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 f 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 g Scripturas quoque sanctas non ad legendum tantum sed habendum tribuebat promptissimè nec solum â—iris sed foeâ— nis quas vidisset lectioni deditas in viâ—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 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 h Chrysost homil 2. in â— 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 quâ—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 i In the Preface to the Reader before the new tâ—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 himselâ—e k Chrysostom Homil. 13. in epistol ad Corinth cap. 6. Quoâ—â—â—do autem non absurdum propter pecunias alijs non credere sed ipsas numerare supputare pro rebus autem amplioribus aliorum sententiam sequi simpliciter praesâ—râ—im cum habeamus omnium exactissimam tâ—utinam gnomonem ac regulam divinarum inquam legum asserti nem Ideo obsecro oro omnes vos ut relinquaâ—is quidnam huic vâ—lâ—lli vidâ—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 l Gregor mag Epist ad Leand. in expositione â—ob Est fluvius planus altus in quo agnus ambulet Elephas nâ—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 workâ—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 m Chrysostom conc 3. de Lazaro Propterea siquidem spiritus gratia dispensavit illa tempetavitque quo publicani piscatores tabernaculorum opifices pastores Apostoli idiotae illiterati per hos libros â—aâ—vi fierent nequisâ—diotarum ad hanc difficultatis confugere possit excusationem ut omnibus facilia conspectu 〈◊〉 quae dicuntur ut opiâ—ex famulus vidua mulier et omnium hominum indâ—ctâ—ssimus ex aud ta lectione aliquid lucri utilitatisque reportaret And lastly to discover 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 n 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 o 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 p 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 â—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 q Sander vis Monarch haer 191 Haeresin esse si quis dicit scripturas necessaâ—â—ò debeâ—e in vulgares linguas converti and Peresius accounteth it the Divels invention to permit the reading of the Bible to all sorts of people r Peresius de tra par 2 asser 3. Credo â—quidem institutum hoc sub pictatis quâdam umbrâ à Diabolo esse inventum And howsoever the Iesuite will not heere speake his minde yet his thoughts burst from him afterwards in this section for hee
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
the Fathers fayle But for the Scriptures their confidence hath not beene so great therein as to make them alone a rule for the least article of their new faith And this Iesuite that even now would perswade others to beleive that we adhere to the Scriptures onely because we would not be subject to the sentence of any judge doth here detect himselfe what judge he will allow The Scriptures must be locked up Bibling is Babling and generall Councells must do the worke well why then doe they not confirme Constance and Basill If they dare not submit to them why do they vainly pretend their authority But it may be they are not confirmed by the Pope So that you may see by the Iesuit's wavering his aime is onely to have that Exlex who ought at this time principallie to be corrected for his heresies to be both the rule and the Iudge But we are as free saith the Iesuite from the imputation of Heresie as our Adversaries are farre from finding out any such generall Councell in which wee have beene condemned z Reply pag. 17 Have you no better Apologies then this to exempt you out of the Catalogue of Hereticks The Pelagians had as good and pleaded the same against S. Augustine who answered them with scorne Aut vero congregatione Synodi opus erat ut apertu pernicies damnaretur quasi nulla haeresis aliquando nisi Synodi congregatione damnata sit a Aug. con â— Epist Pelag 4 4 c. 12. What is it needfull to assemble a Synode that a manifest corruption should be condemned as if no Heresie hath at any time beene condemned without the calling of a Synode And they are as surely branded for Novelists and Sectaries saith this Loyolist as their opinions have beene certainely condemned by many the like generall Councells b Reply pag. 37 I wonder where the Iesuite will find them nay what have they besides the names of generall Councells that may honour the assembly of their so many Bishops Some of these you dare not confirme why then should they have generall faith and esteeme amongst us If you dare not subscribe to your Councels for what reason should they have power to condemne us Some against Faith given have martyred those which you acknowledge ours Your Trent Synode hath anathematized the Catholick Church Doctrine And I am perswaded if that faction had as much power as they give to their Head the Church Catholicke should not bee long from martyrdome also Besides whose opinions have Generall Councels condemned ours Surely then our pretended Heresies are ancienter then Luther he is not the first that taught our doctrine But where are your Councels Mr Malone that condemne the holy Scriptures the foure first Generall Councels the three Creeds These are ours to them wee subscribe If these are Noveltiâ—s we are Novelists if this be doctrine of Sectâ—ries the Hereticke hath justly stiled us But if the Iesuite cannot bring Councels that have condemned God in his Word the Primitive Church in her Decrees and the generall Confessions of Faith I hope hee will upon better thoughts except Noveltie from our Faith Schisme from our Persons Neither let the Iesuite runne about as in other-places he hath done to coyne us an other Faith when as he himselfe revileth us for adhering to the Scriptures c Reply Sect. â— when as our Lawes justifie our embracing the foure first Generall Councels and our Liturgie doth enclose the Creedes The Iesuite continueth his vaine discourse And as saith he they never yet assembled any Generall Councell of Catholick Preists and Prelates of that Church which is dispersed