard those words being rightly under­stood, establish our doctrine of transubstantiation (saith the Ie­suite) to the utter confusion of all that gaine say the same Reply pag. 40; and that this might appeare, he findeth fault with the transla­tion of the most learned Answerer, when he Englisheth those words ut sint quae erant, thus, that things may still bee that which they were Reply pag. 39. But I aske the Iesuite, to what [...]ix: hath relatiō? if to the elements of bread & wine (as of ne­cessity it must) how can the translation be otherwise then it is expressed by the most learned Answerer? For whose minde is so tyrannized with ignorance as to beleive that bread and wine can be what they were, when as their sub­stance is departed? quae erant declare a substantiall not an accidentall manner of being; but the truth is, the Iesuite knowing not how to relish the words would force an in­terpretation contrary to the sence they offer the Reader: for (whatsoever his hopes are from them) Hugo their Cardinall could not see how those words of Ambrose and Popish transubstantiation could agree together; Hee could conceive no otherwise but that Ambrose made the bread the body of Christ, and therefore directs the Reader with an hoc tamen impossible, that it is impossible, and from thence concludeth that the words are to be understood ad sanum intellectum Glossa apud Gratian. de consecr. Dist. 2 Panis est. Am­brosius de sa­cramentis [...] Qu [...]tomagis operatorius est fermo Christi, ut sint quae erant & in a­liud commu­ [...]entur, & sic quod erat pa­ [...]is ante cons [...] ­crationem jam corpus Christi est &c. Hoc [...] est impossiblle, [...] panis sit corpus Christi; sed haec verba ad [...] intellectum [...] ita solvit [...]., as the Iesuite would perswade us hee is here willing to doe; though in other mens judge­ments they would have a more wholesome understan­ding, if the words (ut sint quae erant) were utterly cast out of the text.

Neither doe the subsequent words of Ambrose helpe his translation or assure him that he hath hit the marke, to wit, Before consecration there was not the body of Christ, after consecration, I tell thee plainely, that it is now the body of Christ Reply pag. 40. For the change which Ambrose speaketh of is no other then of a childe of Adam to be made a new creature Ambros: de sacram. l. 4. c. 4 Tu ipse eras ve [...]us creatura, postquam con­secratus es. no­va creatura esse coepisti: accipe igitur quemad­modum ser [...]o Christi omnem creaturam mu­tare consue­verit., which the Iesuite (I hope) will not say is done by Tran­substantiation.

His further defence resteth in this, that they have other editions which have those words Reply pag. 40. This indeed con­cludes that all your impressions of Ambrose are not guilty of this clipping, but this excuseth not all.

Now (saith the Iesuite) if he who either at Rome or at Pa­ris, set forth that worke, found not in the exemplar, or manu­script, which he tooke in hand to print, those words, ut siat quae erant; is that a sufficient argument to charge us with canker­ing &c. when as we otherwise doe generally hold to this day the auncient reading Reply ibid..

To which I answere, that if any such corrupted exem­plar were, no man that was fit for such a worke could bee ignorant that the exemplar was depraved in regard Gra­tian Gratian. de cons. dist. 2. c. Panis est., and other your bookes of more ordinarie vseBreviare Rom. lect. 58 infra octav. corp. Christi., re­peate this sentence of Ambrose with those words ut sint quae erant. Besides this, it was Berengarius his usuall argu­ment against the carnall eating of Christ Modius No [...] dist. 2. c. Pani [...] est., and therefore the true reading to such (no question) learned men as were imployed about that worke could not be unknowne. So that if he, who either at Rome or at Paris set forth the same, found no such exemplar where those words are omitted; as it is more then probable; or finding any such corrupt one, should publish it contrarie to Gratian and all other Coppies for the sole be­hoofe of the Popish cause; what can this bee but a cankering and fretting away of a sound part of an­ [...]iquitie?

To conclude the most reverend the Lord Primate, hath [Page 212] not in this particular exceeded in a circumstance, for all probability will perswade that these words ut sint quae e­rant have troubled your braines; for being urged by Beren­garius▪ and accurately explained by Guitmundus and Alge­rus z, yet an accurate explanation could not serve the turne, but sometime an exemplar is pretended, where sint is left out Ibid. Vt sint quae erant.) Haec B▪ Am­brosij verba, quae Berenga­rius Catholicis objiciebat, ac­cura [...]è expla­nantur à Guitmundo, l. 3. & ab Algero, l. 1. c. 7. Lanfran­ous autem non modo ea opti­ [...]è interpreta­tur, sed etiam ad dit in qui­busdam codi­cibus sic legi▪ Si igitur tanta vis est in ser­mone Domini Iesu, ut incipe­rent esse quae non erant, qua [...] magis operatorius est, ut quae e­rant in aliud commu [...]en­tor. [...] So Lanfranc. vide lit. [...] pruceden [...], sometime, where the whole sentence is omitted So the Roman Edition▪, sometimes the words are inserted, but ad sanum intelle­ctum, they are to be translated, not as they beare, but as in the Roman Church they ought to be understood So Hugo Card..

The second instance is out of the imperfect worke uppon Matthew [...]omil. 11. where the Author writeth▪ thus. Si ergo haee vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre, sic pe­riculo sum est, in quibus non est verum corpus Christi, sed my­sterium corporis ejus continetur: [...]uanto magis vasa corporis nostri, quae sibi Deus ad habitaculum praeparavit, non debemus locum dare Diabolo agendi in cis quod vult? If therefore it bee so dangerous a matter, to transferre unto private uses those holy vessels, in which the true Body of Christ is not, but the mystery of his Body is contained: how much more for the vessels of our bodie which God hath prepared for him­selfe to dwell in, ought not we to give way unto the Divell, to doe in them what he pleaseth. Those wordes (in quibus non est verum corpus Christi, sed mysterium corporis ejus conti­netur: in which the true Body of Christ is not, but the mystery of his Body is contained) did threaten to cut the very throate of the Papists seall presence (saith the most learned Answe­rer) & therefore in good policie they thought it fit to cut their throat first, for doing any further hurt. Whereupon, in the E­ditions of this worke, printed at Antwerpe apud Ioannem Steelsium, anno 1537. at Paris, apud Ioannem Roigny, anno 1543: and at Paris againe, apud Audonum Par­vum, anno 1557. not one syllable of them is to bee seene, [Page 213] though extant in the auncienter edition [...] one whereof is as old as the yeare 1487 See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Answere to the Iesuite's challenge pag. 14▪.

The substance of the Iesuites answere to excuse this clipping, is twofold. First from Sixtus Senensis who doth testifie, (as our Iesuite saith) that some auncienter [...]ppies have not those words at all Reply pag▪ 41. But I would aske the Iesuite what coppies those are? whether manuscripts, or printed? if Manuscripts, where are they? why doth he not point them out? why doth he not direct us to them? if more auncient Popish printed Coppies, this doth but point them out for more ancient clippers: But the truth is Sixtus Senensis saith no such thing in the booke alledged Sixtus Senens. l. 4. bibl. Sancta. And therefore (let­ting him passe) the Iesuite hopes to make sure worke by telling us, that this appeareth by the marginal note of that ve­ry coppie which our Answerer citeth Reply pag▪ 43. But the truth is there is no such marginall in the edition set out at Antwerpe anno 1537. by the first corrupter of the place Iohannes Mahu­sius, as being conscious hee had never seene any such Coppie; yet in the fourth Tome of Chrysostome set out at Paris anno 1546. (which the Iesuite alledgeth not) there is this marginall annotation, Haec in quibusdam▪ exemplaribus desunt: but what were those quadam ex­emplaria? Manuscripts? surely not, but the former printed one of Mahusius his editions set out at An­twerpe anno 1537. and at Paris anno 1543. And is not this a prettio tricke of legerdemaine, first to corrupt the Author in print; and then in after editions to cite those so corrupt impressions under the equivocall title of quaedam exemplaria? Is not this a brave restoring of an Author to the auncient puritie of it's true and first reading? So that indeed any may see, that hee which followeth such guides must have the throate of his un­derstanding cut with the knife of will full blindnes; but the most reverend Primate is too well experienced in these their practises to be intrapped by such cheates, or blind­ed with such wiles.

But if it be read with those words (saith the Iesuite.) our Answerer himselfe cannot free it from manifest error, menti­on being made of the Ʋessels onely of Salomons Temple, which King Balthazar transferred to prophane uses, and therefore was punished with losse of life and Kingdome▪ and seeing that in those vessells neither the Body of Christ, nor yet the mysterie of his Body is contained, those words are not onely superfluous, but also erroneous and false Reply pag. 41.

Indeede this Argument of the Iesuites is most errone­ous and false; for this learned Author shewiug us how to▪ keepe our Vessels in Holynesse, presseth it first from the Vessels used in the Temple, Si enim vasa sanctificata ad pri­vatos usus transferre peccatum est, & periculum, sicut doce [...] nos Balthasar, qui bibens in calicibus sacratis, de regno de­positus est & de vita Opus imperf [...] Matth▪ hom. 41▪. For if it is a sinne and dangerous to transferre unto private uses the sanctified vessels (to wit, those of the Iewes) as Balthasar doth teach us, who drink­ing in the holy vessels, lost both his Kingdome and his life. Then from the vessels used in the Church. Si ergo haee vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre, sic periculo­sum est, in quibus non est verum corpus Christi, sed myste­rium corporis Christi continetur: quantò magis vas [...] cor­poris nostri &c. If therefore it be so dangerous a matter to transferre unto private uses these holy vessels (signanter & demonstrativè that were used in the Church Christi­an, and in all probability were before his face) wherein the true Body of Christ is not, but the mystery of his Body is conteined: How much more for the vessels of our body, which God hath prepared for himselfe to dwell in, ought wee not to give way unto the Divell to doe in them what hee plea­seth?

But (let the Ʋessels be what they will) in the judgment of his owne Sixtus Senensis, this Author doth here al­lude unto the Sacrament Sixtus Senens. Bibl. Sancta l. 6. Annot: 21. Author operis imperf. hom. 11. alludere vi­detur ad haere­ [...]im corum, qui [...]egant verum corpus Christi esse in Sacra­mento altaris, dum ait▪ Vasa sanctificata &c., which is all that wee neede to require. And therefore the Iesuite hath little cause to [Page 215] sport, unlesse it be in his shame, it being evident, that hee that thrust out those words did canker fret and corrupt this place, and not restore it to the auncient puritie, as the Iesuite vainely laboureth to perswade.

After all these paines, the Iesuite conceiving hee hath not satisfied the Reader, closeth up all with an other an­swer (no doubt) without exception. The truth is (saith the Iesuite) as Bellarmine rightly observeth that imperfect worke upon Matthew, though it goe commonly amongst the workes of Chrysostome, yet is it none of his Reply pag. 41.

Who saith it is? Was it urged by the most reverend the Lord Primate for Chrysostomes? Here he contendeth to little purpose, his fight is but folly.

For (saith the Iesuite) it aboundeth with errors &c. the which errors have beene foisted in by divers Hereticks Reply ibid▪ &c.

But who were those Heretickes? what were their er­rors? were they not Arians. Montanists, Manichees, Donatists, Pelagians Sixtus Seneni. Bibl. sanctae [...] ▪ 4. In Matthae um extat incerti autoris im­perfectum o­pus—varijs Montani, Ma­ [...]ichaei, Arij, Donati, ac Pe­lagij haeresibus implicitum.? Had their Heresies any thing to doe with the question of the Reall Presence, or the con­troversies betwixt us?

Wherefore (the Iesuite concludeth) I doe not see that any accompt ought to be made thereof at all Reply pag. 41.

A poore fetch, because in some particulars it hath beenep Sixtus Senen. ibid. Ego quod ad dam, nihil habeo nisi hoc, ipsum opus di­sertum & do­ctum esse, ac dignum quod assiduè legatur, si tamen prius diligentissime expurgatum fuerit ab ijs er­roribus, quos in sexto libro in censuris super Matthaei expositoribus annotavimus. abused by Heretickes, therefore it must be rejected in the whole? Sixtus Senensis approveth not this, for he acknow­ledgeth the worke wittie and learned, and wort [...]y of a daylie Reader, if it were first diligently purged frō those errors which he hath noted in his sixt booke. And Bellarmine although he thought it was either composed or corrupted by some Hereticke doth neverthelesse confesse, it is a learned booke, and (contrary to the Iesuite,) minime sper [...]enous, no way to [...]e despised▪ Bellarm. de Scrip­tor. Eccles. Cujuscunque sit opus, aut ab Haeretico aliquo Compositum suit, aut ab Haeretico aliquo corruptum, quamvis alioqui liber sit doctus & minime sper­nendus.. Whereby wee may see how great esteeme [Page 216] the Iesuite hath of ancient Writers, and with what clip­pings his well-willers would put forth these learned mo­numents, if they might have their desire. For although Bellarmine thinketh it credible that this Author was a Ca­tholicke, and his booke not to be despised, though it were corrupted by auncient Hereticks Ibid. Pro [...]de eredibile est auctorem suisse Catholicum, sed opus illius ab▪ Arianis depravatum., yet Sixtus Senensis be­fore he will give him this liberty, will have him purged not onely of the auncient heresies, that were, as the Iesu­ite speaketh, foysted into him, but of all those errours also which he hath noted in his Censures upon the Expositors of Matthew, as in his fift homilie, where he favours the Luthe­rans in the point of originall sinne Sixtus Seuen▪ lib. annot. 16.: in the IX. where hee o­verthrowes the freedome of humane will Ibid. annot. 10., in the XIth, XVIIth and XIXth, where he denyes the reall presence in the Sacrament of the Altar Ibid. annot. 11.. But the Iesuite will have it altogether rejected, and no accompt to be made there­of at all; and yet it hath beene used as a Champion to fight the Christian cause by their greatest Divines, in their glosses, chaines, decrees of Popes, summes of Divinity, from the weight and worth of the worke, as cannot be denyed by their owne Sixtus Seuen. Bibl. sanct. l. 4. [...]unt ex opposi­to qui hoc ip­sum opus con­ [...]endunt esse Chrysostomi, adducti non solùm auctori­ [...]te Apostoli­ [...]ae Eclesiae, quae publicè inter divinas [...]udes legit homilias ex his commentarijs sub nomine Ioann [...] Chrysostomi, sed etiam permoti pondere & gravitate sententiarum & propositionum [...]ujus operis, quae ad confirmationem Christianorum dogmatum, sub titulo, testimo­nio, & auctoritate Chrysostomi, inducuntur in glossis authenticis, quas vocant ordina­ [...]ia [...], in Ca [...]enis Evangelicarum explanationum, in Decretis summorum Pontificum, & [...] Theologici [...] magni nominis Theologorum▪. So that you may see the most learned An­swerer hath brought this instance, not (as you vainely af­firme) in derision of the blessed Sacrament; but to manifest your corrupting of the workes of antiquity, for your own advantage, without the authority of any auncient manu­script Copy whatsoever. Neither is the authority of this worke so contemptible (although the Iesuite may take libertie to [...]eight antiquity) but that seeing it hath served the Popes turne, it may well serve ours also to cut [Page 217] the very [...] of the Papists reall presence. And there­fore y [...] [...] Commilitones (Mr Malone) that carry the mari [...]r the beast in your fore-heads, may continue your bla [...]es, and abuse the Scriptures as you have done his [...]a [...]ed ordinance of the blessed Sacrament, deri­ding the f [...]llowers of his sacred institution: but howsoe­ver you flatter your selves, The right hand of the Lord will finde out those that hate him, and shall make them as a fierie even in the time of his anger Psalme [...].. And howsoever your scarlet Mistresse saith in her heart, I fit a Queene, and am no Wid­dow, and shall see no sorrow, Yet her plagues shall come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine, and she shalbe utterly burnt with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her Re [...]. 18. [...]. 7. 8..

His third instance (saith the Iesuite) out of the same booke, concerning the sacrifice of the Body and Bleod of IESVS CHRIST, put in for the sacrifice of Bread and Wine, is too too childish: for we indifferently allow of both those man­ner of speeches, as signifying one, and the same thing, & there­fore the changing of those words could advantage us no more then it doth helpe our Answerer to prove what he intended Reply pag. 40, &c.

