must be the measure and square of our faith Further you shall see he is taken in the traine whereby he thought to intrappe for in answering S. Augustine alleadged by the most learned Answerer he telleth us that the pretence of Scripture onely in such a matter of fact as this is 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 â—â—â—iâ—king from the question in hand r Reply pag. â—â— Indeed if the question in â—â—â—d were whether the Fathers of the primitive Church held these points or not then who would deny but it were a sâ—â—inking from the question in hand to fly to the scriptures But if the controâ—ersie heere bee concerning the rule whether the Iesuit hath rightly framed an invention to finde out true religion by then the producing of the true rule the sacred scriptures that a defective one framed by the Iesuit may be deâ—ected is neither from the matter or question in hand And if the points proposed by the Iesuite bee points of Doctrine as I doubt not but hee would have them yea doctrines of Faith and fundamentall also why should not hee try them by the Scriptures in regard hee confesseth that S. Augustine omitting the Fathers provoked the Donatists and Pelagians to the try all of Scripture for as much as he then disputed of a point of Doctrine onely Å¿ 〈…〉 29 But saith our Iesuite if it be demaunded to what pâ—â—pose then doth he fill up whole volumes with the Fathers saying if nothing but onely Scripture may suffice he answereth that he doth it to the end we should not thinks he is any whiâ—â— afraid of all whatsoeuer we can produce against him out of the Fathers and no wonder he should be so confident heerâ—â—â— when as he layeth this ground for himselfe No Father but God doe wee know upon whose bare credite wee may ground our consciences in things that are to bee beleived Reply pag. â—0 c. If the Reader please to consider he shall finde the most reverend Primate in answering the Iesuites demand to detect 2 things first the vanity of his invention in assigning a rule that God never instituted to find out points of true Religion by Secondly his foolish considence in that rule that layeth them open to heresie and shame Now by this they may know to what purpose the most learned Answâ—rer doth fill up whole volumes with the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with that sword which they 〈◊〉 to be their 〈◊〉 to wit the anncient Fathers 〈◊〉 might 〈…〉 those rayling Heresies that revile the 〈◊〉 of the â—â—â—â—ving God For although your rule be not 〈◊〉 of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherupon to ground our 〈…〉 of 〈◊〉 yet it wil be 〈◊〉 to shew that you are but 〈…〉 traditions reall 〈◊〉 prayer 〈◊〉 ◠〈◊〉 â—â—â—roso◠〈◊〉 heâ— 4. Ne mihi ca â—â—bi proferenâ—â— SIMPLICITER sidem adhibeâ—â— nisi de diviâ—â—â— Scripturis eorum quae â—â—cam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yoâ—â— Roman â—â—nce to be allowed by the 〈◊〉 Fathers And the most learned Answerer will never oppose the generall 〈◊〉 of the anncient Fathers in points of Faith which they have generally received out of the word of God but the Iesuite may consider that this is not to depend upon any authority without Scripture The Iesuite further revileth us for leaving the Fathers and cleaving to God although we most firmely adhere to them where they joyne in a generall consent with the saâ—red Scripture which is as much as the Fathers â— professe to do telling us that in appealing to scripture the most learned Answerer disagreeth with those of his own profession c. And to manifest this he bâ—â—geth in as he 〈◊〉 him Dr Hooker saying Of all things necessary the vâ—ry 〈◊〉 iâ— â—â— know what 〈◊〉 we 〈…〉 holy which 〈…〉 the Scripture i◠〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if any 〈◊〉 of Scripture did give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet still that Scripture which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the rest could require another Scripture to give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto it neither would we â—ver 〈◊〉 to any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our â—ssurance this may 〈◊〉 that unlesse 〈…〉 somthing which 〈…〉 we could not 〈◊〉 we do 〈◊〉 〈…〉 Scripture iâ— a 〈◊〉 and holy rule of 〈◊〉 This place of the learned Hooker presupposeth but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that historicall and what 〈◊〉 this against the 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉 of the Church or being a 〈◊〉 Umpier and sufficien◠〈◊〉 to square our â—aith and actions by For who knowes not that the Heavens cover all things and yet cover not themselves and what may hinder the Scriptures in like 〈◊〉 to teach all 〈◊〉 doctrines of faith and manners and yet not to point out themselves S. Augustines words are in every Papists mouth viz. that he would not beleâ—ve the scriptures unlesse the authority of the catholicke Church had moved him thereunto and yet he 〈◊〉 all things 〈◊〉 â—aith and 〈◊〉 to be 〈…〉 in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this necessary point of â—aith is a 〈◊〉 o◠〈…〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly the Iesuite abuseth his 〈◊〉 for the Churches testimony harely and alone begotteth but opinion in Hookers judgementâ— For saith â—o the more we bâ—stow 〈…〉 reading and learning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the more we 〈…〉 thing it 〈◊〉 â—â—th answere 〈◊〉 received 〈…〉 that the 〈…〉 with â—â— before 〈◊〉 â—â—w much more 〈◊〉 when the very thing 〈◊〉 ministred further 〈◊〉 And therefore Hookers words make â—â—thing against the 〈…〉 for 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 of Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 the way by 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which convinceth to beleive the scriptures to be the word of â— Lib. ◠〈◊〉 â— God 〈…〉 And thus Gods 〈…〉 give witnesse to his word doth not take 〈…〉 sâ—â—â—â—ciency to declare whose words they are and from what 〈◊〉 they 〈◊〉 any more then it doth the suffiâ—â—â—â—cy of their rule which consisteth of scripture and tradition also Whereby the 〈◊〉 may see he hath produced this worthy Author to no advantage â—â— being plaine that although there be something else to preparâ— the way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sid form dispâ— 3. sect 12. n. â—â—â— Admitti potest ex humâ—na authoritate geâ—â—rari quandam fidem humanam praeviaâ—â— ad fidem 〈◊〉 non â—â—â—quam 〈…〉 vel rationem 〈◊〉 ejus 〈◊〉 tanquam â—â—â—ditionem applicatiâ—â—â—â— objecâ—â—â— yet the minde is altogether 〈◊〉 by the â—â—ght oâ— the scriptures themselves the Church pointing 〈◊〉 ouâ— and they themselves 〈◊〉 the Churches 〈◊〉 So that the scriptures remaine the onely 〈◊〉 upon which a man 〈◊〉 his faith for any thing the Iesuite hath pickâ—â— out of this learned Divine â— D. Field 〈◊〉 his Appendiâ— to the booke of the 〈◊〉 par 2. §. ◠〈…〉 will 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â— any way 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where 〈…〉 I have in my Epistle 〈◊〉 That all mâ—◠〈◊〉 carefully 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the true 〈◊〉 that so they may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follow her directions and rest in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chargeth â—â— that â—â— my fourth 〈◊〉 following I 〈◊〉 her of almost all such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aâ— I 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto her so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 safely follow her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rest in her judgement in thâ—â— I say generall Counceâ—â— may 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church her selfe from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christian Religion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all This is a â—ad beginning being a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 him I lay down 〈…〉 first that the Church including in iâ— all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ appeared in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all those 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles times i◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 happily not from all ignorance Thirdly that the Church including 〈◊〉 the â—eleivers living 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 free not onely from 〈◊〉 in such things 〈…〉 to 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈…〉 thing that any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Christian 〈◊〉 and religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without all doubt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the judgement of the Church in 〈…〉 so â—â— to the thing◠〈◊〉 in Scripture or 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that â—ath beene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 or Rome but the Vniversâ—ll Church neither that Vniversall Church which 〈◊〉 be gathered together in a generall Councell which is 〈◊〉 sometimes to have erred but that which dispersed through the world from the Baptisme of Iohn continueth to 〈◊〉 times Sixtly that in the judgment of Waldensis the Fathers successively are more certaine judges in matters of faith then a Generall Councell of Bishops