through many Nations neither by reason of their fatall discord amongst themselves will ever beâ— able to assemble the same so wee may for ever live secure d Reply pag. â—7 Every Iesuite is not a Prophet We may have a Coâ—â—â—â—ll such a one where your Papa shall not be Presidâ—nt â—or your Cloâ—ke-bagge carry the Spirit that shall direct iâ— when the Church of Rome it selfe shall be frâ—â—â— from that Factioâ— which now doth tyrannize over it and the true Bishops thereof shall enjoy that authoritie which most truely is their owne by divine institution and Fryars and Iesuites may turâ—e Turkes for any station that they shall have in the Hierarchiâ— of the Church of God e Censura â—â—â—positionum ad sacram Facultatem Theoâ—â—giae Parisiâ—â— sem allat c. Priâ—â—a Propositio Hierarchia Ecclesiastica constat ex Pontifice Cardinalibus Archiepiscopis Episcopis Regularibus Câ—â—sura In istâ primâ— proposâ—tiâ—â—◠〈◊〉 ratio memâ—â—â—rum Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae seu sacri Principatâ—â— divinâ ordinatione instituti est manca redundaâ—â— atque inducens in errorem Finally saith the Iesuite the reason of this his â—ergivâ—rsaâ—ion from the Fathers authority is vaine and idle when hee saith that we have coyned clipped and washed their monuments And why I pray you For though saith he he endeavour to proove this by severall instances yet not one doth he produce that will serve his turne and therefore tells the most learned Answerer that he is bound to bring forth â—â—und prooâ—â— of this his accusation under paine of incuâ—ring the brand of forgerie and spitefull calumnie himselfe f Reply pag. 38 We may perceive the Iesuite is unwilling to enter into dispute concerning these particulars and therefore â—â—sts them off as wanting proofe Yet indeed the matter is so notorious in many of the instances that your owne have espied the counterfeits and branded them with their Censures But the Iesuite might have forsaken his selfe flatterie and have taken notice that there is more proofe against the particulars then hee had answered unto For is it possible that there should bee little respect given to the Church of Rome before the Councell of Nice as their Cardinall and after-Pope urged by the most reverend the Lord Primate affirmeth when wee finde the first Bishops of that Church writing such controuling Epistles Councels before that of Nice giving such unlimited power and the Romane Emperour qualifying with such unmeasurable Principalitie their Romane Bishop But because the Iesuite desires a further manifestation of these Counterfeitâ— I will take them as they are layde downe in order by the most reverend the Lord Primate beginning with your Craftie Merchant Isidorus Mereator that is justly charged with counterfeiting Decretall Epistles c. Our Iesuite hath a minde to justifie these brattâ— and to make Isidorus his merchandize to passe for good wares yet Bellarmine confesseth that they are infected with Errour script into them g Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 14. Aliquos errores in eas irrepsisse non negaverim nec indubitatas esse affirmaâ—e audeam â— Cusanus de Concord cath l. 3. c. 2. Sunt meo judicio illa de Constantino apocrypha sicut fortassis etiam quaedam alia longa magna scripta Sanctiâ— Clementi Anacleto Papâ— attributa In quibus volentes Romanam
it be yet it being cleare that it is the Popes will that that course of interpreting shall hold their mancipiall vow oath makes them perjured that violate the same The Iesuite esteemes these but â—hifts therfore he will justifie his Fathers an other way to that end proceedeth in this maner But let us put the ease that Maldonate did â—â—kâ— that â—ath if you doe without a dispensation he must be perjured yet shall not our Answerer be able ever to shew that either he or any other Iesuite did once violat the same i Reply pag. 9â— I feare you wil be deceived for if your excuse faile Maldonate must get a learneder advocate or plead guilty and it seemes you are to seek when you flye from the words of the oath seeke reliefe from the extension of the intent thereof For I suppose he is not so ignorant saith the Iesuite but that he knoweth how the intent of that oath extends it selfe no further then to bind the taken never to interpret the word of God in matters of faith contrary to the consent of ancient Fathers k Reply pag. 9â— He should be as blind as Mr Malone if he should take his shifts for a fit glosse for this text who shal measure the exteÌ„t of this oath but they that first occasioned it the councell of Trent and wil their decree patronize his conceipt It will tell you that ad câ—â—rcenda petulantia ingonia to restrain petulans wits l Conc. Trid. sess 4. Decret 3 the Synode doth decree that Doctors shal not interpret the Scriptures contra eum sensum quem tenuit tonet sancta mater ecclesia aut contra unanimem consensum patrum against that sense which the holy mother Church hath doth hold or against the unanimous consent of Fathers m Ibid. But is this all if it were the Iesuite would think himselfe secure but we shal find that in the first place it inhibites â—t nemo prudentiae innxus sacram scripturaÌ„ ad suos sâ—nsus contorqueat that no man leaâ—ing to his own wisdome doe wrest the Scriptures to his own sense Ibid. which Maldonat doth confesse he hath don non nego me hujus interpretationis authoreÌ„ nemineÌ„ habere I do not deny saith he that I have no author of this interpretation Besides the councel condeÌ„nes interpretations contrary to the unanimous consent of fathers but the Iesuit will not have the oath bind so it be not contradictory in that point which is expounded whether the councell wants faith or the Iesuit let the Iesuit resolve The words of the oath excludes the Iesuits gloss are stricter then the Councels decree The councell condemnes interpretations that are private from a mans owne wisedome or 〈◊〉 against the Consent of Fathers o Ibid. though it be with many assistants but the oath inhibites the receiving and interpreting of the Scriptures not onely with glosses that are contra