Mr Malone hath an ill name for every thing that dis­pleaseth him: This instance is too too childish, but as wise as himselfe thinke not so; For Sixtus Senensis, by those words which they have changed, judgeth this Author to deny the Body and Bloud of Christ to be in the Sacrament of the Altar Si [...]tus Seuen▪ Bibl. sancta l. 6. Annot. 21. Au­thor operis im­perf. homilia 1 [...] alludere vide­tur ad haeresim eorum qui ne­gant verum Christi corpus esse in Sacra­mento Altaris, dum ait, Vasa &c. Ne (que) ab hac sententia abludit, cum hom. 17. non multo ante finem, Eucharistiam appellat panem benedictum. & hom. [...]9. ferè in princi­pio vocat sacrificium pani [...] & vi [...], and would therefore have this place to bee purged Idem libro 4o.. And will any deny the corrupter, that used this sleight of hand to bee of the same opinion? The Text then is corrupted, this is not denyed, and therefore (notwithstanding the Iesuite falsely pretendeth the changing of those wordes doe not advantage them) the most reverend Primate hath prooved what hee intended, to wit, that the Papistes have heereby so [Page 218] altered the complexions of the auncient writers, that they ap­peare not the same men they were. The Iesuite runs on in his examination.

Two instances more (saith he) in this matter doth our An­swerer produce, still striving to surpasse himselfe more and more in vanitie; For besides that our question is concerning the writers of the first five ages, he commeth out with Fulbertus and Rabanus, whereof the later lived in the ninth age, the for­mer in the eleventh; so farre is he ever from speaking to the purpose Reply pag. 42.

I see the Iesuite is wearie of his worke; he is not wil­ling to have his owne arraigned of Forgery, and therefore excepts against these instances as not being to the pur­pose, in regard the question is concerning the writers of the first 500. yeares Reply pag. 42.

In answere whereunto, we say; It is equall perfidiousnes to corrupt the authors of the middle age, as those of the first 500. Secondly, if they confesse guiltie in these, they deserve to be suspected in their impressions of the most auncient. Thirdly, Augustine is here corrupted, though it be in the writings of Fulbertus, and so both the auncient and middle aged Doctors suffer violence. Fourthly, let this be to the purpose or not, the Iesuite cannot excuse their corrupt handling of authors, and for corrupt ends, when as Fulbertus, was published corruptly, ad refutandas haereses hujus temporis. But taking them in order, the Iesu­ite telleth us, that, In the former, for want of sounder matter (when as the Answerers subject here is Popish corrupti­ons) he fiddles about a mistake of two words, which though he confesseth himselfe to have beene amended in the end, yet must it needs (such is his distresse) serve him for an instance to proove that wee have corrupted the writings of the aun­cient Reply pag. 42.

I am sure the Iesuite doth not like the Musicke hee tearmeth it so wisely, but I may excuse him heerein; for the Papists were unwise that would otherwise commend [Page 219] it. But whose mistake was this? Dicet Haereticus in all probabilitie could not be the Printers: here then was the error, he that set forth this booke, did not foresee, the words were S. Augustines and so easie to be detected. And whereas the publisher did afterwards put this among his Errata, he was much behoulding to his Adviser, that assu­red him, if those words remained, his fraud would be dis­covered. Now any may see, who is in distresse, he that for­geth for necessitie and correcteth for shame, or the most learned Answerer that hath found out and scorned the Cosener.

The Iesuite comes to the second; and exclaimes, that the Answerer makes, much a doe about nothing Reply ibid.; as if it were a matter of nothing to corrupt the auncient writers?

If the Reader will but observe the Iesuite, he shall finde him where he is most plunged and stifled to be most a­bundant in his rayling language, scorning and contemp­tible behaviour towards the Answerer. For what reason hath he to tearme this learned observation, a dribling obje­ction worthy to be answered with laughter, builded only upon surmises, when he groanes under it, and all his strug­ling is not able to deliver him thence? See what he saith. I say about a blanke, when with frivolous surmises he seekes to make his Reader beleive, that the Monks of Wengart should have thrust somewhat out of Rabanus his penitentiall; but such dribling objections are worthy to bee answered with laughter Reply pag. 4 [...].

What doe we finde heere but a rabble of words, that carry no weight at all? for they are not frivolous surmises, that are used against the Monks of Weingart nor dribling objections that are urged against you Mr Malone. First if there be a blanke in Rabanus his penitentiall set forth by Petrus Stuartius as is not denyed; if Stuartius received a blanke Manuscript from the Monks of Weingart, as is like­wise acknowledged: If Romanists may purge (or blanke) [Page 220] manuscripts, as Possevine affirmeth See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Answer to the Iesuites challenge pag. 15. 16. 17., If the words, blanked or purged out, make against the Popish carnall presence in the Sacrament, and for the cause of the Prote­stants, as the Iesuite, that can now with the Answerers helpe make up the blanke out of Paschasius, well knoweth, though hee will not acknowledge so much: How can hee with any modestie call it a f [...]volous surmise, that the Monkes of Weingart did thrust those words out of Rabanus his Penitentiall: and that a dribling objection, a pettie instance, which con­vinceth the altering of the complexions of the aunci­ [...]ut, by fretting (unlesse such rasures are not fretts) and washing away the soundest part of their wri­tings.

For it is well knowne how that blanke, which hee observeth in the Penitentiall published by Steuartius, is to bee supplyed out of Paschasius Radbertus whose Doctrine (as it seemeth) was there alledged Reply pag. 42.

I doubt not, that it is well knowne how that blanke should be filled up, now it is cleared to you by the most learned Answerer; yet I suppose you never learned it by your owne paines out of Rabanus his penitentiall.

The Iesuite tels us, if Paschafius were the first bringer in of the Carnal presence as our Answerer doth blindly avouch, without doubt, his saying could prejudice nothing our cause, and consequently it is a foud imagination to thinke that the Monkes of Weingert should have clipped his words for any advantage in thi [...] matter Reply pag. 43.

Who doth thinke, Paschasius his assertion could pre­judice your cause? It is the fretting of Rabanus, not Paschasius that the Answerer complaineth of: The words that declare Paschasius his Doctrine in his, or your owne bookes, we give you leave to raze at plea­sure, but to raze it in Rabanus where it is brought forth to receive a judgment, to undergoe a censure, this maketh I hope for the advantage of your cause. For [Page 221] doth not your blanke and rasure hinder the Reader to see Rabanus in his words following [cui errori quantum potui­mus &c.] to condemne the Paschasian and Popish doctrine and there I hope you gained by it, unlesse it were no losse for the most famous Doctor of his time, the most glorious starre of Germanie Bar [...]n, tom. 10 a [...] §. de Raban▪ Fulgentissi­mum Germa­niae sidus. directly to pronounce your Doctrine erroneous?

But if our Answerer will allow others to build upon surmises but halfe as boldly as he presumeth to doe himselfe, and upon grounds farre more likely also, then he hath any: it may very well be thought, that Rabanus Maurus that famous Arch-bi­shop of Ments, whose commentaries for the most part, are in the ordinarie glosse upon the Scripture, of so great request in the Church of God; who also, as it is well knowne, was never yet [...]oted by any writer, before Waldensis, to have maintained any point contrarie to the Catholicke faith of the then Roman Church Reply pag. 4 [...] &c.

I feare the Iesuites surmises wilbe according to the i­magination that he hath had of his learned Answerers de­monstratives, frivolous and vaine. But before we examine them, observe in these words, a false supposition that the Doctrine of the carnall presence was in Rabanus his time the generall received doctrine of the Roman Churc [...]. Se­condly, a most untrue assertion, for before the Waldenses, William of Malmesbury reproached Rabanus as disputing against the doctrine of the carnall presence Guil. Mal­mes. in praef: Epit: Amalarij. de divinis offi­cijs, ad fra [...] rem Robertum. M [...]. in B [...]bliothe. Colleg. Omni­um Animarum Oxon. Admo­nitum te volo, ut unum exhis qui de talibus disputaverun: fugiendum sci­as, Rabanum nomine. qui in libro de officijs Ecclesiasticis dicit Sacramenta Altaris proficere ad sa­ginam corpo­ris: ac pro hoc corruptioni, vel morbo, vel aetati, vel secessui, vel postremo morti obno [...]ia quae de Domini corpore dicere, credere, scribere, quan [...] sit p [...]riculi vides., which in all probabilitie the Iesuite having the learned Answerers booke De christianarum Ecclesiarum successione & statu, in his hand could not be ignorant of, though here he wilful­ly dissemble the same. Now let us see what his c [...]ca insom­nia his sleeping surmises will prove that are brought in with such untruths. First, because it is well knowne that Ra­banus Maurus wrote one peuitentiall worke before this, voide & free from all such error, & therefore it is not likely that he [Page 222] should write another Reply pag. 43.

Here is a wise surmise, a convincing reason, as if it wereso unusall, that men should write twice of the same generall subject, especially occasion being offered by the propoun­ding of a new question, as it here fell out. For this peni­tentiall was written in answere to certaine particular questions propounded by Bishop Heribaldus, as the booke it selfe sheweth: whereunto you may adde the expresse testimony of Sigebertus Genblacen [...]s de illustr. Eccles. scri­ptor. cap. 90. that saith Rabanus did write [de qu [...]stionibus Canonum ad Heribaldum Episcopum librum unum, & ad Reginbaldum Coëpiscopum de eadem re librum unum] one booke concerning the questions of the Canons to Bishop Heri­bladus, and an other booke concerning the same matter to Re­gi [...]ld his Collegue.

Secondly, many Authors (saith the Iesuite) as well Ca­tholicks as others, doe alledge that booke which Paschasius wrote de Corpore Domini, as if it had beene composed by Ra­banus, whereby they declare that he was held to bee of the same minde with Paschasius in this point of the Eucharist Reply pag. 43.

Heere is a surmise indeed, if this may moove a Iesuite, surely he will make Hierome a Pelagian, in regard many authors alledge the confession of faith and Epistle ad De [...]e­triadem framed by Pelagius, as if they had beene compo­sed by Hierome. This then is no ground to prove Rabanus to be of the same minde with Paschasius; and if without ground any held, as the Iesuite perswadeth, he may know they held an error, induced therunto by the no clean dea­ling of those that coyned false titles to those bookes. Now as if surmises had beene demonstratives, our Iesuite telleth us. The Author then of this Penitentiall written to He [...]ibaldus, was either some other Rabanus Reply ibid.. Heere we finde the Iesuite ignorant of that Author, upon whose writings he taketh upon him to be so acute a critick; for if he had read the Author himselfe, he would have thought of those words, which point out who he is, Ego dum in Episcopat [...] [Page 223] Moguntiensis indignus constitutus sum Cap. [...],, &c. But how a Ie­suite of his undertaking could be ignorant of their owne Gratian his citing of this booke under the name of Ra­banus the Archbishop Gratian. [...] 50. cap de his vero. Rabanus Archiepiscopus, wee can tell without sur­mise.

Secondly he saith, that his supposed Rabanus fell with Heribaldus into the Error called by Paschasius, and Alge­rus Stercoranistarum, who held that Christ in the Sacrament being hypostatically united unto the bread, and assuming it in­to one person with himselfe, was therefore subject to disgestion and avoydance Reply pag. 43.

Callida mendacia! He faineth in earnest, and there is but need; for Paschasius maketh no mention of the Ster­coranistae. Secondly, Rabanus in his penitentiall holdeth the contrary Cap. 33. Ista sententia con­traria est sen­tentijs Clemen­tis Papae, & ali­orum multo­rum sanctorum Patrum, qui di­cunt corpus Domini non cum cae [...]ris communibus cibis, per aqua­ti [...]ulos in se [...]s­sum mitti.. Thirdly, it is an idle figment, that either this Rabanus Rabanus l. 1. de Instit. Cleri­corum cap. 31. or Heribaldus, or those you tearme Sterco­ranistae, did hold that Christ was hypostatically united to the bread. The Iesuite hath onely dreamed here, he giveth us not an Author. But all that hee hath yet said, will not serve the turne, and therefore hee would have us to be­lieve him, if no such other Rabanus there was, at least that Penitecial, together with the libel written to Abbot Egilo, was made by some erring spirit or other, and to get the more credit fathered upon Rabanus Maurus Reply pag. 43.

This we must believe upon the Iesuites teste, or reject it; for he bringeth us nothing to manifest the same: and further whereas hee saith, that Rabanus was farre enough from maintaining any such Error Reply ibid.. Indeed as the Iesuite hath invented an error, and fathered the same upon the author of the Penit [...]nti [...]ll, we easily confesse. For Rabanus was ever farre enough from maintaining, that the Body of Christ was subject to disgestion, and avoydance; but that the Sacrament thereof was digested and turned into our substance, as other meates are, he taught indeed, and was condemned for the same by Guli [...]lmus Malmesburiens [...]s See Guil. Mal­mes. before ci­ted at the let­ter , and Thomas Waldensis Tho. Wald. tom. 1. Doctri­nal. Prolog. ad Martinum V­item tom. [...]. [...] Sacramentis cap, 19. & [...]..

Neither doth he with any truth prosecute his plea when that he tels us that Bertram and that supposed Raba­nus, were as farre different in their opinions concerning the presence of Christ in the Sacrament, as Bertram and Pascha­sius himselfe: for the author of that Penitentiall erring with Heribaldus, held that Christ was so really present in the sa­crament that there was no figure at all, whereas Bertram made it but a sole figure, without any reall presence of Christ his body Reply pag. 44.

What doth the Iesuite bring here but heapes of un­truthes, some of which crosse and contradict himselfe; for the Author of the Penitentiall and the booke written to Egile the Abbot of Fulda, under whom Rabanus had his e­ducation held the flat contrary to Paschasius, and maintai­ned the very same thing that Bertr [...] did, to wit, that the consecrated hoast was not the very bodie and blood of our Lord which was borne of the Ʋirgin Marie, and in which our Lord suffered himselfe on the Crosse, and rose againe from the graue. This was taught the Iesuite before by the most learned Answerer, neither is it long since, that he upon that evidence confessed [...] 42, that this being the doctrine of Paschasius was resisted as erroneous by Rabanus. Besides where will you finde that Bertram made it, as you report a sole figure? That he made it a figure will not be denyed, but that he said it a sole figure, you give us no ground to beleive.

And now taking leave with Rabanus, whom the Iesuite in the point of the Sacrament would make a Romanist a­gainst his will, he commeth to Bertram and demaundeth. Why may not Claudius Sanctesius, and others moe, be thought to guesse aright when they thinke that Bertram was truely a Roman Catholicke, free from that error contained in the booke supposedly dedicated unto the Emperour Charles, seeing that in proofe thereof, there be not wanting many presumptions stronger farre then those are, which are brought in by our An­swerer to the contrary Reply pag. 44.

What your presumptions will prove, shalbe examined, but the Answerer hath this advantage, that his evidences have already convinced the Divines of Doway, to acknow­ledge this booke mentioned to be Bertrams indeede, though by shifting distinctions they labour (as you tearme it) to free him from error Index [...]purg. Belg. pag. 5.. And first of all he beginnes, that neither Paschasius Radbertus who defended our Catholicke Doctrine at that time, nor yet any other Writer of those dayes, maketh any mention either of Bertram, or of any such erroneous opinion, as is attributed unto him in [...] booke Reply pag. 44.

Heere is a good beginning▪ for to justifie Sanctesius his guesse, hee directly contradicteth that which hee layeth downe for a certaine ground▪ For first he saith, that about the time of Charles the Great, and Charles the Bald, this booke came forth that was assigned to Bertram, and whereunto Paschasius did answere. He thinkes it indeede to be credible, that the booke came then abroad without any name, and that afterwards to gaine the more credite, Bertrams name was added Sanctei. Re­pet. 2. cap. 14. Cùm Paschasi­us Corbeiensis, qui etiam illo seculo vixit, su­um scriptum opponat cor­ruptelis libri, qui Bertram [...] datur, ut ex col­latione notum fiet, proculd [...] ­biò Bertrami uomini non pe­percisset, ne quis tanti viri authoritate falleretur.—Itaque [...] est, ortam tum dis­putationem de transubstantiatione ac, corperis Christi in Eucharistia veritate, & verbis institutionis cirea secundum Caroli magni, & Caroli Calvi, quemadmodum cer­ [...]itur ex Rabano Mauro, & Raschasio Corbiensi, & tum exijsse librum, quem nune Bertramo▪ assignant [...] Paschasius respondent▪: so that there is no question, but the booke was at that time, and the doctrine therein opposed by Paschasius that wrote against the same. But whether any mention was made of Bertram, it matters not: for would you be so wise as to gather from thence, that therefore there was no such man at that time, when you confesse his person, though you deny this booke to be any of his?

Secondly, the opinion against which Paschafius disputed, was that onely of Heribaldus, which our Protestants them­selves confesse to be no other then a most grosse error Reply pag 44..

Here the Iesuite speakes whetstones; For Paschasius doth not dispute against that opinion, either [...] or principally, but toucheth it incidently: Neither can [...] Iesuite shew that Heribaldus himselfe ever held any such opinion.

