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
ever received in the Church with more truth and faithfulnes then Hereticks have done Surely the Iesuite hath payed it here for he that every where dreameth of false logicke in others doth not here speake true sence himselfe Lyrinensis maketh 1. one generall sufficient rule for all things the sacred Scriptures f Lyrinens Duplici modo munire fidem suam Domino adjuvante deberet Primo scilicet divinae legis autoritaâ—e Cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique AD OMNIA satis superque sufficiat 2ly another usefull in some cases onely g Ibid. Tum deinde ecclesiae catholicae traditione Sed neque semper neque omnes haereâ—â—s hoc modo impugnandae sunt yet never to be used in those cases without Scriptures which is the tradition of the Universall Church h Ibid. Multum necesse est propter tantos tam varij erroris anfractus ut Propheticae Apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum Ecclesiastici Catholici sensus normam dirigaâ—ur In ipsa autem catholica Ecclesia magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est hoc est etenim verè proprièque catholicum The first was used by the auncient Church from the worth that is in it selfe i Ibid. Sibique ad omnia superque sufficiat the other from the perversnes of Hereticks that many times abuse the sacred rule k Ibid. Quia videlicet scripturam sacram pro ipsa sui altitudine non uno codâ—mque sensus universi accipiunt sed ejusdem eloquia aliter atque aliter alius atque alius interpretatur Aliter namque illam Novatianus aliter Sabeilius Bring us now one Scripture expounded according to Lyrinensiâ— his rule l Ibid. Quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est by the universall consent of the primitive Church to prove traditions confession Purgatory prayer to Saints image-worship Free-will c. in your sence and wee will receive it if you cannot confesse the truth that you deale like hereticks and acknowledge that we follow the practise of the auncient times And here I would have the Iesuite consider how many of their owne doe cry the Scripture m Sanders Rocke of the Church chap. 8. pag. 193. They have most plaine Scriptures in all points for the Catholicke faith and none at all against the same Bristo Mot. 48 Most certain it is that from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Apocalypse there is no text that maketh for you against us but all for us though it be more Iudeorum as they templum Domini and further with greater pretended reverence kisse antiquity not that they love either but because the one is not so light as the other to lay open their errours and detect their deformities Moreover whereas Christ made it a note of his sheepe to heare his voyce this good man would have it to bee the signe and token of an Hereticke but if Hereticks make use of Scriptures this confirmes the rule to be what God made it though it cannot justifie their practise that abuse the same And for brutish and wilde interpretations of Hereticks which this Father makes woolvish let the Iesuite cast an eye to their owne and who hath dealt so grossly as they have done †See before pag. 149 â—it b. And although they bragge of Unity and interpretations of good consent yet for any thing we see it is to be suspected when their Popes could not agree about the Text that he as his schollers may faile to accord in interpretation thereof Further I could wish it were examined whether we or they faile in the Rule of interpreting the Scriptures according to the universall tradition of the Church and analogie of faith and then it would easily appeare if this be a note of Heresie who the Hereticks are For the Fathers beleived but halfe the faith according to that you interpret and to make those points traditions of the universall Church which needed decrees to authorize them 1500 yeares after Christ must needes conclude egregious vanity But who knoweth not that you had rather be tried by the Moone and seven Starres which cannot so easily detect the workes of darknes then the Scriptures the fountain of light that will declare the least errour in your doctrine or practise n Clem. Alex Serom. l. 7. Sicut improbi oueri excludunt Paedagogum ita etiam hi arcent Prophetias a suâ Ecclesâ—â suspectas â—as habentes propter repâ—eh ensionem admonitionem Quamplerima certe consarciunt mendacia figmenta ut jure videantur non admittere Scripturas So that we disclaime not the Fathers but in your Phantasies for we allowe them at all times what they ought to have and when by an universall consent they declare what the Apostles delivered to the Church wee grant them a more centrouling authoritie Yet we are not ashamed to distinguish betwixt God and man though you blush not to equall them and to make Gods ipse diceit a convincing rule which we cannot grant to man or the best of men the Fathers and Bishops of the auncient Church where they come alone without the Scriptures Our Iesuite hath done much in this Chapter to wit proved that we preferre God before men and I have shewed that we deny not to men what God hath allowed to them SECT VI. AND least Vanitie should be absent for a little here the Iesuite proceedes to take a veiw How vainely our Answerer excuseth his disclaime from the Fathers a Reply pag. 36 But