though it be in a sort the highest Court of the Church as the Treatisâ—r saith But saith the Iesuite if yet for all this our Answerer will not be brought to build his conscience upon any other authority d Reply pag. 32 I perceive a little thing will beget conâ—idence 〈◊〉 Iesuite that is so lifted up with producing two old objections to little purpose but what then why majora his agreat one of our owne shall schoole him a little better Pooâ—e â—edant in what manner By telling him out of Lyriâ—ensis that the auncient consent of godly Fathers is with great carâ— not onely to be searched but also to be followed of us cheifly in the rule of Faith Reply ibid. As if the consent of Fathers were the absolute rule of Faith without Scriptures when you yourselves dare not attribute to any Fathers authority power to expresse the rule of Faith by their bare consent For Durand saith that although the Church hath power of Gâ—â— on 〈◊〉 yet that doth not exceede thâ— limitation of the Scripturâ— f Durand â—â— Dist. 44. q. 3. â— 9. Ecclesia licet habet in terris dominationem Dei. illa tamen â—on excedit limitationem Scripturae Universall extent of Doctrine is a good directory to truth but the absolute foundation of Faith are the sacred Scriptures Neither are we at all to give credit saith the Author of the imperfect worke upon Matthew amongst the workes of Chrysostome unto the Churches themselves unlesse they teach or doe those things which are agreeable to the Scriptures g 〈◊〉 Commentar in Mat. homil 49. intes operâ— S. Chrys incerto auctore Nec ipsis ecclesijs omnino â—redendum est niâ—â—â—a dicant vel faciant quae convenientia sunt Scripturis No testimonies have any strength that walk without God his word The Fathers adhere to the Scriptures therfore we ought to adhere to them so are we to embrace the authority of the ancient Doctors Councels as those that embraced the holy Scriptures in their faith doctrin and for that cause this learned Bishop coupleth them together Wee rest saith he upon the scriptures of God upon the authority of the ancient Doctors and Councels Reply pag. 31 inferring thereby that those which fixe their faith have not onely divine testimonies but also the judgement and beliefe of the best men to declare the same as good subsidiarie helps to their convincing grounds which doth not conclude that any authority besides the Scripture is necessary but that it is a faire convenient rule to bridle mens fancies least the Scriptures should be wrested by them which are too much wedded to their owne conceits to patronage their errours And what Augustine gave to Bishops and Councels this learned Bishop assenteth unto but I am assured that the Iesuite will not bee able to prove that S. Augustine ever embraced such a thought as to believe that the receiving of humane testimonies should disable the Scriptures from being the onely concluding and sufficient rule for he is of a quite contrary opinion as is apparant in many places of his writings Aâ—g â— Donat. post collat c. 1â— Quâ—si Episcoporum Concilia Scripturis Canonicis fue â—int aliquandâ— comparata Neither will our Iesuite have us in our appâ—â—le to Scripture to betray our cause by our disagreement with our selves alone but also by our agreement with ancienâ— Heretickes and who are those Hereticks The Valentinians Ennomians Marcionists Arians and others whâ— as it is well knowne saith this Iesuite were wâ—nt to reject all other authorities and to â—â—nce with Scripture onely Reply pag. â—â— If this Iesuite be not a fencer judge by his weapons both edge and point being rebated for his most powerfull performance ends not so much as in a scratch or scarre And whereas he saith we fence with Scripture onely it seemeth he knoweth not the nature thereof otherwise he would repute it with the Apostle a sword for a â—ouldiâ—r yea sharper then a two-edged sword We acknowledge many subsidiarie helpes but indeed none sufficient to controule the conscience but Scriptures onely And herein we follow these ancient Hereticks 1. Augustâ—â—â— cited by the most learned Answerer and unanswered by the Iesuite Let humane writings be removed let Gods voice sound Aug. de Pastor c. 14. Aâ—ferantur chartae humanae sonâ—â—t voâ—â—s divinae ede mihi unam Scripturae â—ocem pro parte Donati and further in his booke of the Vnity of the Church hee saith Let them declare their Church if they be able not in the speech and rumours of the Africans not in Councels of their Bishops not in the passages of their disputes not in their â—ignes deceitfull wonders because even against these things the word of God hath perswaded us to be â—aâ—y but in the Law Prophets Psalmes the Pastors voyce the Evangelists preaching and labours that is in all the canonicall authority of holy Scriptures m Aug. de Vnit. Eccle. c. 88. Ecclesiam suam demonstrant si possunt non iâ— sermonibus rumoribus Afrorum non in concilijs Episcoporum suorum non in literis 〈◊〉 libet disputatorum non in signis prodigijs â—allaâ—ibus qui etiam contra ista verbo Domini prâ—parati cautiâ—â—ddiâ—i sumus
of Scriptures as the divell used them in his allegations against our Saviour or Popes in their 〈◊〉 corruptly and 〈◊〉 and not according to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and true meaning of the text Yet that Scriptures are the onely sufficient rule was so generally a received truth that never any Hereticke denyed the same for although many of them denyed some Scriptures yet they confessed those which they acknowledged divine to bee delivered to the Church to reveale Gods will and to determine all doctrines in the Church and controversies of Faith by And whereas this wisest of his Brethren would perswade that we to cloake our errours with a shew of Pietie will not be subject to the sentence of any Iudge whatsoever but the sacred Scriptures Reply pag. 32 The Iesuite is here in a mist and sees nothing for wee refuse not the judgment of any whether Fathers Councels or consent of the Catholicke Church to judge us by the doctrine of Faith the sacred Scriptures but to be tryed without the Scriptures were to be tryed in the darke Tertullian calling Heretickes Flyers from the light of the sacred Scriptures Tertullian de resurrect carnis c. 47. Qualiter accipiunt Lucifugae isti scripturarum in his prescription against Heretickes he telleth us that they have a faith without Scriptures that they may believe against Scriptures c Idem praescript con Haeret cap. 23. Credunt fine scripturis ut credant adversus scripturas And what the Iesuite would make the note of an Heretick the contrary thereof did point them out in old Ireâ—â—us his time Hereticks were then known by the path wherein our Iesuite treades in rayling accusing the Scriptures when they are convinced by them as if they were not upright nor of authority and because they are ambigâ—â—â—â— and cannot afford the 〈◊〉 to them that are ignorant of Tradition d Irâ—â—eus lib. 3. cap. 2. Haeretici cùm ex scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum scripturarum quasi non reâ—â—e habeant neque sunt ex authoritate quia variae sunt dictas quia non possit ex his invenire veritas ab his qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You see Hereticks and their practises they hate the Scriptures because they beare witnesse of them that both their workes and doctrine are unsound and evill Now as if he would make it appeare to every weake eye that we submitting to Scriptures as the onely rocke whereon we build our faith doe thereby anoyde all tryall he prosequutes this with a simile For we see saith he in the temporall Courts besides the Law there must 〈◊〉 be a Iudge who must declare the true meaning of the Law and pronounce his sentence in matters of controversie according to the same e Reply pag. â—â— So likewise the same forme must be observed in the spirituall regencie of the Conscience if credit may be given to this Iesuite concerning the written Law of God If all this were true what maketh it against the sole rule of Scriptures Iudges doe not Ius dare but dicere and if they doe attempt more they usurpe which your controuling Iudge doth for he will declare what he pleaseth for Scriptures and will prove what he pleaseth by them nay our Iesuite himself can prove doctrines by Scriptures that were never knowne but by tradition f Reply Sect. x If a temporall Iudge trench against the law of Man as your infallible Guide doth against the Law of God his sentence may be disanulled revoked and the Iudge himselfe is not free from reproofe And wee know that the makers of a law may interprete it or give power to others to performe the same But Gods law is not made by man neither hath man received power to be such an infallible Iudge g August Confess l. 13. c. 23. Non enim oportet de tam sublimi autoritate judicaâ— neque enim de ipso libro tuo etiamsi quod ibi non lucet quoniam submittimus ci nostrum intellectum certumque habemus etiam quod clausium est aspectiâ—â—â— nostris rectè veraciterque dictum esse Siceâ—â—â— homo licet jam spiritualis renovâ—â—â—â— in 〈◊〉 Dei secundùm imaginem ejus qui creavit eum FACTOR tamen legis debet esse non IVDEX De his enim judicare nunc dicitur in quibus et corrigendi potestaâ—â—m habet Clemens Alexandrinus strom l. 7 Non enim absolutè eâ—â—â—ciantibus hominibus fidem habucrimus quibus licet etiam câ—â—tiare contrarium Sed oporteâ—etiam probare quod dictum est non expectamus testimonium quod datur ab hominibus sed voce Domini probamus quod quaeritur quae est magis side digâ—â— quam quaevis Demonstrationes Ibid. Hâc ergo ratione non sunt pij ut qui divinis praeceptis non acquiescant hoc est Spiritui sancto Quia est ergo ex scipso fidelis Dominicâ scripturâ voce est fide dignus quae per Dominum 〈◊〉 ad hominum beneficium Ipsa autem Iudice utimur ad res inâ— niendas Wadding Lâ—gat Philippi 3. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 multa sunt hujusmodi quae reâ—â—agantibus aut circâ—ca 〈◊〉 Doctor 〈◊〉 sunt à Pontificibus nec enim parvum Doctorum aggerem sed Dei sapientiam et spiritum pro regula etrectore veritatis habet â—â—â—cta haec 〈◊〉 quae falli non potest Mater Ecclesia That which God hath left his Church is the blessed Spirit in his word â— which Christ hath promised shall direct his owne in all at least fundamentall truth And what if some desperat men follow deceitfull guides must this of necessity make the true guiding of his Spirit contemptible Or must the Scriptures be uncertaine in their direction because we have men that will not see that will interpret by their owne passion not yeeld to the truth or absolute demonstration Besides how vaine is it 〈◊〉 to expect the Romane Iudge for our Determiner who â—â—y make us a new rule of faith as large as the Decretals pretending the Scriptures or tradition for it and yet never be an Heretick For if he might be an Hereticke it must be for denying some truth before defined but he cannot be â—◠〈◊〉 for defining any new matters saith your Cardinall Bellarmine for then hee doth not believe against any thing defined by the Church k Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 7. Nam Pontifex si possit esse Haereticus solum erit ne gando aliquam veritatem antea definitam non autem potest esse haereticus dum ipse aliquid novi definit tunc enim non senâ—it contra aliquid deâ—â—nitum ab Ecclesia And suppose he could not erre in expounding the Scriptures may not they which receive his exposition miâ—interpret the same and the people upon report be carried out of the Romane faith Our Iesuite proceedes It will be worth the marking also to observe how this manner of tryall by onely Scripture hath
a manifest contradiction in his words against himselfe for above he more then once saith the Iesuite 〈◊〉 our opinions prophane novelties and hereticall novelties If Novelties how are they now become Heresies farre spred and of so long continuance that we are bold to make duration the marke of our Church c Reply ibid. The Iesuite imagineth here Contradiction and why because â—â— opinion of long continuance cannot be stiled a Noveltie So that if we can manifest that a Noveltie may bee of long continuance our Iesuite is deceived in his slippery hopes And what will he make novum in Religion but that which is not antiquissimum Our Saviour when hee would declare Pharisaicall traditions to be Novelties did not respect their long continuance in the corrupt estate of the Church but saith ab initia non fuit sic * Mat. 19â—8 that they were not from the beginning delivered by God or practised by the Church So that if the duration and antiquitie of your opinions be but humane that is not Apostolicall neither from Apostolicall grounds It â—â—inke and justly that they may be esteemed new and novelties d Terrullianâ— de praescripâ— panlo ante medium Si haec iâ—â— sint constat proâ—â— de omnem doctrinam quâ— cum illis Ecclesijs Apostolicis matricibus originalibus sidei conspiret veritati deputandam id sinc dubio tenantum quod Ecclesiae ab Apostoli Apostoâ—â— Ã Christo Christus à Dâ—â— suscepit reljquam vero omnem doctrinam de mendacio praejudicandam quae sapiaâ— contra veritatem Ecclesiarum Apostolorum Christi Dei. for a point is 〈◊〉 in religion that did not proceed from God and his blessed Spirit either in terminis or by deduction from his word that is the Ancient of dayes whatsoever pretences of duâ—â—tion and continuance may be supposed 〈◊〉 was never generally received by the Roman faction themselves before the Councell of Lateran â—corus in 4. d. 11. q. 3. apud Bellarm. de Euchil 3. c. 23. ditis ante Lateranense concilium non fuisse Dogma fidei transubstantiationem â— Rhem. An not upon the 1. of Tim. 6. â—â— and yet wee are condemned for calling this a Noveltie whereas it crept in many hundred yeares after those words which they themselves account Novelties both in the Arrians which had their Similis substantiâ— and Christ to bee ex non existentibus and also other Hereticks that had their Christiparam and such like â— new coyned tearmes agreable to their sects Wherefore it is not enough to free your doctrines from being Novelties because they are of long continuance seeing the words of ancient hereticks being of more long continuance and auncienter in birth even many hundred yeares before them might better claime that priviledge and are neverthelesse stiled Novelties by your selves And as the Rhemists acknowledg of words so we say concerning points of doctrine that wee are to esteeme their newnes or oldnes by the agreeablenes or disagreeablenes they have to the true sence of Scriptures the forme of catholick faith and doctrine â—hem ibid. c. and not because it is long since they had their birth in the world So that you see Novelties are new doctrines which are neither delivered in Scriptures openly and in expressetermes or lye couchant in the same but had their births in aftertimes being framed by the phantasticke illusions of Sathan the producer of falshoods and heresies which is conformable to the Apostles doctrine for what 1. Tim. 6. 20. he tearmeth prophane novelties Gal. 1. 8. he expresseth to be new doctrine 〈◊〉 ibid. which is not the same but besides as the Rhemists â— or against that which the Apostle did deliver to the Church And therefore our Iesuite and his contradiction contradict his imagined Vanity and not prove or confirme the same For his other Collectaneas that if they be prophant Novelties then by the Rule of Lyrinensis they ought to bee impugned by producing and confirring the agreeing sentences of auncient Doctours Secondly that the consent of auncient Father is called the rule of the auncient Faith by Lirinensis in the place alledged k Reply pag. 36 1. Wee have shewed before l See before Sect. 5. prope finem that we dissent not from Lyrinensis being rightly understood For all kind of heresies are prophane Novelties howsoever they differ in extent or age Yet all kind of Heresies are not to be impugned though prophane Novelties after this manner in Vincentius Lirinensis his judgement Besides Lirinensis maketh not the Fathers rules absolutely but because they assisted at that time the Scriptures to rule unruly hereticks that would wrest the same so that when the Fathers cannot do the worke for which they were used that is stop the Hereticks mouthes because that having corrupted antiquity they will also pretend it then he thinketh such heresies though prophane Novelties are not to be dealt withall this way And for his second observation although the Iesuit collecteth untruly yet who will deny consent of Fathers to be the rule of faith according to that Fathers meaning For in the immediate quotation following out of the same Father we finde that it hath beene the custome of Catholicks to try their faith two manner of wayes FIRST by the authoritie of the Divine Canon next by the tradition of the Catholicke Church m Vineâ—â— Lirinens adv Profanas Novationes Primò scilicet divine legis auctoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione not for that the Scripture is not sufficient in it selfe but because very many interpreting the divine word at their pleasures do conceive varying opinions and errours n Ibid Hic forsitan requirat aliquis cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat quid opus est ut eiecclesiasticae intelligentiae iungatur autoritas Quia videlicet Scripturam sacraâ—â— pro ibsa sui altitudine non uno codemque sensu universi accipiunt quod â—â— Confideratio temporis 〈◊〉 Now in these words who doth not see that Lyrinesis doth make consent of Fathers not to be an absolute or sufficient rule of Faith as he doth the Scriptures but a directive rule to the right understanding of the absolute and sufficient rule of faith which is the holy Scriptures Neither can we otherwise confecture but that Lirinensis giveth this directive Rule for his owne time Ibid. Ad and not to all succeeding ages for by many particulars it is apparant that the foundation and ground of his whole discourse received being from those wise experiences which the present age hee lived in and precedent had afforded him Besides wee have many Mathematicall instruments which are rules in their kinde as the Globe Quadrant c and there are many bookes written to assist us in their use now I hope you will not say the rule to use the instrument is the absolute rule it selfe to draw a Conclusion in the Mathematickes And why likewise may