Thirdly, the said Paschafius doth testifie, that in his time no man was found, who did publickly maintaine any such er­ror, contrary to that Catholicke Doctrine, which hee with the whole Church professea and defended, which surely hee would not have said if any such booke had beene written by Bertram; for that booke must needes have beene much talked of, and the Author very publicke, seeing that hee wrote it as the Emperors request, and also dedicated the same unto his Majestie Reply ibid▪.

Here is a grosse mistake; For if this booke of Bertram was written at the request of the Emperour [Carolus Cal­vus] who obtained not the Empire untill anno 875. Is it not dreaming to take it as a matter granted, that we sup­pose the booke of Bertram to have been published when Paschafius wrote his, who died in the yeare 851? Second­ly, here is a notorious untruth: For Paschafius doth testifie no such thing, but the contrary; for in the beginning of his Epistle, De corpore & sanguine Domini, ad Frudegar­dum, he thus propoundeth the question. Queris de re ex qua MVLTI dubitant. You desire resolution in a matter whereof MANY doubt. Besides, the Iesuite, as conscious of his deceipt, doth not here tell us where Paschafius testifi­eth any such thing.

Fourthly, it is well knowne, that the Church of Rome, with all Christian Churches adhering [...]to her at that time, did professe the same doctrine concerning the Reall presence, which Paschasius then Layed downe, and which to this day shee hath alwayes believed. Is it likely then, that such a booke being written even by the Emperors appointment, not one man in all the world should be found to answere the same, and to gaine­ [...]y that Author, and his opinion, so repugnant to that which [Page 227] was publiquely and generally maintained [...].Reply pag 44.

It is ill presumed; for at this time, this was no Doctrin of the Church of Rome, neither received or decreed for such, it being shewed before, that the most learned men then living, resisted and opposed the same. And Bellar­mine himselfe supposing (as the Iesuite doth) erroneous­ly, and without ground, that Bertram wrote before Pas­chafius, doth thereupon conceive Paschafius his booke to have beene purposely written against Bertram Bellarm. de Sacram. Euch [...] l. 1 c. 1. Tertius suit Bertramus, tempore Caro­li Crassi, circa annum Domini DCCCLXXXVI cujus liber ad­huc ex [...]at. Is rursum in con­noversiam vo­care coepit, an esset verè in Eucharistia il­lud ipsum cer­pus Domini, quod de Virgi­ne natum erat. Confutavit hunc errorem doctissimè Pas­chasius Abbas Corb [...]ienfis, qui illo ipso tempore floru­it..

Fiftly, when Berengarius some 200. yeares after Bertram, bred that uproare which is knowne, by bringing in the same opinion, with that which is fathered upon Bertram, when there was so much writing and disputing against Berengarius his sentence, and for it, how came it to passe that there was not as much as mention once made of this supposed booke, whose au­thoritie surely might have done good service unto the part of Berengarius, and would doubtlesse have beene produced by them, if then it had any being at all Reply pag. 45?

Here is an irresistable demaund, this surely will cleare the point! But the Iesuite must consider, that he ought to lay before us all those bookes, that they have extingui­shed concerning the cause of Berengarius, before hee can expect our answer to his Demaund; for otherwise how can he make it appeare unto us, that there was not so much as mention once made of this supposed booke? Further we may observe here, that this point of carnall presence was but disputable, & no matter of faith in Berengarius his time, when there was so much writing and disputing against Be­rengarius his sentence, and FOR it, although the Iesuite would have had it 200. yeares before to have beene well knowne, that the Church of Rome with all Christian Chur­ches adhering unto her at that time, did professe the same do­ctrine concerning the reall presence, which Paschasius then layed downe.

To this profound silence (saith the Iesuite) let us adde what Guilmundus writing against Berengarius doth testifie. [Page 228] It is most notorious (saith he) that untill Berengarius at this time beganne to rage, no such madnes was ever heard of any where. Adde moreover that S. Thomas of Aquin, and the rest of the Schoolemen doe agree all in laying downe Berengarius for the first Author of that heresie which denyeth the reall pre­sence of Christ in the Sacrament, without as much as once dreaming of Bertram Reply pag 45.

The Iesuite here bringeth the grosse absurdities of their owne writers to approve him in those things which hee hath layde downe. For who can justifie either Guitmundus Aquinas or the rest of the schoolemen in laying downe Be­rengarius for the first that denyed the carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament, when that very Councell which condemned Berengarius condemned also the booke of Io­hannes Scotus de Eucharistia Concil. Ver­cellense. tom. 3 apud Binnium. In qua in audi­entia omnium, qui de diversis [...]uius mundi partibus illuc convenerant Iohannis Scoti liber de Eu­charistia lectus est ac damna­tus: sententia [...]ua exposita ac damnata., which assisted him in the de­fence of his doctrine, it being plaine that he ever extolled this booke and condemned the other of Paschafius Concil. Ro­man 2. ibid In­tellecto quod Ioannem Sco­turs extollercs, Paschasium damnares, communi de Eucharistia [...] ­dei adversa sentires: promulgata est in te damnationis sententia., which maintained your Roman doctrine? And this is so evident and apparant a truth, that without extreame impudencie it cannot be denyed, being acknowledged by Bellar­mine himselfe Bellarm. de Euch. l. 1. c. 1. Primi, qui veritatem corporis Domini in Eucharistia in quaestionem vocarunt, fuerunt Iconomachi, post annum Domini DCC—Hi enim—dicebant unicam esse imagi­nem, Christi ab ipso Christo institutam, nimirum panem & vinum,, in Eucharistia, quae repraesentant Christi corpus, & sanguinem.—Secundus auctor hujus erroris fuit [...]ohannis Scotus—qui tempore Caroli magni circa annum Domini DCCC. scripsit: Is enim primus in Ecclesia Latina de hac re dubiè scribere [...]oepit, cujus librum de Eucharistia damnatum fuisse in Concilio Vercellensi, testatur Lanfran­ [...] &c.. So that they are but Dreamers that agree­ed in laying downe Berengarius for the first Author of that Heresie.

Neither dare the Iesuite 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 [Page 229] 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 trea­ [...]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 [...]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 [...]lindly also Reply pag. [...]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 frō the Iesuit's colledge at Lovan) he found to have bene blindly mistaken & ther­fore rejected him: So that all that the Iesuit hath obtained [Page 230] 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, a [...] 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. Mad [...]ti, ann. [...]4. (in fine [...]terae [...]) Dele­ [...]tur tota Epi­stola Vdal [...]ci Episcopi Au­gustani, de coe­libatu Cleri. Item totus li­ber Bertrami Presbyteri, de corpore & san­guine Domini, penitùs aus [...]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 gra [...]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 [Page 231] 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 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, vizr De nativitate Christi, which is to be sene in the libraries of the Cathedrall Church of Sarisbury, and Ben­ [...]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 St [...]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 Bellarm. de Script: Eccles [...] (in Paschas [...] Rat [...]erto) Hic auctor pri­ [...] [...]uit, qui [...]en [...], & co [...]ios [...] scrip [...]it de veri [...] corp [...], & [...] Do [...] &c. Reply pag 45.. But the strength of the Ie­suites conjecture consisteth in this, that Bertram lived under the government of Paschasius in his Monasteri [...] of Corbey in Picardie q. Which indeed the Iesuite may say, but will never be able to prove, how confidētly soever he publisheth the same. For Paschasi [...]s died in the yeare [Page 232] 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. 4 [...]

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 I [...]d. Expurg. [...]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 be­ [...]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 Reply pag 46.

Nescivit iniquus confusion [...]m [...]eph. 3. 5▪. Whilst a wicked man can speake, hee will not blush, otherwise the Iesuit would not have instāced so vainly, as he here hath done. For first, [...]o of his instances are nothing to the purpose, in regard [Page 233] 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 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 Tractat [...] ego animad­verti, ex appa­renti & violen­ter congesta il­lâ congerie Pa­trum apud Ban­dellum, Ban­dello (que). similes reprobatos, [...]li­osve authores, paucissimos es­se vel nullos, qui expresse fe­rant sententi­am contra Vir­ginem; caeteros­que vel fermè omnes corrup­tos, & mutila­tos esse in ver­bis, quae ex eis­dem proferun­ [...]ur. Payva ci [...] ibid. Minimè verum est communi veteris Ecclesiae sententiae illam repug­nare cum praesertim à multis videam Sanctorum Patrum testimonijs à quibusdam oppug­ [...]ari, quae parti [...] 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 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 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 art [...] 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 Ibid. Non me later, Schola [...]ocorum Poēticem ab omnibus [...] contemni, & prorfus explodi, tanquam ineptam, & superstitio [...]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.


HEre the Iesuite considers. How vainely our Answerer accepteth of the Fathers judgement againe Reply pag. 4 [...], 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 Reply pag. 4 [...].

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 author, neither any A­postle, nor any man Apostolicall See the An­swere to the Iesuites Chal­lenge pag. 7.. The Iesuite boasteth, if the Fathers authoritie will not suffice, hee will produce good and certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures See the Iesu­ites Challenge in fine▪. The most learned Answerer tels him, if he would change his order, and give the sacred Scriptures the precedency: he should therein doe more right to God the author of them, who well deserveth to have audience in the first place: and withall ease both him­selfe and us of a needelesse labour, in seeking any further au­thoritie to compose our differences. And thereupon as St Au­gustine the Donatists, so this most reverend Lord, provo­keth Papists, Let humane writings be removed, let Gods voyce sound. Produce but one cleare testimonie of the sacred Scripture for the Popes part, and it shall suffice: alledge what authoritie you list, without Scripture and it cannot suffice Answere to the Iesuites Challenge pag. 10.. And in the same page he further expresseth himselfe. And this we say, not as if we feared that these men were able to pro­duce better proofes out of the writings of the Fathers, for the part of the Pope, then we can doe for the Catholicke cause (when we come to joyne in the particulars they shall finde it farre otherwise:) but partly to bring the matter unto a shorter tryal, partly to give the word of God his due, & to declare what that rocke is upon which alone we build our faith, even the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Ephes [...]. [...]0., from which no sleight that they can devise, shall ever drawe us. Here also in the place alledged he shewes, that although, by reason of [Page 236] their corrupt dealing with antiquitie it is high time for us to listen unto the advice of Vincentius Lirinenfis, and not be so forward to commit the tryall of our controversies to the writings of the Fathers, who have had the ill hap to fall unto such hucksters handling. Yet that you may see, (saith the most reverend Primate In his An­swere to the Iesuitea Chal­lenge pag 20.) how confident we are in the goodnes of our cause: we will not now stand upon our right, nor refuse to enter with you into this field; but give you leave for this time both to be the Challenger, and the appointer of your owne weapons.

Now let all men judge whether there can bee a more plaine expression, without fast and loose, without tergiver­sation, without inconstancie; when as the most learned An­swerer adhereth with the auncient Fathers to the true and absolute rule, the sacred Scriptures, and yet to satisfie the Iesuite, is willing to try our faith, according to the rule proposed by the Iesuit himselfe; not that our doctrine had no other foundation or testimony besides the Fathers but that the Iesuites vaine pretences of Antiquitie might be detected and made knowne, and that the world might see, that their Doctrine and Church is not to bee justified by the testimonies of either God, or man, unlesse it bee that Man of sinne, who in this cause would bee both party and Iudge, and in matters which hee calleth faith would have his determinations to be received without dis­pute.

The Iesuite proceeds.

Although we have already shewen how little right, you have to stand uppon in this case, yet such thankes, as this your courtesie doth deserve, wee willingly re­turne Reply pag. 48.

Palmarium Facinus. What have you shewen but your shame? You have declared your distast of Scriptures; and if the Fathers would performe the worke you expect from them, why doe you muster in their ranke such hired Souldiers, Epistles, Canons, Bookes, swolne with forged titles, corrupted, depraved, that they might deceive, but [Page 237] that gladiatorio animo, although neither God, nor good men will plead for you, yet you will not leave to plead for your selves?

Wee have heard you say ere while, (saith the Iesuite) that we have had opportunitie enough of time, and place, to falsifie the Fathers writings, and to teach them the learning, and tongue of the Chaldeans: and that we have performed it so well, by clipping, washing, cankering &c. that thereby their complexions being altered, they appeare not to be the same men they were Reply pag. 48.

And where I pray you doth the most learned Answerer unsay it? O but if this be true (saith the Iesuite) how can the goodnes of your cause be proved by them? if not true, what satisfaction can you make us, for your uncharitable slaunders? If the Fathers bee corrupted, how dare you enter into this Field? if not corrupted, why did you charge us wrongfullie Reply ibid.?

If the most learned Answerer had not detected your frauds, you had never beene charged by him with those crimes. If your clipping, washing, cankering, had not beene e­spied; or if he had bene so credulous, as to have beleived all your impostors, that you can stile Fathers of Councells, then might you justly have demaunded, How could the goodnes of his cause bee proved by them? But whenas you dare not trust God in his owne meaning, nor the true anci­ent Fathers, or lawfull decrees of Councels, without the as­sistance of your bastard authors, to helpe in time of neces­sity, this gives him ground sufficient to justifie our cause, that hath no need of such treacheries, and to detect, yours, even they being Iudges, whom you appeale unto. For in the point to bee handled afterwards, whether Peters Primacie did descend to all succeeding Bishops of Rome, what testimony bringeth the Iesuit, but Arabick canons of the Nicene Councell proved to be according to the title by an experiment from the mountaines of S. Thomas 1605 Reply pag. [...]6. and confirmed by an epistle of Athanasius to Pope Marke Reply pag. [...]7. Here is one Counterfeit brought to justifie another, [Page 238] and all for the counterfeite authoritie of the Roman Bi­shop.

This your corrupting of antiquitie would have hin­dred us, if the same had not beene detected, but this most reverend Lord can discerne betwixt the right hand and the left, and point you out those witnesses that you onely dare commit your selves unto. The Councell of Nice was corrupted by the Pope for to magnifie his Chaire and sea and to make the African Fathers beleive that he had that, by positive law, which now they challenge by divine right; but did these Fathers trust the corrupters? No, they sent for the true coppie, and then left the pretenders. May not this be done in the like manner by the most learned Answerer? True it is, that Gibeonites with their pretences of antiquitie and outward mustines may sometime deceive a Ioshua, yet we doubt not, but time and experience may reveale the fraud: Iacob was deceived by Laban, but it was in the night; Day declared who deceived him. Whilst the world was no further learned then the Pope infallible, what excellent testimonies were there for the Papall triple? but when the Sunne, the sacred Scripture did burst forth of those libraries wherein it was ecclipsed, and the most lucide starres, the auncient Fathers, waited upon that originall light; then many of these poore meteors and fai­ned appearances were quickely obscured and despised of some of your owne: So that your Dilemma proves but a childish florish. For although it is most true that you have done as much as you durst to pretend Fathers, make Fa­thers, detract from Fathers, adde to Fathers, forging, clip­ping, washing, cankering them, yet these things being de­tected and casheered, the Fathers are restored to their au­thoritie they formerly had, although they are not thought fit to bee used as a rule against those Hereticks, that have not spared in this manner to abuse their writings.

Againe (saith the Iesuite) you have given us flatlie once to understand, that the Scripture was the rocke, upon which alone [Page 239] you build your faith, and from which no sleight that wee could devise should ever drawe you, and therefore you bade us to our face, alledge what authoritie we list without Scripture, and it could not suffice. How is the winde now changed? how come you now to falsifie this your former resolution Reply pag. 49?

Did ever any Iesuite trifle in this manner and speake more inconsequent? The Scripture is the rocke upon which alone he will build his faith, no authoritie can suffice without Scripture, therefore the winde is changed, hee falsifies his former resolution? Doth not this rationall deserve to cen­sure others for false Logicke that pleads with such a shape of reason himselfe?

The Iesuite promised in his Challenge to produce good and certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures, if the Fa­thers authoritie will not suffice: Did he cast off their rock of Fathers because he promised Scriptures? I thinke hee will not acknowledge it, and why should he vainely heere dreame that the Scriptures are rejected by the most reve­rend the Lord Primate, when to stoppe the Iesuites boa­sting out of a well grounded confidence in the goodnes of his cause, he will not in this place stand upon his right.

Besides, let the Iesuite shew me the generall consent of Fathers in a matter of faith without the Scriptures, if hee be able. If he cannot, his thoughts are confused, when hee dreamed of their authoritie without Scripture: if hee say he will, let him produce them, for surely it is hard to bee beleived.