how vainely he chargeth the Answerers most learned observation will presently appeare Here saith the Iesuite our Answerer meeteth us with the same auncient Father Vincentius Lirinensis who though a great Commender of the methode of confuting Heresies by the consent of holy Fathers yet is carefull herein to give us this caveat that neither alwayes nor all kinde of Heresies are to be impugned after this manner but such onely as are now and lately sprung namely when they doe first arise while by straitnes of the time it selfe they be hindred from falsifying the rules of the auncient Faith and before the time that their poyson spreading farther they attempt to corrupt the writings of the auncient But far-spred and inveterate heresies are not to bee dealt withall this way for as much as by long continuance of time a long occasion hath lyon open unto them to steale away the truth Out of which saying our Answerer inferres that our Heresies being farre-spred and of long continuance have had time enough and place to coyne and clipp and wash the 〈◊〉 of Antiquitie wherein saith hee they have not bene wanting and therefore must not be impugned by consent of holy Fathers b Reply pag. 36 Here is little Vanitie to be seene as yet how the Iesuite will make it appeare remaineth to be done and this hee will accomplish by espying
a manifest contradiction in his words against himselfe for above he more then once saith the Iesuite 〈◊〉 our opinions prophane novelties and hereticall novelties If Novelties how are they now become Heresies farre spred and of so long continuance that we are bold to make duration the marke of our Church 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
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
A REIOYNDER TO THE REPLY PVBLISHED BY THE IESVITES VNDER THE NAME OF WILLIAM MALONE The First Part. Wherein the Generall Answer to the Challenge is cleared from all the IESUITES Cavills MATTH XXIII 9. 10. Call no man your FATHER upon the earth for one is your FATHER which is in Heaven Neither be yee called Masters for one is your Master even CHRIST II. TIMOTH III. 8. 9. As Iannes and Iambres withstood Moses so doe these also resist the Truth men of corrupt mindes reprobate concerning the Faith But they shall proceede no further for their folly shal be manifest unto all DUBLIN Printed by the Societie of Stationers Printers to the Kings most excellent Majestie 1632. TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE HENRY LO VISCOVNT FALKLAND ONE OF THE LORDS OF HIS MAIESTIES MOST HONOURABLE PRIVIE COUNCELL Right Honourable my singular good Lord IT was Tertullian's observation of Heretickes Nostra suffodiunt ut sua aedificent a Tertull de praescript aâ— vers haeret cap. 42. Your Lordship is well informed by experience that the Romish Clergie who disdain the stile of Hereticks are like Vnderminers like Builders For what kinde of Vndermining is left unpractised to make way ut sua aedificent that they may build up their Babell and advance their ROMAN See The Scripture the Rule of Faith they undermine by their Vnde scis allowing it neither authority nor Command but because their Cheife Pastour declares it expounds it The Church they undermine by assuming her Name defiling her Doctrine Councels by denying their lawfulnesse unlesse called and approved by Rome Bishops Preists by making them Delegates to his supposed Holyness rejecting their Commission received from CHRIST Neither cease they here but Princes and States they undermine also sometime by raising open VVarre sometime by Bosome-conspiracies Powder-plots other secret attempts Nor doe these Vnderminers looke alway like Faux in the Vault but they will appeare somtimes as it were Angels of Light Princes shall have Thousands of their Pennes b Iesuite Fisher in his Epistle to the King but I thinke rather Pen-knives They wil be strongly tyed and united to his Majesties Crowne the more familiaritie they have with him by whom Kings do raigne the more awfull will they be found unto his Holy annointed c The Iesuite in his Epistle Dedicatory and all this as the Divell to our Saviour ut sua aedificent that Princes may fall downe and worship their Beast We may goe further None escape them They undermine Populum Primates Populi by subverting their Estates Proselyting their Children and yet the keeping backe of these Vnderminers from his Majesties presence is censured by Mr Malone our Iesuite to be the fruite of waspish emulation d In his Epistle Dedicatory as if these things might be done and yet they remaine faithfull to their Prince his State and Dignitie But their Allegiance may well be discerned by their Obedience For besides their immediate addresse to Rome their acknowledging a PROTECTOVR e In a letter of LVD CAR. LVDVISIVS S. R. E. VICECANCELLARIVS superscribed thus Rev. P Pâ—i .. Praefectâ— p. P. Carâ— Excalceaterum in Regâ— Hibernia Dated Rome 10. Kal. Iâ—â—ii 1631. which is in my hands and concerneth the quarrels of the Regulars and Seculars in the points censured by the Doctors of Sâ—â—bon â—5 â—an 1631. Vt rei veritas innotesâ—at scriptum est ad quosdam illius Regni Praelatos â qu. bus expectatur informatio Interim vâ—sum est sacrae Congreg ni ut nos ex munere PROTECTORIS quo fungimur admoneamus rogemus V. 