against the Fathers this were too little but with such that are not juxta unanimem consensum according to the uniforme consent of Fathers p Bulla Pij 4. Nec eam unquam nisi juxta c. So that the place of Augustine is produced to small purpose it neither shadowing nor salving the Iesuites credite for the question is not whether a Divine free and at libertie may use S. Augustines practise in the interpretation of Scripture but whether a Iesuite tyed to the oath nec eam unquam never to interpret nisi juxta unanimum consensum Patrum but according to the uniforme consent of Fathers â—ay without breach of faith enjoy this libertie this is the question But their Iesuite Pererius hath interpreted quite contrary to the consent of Fathers and this Iesuite onely affords him a good word but sweats not at all for his releife or defence So that all may see the most judicious Answerer is freed from malice slander ignorance and of bold and desperate forehead which the blistered tongue of the Iesuite would have cast upon him He wrongeth me in like sort q Reply pag. 92 saith the Iesuite If his learned pen hath done you wrong it hath beene by detecting your frauds as before the perjuries of your Order For wherein is the wrong but in shewing forth the wisedome of your insinuations For the truth is he indeavoureth not to make his Reader beleive that you should be so unreasonable as to say that a man might not dissent from the auncient Doctors so much as in an exposition of a text of Scripture without making himselfe more learned more pious and more holy then they were r See the Reply pag. 92. but shewes that you have done it enforcing the same from your reason of the Fathers learning pietie and holynes which lookes upon all points with like authoritie And suppose that according to your owne principles an interpreter should dissent from the Doctors in exposition of one text the most remoâ—est from the foundations of Faith as Tâ—bies dogge his wagging of his tayle I hope you cannot deny but by that Act if they bee not more pious and holy then the Fathers from whom they vary yet they make themselves more learned in that particular if your reason be true or sound For if the learning pietie and holinesse of the Fathers be an argument of truth in deducing points of doctrine from the Scripture they that vary from them in doctrine drawne from thence must make themselves more learned 〈◊〉 and holy then they were But upon revisall what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to confesse he doth labour to excuse and to this intent he refines his character and tels us a long story of his thoughts that he who in such points of faith as those be which I layde downe in my demaund would prefette his owne private interpretation of Scripture before the generall and uniforme agreement of holy Fathers therein could not be excused from the guilt of such like arrogancie Å¿ Reply pag. 93 Is it but arrogancie to deny the Fathers in a point of faith such as those be which you have layde downe It seemes your faith is of your owne making otherwise it would be heresie especially being perversâ—y done against so great a light and conjoyned testimonie but why more in these points that are named by you and such like then in others learning pietie and holinesse direct in every point of religiou as well as in these and therefore if it conclude arrogancie to those that oppose in these you must shew us a reason why it doth not in others also And so farre as I can see the Iesuite hath no reason against the currant of their whole Church to make learning pietie and religion causes of true interpretation of Scripture no not in points of faith when by their owne confession these three Graces were suspended from guyding the Romane faith for whole ages together t Stapl. Relect. cont 1. q. 5. A. 3. Vixullum peccatum solâ Haeresi
excepta cogitari potest quo illa sedes turpiter ma culata non fuerit maxime ab an no â—00 and therefore it were better to acknowledge the miracle with Bellarmine Bellarm. in Chronolog an 970. Vide seculum infelix in quo nulli Scriptores illustres nulla Concilia Pontifices parum solliciti de republâ— Sed divina providentia fecit ut nullae surgerent haereses novae from thence perswade obedience then from leâ—â—ning piâ—tiâ— or holinesse at all which you neither acknowledg requisite †Papiâ—ius Massonius in vita Pauli 3. In Pontificibus nemo hodiè sanctitatem requirit optimi putantur si vel leviter mali sint vel minùs boni quam â—aeteri mortales esse solent or assistant to the guider of your Catholicke faith And thus you see distinctions of points of faith left indifferent determined cannot preserve the Iesuite from his unsound and unreasonable supposition the reason being alike for both So that there needs no consideration of the points nor satisfaction to the Persons mentioned the mistake presupposed by the Iesuite being a just charge But he proceeds and tels us that through the like mistake the Answerer chargeth him with boldnes when he offered to produce good and certaine grâ—â—nds out of the sacred Scriptures in confirmation of such points of Religion as he layde downe y Reply pag. 93 M. Malone this is bouldnes beleive it and such which the best of your owne notwithstanding your flourishes will not adventure to defend therefore it is justly so stiled by the most reverend Primate It is apparant that your confidence herein had no other prop at first but ignorance to conceipt your ability howsoever your shame hath now attracted impudency for your further assistance if your answere to this be not meere blockish you shall tryumph everlastingly In your challenge your promise for the confirmation of all the therein mentioned points of your religion to produce good and certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures if the Fathers authority will not suffice And further you desire any Protestant to alleage any one text out of the said Scripture which condemneth any of the above written points z See the Iesuites challenge This rash escape begets in the most learned Answerer a just derision of your boldnes ignorance who against the coÌ„sent of your learned councell will attempt to prove confession prayers to Saints image worship Limbus patrum Purgatory c. by good certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures whenas some of those points are coÌ„fessed neither expresse nor involutè to be coÌ„tained therein a â—annes 2. 