Furthermore, when the Lawyers urge Constantines de­nation for Papall possession, I aske the Iesuite, upon what authoritie he would build his title, whether upon the do­nation it selfe, or the Lawyers interpreting it? If the Dona­tion be sufficient, why not the Scriptures? If the interpre­ters must be added, yet this is not to take away the power of the Charter; Nay, if they be added [...] necessary testi­monie, the Charter were nothing without the Lawyers.

What followeth in the Iesuite hath received Answere [Page 240] in the fift Section, only here he will not be perswaded, that he chooseth his owne weapons Reply pag. 49; but let the Reader judge, for bibling in his judgment is but babling, it is no other then fencing to fight with Scriptures, and to appeale to sole Scri­pture, is but to agree with auncient Heretickes. So that Scriptures are none of his armorie, and if the Fathers bee rejected also, what remaineth further, but ipse dixit, assisted with pretended miracles, lying wonders. But let them be whose weapons they will, Hee telleth us that hee will use them, and the first encounter shalbe concerning the dignity and preheminencie of the Church of Rome Reply ibid..

Indeed this is that fruitfull article of Faith, that hath got all the new articles of the new Romane Creed. This is the breast that nourisheth them, that gives them strength. The occasion wherefore he beginnes here, is, for as much as our Answerer taketh his first exception against him, for sty­ling all the auncient Doctors and martyrs of the Church uni­versall, with the name of the Saints and Fathers of the Pri­mitive Church of Rome, though he alledgeth heerein no more against me (saith the Iesuite) but this one bare Interrogate­rie out of Albertus Pighius: Who did ever yet by the Roman Church, understand the universall Church Reply pag. 49?

What needes further proofe? If neither the whole Ro­man Church, neither your whole Roman world in the judg­ment of Albertus Pighius, did ever take the Romane Church, for the Church Vniversall, is not this enough to lash the Iesuite, for confounding Vrbem & Orbem, and mingling Heaven and earth together? But he will take of Pighius by a Distinction.

If (saith he) the Roman Church be taken, as it comprehen­deth onely that Cleargie, which maketh but one particular Bishoprick & Diaces in the citie of Rome, abstracting from that relation which it hath unto all other Christian Churches, as the head unto the members, then I say with Pighius (who speak­eth of it onely in this sense) that no man ever, by the Church of Rome, did understand the Vniversall Church. But if it bee [Page 241] taken, as it is, the Mother Church begunne in S. Peter under Christ, and miraculously continued (those of each one of the rest of the Apostles fayling) by due succession of lawfull Bi­shops, having a relation to all other Christian Churches, as the head to the members; then doe I say, that it may rightly bee stiled with the name of the Ʋniversall Church. And that all other Churches are to be accounted Catholick no further, then they be linked in a subordinate obeysance thereunto Re [...] p [...]g. [...].

Here are many prettie things; By this meanes the Church of Rome the Mother, must bee borne after the daughter; for many particular Churches had birth before Rome was a Church, or the Roman Inhabitants received the Faith of Christ. Secondly, that the Catholicke Church must be in a subordinate obeysance to the Church of Rome, before there was any Church there. Besides, the Catholick Church was never enclosed in any other place but the world, never restrained to any other habitation: To chaine it [...]o any head out of Heaven, or to confine it to any par­ticular place on Earth were to make it schismaticall. This Church concludes all Saints: Noah's Arke was heere a Temple; Christ delighted with this Church (as in the Canticles) before Rome was Rome, or a Pontifex governed therein; Some are in Heaven that never yeelded obedi­ence to this Church, or heard of Rome: And it is more then probable, some are in hell, that were tearmed Holi­nesse it selfe whilst they remained in this Catholick here.

But what the Iesuite hath to make this Roman Church the Catholicke and mother of all other Churches, in the next Section we shall examine.


THis Iesuite after hee hath obtained from the most learned Primate (ex gratiâ) li­bertie in his owne challenge to chuse his owne weapon, would first use it to prove, that The Auncient Fathers of the first Ages acknowledged the Roman Church to bee the head of all other Churches Reply pag 40.

I had thought the Pope had beene the Head. and that all other Churches had held the Catholicke Faith of him in capite, but I perceive, the Romane Church is now presumed from the Ancients to have had this title.

Yet I thinke it will scarce be found, what the Iesuite doth understand by the Roman Church, For if, by the Ro­man Church be comprehended, all other Churches that are onely to be accounted Catholicke for the subordinate obey­sance to Peter and other succeeding Bishops See the Iesuits Reply pag. 49,, then it is meere vanity to make an Head the Head of it selfe, to make the Church all Head and no body; If their particular Citie or Diocesse and Church therein, then he cannot by the Roman Church understand the Roman Catholicke, as hee confesseth in the last Section; for (saith he) if the Roman Church be taken, as it comprehendeth onely that Cleargie, which maketh but one particular Bishopricke and Diocesse in tho Citie of Rome▪ abstracting (or as hee would say abstra­cted) from that relation which it hath unto all other Chri­stian Churches, as the head unto the members, then I say th [...] no man ever by the Church of Rome did understand the Vni­versall Church Reply [...].

Secondly, if it be not the Roman Catholicke, then all the testimonies produced, make nothing for the Romane [Page 243] Catholicke Church, but for the Roman Church that is not Catholicke. But though hee doth not fully expresse him­selfe herein, yet he doth that which may give us a guesse of his meaning, seeing the streame of his proofes is to set forth the eminencie of their Romane Pastor, And to make this good, hee cites some Fathers to prove the Pope to be the head of the faithfull See S. Augu­stine cited by the Iesuite pag. [...]1., head of Pastorall Honour See Prosper ibid. pag. 52., so that notwithstanding he pleades for the Church Ro­man, yet that which he laboureth to advance, is the See and Pope Roman, that is that they fight for, this they de­sire, Rome they would have the head of all Churches, and the Pope the Head of her: and their sleighting of Coun­cels many times declare in their opinion the Pope to bee the onely Beasts head that must bee adored; for the Coun­cell maketh not the Pope infallible, but the Pope the Coun­cell Wadding. Legat. Phil. 3. &c. Sect. 2 Non tribuit Conci­lium infallibili­tatem Pontifi­ci, sed à Ponti­fice habe [...] Con­cilium, ut fit ratum ac fir­mum.. For Peter, and those that follow him in the faith of Peter, not for a Councell did Christ pray Ibid. Pro P [...] ­tro, & in fide Petri succeden­tibus NON PRO CON­CILIO ora­vit et ex [...]ravit..

Well then; let us see how wee shall answere what hee brings for the Roman Churches exaltation. And first of all it seemeth a needlesse thing for this Iesuite to bring proofes to manifest the same. It being so undoubted a truth (if we may beleive this Iesuite) that the very first Broa­chers of Protestancie, when they speake without Passion, doe not deny the same Reply pag. 30.

The Broachers of Protestancie were CHRIST his A­postles, who gave us wine and oyle out of the Vessels of his Truth, when such botchers as you have laboured to e­rect a phantastick frame of your owne.

His first instance is, Martin Bucer, whom he produceth, confissing ingenuously, that with the Fathers of the aunci­ent Church, the Romane Church obtained the Primacie before the rest, for as much as shee hath S. Peters chaire, and her Bishops almost ever still have beene held for Peters successors Reply pag▪ [...].

And what I pray you getteth your Church or Pope by this ingenuè confitemur? Little I suppose, to make Rom [...] [Page 244] caput infallibilitatis, or the Pope the Pylot to guide thither. For he saith, that the Roman Church hath obtained the Pri­macie prae caeteris, before other Churches, not super, not over all the rest, and that the Bishops of Rome have beene held for Peters successors, but not absolutely as an infallible truth; but semper ferè, almost ever, not without doubts and jea­lousies, as hee seemeth to expresse: But if absolutely o­ther Bishops, nay, all other Bishops have beene like­wise so esteemed, as is plaine by Chrysostomes exhorta­tion to Basill Bishop of Caesarea, who from the ground of Pasce oves, exhorteth him to that duetie of Peters, because it belongeth to his Successours as well as to himselfe Chr [...]sost. de Sacerdotio. l. 2. [...]tre amas me [...]quit, atque illo id con [...] [...]ence, adjungit: Si amas me, Pas [...]e ores me­as. Interrogat discipulum Praeceptor, [...]um ab eo non quo id ipse do­ [...]eatur, [...]erùm in NOS DO­CEA [...] quan­ [...]ae sibi curae [...] gregis hujus praefectura. [...] [...]aulo cost. Ve­ [...]m hoc ille tum agebat, ut, & Petrum & caeter [...]s no [...] edoceret, quantà bene [...] ­ [...]en [...]i [...] ac▪ charitate erga suam ipse Ecclesiam afficeretur, ut hac ratione & NOS quoque ejusdem Ecclesi [...] studium curamque toto animo susciperemus— [...] item de causa Christus sanguinem effudit suum? certe ut pecudes e [...] acquitere [...] ▪ qua [...] [...] Petro [...]um Petri successoribus gubernandas in manum [...], whereunto agreeth Peter Lum­bard lib. 4. Dist. 18.

We envie not the Bishop of the imperiall Cittie this Honour, that in Procession hee shall goe last, and in a Councell sit first. If this will serve his turne, let him put off his Crowne and assume his Myter, and with an ingenuè confitemur, wee will all acknowledge him the greatest Bishop, first in place of all Peters Successours: But (for his Monarchie) to make the whole Catholicke Church, the Senate of Bishops and Preists a bare sha­dow, this is too much to be allowed him.

Further whilst hee embraceth Peters faith, wee will not deny him to have a part as the rest of the Catholicke bodie in Christs prayer: Yet to thinke that Christ so prayed for Peter and his Successours Bishops of Rome, that Hell might prevayle against all other his Succes­sours the Bishops of the Catholicke Church, this without extreame flatterie wee cannot graunt unto him. So [Page 245] that Bucer hath not said much for this Head of Chur­ches.

Yet he goeth not alone, Luther himselfe (saith the Iesu­ite) doth confesse that the Bishop of Rome hath superiority over all other Bishops Reply pag. [...].

This is no great matter, for it was (as the Iesuite con­fesseth) when he made use of his bests wits Ib▪ [...], that is, when he did and said, or at least submitted all to the determina­tion of this Apollyon; but afterwards in his raving pange of madnes, hee spared not, like madde-men and fooles to speake the truth, and to call a spade a spade, the Pope An­tichrist, and the Roman state the Whore of Babylon. So that any may see this maketh little to the Producers purpose; for if this were a good Testimonie, why doth he not produce our Acts of Parliament in Queene Ma­ries dayes and all those Testes, which in the time of blindnes from men not well informed, hee might have alledged?

But (Luther tels us) that Gods will which way soeuer it is made knowne unto us, ought to be reverently embraced: and therefore it is not lawfull to gainsay rashly the Bishop of Romes Supremacie. And this reason is of such force, that although there were no other, it alone ought to bee sufficient to [...]urbe the temeritie of all opposers Reply pag▪ [...]. The Argument is thus.

Whatsoever is permitted by God, is reverently to bee embraced: But the Papall altitude is permitted by God. Therefore with all reverence to be embraced. May not this argument serve for Pope Ioan, the stewes, the holy Ladie Ma [...]ylda Iudas & Iulian, yea for all villany without excep­tion or interruption? For we must not thinke that any thing can come to passe without Gods voluntary permis­sion. God made the world, shall we say that (like Gallio) he c [...]reth for none of these things [...]? God hath permit­ted many evils, many tyrannies, among the Baby­ [...]nians, Persians, Grecians, Romans; yet this doth not [Page 246] justifie them in their impieties, or make us reverently to embrace them therein.

Wee know God placed Peter in the sheepe-fould to [...]eed [...] his Lambes, as hee sent the the rest to the same worke; but shew us that hee tooke him from the Ewes great with young, to make him the King of Israell, the Monarch of the Church, and this is something to the pur­pose.

Yet this Argument is not the Charter, by which Peter got his Primacie, but those Popes that came in the last dayes. For when Luther was in his best witts, hee could not finde the Popes Primacie in Pasce [...]ves, or Oravi pro te Petre, or in any other place of Scripture, or from any other reason, but from experience. So that we perceive the Bi­shop of Rome hath as much right to his pretended great­nes, as Nimrod to Babylon, and all former Tyrants to their Usurpations.

Now the Iesuite addresseth himselfe to Antiquity, and wherefore? Because our Answerer will needes be a scholler of their maddest humours in this point wee present him heere, (saith he) with the Doctrine of Antiquity utterly condem­ning the same Reply pag. [...]0.

The most learned Answerer is no Scholler of Luther, or of Bucer, neither are their humours directories of his Faith, or opinions. One is his Doctor, and that is Christ, and as farre as Luther and Bucer follow him, so farre they may have his company, but no further. It is your holy Brother-hood that are tyed to madde humours, nay to such as a madde man would not embrace. Who can pre­sume that a Iesuite hath his wits, that casting aside Gods Law, in the place thereof embraceth the rule of Ignatius, as if it were their Decalogue, or Square for direction? And for any thing we can see, the Prescripts of their Generall are little lesse esteemed by them in their practise, then what God himselfe appoints them Hassenmul­ler. Hist. Ies, c. 6 de vo [...]. Obedi­eniiae. Impu­dentissimos i­stos homines non pudet, haec sigmenta capi­ [...]is sui, & ha [...] Loiolae nuga [...], ipsi Dei Deca [...]go praepone­ [...]. quod Ia­cobus Crusius, Novitiorum Landspergen­sium Rector facit. Noster, inquiens Deca­logus e [...], R [...] ­gula vo [...]orum ab Ignatio L [...] ­ [...] tradit [...].. This goeth farre, but yet all this is nothing to the requisites that they pre­scribe [Page 247] to themselves, viz [...], that if the Church (you know who they meane) should determine white to be blacke. it must not be opposed Regulae Iesu it ad finem Histor. interdict▪ tenet, regula 132. si quod o­ [...]ulis nostris ap­paret album, nigrum illa esse definierit, de­bemus itidem quod nigr [...] sit pronuncia­re..

Now seeing hee hath urged Bucer & Luther disputing [...] concessis, he will make it cleare by Antiquity it selfe. So that he will not accept that the Roman Church is the Head of all other Churches by a bare Concession or graunt of her enemies, but will further make it apparant by her owne evidences and auncient Prerogatives. And his first testimony is the Inscription of an Epistle of Ignatius, the disciple of S. Iohn the Evangelist to the Romans, where a­mongst other prerogatives, he confesseth that it beareth sway ever all other Churches Reply pag▪ 10.

The person cannot want authority and esteeme, being an holy Bishop and Martyr. Yet I am sure the Iesuite hath besmeared the face of this Epistle with falshood & fraud; for where will he finde this sway-bearing to be Oecume­nicall and over all other Churches? Bellarmine dare not be so bold, but contractedly speakes in the Region of the Ro­mans Bellarm▪ de Rom. Pont l. 2. c. 15. Primus i­gitur sit Beatus Ignatius qui E­pistolam ad Roma [...] in­scribi [...]. Ignati­us Ecclesi [...] sanctifi [...]a [...]ae, quae praeside [...] in regione Ro­manorum▪, and yet more largely, then the truth of the Epi­stle will beare, [...], in loco Regionis Romanorum; and what Patriarch had not the like to beare sway in divine matters over all the Churches of the Pro­vince or Provinces, that were subordinate unto him? Nay further, the Arch-Bishoppes of Yorke and Dublin are styled Primates, the one of England; the other of Ireland, and yet this doth not make them Universall Swayers of the Church in those Kingdomes, much lesse to obtaine headship for their Churches above all others therein. So that I am perswaded, if ever God had gi­ven the Roman Church such a capitall priviledge, the Catholicke Church would have had plainer wordes to have declared CHRISTS favour and particular boun­tie unto it. But you may remember who it was that tooke our Saviour to the pinacle of the Temple, that of­fered him all the Kingdomes of the world, that hee might [Page 248] neare sway over them, and you cannot forget mitte te d [...]rsum. If in these things, you will not reject Sa [...] with your Master, take heed you fall not from the pi­nacle of the Temple with him that you embrace as your Lord.

It is more glorious for a Bishop to bee a fatherly guide and governour, then a sway-bearing President. and it would more commend the Roman Bishop to attend those suburbane Churches and Provinces committed to his care by the Nicene Councell, as Ruffinus [...] expounds it, and not to distend his holines with the vaste thoughts of universall Regiment.