also have defined contrarie to generall practise and custome of the Church though not in fundamentals yet in points of great consequence as your Councell of Constance * sess 13. against Communion in both kinds and your Trent Synode for private masse against the practise of primitive times a De consecr distinct â— cap peracta Peracta consecratione communicent omnes qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus sic enim Apostoli statueruntet sancta Romana tenet Ecclesia not of one particular Roman but of the vniversall body of the Catholicke Church so that there might be as good Musicke made of an emptie vessel as the impregâ—able harmonie you boast of and though there were no crosse definition against the foundation of faith yet that Pope is not hid and Councell which have made that faith from such an interpretation of scripture b Scot 4. â— 11. q 3. which Scotus could see no reason or authoritie for but what was in the sic volo sic jubeâ— of the Roman Church But further this Argument may bee retorted in their teeth if these points were not ab initio but got footing in the Church of Rome by Papall violence and decrees of Councels which were his owne then they have not the birth of Apostolicall traditions neither can they bee accounted cheife Articles c Suarez Ies dâ—trip â—iâ—t disput 5. § 4. num 4. Cum non sit vniversalis in tempore non potest per se fidem facere catholicam quae debet esse 〈◊〉 pore vniversalis but some of the points mentioned are by your owne thought to be put Iuris positivi which I thinke you will not stretch vp to the Apostles times as confession c all the rest have bene declared quibus gradibus they got footing in the church by the most learned Answerer against which the Iesuite hath in the point of Free will spoken little to all the rest materially nothing as wil be declared in the examination of them Now the Iesuite thinking hee hath performed some brave exployt concludes he hopes with triumph If we presse them to name those Popes who so 〈◊〉 from faith to infidelitie or brought in but one onely article of religion contrary to that of fore-going ages because they cannot satisfie our demaund herein it must be shuffled vp vnder the tearme of a vaine demaund d Reply pag 4. First we charge them not with decreeing contrary to the foundation interminis as that there is not one God three Persons c. but that they have added to the faith delivered by the Spirit of God many articles of their owne Neither do we say that they have forsaken the faithabsolutly for they professe it but the purity of it not contenting themselves with the auncient rule without mixtures of their own Such corruptioÌ„ such alteration of the faith they cannot deny therefore have laboured to excuse it that it is not new faith but a declaration of the old the birth of some of which â—aith was 1500. yeares after CHRIST and his Apostles had delivered the whole councell of God So that the Iesuite â—â—th marched valiantly and with Balaâ—m hath expressed his desire to curse Israell but all his hope is declared vpon which he founds his confidence that because we cannot satisfie his demaund hee is therefore secure that his demaund is not vaine when as the vanitie there of maketh it vnanswerable S â— Augustine thought it a vaine demaund to aske what God did before the creation of the world and therefore turnes it off with a menacing answere The most learned Answerer hath the same thoughts of the Iesuites Quare and casteth it off by just exception and both most rightly Yet the Iesuite inviteth vs to see SECT II. * Reply pag. 5. How vaynelie our Answerer proveth my Demaund to bee vayne IN this discourse the Iesuite is blinded and wanting reason to justifie his Demaund he will not want his good friend Frons ahenea to give some releife vnto his desperate cause The Answerer saith our Iesuite by a smooth and wylie sleight shrinketh from the Question a Reply ibid. c. But how proveth he this why in this manner Whereas I demaunded saith he What Bishop of Rome did first alter or corrupt the right faith He answereth that it is a vaine demaund to require the name of any one Bishop of Rome by whom or vnder whom this Babylonish Confusion was brought in And againe That it is a fond imagination to suppose that all such changes must be made by some Bishop or any one certaine Author And laying downe this he 〈◊〉 the 〈…〉 how wide this is from that which â—e demaunded b Reply ibid. Which I thinke the learned Answerer will not refuse for although the Iesuite would have this question which now in his iudgment is vnreasonable to have beene fâ—rged by the most reverend Primate yet it evidently appeares that it is an vnproportioned birth a deformed Embryo of his owne conceipt and that the Iesuite herein is driven not to smooth and â—ylie slâ—ights for his defence but to perverse boldnes and open outfacing For first in repeating his owne question and demaund What Bishop of Rome did first alter he not onely addes or corrupt the right faith but shamelesly omits that which woundeth him to the quicke In what Pope his dayes was the true Religion overthrowne in Rome d See the Iesuites demaund Now I would have this Iesuite to declare the difference betweene the bringing in of Babylonish Confusion and the altering the true Religion He proceedeth For saith he had he pointed vs out â—ny one Pope that had changed but one onely article of religion or true faith or brought in any one errour then had hee satisfied my demaund e Reply pag. â— That which the Iesuite here supposeth containeth two particulars first that we cannot assigne any one Pope which hath changed one onely article of Religion or true faith Secondly that we cannot assigne a Pope that hath brought any one error into the Church The first hath received answere in the precedent section The second the most learned Answerer hath satisfied in all the Demaundants particulars shewing how this Iesuites holy points of Doctrine and faith are such as the Apostles never knew the fathers scarce espied good men alwayes resisted and which came to receive authoritie amongst Papalines but were alwayes rejected by the Catholicke Church And notwithstanding the Iesuite braves it there are many other articles pretended by them to be of true Religion which are at the best but superstitious and grosse errors brought in by their holy Father or his children in after-ages to the disgrace of the true received doctrine of the Church in the first times But that which the Iesuite doth conclude herevpon is most chyldish that the pointing out any one Pope which had brought into the Church any one errour would satisfie his demand f Reply pag.
〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 â—all of the aâ—â—cient Fathers and the Councell of 〈◊〉 Canone 〈…〉 these bookes are omitted â—â—â—â— part of the 〈◊〉 Scripture Thirdly the reputed 47. Canon of the third Councell of Carthage which is their cheifest testimony by the indgemeÌ„t of their own was never determinâ—â—â—â— that Synode â—arclaij Paraenesis l. 1. c. â—1 Refertur â—ic canoâ— concil 3. Carthaginensi cui Augustinus interâ—â—it sed ex 〈◊〉 constat posterioris Concilij esse quod paulo post sub Boni â—â—cio convocaâ—â—m Fourthly in after ages they were by many rejected a never getting authority till the Trent decree Besides these bookes will by their owne light declare of what authority they are The 〈◊〉 I hope will grant that God is as true in his word as the Pope infallible in his decrees if upon this ground these bookes deserve credit let the Reader conclude first for Iudeth whether it were â—squam or ullâ—bi we cannot tell neither I thinke the Iesuite himselfe Again she honoureth that fact of Siâ—â—on * Caâ—â—s loco â—â—pra citat Constat auâ—em 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctisâ—imoâ— in contrariam sententiam 〈◊〉 qui tamen semper in Ecclesia Catholica sunt habiti Nich. Lyâ—an super 〈◊〉 â— 1. super Tobiâ—â— Abuleâ—â—â—s super Math. c. 1. D. Aâ—â—on 3. p. â— 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 loâ—â— tum maâ—ime in fine 〈◊〉 super 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etiam sex â—â—cros esse 〈◊〉 Gelaâ—â—â—â— Pâ—pa rejecit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Macha Diâ—â—â— autem Gregorius l. moral â—â— rejjoâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de Tâ—â—â—poribus Rich l. 2. Exceptioâ—â—â— c. 9. Ocham â—â— Diâ—◠〈◊〉 1. l. 3. 〈◊〉 Ac D. Aug docet aâ— Ecclesia esse quid em receptos seâ—â—â—â— certa side 〈◊〉 9. 2 and Levy which the Spirit of God abhorreth as appeares by Moses †Gen. 49. 5. And we may see that Iudeth fitting her selfe for lyes and deceit * 〈◊〉 9. 10 desireth God to give a blessing thereunto †Ver. 13. which action as it condemneth the person that doth the same so doth it disgrace this booke which speaketh â—â— directly opposite to the Apostolicall rule * Eph. 4. 25. And as Iudeth doth detect her selfe so doth Tâ—bit also by his vaine story of the Rivall Devill †Tob 6. 14. the driving away of a devill or an evill spirit which should trouble any with the smoke of the heart and the liver of a fish * Tâ—â— 6. 7 contrary to Christs doctrine that there are some devills which will not be cast out but by fasting and prayer †Mat. 17. 21. And wherefore should the Apostle Eph 6. 13. have left this out of his aâ—moury if it had bene of such forâ—â— eâ—â—icacy as is here expressed Further we have an Angell lyeing chap. 5. verse â—â— and a fish travailing on Land chap. 6. verse 2. The Maâ—chabees containe many things which declaâ—â— the author of them not to write with confidence of Godâ— Spirit asisting him as first that he was an Epitoâ—â—ist of â—â—son * 2. Maccà b 2. 