2 q 1 â— 10 all of them referred to the tradition of the universall Church b Gloss in Gratian de Poeniâ—en d 5 c. 1. in poenitentia Canus loâ— thâ—olâ— â— c 4 Coster in compend orthodoâ—ae fidei Demonstr propos 5 c. 2 p. 162. Is not here cause sufficient to deride your boldnes hath not your evasive answer confessed your ignorance who sees not an amazed Iesuite He dares not deny the truth that this doctrine is not delivered in Scripture neither hath he the modesty to confesse his lapse and therefore frames such an answere that justly makes him ridiculous unto all When by by saith he we shal come to dispute of Traditions we will prove even by good grounds of Scripture that such divine traditioÌ„s are no lesse to be beleived of us then are those points of faith which be expresly mentioned in holy Writ and then it will appeare how it was a confidence of the truth which did beget this boldnes in me and nothing else but partialitiâ— which begot in him that sinister suspicion c Reply pag. 93 Is not here wisedome merus Logicus is a better rational then we finde here He will prove by Scriptures traditionâ— are no lesse to be beleived then points of faith expressed in holy Writ will it follow therefore confession image-worship c. may be proved by good certain grounds out of sacred scriptures Where were your Canonists schoolemen late Iesuites their eyes or wits that they could neither see nor find out this but rather reckoned these points amongst traditions not laid downe in Scripture d See before lit â— They saw what you pretended your Arguments are no newes they used them to the same purpose with as much wilynes as you either have or can doe yet they could never prove those points that are acknowledged to be received from tradition to have good certain grounds out of the sacred scriptures Besides the points specified either have good certain grouÌ„ds out of scriptures or they have none If they have none how can the Iesuit produce them if they have any why doth your church perswade their beleif froÌ„ the word not written the tradition of the universall Church Neither will this evasion deceive a purblind sight for if he prove traditions of as necessary beleif as points expressed in scriptures what gaines hath he for he doth it in grosse this proves there are traditioÌ„s but not confâ—rmes any of the points by good grouÌ„ds out of sacred scriptures or in particular that confession Prayers â—o Saints Image-Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Purgatâ—riâ— c. are divine traditions And thâ—n the Iesuitâ— hath not performed what he promised in handling â—raditions no not in his endeavours neither will he ever doe if â—is owne guesse aright The Iesuite tels us he will forbear to urge any more â—hâ—â— other injurie whereby he charged us with forging câ—yning and clipping the â—â—nâ—ments of antiquity e Reply pag. 93 And doe you not thinke it had bene better his forbearance had begun before But let us examine this injury and it will not be any great trouble to make the Iesuite impudent or a confessionary of such frauds And first to begin with the first of forging and coyning not to name all this were to much but some of most kindes First Dâ—â—ation as Constantiues for his temporall Patrimonie f See before â— â—05 â—06 Secondly Councels as Conciliuâ— Siâ—â—â—â—â—an 〈◊〉 suâ— Sylvestrâ— g See before p 203. 204. 20â— Thirdly Canons as those of Nice pretended to the Bishops of Africke and the Arabian to the whole world h See before p. â—73 Epistles as your Deâ—â—â—â—â—ls never heard of in antiquitie but invented by your Merchant when Rome had forgot to speake in her auncient â—legancy i See before p 202 Besides false titles have beene given to Bookes but by whom for whose benefit you can judge If this be not forging and â—â—yâ—ing charge â—s with falshood But if I should at large proseqâ—â—te this it would trouble patience it selfe to attend Besides is it not forging and câ—yning to cite from a father that which he never spâ—keâ— as your Aquinas hath doâ—e from S. Cyrillâ— Thesaurus in the point of Supremacy an evidence applauded beyond all other For saith Canus all other anthors never
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 t 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 Deâ— vobisâ—â—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 quà m 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 pâ—â—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 u 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 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 generality Wadding sect 2 Nec coÌ„sultum tunc putavit vltimâ sententiâ rem definire aut pro pia opinione definitionis ferre iudicium quando adhuc 〈◊〉 egregios habuit affirmative faâ—tores noluit immodicè vel amplius Adversarios exulcerare c. of the factious parasites y 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 z 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 aâ—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 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.