The second Witnesse of Antiquity hee maketh Cypri­ [...], and two places he citeth out of him. The first out of his third Epistle in his first booke, where this Father calleth the Romane Church, Cathedram Petri, & [...] ­clesium principalem; the Chaire of Peter, and the che [...] Church Ruffinus hist­ [...]ccles. l. 1. c. 6. [...]t ut apud A­lexandriam, & in urbe Roma, vetusia con [...]u [...] ­ [...]do ser [...]ur, ut vel ille [...], vel hic [...]aroicaria­tum ecclesia­rum solicitudi­nem gerat..

And might not the Church of Antioch have the first title or stile? And yet this would not bee sufficient to give that Church such an universall headship and prehe­minence.Reply pag. 50 For the other phrase of Ecclesiam principalem, it makes it not the Head, for that Church obtained this title by reason of the Cittie, wherein the princi­pall members of the Church remained, and because it was an Apostolicall Church, not for that all the o­ther Apostolicall Churches were subordinate unto it in power.

The second hee urgeth is out of the Eight Epistle of his fourth booke, where hee would have Cyprian to stile the Roman Church, the roote and the mother of the Cathe­licke Church Reply pag 50.

If this be true, surely Cyprian had a conceipt that the branch might grow before the roote; for who will say, that Rome first received the Faith▪ or the name of Christi­ans, [Page 249] or that there was no Catholicke Church before Peter preached there. But Cyprian meant no such thing as this Iesuite would perswade him to affirme: Hee findes a Schisme in Rome betwixt Novatianus and Cornelius Ne­vatianus being made Bishop the other living, & suspends his judgment in this matter untill hee had enquired the truth from the Romane Preists and Deacons Cyprian. E­pistol. 45. Omnia interim integra sus­penderentur, done end nos iidem collegae nostri rebus illic aut ad pacem▪ aut pro veritate com­pertis redirent▪, onely hee adviseth them, that like good Navigators they should not se­parate themselves from the unity of the Catholicke Church Ibid. Nos e­nim singulis navigantibus, ne cum scan­dalo ullo navi­garent, ratio­nem red sentes scimus nos hor­tatos cos esse, ut Ecclesiae Catholi [...] ra­dicem & ma­tricem pag▪ [...] at [...], which he understandeth by this phrase, taking the roote and mother of the Catholicke Church to bee the [...]nitie of Faith, and not as our Iesu [...] would collect, that thereby is meant the Roman Congregation; for wherefore then should he suspend his judgment till he heard the matter, if his thoughts had concluded, as this Iesuite would have it, that Cornelius and his Adherents, were the roote and mother of the Catholicke Church? And that this is the meaning of S. Cyprian, we may easily perceive, in regard he taketh these wordes ad Catholic [...] Ecclesiae unitatem, to the unity of the Catholicke Church; and ad radicis & matris sinum, to the bosome of their roote and mother, in his 42 Epistle to expresse the same thing. Besides, wee may further observe, that the roote and mother of the Catholicke Church is not Cornelius and his Diocess, in re­gard the Iesuite will not have the Pope and his Diocese, to be the Catholicke Church Reply pag. 49., which S. Cyprian Epist. 43. makes to bee the Mother, ad matrem suam, id est Ecclesiam catholicam.

His third witnesse from Antiquity, is Tertullian, who even when hee was fallen otherwise [...]nto heresi, yet did he (though he was an Hereticke) acknowledge the Bi­shop of Rome to be Episcopus Episcoperum, the Bishop of Bi­shops Reply pag. 51..

As if this were sufficient to make the Romane Church the head of all other Churches, or the Pope the Father of all Bishops: Well, if it be not, Rome hath lost one of her best Arguments for her triumphant Station over the Church of GOD. And who knoweth not, that this title was gi­ven to all those that had Bishops under them, as all Patri­arches and Metropolitans had? And what is more com­mon then to give other Bishops the stile of Summus vel princeps Episcoporum, Cheife, or Prince of Bishops; as Rabanus speakes of the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandria Rabanus l. 1. de instit. Cle­ric. c. 5. Sicut Archiepisco­pus Antioche­nus Episcopus, atque Alexan­drinus Antistes [...] Graeco [...]ocabulo dici­tur, quod sit summus vel Princeps Epis­coporum tenet enim vicem A­postolicam & praesidet Epis­copis caeteris.? Yea so common was this appellation, that in the third Car­thaginian Councell this title was inhibited to all the Me­tropolitans Concilium Carthag. 3. can 26. Vt prim [...] sedis Episcopus, non appeiletur princeps Sacerdotum, aut summus sacerdos, aut aliquid hujusmodi, sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus..

But least the Iesuite should say that the stile of Prince of Bishops is not so concludent for an universall govern­ment as to be called Bishop of Bishops, we shall finde Si­donius calling Lupus, Pater Patrum, & Episcopus Episcopo­rum, Father of Fathers, and Bishop of Bishops Sidonius l. 6. Epist. 1. Benedictus Spiri­tus sanctus & Pater Dei omnipotentis, quod tu Pater Patrum & Episcopus Episcoporum.; and Athana­sius was called [...] Arch-Preist of Preists [...]. in orat [...]. de laudibus He ronis., which is the same in effect; whereby we may see, upon how slender a foundation the Castle of S. Angelo is raised.

Yet if Tertullian be but observed by an eye that will not be blinde it will appeare that he speaketh onely in scorne and ironically when he cals your Roman Bishop, cheife preist and Bishop of bishops. Onely this Roman Fisher will forsake nothing that commeth to his hooke, though it be but the scorne of an Hereticke.

He ceaseth not but brings in old Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap. 3. saying, that with this Roman Church, by reason of her more powerfull Principality, or Supremacy, it is necessary, that all other Churches doe agree Reply pag. 51..

All this maketh little to give the Church of Rome the headship pretended; For the question here is particular concerning the Canon of the Scriptures, and the Church of Rome is commended for her truth as she then stood Irenaeus l. [...]. c. 3. In qua semper ab his qui sunt undi­que consecrat [...] est quae ab A­postolis tradi­tio., not for her infa [...]libilitie in ages after that she should remaine the same. For were see Augustine forsakes the Roman Church in which some doubted of the Epistles to the He­brewes, and adhered unto the Greekes, who received it into the Canoni: Irenaeus also in another matter, forall the power­full principalitie that he gave unto the Roman Church, re­proved sharpely her Monarch, and forsooke not (in all pro­babilitie) their Commu [...]ion whom hee had excommu­nicated Eusebius hist. Eccles▪ l. 5. c. 23. Extant au­tem & verba illor [...] qui Victorem acri­ter reprehende­runt; equibus & Irenae us..

Besides, if all other Churches did agree with the RomanAugustin. l. [...]. de Peceat▪ me­rit, & remissse, 27. Ad Haebrae­ [...] quoque▪ Epi­stola quan▪ quam nonnul­lis incerta fit,—tamen ma­gis me movet authoritas Ec­clesiarum Ori­entalium, quae hanc etiam in Canonicis ha­bent. propter potentiorem principalitatem, by reason her more power­full principalitie, it were good our Iesuite would have in­terpreted what he had meant thereby, for these are words that better fit an imperiall government then the rule of the Church. And that people should come thither for this re­spect, I thinke the Church of Rome hath little cause to tri­umph therein any more then other Patriarchall Seas, be­cause all men come up from all parts to the Metropoliticall Sea, that have any busines Antioche­num Concil▪ [...]: sub [...]ulio can. 9. Ad Metropolin omnes undique qui negotia videntur habere concurrant.. And who can perceive any o­ther thing in Irenaeus? for he doth not as the Iesuite inter­prets him, make all Churches to agree with the Roman for her more powerfull principalitie, but sheweth that all faith­full men from all parts of the world comming to Rome (in regard it was the imperiall Seate) might learne what Scriptures were delivered by the Apostles Peter and Paul in regard at that time in this Fathers judgment they were there conserved by the Church. And so Chrysostome in like manner doth attribute to the Citty of Antioch the titles of the great Cittie, the Metropolis of the whole world, to which multitudes of Bishops and Doctors came for instructi­ons, [Page 252] and being taught by the people departed Chry [...]ostom. de Verbis E [...]. Vidi Do­minum hom 4. Magna civitas ac totius orbis Metropolis Quot Episcopi quot doctores huc venerunt, & a populo docti disce­dunt..

In the next course appeareth Athanasius who (if wee may beleive this Iesuite) together with all the Bishops of Egypt did acknowledge themselves subject unto the same [viz the Roman Church,] though farre distant. The ground that moves the Iesuite to be so well perswaded is their Epistle written to Pope Marke, with this Inscription. To the holy Lord Ʋenerable Marke sitting in the Apostolicall height, Pope of the Roman Apostolicke Sea, and of the Church Ʋniversall, Athanasius, and all the Bishops of Egypt send greeting. Besides he tels us, that in this Epistle this ho­ly Father with his fellow Bishops ingenuously acknowledgeth the Roman Church to be the mother and head of all other Churches, and therefore they professe themselves to belong thereunto, and that both they and all theirs will alwayes live obedient unto the same Reply pag. 51.

Here is a heape of Fathers, like Abdisu and his company in the Trent councelli, a fayned Athanasius, a troupe of Gipsies. These know better how to cant (M. Malone) then to speake Athanasius, or like Bishops of the Catholicke Church. Such bastard birthes as these may advance your now scarlet Mistresse to be the Lais orflourishing Flora of the world, but never prove that auncient holy Church of Rome to have taken upon her as her right to bee the Head and mother of the Catholicke Church, as you desire to ma­nifest thereby.

Bellarmine tels us that both these Epistles of Athana­sius to Pope Marke, and Marke to Athanasius are suppo­sititious Bellar. Script. Eccles. De Athanasio. De Epistolis Atha­nasij ad Mar­cum Papam, & Marci Papae ad Athanasium constat ex rati­one temporis, eas epistolas esse suppositi­tias., and Baronius gives them the like honor Baronius an. Christi 336. sect 58. 5 [...]. At Merca [...]is merces nonni­hil suspectae redduntur.. But M. Malone may be excused, for why may not he aswell cite a bastard father for the Catholicke Roman mother, as their Pope did a fictitious Canon for the Catholicke Roman Fa­ther Concil. Car­thag. 6? Yet I wonder all these paines should be taken when the headship of the Church might by a generall Councell be taken from the Roman and given to any other, as Ca­meracensis Camerace n­sis in Vesp. a [...]. 3 pag. 380. affirmes.

His next evidence is the generall Councell of Chalcedon, where Paschasinus and other Fathers assembled there, doe manifestly declare the Pope to be, caput universalis Ecclesiae, Heal of the Church universall Reply pag. 5 [...].

The Iesuite should have forsaken this for feare of losse; For surely it is no otherwise then they gave it to the Church of Constantinople, which at that time when this Councell was held, had the same cause for her headship, to wit, the Empire and Senate as old Rome had. Whereupon th [...]se Bishops thought it very reasonable that she should enjoye the same Priviledges, as old Rome had, and in ecclesia­sticall matters, sicut illa majestatem habere, be an head of the Universall Church Concil Chal­ced. Act 16. Ea­dem intentione permeti centū quinquaginta Deo amantissi­mi Episcopiae. qua sedi novae Roma privile­gia tribuerunt, rationabiliter judicantes im­perio & Senatu urbem o [...]na [...]ā aequis senioris Romae privile­gijs frui & in ecclesiasticis si­cut illa maje­statem habere..

And what doth the Councell give to Rome, (if she had this title) more then hath beene given to other Bishops and Churches? Did not Basill tearme Athanasius, caput u­niversorum, the head of all Basil. epist. 52? Nazianzen also saith of him, that he gave lawes to the whole world Nazianzen. Orat in laudē Athanasij. Le­ges orbi terra­rum praescribit.. And Chrysostome cal­leth▪ Antioch the Metropolis of the whole world Chrysost. de verbis Esaiae, Vidi Dominum &c. hom. 4. Magna civitas ac totius orbis metropolis., and in ano­ther place the head of all the world Chrysost. hom 3. ad Po­pulum. Caput totius orbis. Iustinian likewise cal­leth Constantinople caput omnium civitatum, the Head of all citties Institut. l. [...]. de satisdat. § vlt.. Whereby it appeares that the title of head was gi­ven to many persons and places for their excellency in some kinde or other and not for their supremacy.

Besides this, to any that will veiw the Councell, it will evidently appeare, that the Roman Bishop was conside­red, as then he appeared in the Councel by his Legates, and not as hee was in his private chaire; and was reputed Head of the Church, not in regard of his Sea or succes­sion, but because hee did presede by his Legate that Church representative which was there gathered toge­ther, as Cyrill was Head of the Ephesine Concil. Ephesi [...]. apud Binn. in Epistola ad Imperator. tom. in act. Concil. [...]. cap. 8. Quia inquam triginta illi contra sacram Synodum, [...]anctissimorumque Episcoporum hic coactorum CAPVT, Cyrillum sanctissimum Alexandriae Archiepiscopum—blasphemam depositionis noram, ut [...], in se continentem, protulerunt., and Hosius of the [Page 254] Nicene Councell Bellarm. l. 1 [...] de Concil. c. 19. Athanasius in Epist. ad so­litariam vitam agentes,—di­cit, Hosium Principem fu­isse in eo [...] Con­cilio, & ipsum esse, qui com­posuit Symbo­lum, quod dici­tur Nicaenum., so that the Iesuite prooveth nothing here, but onely amazeth his Reader, with this pretence of a Councell, having not one word in this Councell that will give him the priviledge of a Semper-President because he is head, but accompting him Head, because by the generall Councell he was accepted President and did discharge that office by his Legate there present.

The Iesuite hath ommitted nothing; Steven Arch-Bi­shop of Carthage in that Epistle to Damasus which he wrote in the name of three African Councels hath this title. To our most blessed Lord sitting in the Apostolicall eminencie, Pope Damasus the cheife Bishop of all Prelates Reply pag. 51.

Which of these words (M. Malone) prooves Rome to be above Hierusalem? the Hils of Babylon to bee higher then the mountaines of the Lord? Not the title of Cheife Bishop; for this gives the Bishop no power, but place; no authoritie, but precedency. Is it the other, that he sits in the Apostolicall eminencie? Who doubts that the Apostle­ship is attributed to other Bishops aswell as Rome, that dare not adventure to imagine the effect of this appellati­on to be a spirituall Monarchie? As Sidonius to Lupus, prae­ter officium quod incomparabiliter eminenti Apostolatui tuo, sine fine debetur [...] l. 4. Epist. 4.. So likewise in the renunciation of the Me­tropoliticall Sea of Heraclea, thus speakes Theodoret Chrit [...] ­pulus, Deprecor & thronum & principatum & sacerdotium adhortor (que) eum qui vocatur & quem Paracletus ad Apostola­tum suum separabit. And if we will give credit to Pacianus Episcopi Apostoli nominantur, Bishops are called Apostles [...] E­pist. 1., so that it was no unusuall thing to give good Bishops, titles that were indeed proper and peculiar to the Apostles of Christ, as Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, and the like. And therefore this can bee no rest for him to depend upon.

For the two places to prove Rome the head of all Chur­ches cited out of Victor Ʋticensis & Ennodius Reply pag. 51, we have answered thereunto, that this title is but an appellation [Page 255] that betokens honour and precedencie, not power and superi­oritie. Surely the Church of Rome, got not this height by such arguments, neither doe I thinke that it could bee maintained, if it wanted other strength and defence. So that any may see his capitall argument getteth no more, then what we yeeld unto him in. What his other endea­vours will effect, we may easily conjecture.