23. Secondly he excuseth himselfe †2 Maccab. â—5 39. as if the holy Ghost might deserve a censure Thirdly it appeareth that his end is to delight his Reader * 2. Maccab. 2 25. 15. 40. and to get honour to himselfe †2. Maccab. 2 â—6 â—7 Lastly he justifieth Razis in killing himself * 2. Macâ—ab 14 41. 42. 43. a commendation fitter for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then the patient Marâ—â—rs of Christ as S. Augustine Aug. câ—n Gâ—ud l. c 31. Dictum est quod 〈◊〉 nobiliter merit meâ—us veller hâ—militer â—â—â— enim 〈◊〉 Illiâ—autem verbis historia gentium â—â—â—dare 〈◊〉 sed viros 〈◊〉 huius â—â—culi non martyrâ—â— Christi observeth To these many more may be added but this which hath bene spokeÌ„ will suffice to shew that they have dealt without all conscience in obtruding those bookes upon the church which were never as canonicall received from the Iewes unto whom were committed the oracles of God * Rom. 3. 2. never delivered to the primitive Church from the Apostles never aproved by any father of the church for almost 400 yeares never thought of when the Canon was repeated such which by their Physiognomy detect themselves Whence we may gather that the Church of Rome now hath varied in her judgment from the church of God then althogh we be not able to lay down the precise time when she thought her selfe wiser then her forefathers heerein Neither will his turning to the Epistles of Iames Iude the second of Peter c Reply pag. 2â— c any thing availe his cause in regard there is a great difference betwixt those Epistles these bookes of Iudeth Tâ—bit and the Macchabees for although some private men did doubt of the former yet the church in generall did receive and approve the fame * See before pag. â—5 whereas on the contrary the Iesuite after all his search cannot finde â—â—â— testimony either of Father or Councell that accounâ—â—â— the latter Canonicall for well-nigh 400 yeares after Christ And therefore most indiscreetly did the Iesuit vrge 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 to prove the like doubt to have bene held of these Epistles with those bookes which they absolutely call Apocrypha Secondly he abuseth his Reader when he would perswade that they were ouely particular Fathers that doubted of these bookes when the Iesuite cannot finde that they were received either of the Iewes or the Apostles or Primitive Fathers for certaine ages after Christ Thirdly to what thoughts of desperation is he and his fellowes driven to defend this adding to the Canon as first that doubtfull writings which have beene accompted Apocryphall for certaine hundred of yeares which our Iesuite calleth somtime may by the publick authority of the Church be declared Canonicall and secondly that particular Fathers which indeed are all the Fathers that lived in the first 300. almost 400. yeares the Iesuite citing none within that compasse but Cyprian and their bastard Calixtuâ— as hath beene formerly declared might doubt of the authority of those bookes without prejudice till the Church had declared them for Canonicall by publicke authority But if the Canon was not compleate in the first times I would know when it was made perfect and whether in those times tradition was enabled to declare the same or whether the Fathers were negligent to testifie this truth and also whether Canonicall and Apocryphall is a distinction lately invented All this the Iesuite must resolve or else acknowledge the Canon of the Church in the Primitive times to be certainely knowne and setled which will declare their vanity and change in these last times to adde unto the sacred Canon and rule of Faith upon pretence that the Church hath power to declare canonicall Scripture A Doctrine invented in after-ages by the Roman faction who as they looked for unlimited power so to defend their practises they desire an unrestrayned rule making Scriptures what
not the Fathers that assist and direct in understanding of the Scriptures be Rules as Vincentius Lirinensis onely stileth them in their kind yet give place unto the word of God as the absolute and sufficient rule of faith Moreover Rules Measures are either originall which we call the Standard or those which are proportioned and fitted thereby and might not this Father make the Scriptures as the Standard the onely absolute rule sufficicient of it selfe as he tearmeth it to try points of Catholick Faith and yet graunt the generall consent of all Bishops and Preists of the Catholicke Church in a generall Councell to be a Rule proportioned fitted and squared thereby Who knoweth not also that the Standard is a most absolute and controuling Rule without doubt and exception when there are many things that may call in question the truth of the other so that it may need to bee corrected thereby Now what doth the most learned Primate say that crosseth Liriuensis This auncient Father acknowledgeth the authority of the divine Canon sufficient of it selfe to trye the Catholicke Faith His learned Penne confesseth Gods Word to be that rocke alone upon which wee build our Faith Lirinensis to avoyde jarring interpretations would likewise from the Custome of Catholicks have the Traditions of the Catholick Church to wit the generall consent of Fathers to be requisite at some times to the understanding of heavenly Scriptures And for any thing I can find the most reverend Primate doth not urge a syllable against it So that untill the Iesuite can shew further then he hath done Vanitie I thinke will turne Fryar and remaine with him And although this Iesuite doth make the Fathers upon Lirinensis his experiment the absolute rule yet a further experience perswadeth them to leave Lirinensis at sometimes which although they will not doe with open face yet by covered shifts they labour to avoyde what they pretend to be his direction For they make the Fathers doctors not judges to be followed for their reason not for their authority p Bellarm. de verbo Dei l. 3. c. 10. Aliud est interpretari legem more Doctoris aliud more judicis ad explanationem more Doctoris requiritur cruditio ad explicationem more judicis requiritur auctoritas Doctor enim non proponit sententiam suam ut necessario sequendam fed SOLVM quatenus ratio suadet which destroyes their judgship to be rejected where excogitato commento they cannot helpe q Vasquez Iesâ— l. 2. de Adora disp 3. c. 2. initio Recentiores aliqui pondere hujus Concilij Elibertini quasi oppressi tanquam optimum â—ffugium elegerunt authoritatem Concilij negare quod Provinciale fuerit nec a Pontifice confirmatum c. Et sane si aliâ viâ Concilio satisfieri commodè non possit hoc nobis effugium sufficeret So Maldonate upon the xvi of Matthew r Maldonat in 16 Mat. Portae inferni non praevalebunt Quorum verborum sensus non videtur mihi esse quem omnes praeter Hilarium quos â—â—gisse mâ—mini authores putant Bellarmine upon the vi of Marke and the v. of Iames Å¿ Bellarm. de Extrem Vnct. c. z. Duae Scripturae proseâ—â—tur ab omnibus una ex cap. 6. Marci altera ex cap. 5. Iacobi De prioâ— non omnes conveniunt an cum Apostoli ungebant oleo infirmes curabant illa fuerit unctio Sacramentalis de quâ nunc disputamus an solum fuerit figura quaedam adumbratio hujus Sacramenti Qui tuentur Priorem sententiam ut Tho Waldens loco citate Alphons de castro l. de Haer verbo Extrema Vnctio ca ratione ducuntur quod Beda Theophilaâ—â—us OE cumenius in commentarijs Marci Iacobi videantur dicere eandem esse unctionem cujus fit mentio in utroque loco Sed profectò probabilior est sententia posterior que est Ruardi lansenij Dominici a Soto aliorum Et mihi certe eo etiam nomine graâ—â—â—or quod videam Lutherum Calvinum Chemnitium locis citatis esse in priore opinione existimant enim illi eandem esse unctionem Marci 6. luâ—â—â—i 5. reject the authorities of Fathers and any may tell me wherefore Besides the suspition of this rule is detected that when a wrangling Papist will question the true sence of the Fathers as it is easie to be done even where the minde is convinced how can the fathers be the assured touchstone to try all controversies when the Pope may order all matters as he pleaseth t Gregor 〈◊〉 Anal. Fidel l. 8. c 8. Quod si per sententiam Doctorum aliqua fidei controversia non 〈◊〉 commodè componi posset eo quod de illorum confensu non 〈◊〉 constareâ— â—â— tunc constat authoritas Pontifici But hereby we may see who feare the judgement of Antiquity you or our selves Wee receive them without appeale if true and not forged if cleare and not ambiguous in points that they were bound to beleive and teach from the sacred Scriptures upon paine of damnation You not at all unlesse when you please they will stoop unto and undergoe a Papall explanation Yet thirdly the Iesuite tels us Lirinensis as we see doth not so withdraw the tryall of inveterated Heresies from the consent of holy Fathers that he will have it brought to Scripture onely as our Answerer pretendeth but giveth us to understand that when they cannot sufficiently bee convinced by holy writ then the authoritie of generall Councells wherein by the consent of catholick Priests and Prelates of the Church they have beene condemned should suffice us to avoyde and detect them Reply pag. 37 Lirinensis maketh the sacred Scriptures the onelie absolute rule fit for all times and occasions x Vincen. Lirin adv profanas Novat Cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon â—â—â—ique ad omnia satis superâ—â—â— sufficiat but this directive helpe of Fathers he applieth to sometimes onely y Idem Sed noque semper neque omnes hae reses hoc mo â—â— impugnanâ—◠〈◊〉 But will the Iesuite perswade us that when Lirinensis doth withdraw the tryall of inveterated Heresies from the consent of holy Fathers it is left to other judgement on earth besides the Scriptures Surely the Iesuite did better adhere to the Fathers in his Epistle Dedicatory then in this place for there they were the assured touch stone to try all controversies betwixt us whether wee varie about the true sence of holy writ or about any Article of Christian beleife whatsoever but heere they may be suspended as hee acknowledgeth in Lirinensis his opinion and in some reserved cases neither Scriptures nor Fathers must be the rule but the authoritie of generall Councells c. So that you see their rule is that which best befreinds them The Fathers at one time shall helpe and bee the assured touchstone A generall Councell not auncient I hope but of the Popes calling when