〈◊〉 ne ex dolore aut vindicta illatae ut praetenditur calumniae quid quam agat erga tumultus authores ne majâ—res â—xcitentur turbae sed offensiones injurias suas â—uorumque reâ—ittat sâ—crâ— Congreg 〈◊〉 quae plenè satisfaciet justâ censurâ corripiet ac poenâ afficiet â—â—â—â—mniae dum constire it Architectos there and abusing his Majesties Subjects by pressing their Consciences to yeeld subjection against his sacred Commaunds to none but from thence There is dayly resisting of his ROYAL Commaunds in matters that are not absolutely Spirituall For there being Publication of His Maiesties ROYALL pleasure for the changing of the Popish Calendar which ever since the times of Rebellion was observed in the Province of Vlster Did they obey This it may be they will glory in But for what other then Politick respects How was the Titular Primate advised by his Councell learned Was he not pressed to disobey Was it not reputed inconvenient to alter the same Did he not censure the receiving of the Kings command against this their disobedient practise to be no otherwise then to obey men more then GOD That if obedience should be yeelded herein their Adversaries so he stiles his sacred Majestie Councell wil be encouraged to publish more severe edicts against them sic paulatim serpet Cancer f In a letter written partly in Irish partly in Latine to the Titular Primate superscribed To his much esteemed assured loving frâ—ind Mr William Bitagh these in haste wheresoever These are the points for which it were inconvenient to alter the time heere praesâ—rtim hoc anno 〈◊〉 quod videamur obsdire hominibuâ— magis quam Deo recipiendo TEMPORALIVM Potestatum mandata contra râ—ceptam Ecclesiasticam lgem idque 〈◊〉 â—dium religionis nostrae undâ— ADVERSARII animentur ad alia magis nociva praecepta canâ—ra nos â—denda dum â—iderent nos minoribus praeceptis â—â—â—emperare sic paulatim serpet Cancer c. Doe they apprehend his Majestie Councell for Adversaries Who can then esteeme theÌ„ for Friends Shall a rebellious intrusion bee esteemed the Oracle of GOD and checke the Regall Power as proceeding from Men and yet Subjection not violated but their Obedience must remaine firme Much more in this kinde may be presented to your Lordship if it were not superfluous but by this it may appeare how that notwithstanding their pretences Princes are relished or distasted by them in ordine ad spiritualia as they countenance or exalt their Popish Faction For to omit other things the Iesuit his contemptuous reproaching of the learned defence of his Majesties supreame power made in the Castle-Chamber in the time of your Lordships Government here doth declare how inviously they heare of his Maiesties eminent and glorious Prerogatives But the more they declare themselves enemies to our Faith her Defender the more I doubt not but all sacredly affected will arme themselves to resist them in these their contrivings secret imaginations I doe not come with this Dedication to move your Lordship hereunto for it hath beene your VVorke who is or hath beene more Faithfull amongst all the Servants of my Lord the KING * 1. Sam. 2â— And for your pious affection to the true Religion I could speake more then I suppose your modesty would be willing to heare so that I doubt not but
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
sed iâ— praescripto legis in prophetarum praedictis in psalmorum cantibus in ipsius pastoris vocibus in Evangeliâ—â—aâ—um praedicationâ—bus laboribus hoc est in omnibus Canonicis sanctâ—â—um librâ—â—â—m authoritatibus How fairely this Heretick Augustine opposeth this Catholicke Iesuite And further the same Father in a point of controversie openly professeth We ought not to depart from the authority of the divine Scriptures to which ALONE in this matter faith is to be given n Aug de Gen. ad liâ— l. 12. c. 33. Ab authoritate Divinarum Scripturarum quibus 〈◊〉 lis de hac râ— fides habenda est recedere non debemus And before this Heretick Irenaus a more auncient one in the same booke which the Iesuite directeth us to sâ—e agreeth with us We have by none others knowne saith he to obtaine salvation but by those that brought the Gospell to us for what first they preached that by the will of God they delivered to us in the Scripture that in aftertimes it might be the FOVNDATION and PILLAR of our FAITH o Irenaeus l. 3. â—â— Non per 〈◊〉 dispositionem nostrae salâ—tis cognovimus quam pereos per quos Evangelium perâ—â—nit ad â—oâ— quod quidem â—unâ— praeconiaveâ—â—nt postea 〈◊〉 per Dei 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 crunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By this which hath beene spoken we find our Appeale to Scriptures alone as the absolute rule of Faith not to bee the onely practice of Hereticks as the Iesuite would have it but of the most Catholick Fathers themselves indeed so uncontrouled a rule it was in points of faith to be judged by God in the Scriptures that never any Hereticke did deny the same till Papists tyrannizing over the truth brought in new faith which could not be justified by the old rule And as all acknowledged this rule most absolutes so Hereticks as well as Catholicks used to justifie their opinion by other meanes also It is probable that Eâ—nomius was more beholding to his Logick then Scriptures for he is painted