He bringeth in S. Ambrose next Reply ibid., but with as little helpe for the Roman headship, as the former from whom he expected assistance: But here is no truth in this quota­tion, all, neither true Author, true word, true consequence. For first how many can we finde that reject those commen­taries upon Paules Epistles, as being none of Ambroses, some charging them as upon the Epistle to the Romans with Pe­lagianisme, from which I thinke the Iesuite will defend this Father? Secondly, let the Author be who he will; these words seeme to be inserted, Cujus hodie rector est Damasu [...] for if it be he (as by some of the learned of your side is supposed) that wrot the booke of questions of the old and new testament Bellarm: de Script. Eccles: De Ambrosio M. credibile i­gitur est aucto­rem horum commentario­rum esse Hila­rium Diaco­num Roma­num, qui Luci­feri schisma propagavit.; he lived Quae [...]. 43. 300 yeares after Christ, and so could not speake these words of Damasus, who was Bishop 367. Or if he were Remigias Lugdnnensis, as Maldonat thinkes Maldonat. in Ioh. c. 12. v. 32., who lived about the yeare 870. I thinke you will say he spared the truth, if he had said, Hodie rector est Damasus. And who doth not see the poore consequence that followeth hereupon? Damasus is Rector of Gods house, therefore the Roman Church is the head of all other Chur­ches: By this I dare say, a man may prove any Church the Head of another: for to what Bishop is not this style gi­ven? Paul calleth himselfe and Timothie and others that were called to the regiment of the Church, ministers of Christ, stewards of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. v. 1, and himselfe a minister of the Church Coloss. 1 [...] 25.. But let Gods word prevayle, as the Iesuite is affected, what hath heerein beene said of Da­masus that hath not beene said, and by Rome it selfe of Andrew the Apostle? who I feare, will not be admitted [Page 256] to enjoy the conclusion, though the Roman Breviarie give him the premisses. Majestatem tuam Domine, suppliciter ex­oramus ut sicut Ecclesiae tuae, beatus Andraeas Apostolus ex­istit Praedicator & Rector. O Lord, we humbly beseech thy Majestie, that as blessed Andrew the Apostle, is Preacher and Rector of thy Church Cassander. Prec: Eccles: De sancto An­dre [...].. I feare he would smell like Spa­lato, that from hence should conclude that the Church which Andrew governed as a Bishop, was the mother church of all others, or that he were the universall Bishop, from whom every man should receive his faith. Nay Bellarmine will not exclude others from this title Bellarm. de Rom. Pont l. c. 11. Omnes enim Aposto­li) fuerunt ca­pita, Rectores, & Pastores Ec­clesiae univer­sae., and yet none shall have what the Iesuite infers thereupon but his owne Roman mistresse.

After Ambrose comes S. Hierome, whom he bringeth in saying, I following none as fi [...]st, but Christ, am united in one Communion to thy blessedne [...]: that is to say, to Pet [...]rs Chaire. Ʋpon this rocke I know the Church is buil [...]. Whosoever eateth the Lambe out of this house, he is prophane. He that gathereth not with thee, doth scatter: that is to say, He that be­longeth not to Christ, standeth upon the side of Anti­christ Reply pag. 5 [...]..

What our Iesuite would have here is plaine, that con­sent with the Roman Church makes a Catholicke, and there­fore it must be the Mother Church. Is there no difference betwixt Rome now and then? Who could then argue her of falshood or false beleife? It were a poore rea [...]on to a [...]gue from her being pure to her corrupt defylings. But where­in lyeth the strength of this Testimony? Surely in side- [...] ­king & communion, as if it were certaine that to commu­cate with Rome and her Bishop is su [...]ficient to declare a man catholicke, and that non-union to that head were as much as not to be of the body of Christ. Now what force hath this testimonie for confirmation hereof? For we see Popish confession will not acknowledge Sergius a catho­licke, though he communicated with Honorius Concil [...] VI Oecum [...] Act. 12. & 1 [...].. Neither doe the present Romanists embrace those Arrian [...] as Ca­tholicke [Page 257] for Liberi [...] his familiarity, nor condemne Atha­nasius, though condemned by their Pope Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4 c. 9. Nam ut colligitur ex A­thanasij verbis, & ex Epi­stolis ipsius Li­berij, duo mala Liberius com­misit: Vnum quod subscrip­sit in damnati­onem Athana­sij. Altem [...], quod cum Hae­reticis commu­nicavit. Binnius Not. it. Epist. Liberij▪ ad Episcopo [...] Orien. extat tomo 1. Concil. Quisquis inno­centem Atha­nasium à Ca­tho [...]icorum communio [...]e arcet: impio [...] verò Ariano [...] ad communio­nis vinculum admitti audeat [...] non Catholicum: sed Arianum esse oportet.. Will you ac­compt all for Hereticks, that have not obeyed your Ro­mane Bishop? What say you to Irenaeus Eusebius hist. Eccles. l. 5. c. 23. Ex­tant autem & verba illorum q [...]i Victorem acriter reprehenderunt. Equibus & Irenaeus.. To Cyprian Bellarm. de Rom Pont. l, 4. c. 7 Cyprianus pertinaciter restitit Stephano Pontifici, do­ [...]ienti haereticos non rebaprixand [...], ut patet ex Epistola ejusdem Cypriani ad Pompei­ [...], & tamen non solum non fuit haereticus sed ne (que) mortaliter peccavit—et tamen Ec­ [...]esia Cypria [...]um ut sanctam colit, qui non videtur unquam resipuisse ab illo suo error.. To the African Bishops in the cause of Appeales Epist. Bonifacii [...]. ad Alex. Episc Aurelius enim praefatae. Carthaginensis Ecclesiae olim Episcopus, cum c [...]llegis sui [...] instigante Diabolo superbire temporibus praedecessorum no­ [...]orum Bonifacii at (que) Coelesti [...]i, contra Romanam Ecclesiam coepit. Sed vide [...]s se modo peccatis Aurelij Eulalius à Romanae Ecclesiae communione segregatum humiliam recog­novit se, pacem & communionem Romanae Ecclesiae petens subscribendo non cum colle­gis sui [...] 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 th [...] rocke, and not upon Peters [...]haire, which was not of such an unmooveable stability, [...]s that rocke ought to bee upon which the Church is builded. Further I thinke Mr Malone will not de­ [...]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 [Page 258] Apostoli, All the Apostles are rockes, upon which the Church is built, saith Origen 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 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. Augusti [...] giveth this testimonie of the Church of Rome, that the Prin­cipalitie, or supremacie of the See Apostolicke hath alwayes borne sway therein 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 primatu [...] or principalitie of the Church of Constantinople Theodoret. l. 2 c 27., and a primatus or primacie of the Church of Hierusalem [...]. l. 7. [...]. 6., into which seates ascended none of these Monarc [...]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 ex [...]orfit, au [...] ambitus occu­pavit, etiam si [...]oribus atque actibus non [...]ssend [...]t, ip [...] tamen ini­ [...] [...]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 [Page 259] 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 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 def [...]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. [...]) 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 Reply pag. [...]. 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 Opta­ [...] (that lived many Decades of years before him) doth te­stifie how in his dayes the whole world agreed with Pope Siri­ [...]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 [...]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 Hiero [...]. Ca­talog. Scrip. Eccles. Fortu­natianus Epis­copus Liberi­um Romanae Vrbis Episco­pum ad sub­scriptio [...] Haerese [...] 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 Roma [...] Ecclesia [...], sed tamen & nos omnes sensum habe [...], Id [Page 260] 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 observ [...]d: but so farre as they might convince them of the truth of their doctrine and profession, otherwise, N [...] [...] 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, a [...] appedreth most plainely by that which S. Ambrose relateth of his brother Satyrus 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 wheth [...] hee did accord with the Catholicke Bishops that i [...] with the Romane Church 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 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 Roma [...] Church, but because they were truely Catholick at that [...] which were of the Roman cleargy. About those times then [Page 261] 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 [...] ▪ hist. l. 7. c. 9. Hos enim & imperator quo. que visos, & cotam allo [...] ­tus approbavit de quibus et integra consta­bat fama, quod suis Eccles [...] 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 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 Reply pag▪ [...].

The Bishop of Rome was a man of g [...]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 Canterbu­ [...]y ought to doe upon the like occasion? Hee discussed the crimes of every one Reply pag. [...].

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 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 [Page 262] 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 Emperou [...]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 [...] Reply pag. 53 light of his restitution, returning him an answere full of scornes and threats Sozomen. Hist. Eccles: l, 3. 2, 7. Athanasi [...]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 [...]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, whil [...]st he used his owne pow­er (for they disdained that the greatnes of his Bishopprick [...] should make them his inferiors Ibid-Indignati sunt, se posteriores ideo ferre, quòd magnitudine Ecclesiae superarentur. Sozomen hist. eccles. l. 3. c. 9. At cum literis apud [...]piscopos Orientis de rebus propter quas scripsisset, nihil proficeret causam A [...]hanasij & Pauli ad Constantem retulit.) and therefore he solli­cited his Lord, by whose authoritie they were restored Sozomen: hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 1 [...]. Con [...]tans autem rebu [...] gestis in concilio Sardicensi cognitis scripsit ad fratrem Constantium literas, uti Athana­sio & Paulo ecclesias suas redderet. Vbi v [...]o intellexit fratrem diem de die ducere, scrip­ [...]i [...] denuo, ut vel viros istos reciperet, vel se ad bellum gerendum pararet. Constantius igi­ [...]ur cùm de linere cum Episcopis Orientis commun [...]casset, stultum putavit ob [...]eam causam bellum civile & intestmum suscipere. Quo quidem concilio inductus, Athanasiu [...] ex Ita­ [...] acce [...]sit & cap. 20. Imperator autem dimittit Athanasium in Aegyptum, [...] [...] [...] literas cùm ad Episcopos et Presbytetos cujus (que) civitatis, tùm ad populum Ecclesiae A­lexandrinae: quibus et vitam ejus piè actam, et probita [...]em morum commendavi [...]: [...] cohortatus est, uti ei, utpote suo antistiti, p [...]rent [...], precibuses ora [...]ionibus [...] reilgio [...] [...]..

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 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 [Page 263] primitive Church, much lesse made a separation from the auncient Church. How the Church of Rome was accomp­ted an Head; How the Popes pastorall office was exten­ded: How little reason the Church of God had to depend upon the Popes Monarchie before he had a Crowne: How vainly our Replyer tearmes o [...]r dissipation of their pride and vanitie, the destroying of all true faith and doctrine. Le [...] others conceive, res acta non transacta est.

But as if he had said too little for the grand Impostor, taking breath, he gets into the CASTLE-CHAM­BER (where in-truth a Iesuite should be, rather then in his Cloyster) and primâfacie makes the STATE simple, the most reverend Primate a Deluder, and his Countrey­men poore and afflicted Reply pag. [...]. Heere is no meane man, Totus Proteus, totus Aristarchus, many times flattering great ones, alwayes censuring good ones. Shall I defend their Wisedome that then were IƲDGES in that honou­rable Court? It were to dishonour them. It may suf­fise, that not onely those PATRES CONSCRIP­TI, wise Senatours, but their wisest MASTER, (which could not at any time beedeluded by all the So­phisticall practices of Rome) approved & applauded the speech. But who knowes not, Delusus quia non delu­sus? Every one is deluded by others in the Iesuites conjecture, that is not deceived by themselves. Yet how will hee make this most learned Lord a Deluder? Hee hath said all and nothing, something hee hath spo­ken without the compasse of the Virga, that his Countrey­men are poore and afflicted: For how can they bee but poore, when they live in an Egyptian dearth? And affli­ [...]ted they will still remaine, whilst such heards of frogges & losusts, Egyptian blessings prey upon them. But let us see how wisely the Iesuite hath behaved himselfe.

In clearing the second maine branch of the oath, the An­swerer (saith hee) grounded himselfe altogether upon these [...]wo fickle foundations. First, that S. Peter was not head of [...]h [...] [Page 264] Church universall more then any other Apostle. Secondly that the Bishop of Rome did not inherite by succession this same headship or universall Bishopricke which S. Peter had Reply pag 53..

The Iesuite distasted the first as well as the second, but the opposall of that he supposeth not fit doctrine for the present time, the second onely must endure a censure as grounded upon those two sickle foundations. And be they as they shall appeare in tryall, the Iesuit yet might have con­ceived, if his eares had not failed him, that the most reve­rend Primate did not so much question, whether Peter was head of the Church universal, as whether he had power in this kingdome, his speech having relation to Peters power not o­ver the Church absolutly, but over us. And what he saith, is for the honor of S. Peter, not to disrobe him; For, if S. Peter himselfe (saith the most reverend Primate) were now alive, I should freely confesse, that he ought to have spirituall autho­ritie and superiority within this kingdome. But so would I say also, if S. Andrew, S. Bartholomew, S. Thomas, or any other of the Apostles were now aliue. For I know that their Commissi­on was very large; to goe into all the world, and to Preach the Gospel unto every creature; so that in what part of the world so­ever they lived, they could not be said to be out of their charge their Apostleship being a kinde of an universall Bishopricke See the most reverend the Lord Primate his speech in the Castle-Chamber..

But the Iesuite telleth us that these two assertions before mentioned are manifestly contrary (even by the confession of learned Protestants) to the doctrin of the primitive Church Reply pag. [...].. And to make this good, Iohn Brereley is in the margent. But I wonder the Iesuit will utter so grosse & so deceive­able falshood. For we know that in the sence the Iesuite would have Peter to be head, neither Calvin, Whitgift, nor Musculus ever dreamed of it: and to shew his precedency in order, calling, gifts, abilities, age, or otherwise, this ma­keth nothing either to the Iesuites purpose, for Peters mo­narchy, or the succeeding monarks. So that the Iesuite (as Brereley) hath brought but ill advocates to plead for a Pa­pall Monarchy from the headship of S. Peter.

But let the matter be examined; for every government pre­supposeth not a Monarchy. He might as in the schooles be the first in the head classe to dispose and order in some kindes the rest, but this is far from being in Popish sence, the head of the Church. A poore wiseman might deliver a Ci­tie Ecclesi 9. 15., and an inferiour Priest remove a schisme; and this they may do by their wisedome and government, not Mo­narchy and power. Besides if we grant the Iesuite, that Pe­ter excelled the other Apostles, as one Angell excelleth an­other in glory, he cannot conclude Peter the Apostles Mo­narch, nor the Pope the Churches head, unlesse he will have another Monarch in heaven besides God, and an head over some of the Apostles whilst they lived upon earth that was not Peter.

The most grave Counsellor brought therefore no new doctrine into the Castle-Chamber. If then you will have Pe­ter head of the Apostles, we yeeld it, but we say withall that he was such an head that was neither adorned with Co­ronet or triple Crowne to declare a Papall supremacy over his brethren. But to state the question, as it ought to be, let us enquire whether the Iesuite hath from the Fathers pro­ved as he ought (if he speake to the purpose) viz. that S. Pe­ter was so head of the Apostles and Church Universall, that all were bound to acknowledge him as their Monarch.

You have seene all that he hath urged from Calvin, Whitgift, and Musculus prove no such matter, and I doubt not but the Fathers will faile the Iesuite also.

First he urgeth S. Basill, who saith, That blessed Peter who was preferred before the rest of the disciples, to whom the keyes of the kingdome of heaven were cōmitted Reply pag. [...]4. And what makes this for a Monarchy? That Peter was blessed? so were the A­postles: that he was preferred before the rest of the Apostles in many particulars is not denyed, but every preferment is not Monarchicall: neither do the keyes worke any more in Peter, then the rest of the Apostles to whō they were e­qually givē. So that Basil speakes not full for this headship.

His second instance is out of Hierome: Therefore one Pe­ter, is chosen amongst twelue, that a Head being ordained, all occasion of schisme might be taken away Reply ibid▪. But what have we here that might not be found amongst equals? For Bi­shops of the same dignitie may have among them a Pre­sident. Besides his Ambrose speaking of this Primacie maketh Peter to be that of the Circumcision, that Paul was among the Gentiles Ambros. in [...] [...]. Ab his itaque pro­batum dicit donum, quod accepita Deo, ut dignus esset habere Prima­tum in praedi­catione genti­um, sicut et ha­bebat Petrus in praedicatione circumcisionis., that is a Primate of Order, of Eminencie of Gifts, not of an excellencie of Power. Neither did Peter take away schisme by ab­solute definition; as your Pope assumeth autho­ritie to doe, but by orderly disposition, with Apo­stolicall consent.

His third instance is, Nazianzen Reply ibid.. But doth he give Pe­ter, what will satisfie the Iesuite, a monarchy? The Church cannot endure two universall Bishops, two Monarchs. Had Peter it by Nazianzens testimony? Surely, how could Iames & Iohn inherite that blessing, & yet Nazianzen puts them together Petrus, Ioannes & Iacobus, qui prae alijs & e­rant & numerabantur: Peter and Iohn and Iames, who both, were, and are reckoned before others Nazianzen. de moderat. in disput. servan­da.. Here Nazianzen his prae alijs is not Papall, not Pontificall, neither then could Peters advancement be a Monarchy.