at the right hand of his Father and there maketh intercession for us executing alone the office of a true and lawfull Preist and Mediator and from thence hee hath a care of his people and governeth his Church adorning and enriching her with many blessings Wee beleive that without Faith no man can bee saved but that wee call Faith which in CHRIST IESVS justifieth which the life and death of our Lord IESVS CHRIST procured the Gospell published and without which no man can please God Wee beleive that the Church which is called Catholicke containeth all true beleivers in Christ which being departed are in their Countrey in heaven or living on earth are yet travayling in the way the Head of which Church because a mortall man by no meanes can be Iesus Christ is the Head alone and he holdeth the stâ—rne of the Government of the Church in his owne 〈◊〉 but because on earth there bee particular Visible Churches and in order every one of them hath one cheife which cheife is not properly to bee called a Head of that particular Church but improperly because hee is the principall Member thereof Wee beleive that the Members of the Catholicke Church bee the Saints chosen vnto eternall life from the number and fellowshippe of whom Hypocrites are excluded though in particular visible Churches Tares may bee found amongst the Wheate Wee beleive that the Church on earth is sanctified and instructed by the Holy Ghost for hee is the true Comforter whom Christ sendeth from the Father to teach the truth and to expell darkenesse from the vnderstanding of the Faithfull For it is very certaine that the Church of God may erre taking falshood for truth from which errour the light and doctrine of the holy Spirit alone freeth us not of mortall man although by Mediation of the labours of the Churches Ministers this may bee done Wee beleive that a man is justified by Faith and not by workes but when wee say by Faith wee vnderstand the correlative or object of Faith which is the righteousnesse of Christ which Faith apprehends and applyeth unto us for our Salvation This may very well bee and yet without any prejudice to good workes for Truth it selfe teacheth us that workes must not bee neglected that they bee necessary meanes and testimonies of our Faith for confirmation of our calling but for workes to bee sufficient for our salvation and to make a man so to appeare before the Tribunall of Christ that of condignity or merit they conferre salvation humane frailty witnesseth to bee false but the righteousnesse of Christ being applyed to the penitent doth onely justifie and save the faithfull Wee beleive that free will is dead in the vnregenerate because they can doe no good thing and whatsoever they doe is sinne but in the regenerate by the grace of the Holy Spirit the will is excited and indeed worketh but not without the asistance of grace to effect that therefore which is good grace goeth before the will which will in the regenerate is wounded as hee by the theeues that came from Hierusalem so that of himselfe without the helpe of grace hee hath no power to doe any thing Wee beleive that there bee Evangelicall Sacraments in the Church which the Lord hath instituted in the Gospell and they be two wee have no larger number of Sacraments because the Ordayner thereof delivered no more Furthermore wee beleive that they consist of the Word and the Element that they bee seales of the promises of GOD and wee doubt not but doe conferre grace But that the Sacrament bee entire and whole it is requisite that an earthly substance and an externall action doe concurre with the vse of that element ordained by Christ our Lord and joyned with a true faith because the defect of faith doth prejudice the integritie of the Sacraments We beleive that Baptisme is a Sacrament instituted by the LORD which vnlesse a man hath receaued he hath not communion with Christ from whose death buriall and glorious Resurrection the whole vertue and efficacy of Baptisme doth proceed therefore in the same forme wherein our LORD hath commaunded in the Gospell wee are certaine that to those who bee Baptized both Originall and Actuall sinnes are pardoned so that whosoever haue beene washed In the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost are regenerate cleansed and justified But concerning the repetition of it wee haue no commaund to bee rebaptized therefore wee must absteine from this inconuenience Wee beleive that the other Sacrament was ordained of the LORD which wee call the Eucharist For in the Night wherein hee was betrayed taking bread and blessing it hee said to his Apostles Take yee cate this is my body and when hee had taken the Cuppe hee gaue thankes and said Drinke yee all of this this is my blood which was shed for many doe this in remembrance of mee And Paul addeth for as often as yee shall eate of this bread and drinke of this Cuppe yee doe shew the LORDS death this is the pure and lawfull institution of this wonderfull Sacrament in administration whereof wee confesse and professe a true and Reall presence of CHRIST our LORD but yet such a one as Faith offereth to vs not such as deuised transubstantiation teacheth For wee beleive the faithfull doe eate the body of CHRIST in the Supper of the Lord not by breaking it with the teeth of the body but by perceiuing it with the sence and feeling of the Soule sith the body of CHRIST is not that which is Visible in the Sacrament but that which Faith spiritually apprehendeth and offereth to vs from whence it is true that if wee beleive wee doe eate and partake if wee doe not beleive wee are destitute of all the fruite of it Wee beleive consequently that to drinke the Cuppe in the Sacrament is to bee partaker of the true blood of our Lord IESUS CHRIST in the same manner as wee affirmed of the body for as the Author of it commanded concerning his body so he did concerning his blood which commaundement ought neither to bee dismembred nor maymed according to the fancy of mans arbitrement yea rather the institution ought to bee kept as it was deliuered to vs when therefore wee have beene partakers of the body and blood of CHRIST worthily and haue communicated entirely wee acknowledge our selues to bee reconciled united to our Head of the same body with certaine hope to bee coheires in the Kingdome to come Wee beleive that the soules of the dead are either in blessâ—dnesse or in damnation according as every one hath done for assoone as they remoue out of the body they passe either to Christ or into hell for as a man is found at his death so he is judged and after this life there is neither power nor opportunity to repent in this life there is a time of Grace they therefore who be iustified heere shall suffer no punishment hereafter but they