out by Alphonsus de Castro as a most cunning Sophister p Alphons Castro adv Haer. l. 5. De Deo haer 10. Eunomius artis dialecticae callidissimus Besides the Montanists when they were overcome by force of argument fled for shift refuge unto Martyrs reporting themselves to have many q Eusebius Eccles hist l. 5. c. 14. Quando igitur in cunctis iftis redarguti argumentis destituuntâ—r admartyres confugere nituntur multos se martyres habere arque illud certum prophetici spiritus qui apud ipsos sit documentum esse dicentes Nay what practises have the Papists for the most part that Heretickes had not somtime they pleaded the Church r Opus imperf in Mat. hom 49. Nunc autem singulatim professores haeresium diversarum dicunt Ecce hic est Christus id est Ecclesia Et illic id est Ecclesia Quia jam non audiendo dogmatum verba sed videndo eorum Ecclesias Christiani scandalizantur infirmi somtime Fathers Å¿ See Dioscorus cited by the most reverend the Lord Primate pag. 24. Alanus Copus Dial. 6. c. 22. Veteres haeretici cum Patres ipsis apertissimè adversarentuâ— cos tamen à se stare magnâ contentione clamabâ—nt Baron Annal. an 431. num 170. Sed mirum dictu quam calumniose ad suam ipserum haeresim astruendam citare ijdem Nestoriani consueverint sanctos Patres quantâque mentiri jactantiâ universos fermè Orbis Episcopos secum sentire somtime Tradition t Euseb Eccl. â—ist l. 5. c. 25. Dicunt Samosateni Majores omnes etiam ipsos Apostolos â—a sensisse ac doâ—nisse quae ipsi nunc dicunt servatamque eam praedicationis veritatem usque ad tempora Victoris qui 13. â Petro Romanorum Episcopus fuit Irenaeus advers haer l 3. c. 2. Non enim per literas traditam illam sed per vivam vocem somtime Councels u Epiâ—tola quorundam 〈◊〉 ad Episcopum Rufuâ—â— apud Binnium inter Acta Conc. Ephesin O Ecumen Tom. 3. c. 13. Noâ— autem in sanctorum Patrum qui apud Nicaeam convenerant caeterorumque qui post illos in Ecclesia claruerunt Eustachij Antiocheni Basilij Caesariensis Gregorij Ioannis Athanaâ—â— Theophili Damasi Romani Ambrosij Mediclanensis reliquorumque qui cum memoraâ—is consentiunt doctrinâ perseveramus c. somtime Miracles x August in Iohan. tract 13. Pontius-fecit miraculum Donaâ—us oraâ—it respondit ei Deus decoelo somtime Visions y August ibid. de uniâ—at eccles c. 18. neither were they so naked but they had your great argument of succession z Aug. Epist 165. ad Generosum Synod Lateran apud Bin. Secretaâ—sive Consult 4. Haec piâ—tatis dogmata tradiderunt nobis qui ab initio praesentialiter viderunt ministri verbi facti sunt eorumque discipuli successores sequenter à Deo inspiraâ—i Ecclesiae Doctores id est sanctae universales quinque Synodi beaâ—orum à Dâ—â— inspiratorum Patrum qui in 〈◊〉 in hanc regiam civitatem nec non in Ephesium primùm in ChalcedonaÌ„ iterum in Constantinopolim in 5. congregati sunt concilioâ— also yet we must be Hereticks because we appeale to the Scriptures as â— most absolute rule of faith Vaenitas vaenitutuÌ„ I would have the Iesuit consider that although some of these blind wretches he nameth could not see God in the flesh yet none of them were so blind that they could not perceive light in the Sun the holy Ghost in the word in the sacred Scriptures they whose impudency durst deny any thing could not deny Gods rule to be the Scriptures For the heretick Maximus as he calleth him if he speake no worse then in defence of the sacred Scriptures we may give him the priviledge allowed to the Devill that sometime he may speake truth as the other acknowledged Christ to be the son of God And to agree with an hereticke in truth is not to be hereticall but as the Iesuite interpreteth his meaning not any whit to regard those sayings which are not Scripture and herein if the Iesuite did us right he would aâ—quit us for we give the auncient Church so much honour that we make her the greatest witnesse of Gods truth though we deny her to be the truth it selfe or rule of faith And whereas S. Hierome is brought answering the Lucifrians that they should not flatter themselves too much because they seemed to have Scripture for what they affirme for even the Devill hath alledged Scriptures which consist not in reading but in understanding * Reply pag. 3â— what is this to us nay with what corruption and falshood doth the Iesuite dragg this place of Hierome against the authors intent and meaning for the Iesuite urgeth it against the authoritie of the Scriptures and their determinative power when that Father presseth the same against a shew
ever beene pretended by such as not onely interpret the same to their owne lust but also reject what parcels or bookes they please and for this he cites the Marcionists rejecting the Old Testament the Manichees the New 〈◊〉 and Cerinthus the Acts of the Apostles the Ebionites the Epistles of S. Paul Luther that of S. Iames c. Yet would these men saith he be tryed by none but by the Scriptures when as they had discarded all such Sâ—riptures as were found any way to make against their Errors In like sort deale our Adversaries at this day l Reply pag. 32 But if we doe neither interpret the Scriptures after our own lusts neither deny any part of the sacred faith that was once delivered to the Saints if we adhere to that perfect rule which of it selfe is sufficient and more then sufficient ad