In like manner all that the Iesuite urgeth is nothing to the point that he ought to prove. That Peter was Captaine or cheife of the Disciples, as Epiphanius styles him, the most excellent Prince of the Apostles, in Cyrils judgement d; theseReply pag 54 are but titles of excellency which were given him for his personall gifts and endowments, Paul in this manner compares himselfe to the very cheife Apostles 1. Cor. 11. v. 5., and Eusebi­us Emissenus, or whosoever was the Author of the Homilie De Natal. utriusque speaking of Peter and Paul, tearmeth them Princes of Christians from their or­der and gifts, and further saith, si ille primus, iste precipuus, if the one was the first, the other was the cheife, It was fa­miliar to give termes of excellēcy of power to those that [Page 267] exceeded in gifts. Nicodemus is stiled Prince of the Iewes Cyrillus l 2. In Iohannem cap. 41. Nicodemus Iudaeorum Princeps., and who knowes not that Aristotle is ever mentioned as Prince of Philosophers? So likewise his supposititious Am­brose speakes not of any other Primacie, but of personall eminencie. For he maketh Paul from his owne words to be no lesse then the first Apostles in dignitie and other excel­lent performances, though he were after them in time, which that Author presumes cannot weaken the Apostles testimonie of himselfe, in regard Iohn preached before Christ, and baptized CHRIST, Andrew followed CHRIST before Peter, who notwithstanding received the Primacie Ambros. in 12 cap. post ad Corinthios Hocerant quod & Apostolus Paulus Hoc er­go dicit, quia minor non est, neque in praedi­catione, neque in signis faci­endis Aposto­lis praecessori­bus suis, non dignitate, sed tempore. Nam si de tempore praescriben. dum putatur, ante coepit Ie­annes praedica­re quam Chri­stus: & non Christus Ioan­nem, sed Ioan­nes Christum baptizavit. Num ergo sie judicat Deus? Denique prior sequutus est Andreas Sal­vatorem: quam Petrus. & ta­men Primatum [...]on accepit Andreas sed Petrus.. Heere the drift is, that if Paul were as ex­cellently qualified, as the Apostles, his afterbirth could not prejudge his equalitie, and if Peter were more eminent in gifts then his brother Andrew, Andrew his precedencie in time could not deprive Peter of his eminencie of gifts.

The Iesuite concludes not, but bringeth Eusebius telling us, Peter the Apostle by Nation a Galilean was the first Bi­shop of the Christians Reply pag. 54.. This the Iesuite perceived would conclude nothing, and therefore added his ridiculous glosse, Iames was Bishop of Hierusalem, others of other places; but Peter was Bishop of all the Christians Reply ibid.. Poore folly! who deprived them of their Apostleships, that their Bishoprickes were so contracted, that they ceased to bee Bishops and Super-intendents of the Christian Church? Paul professeth, that the care of all Churches were upon him 2. Cor. 11. 28.; Pope Innocent called Chrysostome, the great Doctour of the whole world Canisi­us F [...]com. Patrum mitio Catechismi, Innocentius primus pontifex in Epistola ad Arcadium Impera torem—Ejecistie throno suo, re non judicatâ, magnum totius Orbis Doctorem.; and other Fathers have had these titles given them ordinarily, whereby their esteeme in the Universall Church hath beene declared, as Origen, the next Master (after the Apostles) of the Church Six [...]us Senens. l. 4 tit. Origenes. Didymus in primis appellat cum secundum post Apostolos Ecclesiarum magistrum., so that he [Page 268] is preferred before your Popes,) Athanasius an agregious pillar of the Church whose Tenets were esteemed for the lawe of right faith Nazianzea. Orat. in lau­dem ejus. Atha­nasius egregi­um Ecclesiae co­lumen—cujus dogmata pro orthodoxae fi­dei lege habe­bantur.. Basil the mouth of the Church Greg. Nissen. in vita S. Ephr. Syri Cesare­am Cappado­ciae divino Spi­ritu ductus, ipse Os Ecclesiae au­ream illam do­ctrinae luscini­am Basilium vidit., and Hilary the Pillar of the Church of Christ Bellarm. de Script. Eccles. De S. Hilario, S. Hilarius Do­ctor maximus, & Ecclesiae Ca­tholicae colum­na meritò ha­bitus sit.. But to remove this title see whether Paul be inferior in Chrysostome judgment, Ille alter Michael Christianorum Dux, Alter Aaron totius mun­di populis inunctus sacerdos: He another Michael the Arch­angell, or Captaine of Christians: An other Aaron an annoin­ted Preist to the people of the whole world Chrys. hom. 8 de laudibus Pauli.. And Cyprian when he was sought for to be martyred, was tearmed the Bishop of Christians Cyprian. Ep. 69. Siquis tenet vel possidet de bonis Caecilij Cypriani Epis­copi Christia­norum., which is the same with Pontifex Christianorum, so that this title gives not Peter this Uni­versall Monarchie any more then others. But the Iesuite may know those words cited by him, are not truely the words of Eusebius; for Scaliger delivering him truly to the world, findes not there the Iesuites quotation, there being neither in it natione Galilaeus, nor Christianorum Pontifex, wherby we see the Monarchy wil stoop to any corruptiōs.

Neither are the Iesuites next following quotations any better. For the two places cited from S. Augustine: the first cited out of his 124, serm. de tempore, where S. Peter is ter­med the Head, the very Crowne of the Church: the second ur­ged from the same Father, or whosoever els was the Author of the questions upon the old & new Testament. For even as in Christ were found al the causes of mastership: so after our Savior all are contained in Peter: for Christ ordained him their head, that he might be the Pastor of our Lords flock Reply pag. 54: they are none of his; the first being suspected by many; the second reje­cted by all, yea so despised by Bellarmine, that he makes the Author no Catholick Bellarm l. de gra. primi hominis c. 3. Ex his intelligi potest auctorem quaestionum novi ac veteris testamenti non solum non esse S. Augustinum—sed ne (que) esse hominem Catho­licum., but an Heretick Idem de effectu Sacra [...]u. l. 2. c. 10: Respondeo primo, librum citatum non esse Augustini, sed alicujus haeretici., qui multa docet & contra fidem, & contra Augustinum, that taught many things both against faith, & against S. Augustine. I doe not urge this, as if his testimonies from hence were of any [Page 269] strength they being answered in substance before, but because you may see that they will avoyde no witnesses (though in other causes they reject them) that will advan­tage their cause.

For the titles given to S. Peter by Chrysostome, as Cheife, Captaine, Head of the Apostles Reply pag. 54., they all have received answere before. For we acknowledge Peter Head which is the same with cheife of the Apostles, otherwise how could Paul compare himselfe to the very cheife, if there had beene no cheife? And if the Apostle had bene by divine institution Paules Soveraigne, how could Paul compare himselfe, with him, he himselfe being divinely assisted?

But the Iesuite making a pause is willing for bre­vities sake to let passe manie other holy Fathers and Do­ctors of the auncient Church, who are most copious in the confirmation of Peters primacy over the rest of the A­postles Reply pag. 54..

And you have seene for what kinde of Primacie it is, that the Fathers speake, not a Primacie of power to which all the members of the Church must stoop, but of Order, excellency, gifts, graces; for the Fa­thers will expell from their mindes, that will sincere­ly read them all conceite, that Peter had a soveraigne Monarchy over the Apostles. See Peters Primacie the same with that of Iames and Iohn, for so saith Cle­mens, Peter and Iames and Iohn, after the assumption of our Saviour, although they were preferred before others of our Lord himselfe, yet did not challenge this glory to themselves [...]. hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 1. Clemens hoc asserit: Petrus enim; inqui [...], & Iacobus, & Ioannes post [...] Servatoris, quamvis ab ipso quoque Domino alijs essent praelati, gloriam tamen hanc sibiipsis non vendica [...], [...]. Neither is Paul by Chrysostome made lesse then Peter himselfe, and from S. Paul his owne testimony, Gal. 2. 8. And now (saith that ancient Father) doth Paul shew himselfe to be equall to the rest (of the Apostles) in honour, [Page 270] neither doth he compare himselfe to those others, but unto the very Cheife, declaring that every one of them had obtained a­like dignity Chrysost in Epist. ad Gal. c. 2. Iam (que) se cae­teris honore parem ostendit nec se reliquis illis, sed ipsi summo compa­rat declarans, quod horum unusquisque [...] parem sortitus sit dignitatem.. Ambrose knowes not whether should bee preferred Ambros. serm 66. B. Petrus & Paulus eminent inter universos Apostolos & peculiari quâ­dam preroga­tiva praecellunt, utrum inter ipsos quis cui praeponatur incertum est., but Cyprian and Hierome make them all equall Christ after his resurrection (saith Cyprian) gave equall power to all the Apostles Cyprian. de Vnitate Eccle­siae. Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tri­buat.. And the rest of the Apostles were even the same that Peter was being endued with the like fel­lowship both of honour and power Ibid Hoc e­rant utique & caeteri▪ A­postoli, quod fuit Petrus, pa­ri consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis.: Hierome also speaketh as much. The Church is founded equally upon all the Apostles, all received the kingdome of Heaven, & ex equo super eos Ec­clesia fortitudo solidatur Hierom. l. 1 cont. I [...]rin. At dicis super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia: licet id ipsum in alio loco super om­nes Apostolos fiat: & cuncti claves regni [...] & ex [...] &c.. So that the Iesuite had done well if he had taken up before; if he had not troubled his Rea­der with proving that kinde of Primacy which is not de­nyed him, and had forborne the attempting a proofe of that, which the Fathers will never graunt. But howsoever he resolves that Optatus Bishop of Milevetum, must not be let passe, in regard he will seeme to catechize our Answerer himselfe very handsomely in these words. Thou canst not deny but that thou knowest full well, that the Episcopall Chaire hath beene first given unto Peter in the cittie of Rome, where­in Peter the head of the Apostles hath sitten: whence also hee was called Cephas. In the which one Chaire Ʋnitie might be kept of all men: least the rest of the Apostles should maintaine every one their singular Chaires to themselves: so that now he should be a schismaticke and an offender, who would seeme to raise up another against this onely Chayre Reply pag. 54..

This place of Optatus, if the Papists doe rightly interpret it, must enclose a notorious falshood; for can it be affirmed with truth by Optatus that in his time the Apostolicall Chayre was onely placed in the Citty of Rome, when o­ther Apostles had their severall seates and Chaires in o­ther Citties also, as Iames at Hierusalem, aswell as Peter [Page 271] at Rome, all which were visible and conspicuous to the Church before Optatus his time, as we may see out of Ter­tullian, Percur [...]e Ecclesias Apostolicas, apud quas ipse [...]huc cathedra Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur Tertul. prae­scrip. con. hae­re [...]..

And therefore Optutus his Chayre cannot be interpreted for the onely chayre of the Catholicke Church placed by Pe­ter at Rome, from which whosoever did separate himselfe (upon what cause soever) should be a Schismaticke.

But Optatus being rightly understood declareth thus much and no more; That Peter having his seate placed at Rome (and yet Eusebius maketh him not the first Bishop ther [...] Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. [...] & 19.) the Apostles did forbeare to place their seates in that Cittie, and therefore judgeth the Donatists schisma­ticall, that placed another Bishop of their Schisme in Rome contra singularem cathedram, which this father sheweth was ever one in Rome, in ea sedit primus Petrus, succedit Linus, Lino Clemens. So that the Donatist Permenian with his fellowes were esteemed Schismaticks by Optatus, not because they separated themselves from the Ʋnitie of the Roman Church as now they understand it; but in regard by placing a Bishop of their faction in Rome, they contemned the established policie of the Church that required in one Citty but one Episcopall Chayre. Whereby we see, that Op­tatus is so farre from catechizing the Answerer, that hee doth checke the Iesuite and his faction, that in like manner as the Donatists have done, doe now intrude upon our E­piscopall Chaires in Ireland, titular Bishops of their facti­on of Schisme, not forbearing the chayre of S. Patricke it selfe.

But drawing to conclusion of this point, the Iesuite could wish that both the Answerer and all his Adherents would listen well unto S. Leo, who saith, that Peter onely in all the world is chosen as cheife in the calling of all Na­tions Reply pag [...]5 &c.

And we tell him that Pope Leo did speake more for Peter to advance himselfe, then it is probable he would [Page 272] otherwise have done, if his Chayre had not met with some opposition in those times; for Leo maketh Christ (Marke the tenth) to reprehend the desire of that power which in the Iesuites quotation he seemeth to give to S. Peter Leo Epist. 55. ad Pulcher. Au­gustam de am­bitu Anatolij. Et ille vere crit magnus qui fu­crit totius am­bitionis alic [...] dicente Domi­no: (Quicun­que voluerit in­ter vos major sicri, sit vester minister. Et quicunque vo­luerit inter vos primus esse, erit vester servus. Sicut filius ho­minis non ve­nit ministrari, sed ministrare., although Maldonate the Iesuite would not have the words of the Evangelist so to be understoodMaldonat. com. in Marc. 9. 35. Non hic agi de prjma in gubernanda Ecclesia digni­tate, etsi co e­tiam sensuhunc locum alicubi apud Leonem magnum legi memini..

We have seene then (saith the Iesuite) how undoubtedly the auncient Fathers maintained S. Peters primacie as well e­ver all the Church of Christ, as over the rest of the Apostles also Reply pag. 55: But any may perceive with how false eyes; his owne witnesses but little favouring his cause, as we shall further shew hereafter. So that any may conceive, how poorely he hath layed the foundation of the Roman Catholicke Church, vizt. Peter his Monarchichall power over the A­postles.

Neither (saith he) will it be hard to shew the like uniforme consent of antiquitie in attestation of that other point, denyed also by our Answerer, in the Star-chamber, concerning the same headship and Primacie which the Bishops of Rome doe inherite by lawfull succession Reply pag. 55. And to manifest this he be­ginnes his entrance with a repetition of what hath beene said and answered before, and then fixeth first of all upon the strong pillar of Popish height, the Arabicke Canons of the Nicene Councell, from whom hee doubteth not to bring us most plaine testimony in this pointReply pag. 56, and who be­leiveth him not? for if these Canons speake not plainely for the purpose whereunto they were framed, what device can helpe them?

But the Iesuite knowing his coyne counterfeit tels us, that the Answerer doth soone rid himselfe of this, and the like decrees of that holy Synode, by averring them to be forged by certaine well-willers of the Roman Church in the name of the good Fathers that never dreamed, saith he, of such a busines Reply ibid..

And is not this a truth that the Iesuite cannot resist though he playes the Baby, in telling us, that if you desire [Page 273] to heare him prove this his saying, you must have [...] [...] other proofe you are like to get none of him, besides his owne rash affirmation Reply ibid..