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 r 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 â—entire Dionysius Carthusianus ob quasdam visiones quas ipse refert libro de 4. novissimis ar 47. and yet this crosseth the opinion of their Divines Å¿ 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 t Histor de tribus Energumenis supra citat pag. 935. Oraculum potest aâ—cipi instrumentaliter ut eraculum idem sit quod oâ— 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 and zealous is Verine the Divell reported to be n Ibid. pag. 797 Constat Daemonem Verinum multas actiones fecisse in quibus Christo ministravit sanctos laudavit beatam Virginem multa disseruit de vitijs virâ—utibus de vitâ aeternâ inferno concilijs Evangelicis quae benè vivero docent In quibus duo admirâ—tione dig na concurrebant Primò quod sermo ipsius erat ardeâ—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 â—epida inflammabant Vnde qui audiebant eum ubertini flebant obliviscebantur vitae praeâ—eritae alij â—undebâ—â—â— pectora alij extra se rapti altâ voâ—â— clâ—mabant â—iserere Domine Domine â—iserere alij vitam in melius mutaverunt alij saeculo reâ—â—â—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 Hoâ—st x 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 y Ibid. pag. 101 et 102. Vâ—us daemonum dixit non est qui possit hâ—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 mâ—la quâ— commitâ—â—t Thirdly their practise instructeth to sweare by the venerable Sacrament z Ibid. pag. 104. Daemon jurabat sâ—lenniter per venerabile Sacramentum quòd sic res se haberet postea juravâ—t juramentum so â—nne per venerabile â—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 atque terrae a Ibid. pag. 71. Be zebub et Leviathan dixeruat principi moderno et Lodoâ—co quod nominarent cum hoc nomine Tu es Dius coeli atque terrâ— 2. The two beasts Apoc. 13. and 17. are not the same but the first Lucifer the second Antichrist b Ibid. pag. 94 De duabus bestijs Apocalypsâ—oslocuta est in hunc modum Audiviâ— Diabâ—lo quod duarum bestiarum quae venire habent sub finem mundi alter est Lucifâ—â— alter Antichristuâ— In the generation of Antichrist see how Bellarmine and the Divell agree Antichrist is borne of the Divell c Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. 3. cap. 12. Non esset tamen error si quis diceret Antichristum nasciturum ex Diabolo muâ—ere c. Histor de tribus Energum pag. â—â— Nunc natus est non ex coiâ—â— viri sed per operationem diaboli His mother a Iew d 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 e Bellarm ibid. Quòd Antichristus sit futurus Iudaeus circumcisus certum est deducitur primùm ex dictis Nam Iudâ—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 f Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. â— cap. 13. Vera sententia est Antichristi sedem fore Hierusalem non Romam Histor de â—â—bus Energ pag. 59. Non habitabit Romae mater â—jus nutrit eum Hee shall not receive Baptisme in the Church but bee circumcised g Historia de tribus Energum pag. 59. Non in Ecclesia nomen impositum est eiâ— neque in Ecclesia baptismum accepit Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. 3. cap. 12. Antichristus sit futurus Iudaeus circumcifus He shal be Monarch of the whole world h Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. 3. cap. â—â— dicunt Antichristum omniâ—m Princiâ—â—◠〈◊〉 Histor de tribus energum pag. â—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
haven Thirdly if the most learned Answerer said no more then S. Augustine Let humane writings bâ— removed let Gods voyce sound I would know of the Iesuite why hee might not urge antiquity as well as that Father did and to as good effect But how vaine he is hâ—reâ—in his owne Masters and Grandsirs doe sufficiently declare saith the Iesuite whilst they themselves confesse that the holy Fathers doe altogether stand for us and therefore with one consent they doe utterly disclaime from their opinions and doctrine as heere in part shall breifely be made knowne to the end that our dogg Bagg even by the Câ—rrs of his owne towâ—e may be made cry and runne away after being shaken in the myre before his owne doore Reply p. 107. Vocis horrendae fragâ—r per ora missus terno Will no tone affect the Iesuite but that of open-mouthed Cerberus Will no march please him that is not under Rabsâ—ekaâ—'s colours Doth he thinke the day is wonne if hee can revile the hoast of the living GOD Beleive it this was Goliaâ—s heresie though it were never condemned by Papists who most constantly practise in this kinde But pardon me M. Malone that I barke not for company but passe by your furies with contempt and silence Yet it may be observed how the Printer amending the coppie and for Bragg impressing Bagg is so distasted by the Iesuite that though hee let passe many of his owne oâ— the Printers errours yet this is put amongst his Erraâ—â— as indignely taking it that the Dogg-letter should forsake his discourse or the Dâ—gg-starre bee left out of his Kalender But leaving this two things we finde here insisted upon by the Iesuit first that the most learned Answerer his owne Masters and Grandsyrs as he styles them doe confesse that the holy Fathers altogether stand for them Secondly that we utterly disclaime from their opinions and doctrine Both which are so notorious untruthes that no modest man would ever affirme it For the place in Cartwright is his only evidence to prove the first and I suppose he never saw iâ— for he hath cited him falsly the booke being The defence of the Answere to the Admonition against the Reply of T. C. where we find that M. Cartwright favoured not S. Augustines rule but this was so far from being approved by the confession of the Church of England and other learned Protestants that the rule by the Iesuites own confession is avâ—â—ched by the most reverend Father Archbishop Whiâ—gâ—ift to have beene of credit with the writers of his time namely with M. Zuingliâ—â— M. Calvin and M. Gâ—alter yea as the Iesuite Å¿ Reply pag â— liâ— â— iâ— mâ—rgiâ— tels us he was perswaded that no learned man dissented