omnia for all things m Vincen. Lyrin Cùm sit perfect â—â— Scripturarum canoâ— fibique ad omnia satiâ— superque suffielat Surely the Iesuite is a Calumniator and we are no Hereticks not so much as in similitude onely We know Hereticks both adde to the Scriptures and detract also This we see at Rome let the Iesuite espy it amongst us if he can in Ireland Further iâ—â—â—â— ignorant that Heretickes in discarding all that makes against them have rather forsaken Scriptures then pleaded tryall by them for what is this but the Preparer of an Index Expurgatorius so that we may see from whence Papists had their so profitable inventions And where can you finde a greater agreement in this kind then betwixt your selves and Heretickes for you admit no Scriptures but with your owne glosses which is as much in effect as to deny all And if the râ—â—e concerning God be as true concerning Scriptures Non est minus Deum fingere quam negare It is no losse error to feigne a God then to deny the Deitie what will your additions to the Scriptures merite You embrace not onely Apocryphall bookes but whatsoever superstitions your corrupt practice hath produced and these because God will not justifie them you will have to be Apostolicall Traditions His accusation that we admit what Scripture wee like of and cast out what displeaseth n Reply pag. 3â— us is the report of a Iesuite Italian newes a thing which he will never manifest as you may perceive by his proofe Ecclesiasticus with them is no true Scripture saith the Iesuite and why it approveth Free will too much o Reply ibid. The Iesuite argues but with his owne impudencie and no reason of ours Ecclesiasticus hath no authority to confirme points of Doctrine and therefore was justly cast off by Whitaker That it is so reputed by the Church of God is because it was never written by any of the Prophets 2. Peter 1. 19. never received by the Church of the â—ewes to whom were commended the Oracles of God Rom. 3. 2. Further it had never approbation by the Apostles in the Church of God and besides these generals there are many other particulars for which wee reject this booke as from his owne mouth who in the beginning thereof doth not assume to himselfe that honour which the Iesuite would conferre upon him for he acknowledgeth his owne weaknes and disability in translating it out of the Hebrew * In the Prologue which I thinke is not comely for that mind to doe which was assisted by the Spirit of God for when Moses said I am not eloquent God questions who made the tongue * Exod. 4. 10. 11 Besides this chap. 46. ver 23. it is not agreeable to the truth of sacred Scriptures which is there spoken of Samuels prophecying after his death and other things But I would know if your additions and traditions were not where would you finde that new Fabrick of the Roman Creed published by your infallible guide But saith our Iesuite Cyprian Ambrose August Clemens Alex. and other holy Fathers account Ecclesiasticus to be holy Scripture p Reply pag. 33 If this were proofe sufficient a small authority would suffice to prove the Canon for we may as well confirme the booke Pastor and divers others from Bellarmines q Bellarm. de script Ecclesâ— pag. 34. See this testimony cited before pag. 163. testimony as the booke of Ecclesiasticus c. for any thing he urgeth from these Fathers to determine it within the Canon in regard he acknowledgeth that it hath the same Epithites from many Fathers as he professeth this to have So that if this be the Iesuites best Apologie for Ecclesiasticus it is much beholding to his free will but nothing to his industry This manner of proceeding saith the Iesuite Tertullian doth discover in those Heretickes of his time and withall will teach us how we are to proceed with those of our dayes who tread so right the steppes of their forefathers The conflict saith he with the Scriptures is good for nothing but to turne either the stomacke or the brayne This heresie receiveth not certaine Scriptures and that which it receiveth it draweth to her owne purpose by additions and substractions and if it receive the whole Scriptures it depraveth them by divers expositions Where as the adulterous sence doth no lesse destroy the truth then doth the corrupted letter What wilt thou gaine that â—â—â— cunning in Scriptures when that which thou defendest is denyed and that which thou denyest is defended thou shalt indeed loose nothing but thy voyce with contending nor shalt thou gaine any thing but choler hearing blasphemies The Heretickes will say that â—◠〈◊〉 the Scripture and bring lyeing interpretations and that they defend the truth Therefore must not appeale be made to Scriptures nor must the conflict be in them by which the victory is either uncertaine or little certaine or none at all r Reply pag 3â— What Tertullian and other auncient Fathers thought of this rule hath beene formerly declared and this quotation doth not make Tertullian a despiser of the rule of Scriptures but proveth Hereticks to be shifters and forsakers of the same Whereby the Iesuite may espy the hereticke All that beareth any shew for the Iesuite is in the taile of his allegation Ergo non ad Scripturas as provocandum est therefore must not appeale be made to Scriptures but the Iesuite dare not put in the whole nec in ijs constituendum certamen in quibus nulla aut parum certu victoria which is as much as if I were to deale with a Papist in points of religion should urge the scripture to him it were in vain why because although they receive the Scriptures they accept them not as the rule of faith besides they adde detract and what they receive they must onely interpret They not onely corrupt the stile by a vulgar authenticke but the sence by a Papall violence and in this case what shall a man get from a Papist but cholerike blasphemie and licentious rayling Doth not the