agree with us in any why dâ—â— you beleive one God three 〈◊〉 Christs incarnation crucifixion resurrection and his last comming to Iudgment c. Such as accord therewith in none at all are not heretickes or schismatickes but 〈◊〉 Atheists and Infidels and who 〈◊〉 not but every gâ—pe of the Iesuite is ad oppositum and crosse to himselfe And here wee shall see to what shifts this Iesuite flyes for shelter the question is whether wee agree with the ancient Fathers in points of Religion the Iesuite answeres sometimes in very few an other time in none at all here to justifie this lashing Hyperâ—ole he tells us That howsoever some few points might be assigned in the outward profession whereof you will say you doe not vary from the common faith of Primitive times yet whilst we can shew that in very many points you beleive contrary thereunto and that with all you hold not with the Church Vniversall but have departed from the same we may not yeeld unto you that your inward faith can bee true and sound in any one article whatsoever notwithstanding that from the teeth outward you make professioÌ„ of this your imaginary agreemeÌ„t never somuch g Reply pag. 9â— All which is sliding and beside the point for we speake here of doctrine as in truth of position it doth agree with the ancient Church and not as it respects the act of beleife in the sincere receiving and imbracing of it Suppose we have with us as great a dearth of Saints as you at Rome that Protestants were as bad as 〈◊〉 Popes h Geneb 〈◊〉 in ann Christi 901. Pontificâ—â— circiter â—0 à virtute majorum prorsus defecâ—runt Apotactici Apostaticive potius quà m Apostolici yet notwithstanding this will not make the Apostles Creed to be no ancient faith neither the ancient doctrin which we hold to be hereticall Who doubts that the denyall of one point of the foundation perversly or expresly atleast makes the beleife of all the rest uneffectuall but what will the Iesuite inferre from hence that therefore we have not in the confession of our Church one point of Religion that agreeth with antiquitie We might as well argue that Arius Nestorius a Iesuite had no true and sound inward faith therefore they agreed in no particular doctrines with the ancient Church Or would this consequent found well Many of your Popes have had no true inward faith being such monsters as you have painted them therfore they agreed in no point of faith with the Primitive Church if this conclude well what will become of Papists who are only Catholickes by dependance whose faithes are judged by their adherence to their Head The Iesuit now runs to another shift that of calumnie charging us that we make profession of the ancient faith with an imaginary agreement from the teeth outward i Reply pag. 90 I must confesse we are not so zealous for that doctrin the ancient Church hath taught us the rooting out of your innovations as we ought to be pardon us this but whether you or we embrace the faith of Christ practised and taught in the ancient Church with more sincerity it is not here to be judged but must be left to him that knoweth the secrets of hearts And now we may see how impertinent the Iesuites allegations are Augustin saith that Schismaticks separated from the body of the Church are not in the Church that hereticks schismaticks cannot be profâ—â—â— by the truth they hold with the Church being in their heresie schismâ— that those that keep not communion with the Church are hereticall antichristian according to Prosper k Reply pag. 90 Who denyes this wherin makes it against us If we acknowledge things in controversie that Rome were the Church our selves schismaticks heretiks it were somthing yet nothing to this purpose neither of strength sufficient to prove that we agree not with the ancient Church in any doctrin of faith or point of religion as he should here manifest so that we see his ouâ—facing cannot protect his impudency but that he speakes vainely in charging us that we agree with the primitive Church in very few articles of Religion and just none at all And here Augustine and Prospers wordes are their cut-throats who not only reject coÌ„munion with the Catholick Church but judge that Catholick body to be a schisme and hereticall because it will not joyne in communion with themselves if Augustines and Prospers words may convict a Pope they have force in them sufficient to performe it for though he hold all the doctrine of the primitive church in shew yet fayling in the point of the Church denying the authority thereof and preferring his simple power before the 〈◊〉 authoritie of all the preists of God against the streame of antiquity and the two 〈◊〉 generall Councels of Constance Basill Is it not sufficient to bring him within your capitall letters that his holines and others of like sanctity ARE NOT IN THE CATHOLICKE CHVRCH AT ALL. And thus you see that the Iesuite doth both deceive himselfe others when he would perswade that upon paine of eternall overthrow all mustadhere to the Pope who indeed is taken by them for the ancient Roman Catholick Church And also that the doctrine of the Church of Ireland is sincere and agreeable to the foundation neither by heresie forsaking the doctrine delivered by Christ his Apostles imbraced by the ancieÌ„t Church neither by schisme departing from the body of Christ making their faith uneffectuall But that rule of faith saith the most reverend Primate so much coÌ„mended by Irenaeus Tertullian the rest of the Fathers all the articles of the severall Cteedes that were ever received in the ancient Church as badges of the catholick profession to which we willingly subscribe is with this man almost nothing at all none must now be counted a catholick but he that can conforme his beleife unto the Creed of the new fashion compiled by Pope Pius the 4. some foure fifty yeares agoe l See the moâ—â— reverend the Lord Primate his Answere 〈◊〉 the Iesuitâ— challenge pag. 25. The Iesuit tels us that he hath already made it knowne how far we have strayed from that rule of faith m Reply pag. 91 and we tell him againe that he is deceived in the wanderer and that we have manifested it also and that we doe willinglie subscribe unto all the articles of the severall Creedes that were ever received in the auncient Church although the Iugler †Iesuita est omnis home is jealous we intend nothing lesse then what we say n Reply pag. 91 But it is Iesuitisme to remoove the tongue from the heart equivocating you defend we abhorre it why doe you suspect us but upon a sudden the Iesuite flying from this calumnie without one word to justifie it but his detraction or Iealousie is rapt up with admiration shall
antiquitie rejecting sundry points which the major and sounder part of the auncient Fathers did teach in the Church r Wadding legat de Concep Virg. Mariae Sect. 2. orat 9 §. 6. mâ—â— 31. â—lures sunt graviores ij quos supra retuli contra quos cum alijâ— definitum est circa animaâ—uâ— ante diâ—m Iudicij beatitudâ—â—em Plures gra viores contra quos docet ecclesia Aâ—gelos esse spirituales Plures graviores contra quos â—el quibus dubitantibus dâ— varijs libris Scripturis Canonicis â—oâ—umque editionibus plâ—tâ— sunt statuta ab Ecclesia Multi graves sunt quos quidam citant â—t volunt â—â—nsisse ipsissâ—â—am hanc Virginem actualitâ—r peccâ—sse contra quos tamen actualem ejus inâ—oâ—enâ—iam 〈◊〉 â—â—â—dit Ecclesia Aliaque multa sunt hâ—jusmodi And if his confidence in this kinde of reasoning be so strong why doth he after labour to manifest us for Novelists when Bristâ— acknowledgeth That some there have bene in many ages in some points of the Protestants opinions Å¿ Mot. preâ— et Mot. â—â— And Reinerius hath as before Pag. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Margin hath beene shewed derived our doctrine condemned by you in the Leonistâ— from the Apostolicall times Whereas he saith that the most learned Answerer may much more be ashamed to tearâ—e them prophane and Hereticall when he is not able to finde out as I said before saith the Iesuite that either by authoritie of Church Councell or Fathers they have beene condemned for such Reply p. 109 I have answered hereunto before x Pag 99. and but even now told him out of Tertullian that whatsoever savoureth against the Truth is Heresie y Aboue lit p. but if a point as Bellarmine affirmes may be defined usu ecclesiâ— z Bellarm. de Reliq sanct c. 6. 