For the matter is so cleare from all antiquity, that there were but twenty Canons in the Nicent Councell (all which we have) that it were but the mis-spending of time to prove that which all acknowledgeSee them repeated in the sixt Councell of Carthage▪ apud [...] um.. Besides, could the famous lights of the world at that time be ignorant of these Canons, as S. Augustine Concil. Car­thag 6. c. 7. Augustinus Ecclesiae. Hi [...] ­ponis Regien­sis, Legatus Provinciae Nu­midiae., with [...] and more [...] Bishops Epistola A­phricani Con­cil. ad Bonifa­cium Papam 1. Aurelius—& caeteri, qui praesentes af­fuimus, nume­ro ducenti de­cem & septem ex omni Con­cilio Aphricae.? Were they so little esteemed, that they were clofetted at Rome, or so unknowne in the East, that the Pa­triarches of Constantinople and Alexandria could make no returne of themEpistola Concil. Aphric. ad Coelestinum. Quia illud quod pridem per cundem co▪ episcopum nostrum Faustinum, tanquam ex parte Nicaeni Concilij, exinde transmi [...]is in Concilijs verioribus quae accipiuntur Ni aena, à sancto Cyrillo coepiscopo nostro [...] [...] Ecclesiae, & à venerabili Artico Constantino [...], ac auther [...] missis tale aliquid non po [...]uimus repe [...]e, though the one sent them intirely as they were decre [...]d by the Fathers at Nice Epistola Attici Episcopi Constantino­politani ad Concilium Africanum Sicut sta [...]ta suntin Nicaea civitam à Pauibus cano­ [...] (in integro ut jussisus) direx., and the other [...]nsm faithfull exemplars from the authenticke Cop­pie escripta ad Conc. Aphrican. Cyrilli Alexandri­ni Episcopi. Necesse habus [...] exemplaria ex authentica Synodo, in N [...] ­ [...] Bythiniae habito, vestrae charitati dirigere quae & in Ecclesiastica historia requirentes [...].. But if there were nothing else to disgrace them; the Iesuite his endeavours to justifie them from farre-fetched and counterfeit grounds were alone sufficient to render them suspected of themselves. For doe you thinke that a [...]e from the [...] of S. Thomas, sent from some sleight Mercenarie of the Pope to his mancipated servants the Ie­suites in a matter that concernes the Popes greatnes so neerely, is to be received as an infallible Argument? Nei­ther if this Papall altitude could stand upon true grounds, would it need [...]uch counterfeit supporters as these two E­pistles cited by the Iesuit, in regard they declare thēselves [Page 274] counterfeite and are acknowledged for no better by their owne. For if this Epistle were written to Pope Marke after the Arians burnt their bookes at Alexandria, surely it must be many yeares after Pope Marke was dead; their burning being in the raigne of Constantius Athanasius Epistol. ad or­thodoxos in persecut., when [...] Pope Marke died in the time of Constantines govern­ment Hieron. in Chron.. Further how could this Epistle lye hid, when the controversie was betwixt the African Church and the Roman Bishops? Besides, could Marke send to Athanasius in Egypt, when it is apparant by Baronius, that he was [...] Exul in France Baron. [...]om. 3 ad an [...]um 336 [...], 39, Exul ho: [...] agebat [...] Galli [...].? Could the Roman Coppie and that of Alexandria so farre differ, (as wee see they did) if the Pope had sent a true Exemplar ex Romano scri­nie? And not to presse the Reader any further; What trifling follies doe they impute to the Nice [...] Fathers, as to publish these Canons halfe Latin [...] halfe Greeke, (perswading that fourtie were made by the Greeke Fathers, fourtie by the Latine,) and to insert tenne Cannons amongst the rest, in relation to the seaventie languages which they conceived to bee in the whole world, or the seventie disciples, and all this by the assistance of the Spirit of God Epistola A­thanasij & Aegiptiorum Episcoporum ad Marcum Pa­pam Sa [...]e prae­sentibus nobis octoginta ca­pitula in me­morata tracta­ [...] sunt Synodo scilicet qua­draginta à La­tinis similiter Latinis edita [...]gua. Sed vi­sum est, 318. patribus, San­cto spiritu, re­pletis in prae­ [...]o Concilio congregatis, & maximè jam dicto Alexandro & Apostolicae sedis Apo­ [...]sarijs, ut decem capitula a dunarentur alijs, at (que) congruis locis inscrerentur, & ad for­ [...] septuaginta discipulorum, vel potius totius orbis terrae linguarum, sepungi [...] discipulorum & tam excellentis concilij fierent capitula.? And if these bee not sufficient to marke out an Impostor, let us heare what their owne speake and you shall find Bellarmine accomp­ting them both, (viz. Athanasius his epistle and Markes [...] script) supposititious Bellarm. de scriptor Eccles. ut. [...]. De Epistolis Athanasi) ad Marcum Papam, & Marci Pap [...] ad Athanasium, [...] extratione temporis, [...] epistolas esse supposititi [...]s., Baronius takes them as Co [...]enti­tious and forged by certaine well-willers of the Roman Church Baron. tom. 3. ad an. 336 [...] [...]. 59. & [...]. [...] ille [...] Architectur bene esse consultum assertion [...] & [...] de Nic [...]o Canone extra numerum vicentarium allegatum. Ho [...] [...] [...] [...], qui ignoravit ex apertissim [...] veritate solutionem [...]..

For the second Epistle to Felix Reply pag. [...], if we observe what the Iesuite urgeth out of him, unlesse we be wilfully perverse wee cannot thinke Athanasius and the Bishops of Egypt to bee so farre from sence as this Epistle makes him, that they dare not presume to yeeld to the Errors of their enimies (the Arrians) without acquainting the Pope therewithall, as if with his dispensation they might adhere to any corruption whatsoever. Besides the Rescript to this Epistle was dated Agario & Iuliano Cass: Vide rescrip­tum hujusmo­di apud Bi [...]i­um tom. 1. con­ciliorum. when as never any that did number the Ro­man Consuls did make mention of Agarius. And also the Rescript declares what wee may conceive both of it and the Epistle of Athanasius, to wit, that they are of no better stampe then the Decretall Epistles, the lat­ter part of the Rescript being taken out of the latter part of the Epistle of Felix the first to the Bishops of Frannce. And to close up this, Binnius will tell this Iesuite that the Epistle it selfe is of suspected birth, both from the time when it was written, and other cir­cumstancesBin. tom. 1. Concil. in [...] in Epist. Atha­nasij &c. ad Felicem & Fe­licis ad Atha▪ Haec Epistola sub nomine A­thanasij ad Fe­licem ex syno­do Alexand [...] ­na scripta ab Episcopis [...] ­gypti, Theb [...] ­dis, & Ly­biae, de fide suspecta est, tum quod hoc tempore, qu [...] Athanasius [...] ­ga clapsus in cremo latita­bat, [...] [...] Liberio [...] Episcopi ortho­doxi, decr [...] Imperatoris & [...] [...] quod hunc epistola ad [...] scripta, ipsum [...] de sua ipsi. [...] [...] reddat., and Baronius doth also disparage this Epistle, and derides the Merchant that maketh vse of such baggage Commodities Baron. Annal. tom. [...]. ad. Annum 217. [...]: 66. Quae fertur Athanasij nomine ad Felicem Romanum [...] ex Sy­nido Alexandrina scripta—ha [...]d aeque probatur &c. At ipse [...]: From whence wee may see, how this Iesuite is voyde of all shame, who as if he had hit the Eagle on the eye, doth not onely produce these counter­ [...]its, but swolne with impudencie, in his wonted manner of rayling, bitterly reviles the Answerer for justly telling him, that the good Fathers assembled in that Synode neuer dreamed of such a busines, nor established any such Decrees or Canons at all,

Beholde heere (saith he) how precisely this holy Father doth alledge the Canons and decrees▪ of the Nicene Councill for the authority of the Roman Church, and for her absolute Supremacie over all other Christian Churches through [...] the world. And what will not our Adversaries venture to say and doe against the Catholicke Truth, when as they stick not with brasen faces to avouch, that the good Fathers assem­bled in that Synode, never dreamed o [...] such a businesse, &c. But I leave it to the judgment of the unpartiall Reader, to de­termine whether the abovesaid Testimony of S. Athanasini, given but twenty yeares, or thereabouts, after the said Nicene Councell, doth not sufficiently bruise and hurst their face of brasse, and force them to swallow downe againe their enormi­ous untruthes, and calumniations Reply pag. 59.

Heere wee may see a discourse fit for a Iesuite, all confi­dence, [...]t builded upon no truth. Cardinall Bellarmine confesseth the Iesuites proofe from the Epistle of Atha­nasius to Pope Marke, and the Rescript to Athanasius to be unsound Bellarm. de Rom Pont [...] ▪ l. 2. c▪ 25. Quod illi [...]an [...]nes non sunt omnes, probant non­ [...]lti ex Episto­ [...] Athanasij ad Marcum Pa­pam, in qua [...]e tit exemplum Nicaeni conci­lij ex Romani Pontificis scri­nio [...] [...]empla quae erant Alexan­driae fuisse cre­ [...] ab Aria­ [...], Sed hoc [...] [...] [...], [...] verè NON [...] SOLI­DV [...], and what sound evidence he hath brought from his INDIAN Tale, and the other Epistle to Fe­lix, hath beene declared. So that the Iesuite may consider, that Fures clamorem, theeves may slye from his voyce, but true men tremble not at the noyse. He may strain him­selfe against brazen faces, enormious untruths, calumniati­ons, but whom doth he wound but himselfe, that among all the ancient Fathers, cannot bring one Argument for these Arabicke Canons, but these false birthes, lying, counter feit, and yet doth swagger, triumph, rage and swell against him, that justly putts desiance to his folly?

But leaving these counterfeits, the Iesuite would [...] ­swade us, that he will proceede in laying downe the judg [...] of the anncient Fathers, concerning the derivation of S. Peter [...] supreme jurisdiction unto all his lawfull Successours in the Romane See Reply pag. [...].

The Iesuite doth well to distinguish those that follow, from those that in this point hee hath alreadie alleadged; but with whom doth he beginne? With him (I suppose) that will faile him, when it commeth to tryall, and that is S. Augustine Aug [...]in Psal. mum contra partem Dona­ti., who expresseth what the Iesuite is to prove most plainely. Reckon (saith he) the Preists even from Peters seat, and observe, who to whom hath ever succeeded in that ranke of Fathers: that same is the rocke which the proud gates of hell doe not overcome Reply pag. [...].

Loe here (saith the Iesuite) S. Augustine maketh the very succession of Bishops in the Roman See, that invincible rocke upon which Christ built his Church, forasmuch as it is groun­ded in Peter, and thereby is partaker of the promise of Christ, that the gates of hell shall not prevayle against it Reply pag. 59.

S. Augustine speaketh nothing here to the Iesuites pur­pose; for he neither maketh Peter the Monarch of the Church, nor the Pope his sole Successor in that Monarchie, Neither doth S. Augustine (as the Iesuit affirmeth) make the very successiō 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 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 & o [...]erum: & sensuum omnium qui hujusmodi beatitudinem operantur: [...] Eccelesia Dei: cui portae non praevalent inserorum. Si autem [...]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: [...]u es Petrus &c. tamen omnibus Apostolis: & omnibus quibuscunque perfectis fidelibus dictum vi [...] retor.. For why may not those churches that cleave fast to the rock of faith be called rocks [Page 278] to stay and adheare unto Iranaeus l. 4. c. 43. Ijs qui in Ecclesijs sure presbyteris o­porter obaudi­re qui successi­onem habent ab Apostolis quicun (que) cum Episcopatus successione charisma ve­ritatis certum secundùm be­neplacitum pa­tris acceperunt. Idem c. 44. Ad­herere his qui & Apostolo­ [...]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 August. in Psalm. contra partem Dona­ti. Talis si quis ad te veniat plenus Catho­lica side. Qua­les illo [...] san­ctos viros om­ [...]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 August. ibid Nam Donatus cùm volebat Africam totam ob­ti [...]ere. Tunc Iudices transmarinos petijt ab Imperatore. Sed haectam unjust petitio non erat de charitate. Hoe ipsa veritas clama [...] quam vclo modo refe [...]e. Nam consensit Impe­ [...]or, [...]t, quae soderen [...] Romae, Sacerdotes, qui tunc possent Caeciliano, cu [...] ill [...] 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 [Page 279] us no more, nor so much as Eusebius, who beginneth the Roman Bishop with Linus Eusebius hist Eccles. l. 3. c. [...]. Linus verò pri­mum post Pe­tri & Pauli Martyrium Romanae Ec­clesiae Episco patum sor [...]i [...]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 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 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 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 Bellarm, de Rom. Pont. l. [...] c. 23. Respon­deo in Apost­latu contin [...] 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 h [...]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 [Page 280] 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 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 Leo epistol. [...]9. ad episc. Vi [...]. 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 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 Star­chamber, he tels us: By these authorities, & many more th [...] [...] which might be alledged, it appeareth how casilyone mig [...] [Page 281] have taken up our Answerer in his Star-chamber flourish, con­cerning▪ this matter of S. Peters, and his successour [...] universall Iurisdiction Reply pag▪ [...]. 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 Christia [...] 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 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 Reply pag▪ [...]. 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 [...] 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 [Page 282] 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 [...]hid­den doth hold his peace, the Schollers might verie easily change their opinion 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 Gloss. Ordi­nar▪ Resti. Quod non au­deret nisi s [...] non imparem sentiret., or as Cajetan conceiveth, something greater 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 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 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 [Page 283] 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 in the Acts, viz. a Bis [...]opricke Rhem [...] upon Luk, [...]. [...]: And although the Iesuite now seeth that Peter can be no Monarch by his Apostleship, such extraor­dinary power being given to others, yet it hath beene that which they ever pretended to exalt him, whom they would have to be Peters Successour, and the Monarch of the Church; and therefore they have had their mouthes and rescripts full of Apostle and Apostleship, calling his office Apostleship, saying that he heareth causes with his Apostleship▪ (why should he not determine with it?) All his instruments of government are Apostolical, as Letters, Decrees, Mandates, Buls, Pardons, Dispensations, nay what hath he that is not Apostolicke? Whether messenger or Legate? Whether Palace, Chamber, Chancery, Seale Sacra [...] ce [...]am Rom. eccles. l▪ 1. Reg. Canc. Apostol. Extra do jurejur. c. Ego., &c. Besides how many of the Iesuites counterfeits urged for the Primacy are thought to speake effectually, when they attribute to the Pope, to sit in the Apostolicall height, to have his See Apostolicke, his office an Apostleship, his privi­ledges, his eminencies Apostolicall.

Fourthly, he would have told them, that the auncient Fathers declare in plaine tearmes, how Christ grounding his Church upon Peter Mat. 16. committing his flocke to Peter Ioh. 21. wishing Peter to confirme his Brethren, and praying [Page 284] for Peters faith that it should not faile, Luc. 22. constituted Peter head of his Church upon earth, and consequently there­by made him Prince, Cheife, Captaine, Head, Leader and Pre­late over the rest of the Apostles Reply pag. 60.

But whosoever will weigh his quotations shall perceive that the Fathers have beene onely pretended by him, they disdaining any such Monarchie as from those texts, the Ie­suite laboureth to collect. And first for the 16. of Mat. Al­though the Fathers doe sometimes give Peter the name of the rocke or foundation upon which the Church is build­ed or grounded; yet their meaning is not that the Church is builded upon Peter absolutely and personally, but rela­tivelie and from his faith, or Christ that hee confessed. And therefore Hillary that calleth Peter the foundation of the Church Hilar. in Mat. 16 Faelix Ec­clesiae funda­mentum., telleth us that; not onely to say but also to beleive that CHRIST is the Sonne of GOD, this faith is the foundation of the Church Hillar. l. 6. De Trinitat. Chri­stum Dei sili­um non solum nuncupare sed etiam credere—Haec fides Ecclesiae fun­damentum., and in another place hee saith, This is the alone happie rocke of faith confes­sed with the mouth of Peter, Thou art the Sonne of the ever­living GOD Idem l. 2. De Trinitat. Vna [...]aec est faelix fidei Petra Pe­tri ore confessa Tu es filius Dei vivi.. S. Basill also saith, that CHRIST is truely a Rocke unmoveable, but Peter is so from the Rock [...] Christ Basil serm. de P [...]niten. Chri­stus verè Petra est inconcussa. Petrus vero propter Pe­tram.. And S. Ambrose concludeth Ambros. ser. [...] Recte igi­tur qui Petra Christus, Si­mon nuncupa­ [...]s est Petrus, [...] qui cum Domino fidei societatem habebat, cum Domino haberet, & nominis Dominici unitatem, ut siqut à Christo Christianus dicitur, ita & à Petra Christo, Petrus Apostolus vocaretur. that rightly there­fore, because CHRIST is the rocke, was Simon called Pe­ter, that so he that had a society of faith with his Lord might also have the unitie of his name: that as a Christian taketh his denomination from CHRIST, so Peter the Apostle might [...]ke his name from the rocke CHRIST. So also saith, Grego­ry Nissen, The LORD is the rock of faith; even the foundation as the LORD himselfe saith to the Prince of the Apostles, Then art Peter, and upon this rocke I will build my Church Gregor. Nissenus, cap. postremo testimoniorum con. Iudaeos Dominus est Pe [...] fidei, [...]quam fundamentum ut ipse Dominus ait ad principe [...] [...]; Tu es Petrus & super [...]anc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam [...].. [Page 285] And S. Augustine teacheth us▪ that, The Church is found­ed upon a rocke; from whence even PETER took his name: For the rocke tooke not its denomination from PETER, but PETER from the rocke, even as CHRIST ta­keth not his name from Christians, but a Christian from CHRIST August tru [...] 124. in Iohan. Ecclesia fun­data est super petram, [...] de & Petrus no­men accepit, Non enim à Petro petra; si [...] Petrus à petra si [...] non Chri­stus à Christia­nis sed Christi­anus à Christ [...] vocatur.. Theodoret shall conclude for this par­ticular, who telleth us, that Blessed PETER or ra­ther the LORD himselfe layed the foundation, for when PETER said thou art CHRIST the Sonne of the li­ving GOD, the LORD said, upon this rocke I will build my Church: Bee not you therefore denominated from man, for CHRIST is the foundation Theodoret. in 1. Cor. 3. Fundamen [...] jecit beatus Petrus vel p [...] ­tius ipse Domi­nus, Cum enim dixisset Petrus Tu es Christu [...] filius Der vi [...] dixir Domi [...] super hanc [...] [...]rar [...] aedifica­bo Ecclesiam­meā, Ne vo [...] [...] go denomina [...] ab hominibus, Christus [...] [...] [...].. So that the Iesuite may see how Peter was the rocke and foundation by confes­sing and preaching CHRIST the true rocke: The latter of which duties [to wit, preaching CHRIST] is so bitter [...]nto their Popes, that I thinke they had rather forsake their Rock-ship, then be tyed thereunto.

And as the Church was no otherwise grounded upon Pe­ter then you have heard from the Fathers, so neither was the flocke of CHRIST (Io. 21.) committed to P