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
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
sacred Scripture did burst forth of those libraries wherein it was ecclipsed and the most lucide starres the auncient Fathers waited upon that originall light then many of these poore meteors and fained appearances were quickely obscured and despised of some of your owne So that your Dilemma proves but a childish florish For although it is most true that you have done as much as you durst to pretend Fathers make Fathers detract from Fathers adde to Fathers forging clipping washing cankering them yet these things being detected and casheered the Fathers are restored to their authoritie they formerly had although they are not thought fit to bee used as a rule against those Hereticks that have not spared in this manner to abuse their writings Againe saith the Iesuite you have given us flatlie once to understand that the Scripture was the rocke upon which alone you build your faith and from which no sleight that wee could devise should ever drawe you and therefore you bade us to our face alledge what authoritie we list without Scripture and it could not suffice How is the winde now changed how come you now to falsifie this your former resolution m Reply pag. 49 Did ever any Iesuite trifle in this manner and speake more inconsequent The Scripture is the rocke upon which alone he will build his faith no authoritie can suffice without Scripture therefore the winde is changed hee falsifies his former resolution Doth not this rationall deserve to censure others for false Logicke that pleads with such a shape of reason himselfe The Iesuite promised in his Challenge to produce good and certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures if the Fathers authoritie will not suffice Did he cast off their rock of Fathers because he promised Scriptures I thinke hee will not acknowledge it and why should he vainely heere dreame that the Scriptures are rejected by the most reverend the Lord Primate when to stoppe the Iesuites boasting out of a well grounded confidence in the goodnes of his cause he will not in this place stand upon his right Besides let the Iesuite shew me the generall consent of Fathers in a matter of faith without the Scriptures if hee be able If he cannot his thoughts are confused when hee dreamed of their authoritie without Scripture if hee say he will let him produce them for surely it is hard to bee beleived Furthermore when the Lawyers urge Constantines denation for Papall possession I aske the Iesuite upon what authoritie he would build his title whether upon the donation it selfe or the Lawyers interpreting it If the Donation be sufficient why not the Scriptures If the interpreters must be added yet this is not to take away the power of the Charter Nay if they be added 〈◊〉 necessary testimonie the Charter were nothing without the Lawyers What followeth in the Iesuite hath received Answere in the fift Section only here he will not be perswaded that he chooseth his owne weapons n Reply pag. 49 but let the Reader judge for bibling in his judgment is but babling it is no other then fencing to fight with Scriptures and to appeale to sole Scripture is but to agree with auncient Heretickes So that Scriptures are none of his armorie and if the Fathers bee rejected also what remaineth further but ipse dixit assisted with pretended miracles lying wonders But let them be whose weapons they will Hee telleth us that hee will use them and the first encounter shal be concerning the dignity and preheminencie of the Church of Rome o Reply ibid. Indeed this is that fruitfull article of Faith that hath got all the new articles of the new Romane Creed This is the breast that nourisheth them that gives them strength The occasion wherefore he beginnes here is for as much as our Answerer taketh his first exception against him for styling all the auncient Doctors and martyrs of the Church universall with the name of the Saints and Fathers of the Primitive Church of Rome though he alledgeth heerein no more against me saith the Iesuite but this one bare Interrogaterie out of Albertus Pighius Who did ever yet by the Roman Church understand the universall Church p Reply pag. 49 What needes further proofe If neither the whole Roman Church neither your whole Roman world in the judgment of Albertus Pighius did ever take the Romane Church for the Church Vniversall is not this enough to lash the Iesuite for confounding Vrbem Orbem and mingling Heaven and earth together But he will take of Pighius by a Distinction If saith he the Roman Church be taken as it comprehendeth onely that Cleargie which maketh but one particular Bishoprick Diaces in the citie of Rome