from them And that the Rule was true good and so farre from establishing any pâ—ice of Popery that it quite overthroweth the same it was then published by that most reverend Father In that defence of the Answere pag. 10â— and so received of all other for any thing the Iesuite hath said Now the rest of his particular witnesses tend nothing at all to his advantage for either they point out only particular Fathers which will not conclude with the Iesuite that the holy FATHERS doe ALTOGETHER stand for them or els particular points as Freewill Mâ—rite Invocation of Saints Limbus Patrum concerning which the Papists are no more beholding to them then we our selves For in the points of Merite and Fâ—â—ewill Maldonate telleth us that the Prodigall by loosing his substance is interpreted to loose his freewill by Many Fathers u Maldonat les com in â—â—nâ— 15. ver 13. Solent plâ—â—ique substantiam quam prâ—â—igâ—s dâ—citur pâ—râ—â—disse Luc. 15 Liberum arbitriâ—m â— interpretaâ—i Sic August â—â—da Euthym. Bernard And Augustine gave lesse to the will then the Schoolemen did in the judgment of Erasâ—us x Erasmus epist dedicat ante libros Hilarij Divus Augustinu adversuâ— Pelagium diâ—iâ—ans minus tribâ—it libeâ—o hominis arbitrio quam nunâ—â—â—ibueâ—â—dum putant qui nuâ—c in scholâ—s regnant scâ—olastiâ—is possem â—ujus generis exemplâ— multa commâ—â—oâ—are As for Merite the Fathers are also charged with errour by our Adversaries y Peâ—eâ— Ies comm in Rom. â— disâ— â—â— num 106. disp 23. num 111. Grâ—ci Patres neâ— panci Laâ—inorum Doctorum arbitraâ—â— sunt Praedestinatioâ—â— causam fuisse praevisa hominum opera â—uâ— fidem non meâ—â—â— Dei gratiam Sed hoc Scripturae adversatur Further whosoever will reade the Answer to the Iesuites Challenge shall see how little advantage they get by the Fathers words concerning some of those points although in some sense they are not received by us Yet I could wish the Iesuite to consider how grosly he hath abused the most learned and reverend Bishop Bilson by urging his objection for his solution when as if he will but see the Author himselfe he shall find that he concludeth no such thing For the second that we utterly disclaime from the Fathers opinions and doctrine I have shewed before with what truth this is affirmed yet I will lay downe his argument whereby he seemeth to inforce this that by the repetition of it all may take notice of the Iesuites vanity For is there any consequence in this that because Cartwright Luther c. have excepted against the Fathers and it may be with tearmes not altogether so decent therefore all the reformed Churches doe utterly disclaime froâ— their opinions and doctrine This is so weake that it falls of it selfe But if better Arguments then this will serve wee have manifested that the Fathers have forsaken their corruptions though they seeme to follow after with a corrupt pursuit by clipping and cankering forging and fretting when they could not perswade them otherwise to pleade their cause z See before sec â— And if to argue after the Iesuites manner wil be received by himself we can tell him that Ludovicus Vives being wel acquainted how the Fathers were accounted of in the Roman Church spared not to say that those which served not to their purpose were of no better esteeme then a company of lewd women in a weavers shop or the baths y Lud. Vives coâ— in Aug. de civit Dâ—â— l. 20. c. 26. Itaque illa demùm â—is videntur â—dicta coÌ„cilia quae in rem sâ—aâ— faciunt reliqua non pluris a stiâ—anda quaÌ„ conventum muliâ—rcularum in textrina vel thermis And let the Iesuit resolve whether we may coÌ„clude that they have utterly disclaimed from the doctrin of the Fathers because Sixtus Senensis hath mentioned eleven of those Auncients that held prescience of Merites were therefore censured by him for condemned Pelagians a Sixtus Senâ—â—s Bibliotâ— sanâ—â— l. 6. Annot. 251. Haec igitur sunt Patrum dictâ— scil Chrysostom Origeâ— Am â— brâ—s Hiâ—roniâ— Augustin Theâ—dâ—â—â—t Sâ—dâ—l Thâ—â—phylact Oâ—â—â—mâ—n Thâ—â—dul c. ex quibus colligâ— videtur Praescientiam meâ—itorum esse causam divinae
that the most reverend Primate in that Historicall explanation did not discend to the ages of Wickliâ—â— or Husse and therefore could not bring them in for Pâ—lâ—ars of his successive Church The Iesuite further telleth us that they are confessed to be damned herâ—ticks h Reply â— 11â— but bringeth not any testimony for the same He that speaketh most bittâ—rly is O sâ—aâ—der against the Waldenses who taxeth their opinions as absurd c. But I hope wee are not tyed to belâ—ive him where it is apparant hee was altogether deceived That the most learned and holy Bishop Iâ—well did cast off the Waldenses as none of ours may bee imputed to this that hee bâ—held them as their persecutors painted them out with spots of Maâ—ichâ—isme and other hereticall errours But if the Iesuite will read that discourse which hee cavils at hee shall see that the heresies imputed to thâ—m were bred in the malicious minds of Papists who did therefore fâ—igâ—â— these opinions to be theirs because they reproached their dissolute lives and no otherwise i Girard Histor Franc. lib. 10. Quam vis pravis iâ—buti â—â—erint opinionibus non hoc taâ—en tantum Papae magnorum Principum odium in â—os concitabat quantum libertas orationis quâ dicâ—oâ—um Principum atque Ecclesiasticorum vitia morâ—s dissolâ—tos culpare ipsiusque Papae vitam actionâ—â— reprehendere consâ—everunt Haec praecipua res fuit quae universorum â—is conâ—â—avit odium quaeque â—ffecit ut plures â—efariâ— affingerentur â—is opiniones à quibâ—◠〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—ant alâ—â—â—â— Thirdly saith the Iesuite both Luther himselfâ— and all his followers doe make him the first Author of Protestanâ—y k Reply pag 110. What Luther the first that ever taught the doctrine professed by Protestants Those that are better read in story then our Iesuite confesse otherwise for Poplinerius acknowledgeth the Waldenses and Protestants to differ little and that this doctrine was preached and defâ—nded