〈◊〉 determinata â—rat usu totius Ecclesiae why may not the precedent Non-use of the Church condemne their intrusion of those points which the Church in her best times never practised And if no points of Religion can be prophane and Hereticall but such as are condemned by authority of Church Councels and Fathers I desire the Iesuite that he would forbeare to style us either Heretickes or prophane untill he can produce one Article of those agreed upon in the Synode held at London in the yeare 1562. concerning which he and all his Complices have beene Challenged †In the Lord Primate his Prefacâ— to the Reader before the Answere to the Iesuites Challengâ— but have given no Answere thereunto that hath beene condemned by authority of Church Councels or Fathers within the first 500. yeares Now the Iesuite vainely conceiting that he hath freed themselves from the imputation of Novelty proceedeth in this manner Let us as heretofore we have often done retort his tearmes upon himselfe and make him swallow downe his throat the shamefull reproach of Novelisme a Reply p. 10â— Here is a Champion in campis Gurgustidonijs Hee tels strange things monsters of his owne labour yet very few I thinke will beleive him But how will he performe this Why by proving that Martin Luther was the first broacher of the Protestants Religion b Reply ibid The Iesuite I suppose knowes that the Apostles were first called Christians at Antioch though the Reformed Churches are mistyled by them after Luther began to Preach But let them prove the Doctrine as new as the name they have given it otherwise they vainely contend Whereas he is further of opinion that this same cannot be more strongly proved then by the open confession of the said Luther himselfe c Reply p. 109. c. To This I Answere that if Luther should speake as the Iesuite beareth us in hand yet this should sway no more with us then Tetzelius did with Luther when he preached for Indulgences But I know not how this Iesuite is turned out of the way for we finde him snarling at a Latine worke formerly set forth by the most reverend Primate but never answered by any Iesuite wherein he hath pointed out a continuall succession of his Church for many ages before Luther but with such unfortunate event as even his own if we might beleive the Iesuit have judged him ridiculous herein d Reply ibid. And for what reasons I pray you Because first of all saith the Iesuite he tooke upon himselfe a taske impossible to be performed when he went about to search and to finde out his Church in those times wherein by the confâ—ssion of his owne learned Fathers and Brâ—thren it was invisible and not able to be sâ—â—nâ— Reply p. 1â—â— This wil be be tryed in the examination when the Iesuite will entreate one of his Brethren to examine the same and answere it In the meane time he chargeth us falsly to hold the Church absolutely invisible For if the Church be considered as containing all of all ages that beleeved the truth this wee say is not totally visible the greatest part being in Heaven If wee take the Church for those which are sinâ—â—re in their profession and are true members of CHRIST 2. Tim. 2. 19. Then we say that an humane eye cannot behold any member thereof but by probability and conjecture If foâ— the people that professe and the Pastors that teach the faith of CHRIST in severall ages this we say was never totally invisible but was knowne to them that professed the same though to persecutors that contemned the faith 2. Cor. 4. 3. or sought to oppresse it Rev. 12. 14. it might many times be hidd So that all the places brought by the Iesuit may be answered by that which hath bin said for some speak coÌ„paratively in regard of the outward glory of the Roâ—an Synagogue some in regard of precedent times some in regard of the world that persecuted them But doth the Iesuite conjecture that the most reverâ—â—d Primate thought by that booke to declare the Church in her succession as outwardly visible and glorious as Râ—me This was not his inâ—ent but to declare that there were many that professed the truth of CHRIST in all ages though under persecution in the succession of the Babylonish tyrannie And this the Iesuit might have observed if he had read the same for by the place of Ambrose in the Title-page we may conceive that his intention was to shew that though the Church be in condition many times like the Mâ—â—ne at full decreasing increasing yet it euer doth remaine a Church and such a one whose motions may be discerned and described f Ambros Hâ—xâ—â—â—er l. 4. c. â— Ecclesia vide tuâ— sicut Luna dâ—ficere sed noâ— dâ—ficit obâ—â—â—â—ari poâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secoâ—dly saith the Iesuite he bringeth in for Pillarâ— of his successive Church Waldo Wicklife and Husse g Reply p. 110. Here is sufficient to shew that the Iesuite doth not care what he saith nor feareth to censure things that he never saw For it is câ—â—are
produced did neither publish the worke nor promised as he faith to publish it sincerely in its owne colours And now he thinkes that he hath said sufficient to excuse the Censurers of Doway or any other that should endeavour to cleanse away such errours as have beene by the enemies of truth foisted either into that or into any other the like worke r. Reply pag. 4â— But the Censurers of Doway did not thinke these to bee such Errors as have beene foisted into that worke by the enemies of the truth Those errors which they endeavour to cleanse away are such as are found in the true olde Catholicke Writers Å¿ Iâ—d Expurg â—elg pag. 5. Quùm igitur in Catholicis veteribus alijs c. Nay how could it bee that Heretickes as these Antichristianaries call us should cry out that you burne and forbid such antiquity as maketh for you if Bertrams booke at the publishing thereof had beene beâ—â—abered by O Ecolampadius and they onely had cleansed it of these things The Iesuite must then confesse unlesse he haue better to pleade for himselfe then hee hath produced that neither Fathers nor Antiquity shall controule him or his whilst by extenuation excuse inventing devices denying or faigning they can avoyde the same But all his hope is though this be graunted that hee will stop our mouthes by recrimination I will take some paines saith he to try whether we may not finde more easily such like corruption and washing of antiquity amongst his fellowes as he would fasten upon us t Reply pag 46 Nescivit iniquus confusionâ—m * â—eph 3. 5 Whilst a wicked man can speake hee will not blush otherwise the Iesuit would not have instaÌ„ced so vainly as he here hath done For first â—â—o of his instances are nothing to the purpose in regard he cannot produce any Father that either Willet or the Apologists set forth therefore they could not fret wash or corrupt the monuments of the Auncients which they never published Yet Mr Malone cannot be ignorant that privat men in defending their opinions doe many times interpret the Scriptures and Fathers contrary to their Adversaries thoughts against whom they use them so that their Adversaries with passion are many times provoked to take notice of some things which they conceive to bee not clearely carried and thereupon take occasion to challenge them of misalledging corrupting abusing detracting c. This we finde is done amongst our selves as in the Controversies amongst your owne the like is not wanting t Wadding Legat Phil 3. sect 2. orat 9 tract 10. § 6. Quâ velurâ hâc diligentia exhibitâ experiretur vestra Sanctitas tam falsum esse quod dicunt Adversarij quam verum esse quod in citato Tractatâ— ego animadverti ex apparenti violenter congesta illâ congerie Patrum apud Bandellum Bandelloque similes reprobatos â—liosve authores paucissimos esse vel nullos qui expresse ferant sententiam contra Virginem caeterosque vel fermè omnes corruptos mutilatos esse in verbis quae ex eisdem proferunâ—ur Payva ciâ— ibid. Minimè verum est communi veteris Ecclesiae sententiae illam repugnare cum praesertim à multis videam Sanctorum Patrum testimonijs à quibusdam oppugâ—ari quae partiâ— sunt depravata partim nihil ad rem faciunt Onely here is the difference that we bewayle these passionat escapes could wish that men were more tempered with Charity You justifie your owne and tell us that your Church graunteth free liberty to all Catholicke Doctors to expound as well the Scriptures as the Fathers for the upholding of that part which themselves doe thinke to bee most probable u Reply Sect. XI For the objection from Mr Rogers true it is that he was deceived in taking that booke for Augustines when in all probability it was written by some Author of a Schoolemans age for Riming Meditations were not in date in St Augustines time as we may gather from Sixtus Senonsis x Sixtus Senen Bibl sanct l 3. Scholastici cûm desideraren thomines sui saeculi rythmes deditos ad studia sacrarum lirerarum allicere acceptâ hinc occasione excogitârunt ipsi novam Metricae artâ—â— rationem For could that practice if it had beene so auncient