abstracting from that relation which it hath unto all other Christian Churches as the head unto the members then I say with Pighius who speaketh of it onely in this sense that no man ever by the Church of Rome did understand the Vniversall Church But if it bee taken as it is the Mother Church begunne in S. Peter under Christ and miraculously continued those of each one of the rest of the Apostles fayling by due succession of lawfull Bishops having a relation to all other Christian Churches as the head to the members then doe I say that it may rightly bee stiled with the name of the Vniversall Church And that all other Churches are to be accounted Catholick no further then they be linked in a subordinate obeysance thereunto q Reâ—â—â— pâ—g â—â— Here are many prettie things By this meanes the Church of Rome the Mother must bee borne after the daughter for many particular Churches had birth before Rome was a Church or the Roman Inhabitants received the Faith of Christ Secondly that the Catholicke Church must be in a subordinate obeysance to the Church of Rome before there was any Church there Besides the Catholick Church was never enclosed in any other place but the world never restrained to any other habitation To chaine it â—o any head out of Heaven or to confine it to any particular place on Earth were to make it schismaticall This Church concludes all Saints Noah's Arke was heere a Temple Christ delighted with this Church as in the Canticles before Rome was Rome or a Pontifex governed therein Some are in Heaven that never yeelded obedience to this Church or heard of Rome And it is more then probable some are in hell that were tearmed Holinesse it selfe whilst they remained in this Catholick here But what the Iesuite hath to make this Roman Church the Catholicke and mother of all other Churches in the next Section we shall examine SECT VIII THis Iesuite after hee hath obtained from the most learned Primate ex gratiâ libertie in his owne challenge to chuse his owne weapon would first use it to prove that The Auncient Fathers of the first Ages acknowledged the Roman Church to bee the head of all other Churches a Reply pag 40 I had thought
he say of the ignorance or the folly of the Answerer when he upbraides him with a Creed of the new fashion compised by Pope 〈◊〉 the fourth o Reply pag. 91 Nullus sapienâ— admiratur M â— Malone and therfore take the foole with you And howsoever you thinke to defend Pins the fourth by the Practice of the Nicene Councell it will give you no shelter they did you say expresse and declare the ancient faith in a new fashion and forme of words p Reply ibid. So did Athanasius so others but this is not the thingâ— for which you are accused but it is for an Appendix of twelve new points many of which were never accounted of faith till Pius the fourth his time and therefore your ground from which you perswade us to embrace it is unsound viz â— that it was compiled after the like manner without any alteration or innovation of the auncient faith aâ— all q Reply pag. 92 The ancient faith was so necessary to be believed that Athanafius tells us Whosoever wil bee saved it is necessary that he hold the Catholicke faith but your Creed is propounded onely to schollars and cheifely to such as are to receive promotions unto Scholasticall or Ecclesiasticall dignities r Reply pag. 91. Secondly the Apostle S. Iude tells us that the Faith Catholicke was once delivered but all your Trent articles are not so but brought in in after-times by the authority and definition of your Church as Transubstantiation Å¿ 〈◊〉 4. disâ— 11. q. 3. 〈◊〉 in Can. 〈◊〉 â—ect 41. Thirdly in the unitie of the Catholicke faith layde downe t Irenaeus â— 1. â— 3. 3â— by Irenaeus all the founded Churches in Germany Spaine France the East Egypt Lybia and all the world did sweetly agree but upon many of the new articles in your Creed there have been continuall warres controversies betwixt those that you will acknowledge Catholickes as communicating in one kinde Purgatory Indulgences the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches So that these points must be additions or else the Church lost the unity of Faith for a long time together Fourthly 〈◊〉 Lirinensis u Vincen. Lirinen advers prophan novat Cùm sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat and other Fathers x S. Basil l. de vera pia fid Manifesta defectio fidei est importare quicquam â—orum quae scripta non sunt S. Hilar l. 2. ad Const Aug. fidem tandem secundum ea quae scripta sunt defiderantem hoc qui repudiat Antichristuâ— est qui simulaâ— Anathem a eâ—â— S. August l. 2. de doct Christ c. 9. In ijs quae apertè in scriptura posita sunt inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi and some Schoolemen y Scotuâ— Prolog in Sent. q. 2 Scriptura sufficienter continet doctrinaÌ„ necessariaÌ„ viatori Thom. 2. 