throughout Europe in France Spaine England Italy Germany and other Nations also l Popliâ—er hist Franc. lib. 1. â—dit aâ— 1581. fol 7. b Hi Albigenses invitis Principibus Christianis omnibus circa annum 1100 temporibus subsequentibus doctrinam suam ab eâ quam hodie PROTESTANTES amplectuntur parùm differentem non per Galliam solum totam sedâ—â—iam per omnes pâ—nâ— Europae oraâ— disseminârunt Nam Galli Hispani Angli Scoti Itali Germani Boâ—â—mi Sâ—xonâ—â— Poloni Lithuani gentes aliae â—am ad hunc diem pertinaciter defenderunt But I need not to stand in defence of that booke which doth defend it selfe and ever will against either the Iesuite or his fellow-labourers neither hath he urged any thing worthy observation against the same For there is no question but Luther did powerfully preach against Popish corruption and by his ministery together with others whom GOD raised up with him did publish the Gospell the light whereof for a long time they did disgrace and revile It is not enough to make Luther the Author of our Religion because after your Apostasie heâ— was one that at first did publickely and zealously preach the same When the Arians persecuted the Catholicke Faith eclipsed obscured it made it reputed Hâ—resie insomuch that the whole world m See before pag â—5 lit â— in marg was an Arian and Catholicke also in her owne judgment was the Catholicke faith afterwards published with zeale and victory the birth of Christian Religion the beginning of our Creed Nothing more triviall That which the Iesuite speakes afterwards of Luthers remorse of Conscience is ridiculous and might have beene spared for who can doubt but that in his â—calous performing of his duty in publishing the Truth of the Gospell of CHRIST the Divell did as violently assault him within as the Pope without thereby he was afflicted with as many superstitious feares within as outward terrors for the same reasons I suppose in regard the preservations of their kingdomes did depend upon it Now at last that he may conclude he casts up his Audit Sâ—â—ing that our Answerer cannot tell us that which we demaâ—nded to wit when or by whom our Catholicke Religion was first brought in n Reply p. 11â— Although there is no Injunction for it as hath beene shewed that he should answere your Demaund yet hee hath in all your particulars discovered your innovations which how it hath beene avoyded wil bee examined in their due place Yet the Iesuite telleth us that he will doe the Answerer the favour to tell him briefly where when and by whom his Protestant Religion was first begun o Reply p. 113. But I aske the Iesuite whether in his Conscience he is not checked for urging Calvin c with a corrupt minde when from their words he would have it concluded that the Catholicke Faith did first bâ—gin at Wittâ—nbergâ— I hope the Iesuite can consider that the repairing of the Temple was not the laying thâ— foundation of it neither David Hâ—â—â—â—hiah or Iosiah their regulating of things amisse a bringing in of a new law Teaching for doctrine the Traditions of men this makes a beginning but let the auncient of dayes be preached in the last times this is no Novâ—ltie no new thing But saith the Iesuite Loâ— here then the place where Wittenberge the yeare 1517 the day of the moneth the xxxi of Octâ—ber the day of the weekâ— Saturday yea the very houre of the day twelve of the clocke when first Protestancie was brâ—â—â—hed by Luther p Reply p. 1â—3 Nothing more fond Luther resisted Popish abuses such a day therefore the Faith preached by Luther did then first begin What did de make a new Gospell as some of you have attempted q See before pag. 330. 331 or frame a new Creed as you have lately done r See before 359. I desire the Iesuites evidence or his modesty his evidence to convict Luther or his modesty to condemne himselfe For if the opposing of Iâ—dulgences be the beginning of our Faith as the Iesuite doth insinuate Bellarmine will shew that he hath fayled both iâ— person time and place Å¿ Bellarm. de Indulgen l. â— c. 1. Primi qâ—â— indulgentias contempserunt oppugnârunt fuâ—ruâ—â— Waldenâ—â—â— Seqâ—â—tus est Valdenses Ioannes Wicleâ—â—â— Wicleâ—um seqâ—â—ti sâ—â—â— Hussitâ— Hos MAIORES PARENTES habâ—it Maâ—tinâ—s Lutherus And although he give Luther the name yet Bzovius will not have Luther but Staâ—pitius to have first begun the worke Bzovius Annal Eccles in ann 1517. num â— Staâ—pitius quoque quamvâ—â— PRIMVâ—â—apâ—dâ—m validâ—ori postea brachio vibrandum contra Ecclesiam conjâ—â—issâ—t sectâ— tamen cujus si non â—â—ctor certè promoâ—o◠〈◊〉 â—â—â—en darâ— non potuit sed â—â—rpiâ—â—dinem hanc Luthero reliquit And notwithstanding the Iesuite telleth us so confidently that Protestancie was first brâ—ached by Luther the yeare 1517. yet the same Author affirmeth that he disputed against them in the points oâ— free-will mâ—rits and traditions the yeare before Ibid. nuâ— 1â— Superiore poâ—â—o anâ—o 1516 Idem Lutherus disputavit conâ—ra Scholasticoâ— Theologoâ— de libero aâ—â—â—trio meritâ—s bonoâ—um opâ—â—â—â— traditionibuâ— Ecclesiasticiâ— â—asque propositioâ—eâ— Toâ—o 1. opâ—â—u◠〈◊〉 â—â—serâ—it â—◠〈◊〉 â—â—ique appaâ—eâ—◠〈◊〉 jam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So punctuall the Iesuite is that in the judgment of his owne he hath in every circumstance troad awry His repetition of Aâ—gâ—stines rule That Custome which â—en looking up into former tiâ—â—s doe not finde to have beene brought in by any that lived after the Apostles is rightly beleived to havâ— beene delivered by the Apostles themselves helpes neither them nor their cause for they never have nor ever wil be able to manifest either by our confession or otherwise that Roâ—ish customes have beene universally received neither can they defend them from Noveltie in their â—â—â—rance wherefore they may well bee cast forth into thâ— Dâ—nghill as wanting the Salt of Apostolicall institution for their seasoning So that S. Augustines Rule condemneth their Novelties and the GENENERALL CONTROVERSIE is cleared but indeed no otherwise then to the detection of their Egyptian Darkenes