have beene contemned exploded by all learned men in the late learned ages as inept superstitious ridiculous y Ibid. Non me later Scholaâ—ocorum PoeÌ„ticem ab omnibus 〈◊〉 contemni prorfus explodi tanquam ineptam superstitioâ—â—m 〈◊〉 dignam I perswade my selfe Antiquity would have had a greater reverence and better esteeme Now in regard this Author was diligent in the reading of Augustine of whom he hath made good use in all probabilitie he gave it the name it beares and yet he mixed many corruptions of his owne therewith Secondly suppose the booke be Augustines yet consider that M. Rogers doth not put forth the same to deceive for the Iesuite acknowledgeth that he declares in his Epistle Dedicatory what is omitted in the booke so that what he hath done is no more in effect but a censure such as Sixtus Senensis hath used and others Thirdly the booke that hee published was fot popular use and therefore he thought it not requisite to suffer those things which he distasted should remaine in the text where conveniently he could not advertise the Reader but placed them in the Epistle Dedicatory where he hath shewed what he conceived of them Wherefore this as it is the last so it is the Iesmites worst defence whereby to excuse themselves hee would make Israell to sinne SECT VII HEre the Iesuite considers How vainely our Answerer accepteth of the Fathers judgement againe a Reply pag. 4â— and in the first place most unwisely playeth the Orator Notwithstanding all that our Answerer hath said hetherto playing as it were fast and loose and by a doubtfull tergiversation keeping off and on with the Fathers at last ashamed of his inconstancie herein he proclaimeth valoroustio his finall resolution in these words That you may see how confident we are in the goodnes of our cause we will not now stand upon our right nor refuse to enter with you into this field but give you leave for this time both to be Challenger and the appointer of your owne weapons b Reply pag. 4â— If the Iesuite had any modestie he would not play the childe so vainely as here he doth for where doth the most reverend the Lord Primate play fast and loose Out of which of his words will he finde his doubtfull tergiversation where is his inconstancy that maketh him ashamed These flashes at the best are but straynes of Vanity The most learned Answerer hath shewed the Iesuite out of Tertullian the meanes to finde out the truth Their very doctrine it selfe being compared with the Apostolicke by the diversitie and contrarietie thereof saith that auncient Father will pronounce that it had for
author neither any Apostle nor any man Apostolicall c See the Answere to the Iesuites Challenge pag. 7. The Iesuite boasteth if the Fathers authoritie will not suffice hee will produce good and certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures d See the Iesuites Challenge in fine The most learned Answerer tels him if he would change his order and give the sacred Scriptures the precedency he should therein doe more right to God the author of them who well deserveth to have audience in the first place and withall ease both himselfe and us of a needelesse labour in seeking any further authoritie to compose our differences And thereupon as St Augustine the Donatists so this most reverend Lord provoketh Papists Let humane writings be removed let Gods voyce sound Produce but one cleare testimonie of the sacred Scripture for the Popes part and it shall suffice alledge what authoritie you list without Scripture and it cannot suffice e Answere to the Iesuites Challenge pag. 10. And in the same page he further expresseth himselfe And this we say not as if we feared that these men were able to produce better proofes out of the writings of the Fathers for the part of the Pope then we can doe for the Catholicke cause when we come to joyne in the particulars they shall finde it farre otherwise but partly to bring the matter unto a shorter tryal partly to give the word of God his due to declare what that rocke is upon which alone we build our faith even the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets * Ephes â— â—0 from which no sleight that they can devise shall ever drawe us Here also in the place alledged he shewes that although by reason of their corrupt dealing with antiquitie it is high time for us to listen unto the advice of Vincentius Lirinenfis and not be so forward to commit the tryall of our controversies to the writings of the Fathers who have had the ill hap to fall unto such hucksters handling Yet that you may see saith the most reverend Primate f In his Answere to the Iesuitea Challenge pag 20. how confident we are in the goodnes of our cause we will not now stand upon our right nor refuse to enter with you into this field but give you leave for this time both to be the Challenger and the appointer of your owne weapons Now let all men judge whether there can bee a more plaine expression without fast and loose without tergiversation without inconstancie when as the most learned Answerer adhereth with the auncient Fathers to the true and absolute rule the sacred Scriptures and yet to satisfie the Iesuite is willing to try our faith according to the rule proposed by the Iesuit himselfe not that our doctrine had no other foundation or testimony besides the Fathers but that the Iesuites vaine pretences of Antiquitie might be detected and made knowne and that the world might see that their Doctrine and Church is not to bee justified by the testimonies of either God or man unlesse it bee that Man of sinne who in this cause would bee both party and Iudge and in matters which hee calleth faith would have his determinations to be received without dispute The Iesuite proceeds Although we have already shewen how little right you have to stand uppon in this case yet such thankes as this your courtesie doth deserve wee willingly returne g Reply pag. 48 Palmarium Facinus What have you shewen but your shame You have declared your distast of Scriptures and if the Fathers would performe the worke you expect from them why doe you muster in their ranke such hired Souldiers Epistles Canons Bookes swolne with forged titles corrupted depraved that they might deceive but that gladiatorio animo although neither God nor good men will plead for you yet you will not leave to plead for your selves Wee have heard you say ere while saith the Iesuite that we have had opportunitie enough of time and place to falsifie the Fathers writings and to teach them the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans and that we have performed it so well by clipping washing cankering c. that thereby their complexions being altered they appeare not to be the same men they were h Reply pag. 48 And where I pray you doth the most learned Answerer unsay it O but if this be true saith the Iesuite how can the goodnes of your cause be proved by them if not true what satisfaction can you make us for your uncharitable slaunders If the Fathers bee corrupted how dare you enter into this Field if not corrupted why did you charge us wrongfullie i Reply ibid. If the most learned Answerer had not detected your frauds you had never beene charged by him with those crimes If your clipping washing cankering had not beene espied or if he had bene so credulous as to have beleived all your impostors that you can stile Fathers of Councells then might you justly have demaunded How could the goodnes of his cause bee proved by them But whenas you dare not trust God in his owne meaning nor the true ancient Fathers or lawfull decrees of Councels without the assistance of your bastard authors to helpe in time of necessity this gives him ground sufficient to justifie our cause that hath no need of such treacheries and to detect yours even they being Iudges whom you appeale unto For in the point to bee handled afterwards whether Peters Primacie did descend to all succeeding Bishops of Rome what testimony bringeth the Iesuit but Arabick canons of the Nicene Councell proved to be according to the title by an experiment from the mountaines of S. Thomas 1605 k Reply pag. â—6 and confirmed by an epistle of Athanasius to Pope Marke l Reply pag. â—7 Here is one Counterfeit brought to justifie another and all for the counterfeite authoritie of the Roman Bishop This your corrupting of antiquitie would have hindred us if the same had not beene detected but this most reverend Lord can discerne betwixt the right hand and the left and point you out those witnesses that you onely dare commit your selves unto The Councell of Nice was corrupted by the Pope for to magnifie his Chaire and sea and to make the African Fathers beleive that he had that by positive law which now they challenge by divine right but did these Fathers trust the corrupters No they sent for the true coppie and then left the pretenders May not this be done in the like manner by the most learned Answerer True it is that Gibeonites with their pretences of antiquitie and outward mustines may sometime deceive a Ioshua yet we doubt not but time and experience may reveale the fraud Iacob was deceived by Laban but it was in the night Day declared who deceived him Whilst the world was no further learned then the Pope infallible what excellent testimonies were there for the Papall triple but when the Sunne the