2. q. 1. a 10. ad 1. In Doctrina Christi Apostolorum veritas fidei est sufficienter explicita make the Scripture sufficient to â—each all points of faith but many articles of this Creed are confessed by you to be delivered by tradition onely not by Scripture z Coster in compend orthodoxae fidei demonstr 〈◊〉 5. c. 2p 162. so that you see you have vainely sought your defence from the practise of the Nicene Fathers It had been better I thinke Mr Malone that you had taken another kind of defence that you had justified the Pope your Church that they make new Creedes defining verities by the infolded still revelation of GOD which determinations have the force of a certaine divine revelation in respect of us as one of the learnedst of your Fraternity hath said a Suaâ—es â—om 2. p. 93. or with Stapleton that the church may define a point of faith Etiamsi nullo scripturarum aut evidenti aut probabili testimonis confirmaretur although it bee not confirmed with any evident or probable testimony of the Scriptures b Stapleton Râ—lect Cont. 4. q. 1 ar â— or with Lâ—â— the X. in his Bull against Luther that it is heresie to say immanu Ecclesia aut prorsus non esse statuere articles fidei that it is not in the hand of the Church or Pope to make articles of faith c Art 27. not to have run to expressing declaring which the Councell Pope never intended but be it as it will the Iesuite tells us that the Laytie may bee well counted Catholickes though they never so much as heard of it therefore we need not to trouble our selves about so triviall a matter especially they accounting us of the Lay number But after charges of ignorance folly and wrangling the Iesuite accuseth the most milde modest nature of the most â—overend Primate that he sticketh not maliciously to slander Maldonate and others with the crime of Perjurie d Reply pag. 92. c. He that would answere this snarling Iesuite with equall currishnes must speake with his teeth and not with his tongue But passingby his language I will consider how impudently he chargeth that with slander the truth wherof he cannot cast off with all his shifts Their Trent Creede is Neither will I ever receive or expound it vizâ— the Scripture but according to the uniforme consent of Fathers e Bulla Pij IV. p. 478. Nec eam unquam nisi juxta unanimem consensum Patrum accipiam interpretabor Now to defend Maldonate and Pererius two of his brotherhood for not practising according to faith he first reviles after his accustomed manner the most reverend Primate Secondly he denyes that Maldonatâ— ever tooke his â—ath Thirdly he expounds the article of faith for the saving of the Iesuites credite f See the Iesuites Reply pag. 9â— First for his reviling let Rabshekah rayle for Maldonats oath he tels us that the most reverend Primate cannot tell whether Maldonate tooke the oath or not gives two reasons one in the Text because he supposeth he never did the other in the margent For he lived wrote in Paris where the Tridentine Councell is not received g Reply pag. 92 A Iesuite must beleive for the Popes advantage why should wee thinke his suppositions should prejudge his cause he that must beleive white blacke if the Church injoyne it h 〈◊〉 p. 247. can suppose any thing The other reason is as vaine might as well have been spared in the margent as in the text for though the Church of France receive not the Councell of Trent yet is there any Iesuite in France that doth not subscribe unto it to submit in any other maner then the Pope prescribes is not obedience but rebellion Besides this being made a part of the Papall Creed he cannot deny his Baptisme in that faith if their faith be as auncient as the Iesuite which is not done without a vow or oath But if
what fetches they use to drag the people to their opinion so they may sway in the Church of God and tyrannize with their Antichristian Scepter over the Kingdome of Saynts The Iesuite before hee leaves off would faine say something for himselfe and cause as first that wheresoever the Fathers doe professe them in their workes they never tell him that they hold them for opinions rather then for points of faith o Reply pag. 95 which wee acknowledge for indeede there is no such profession in the Fathers yet I thinke and upon good grounds if they had knowne of any such fundamentall points some would have declared them to the Church Secondly he confesseth that some of the said points were not declared by the Church in former ages to be necessary and cheife Articles of faith and Religion yet they were ever belonging to the substance of faith from the beginning and without doubt were held for such at least implicitly and virtually by the holy Fathers howsoever our Answerer upon no better ground then his divining humour doth give out the coÌ„trary p Reply pag. 9â— Surely it could not be faith at any time if not then for to the Church long before was declared the whole counsell of God so that indeed it may bee of the Popish faith which may be declared 1500. yeares after Christ but not that of the ancient Church which was once delivered to the Saints And if the Iesuite will have that of the Foundation which was never so declared or reputed till our last times let him proove ex re â—atâ— that it is so and not thinke himselfe able by his without doubt to perswade us that the Fathers held those points virtually and iâ—plicitely â—â— belonging to the substance of faith and then hee doth something for if the bare act of declaration may make an article of faith the Bishop of Rome with his â—â—â—ncell may make us an other beleife and turne Christianity into a new mould a thing much desired if more then probable grounds doe not deceive us But if these points were decreed in after-times from some inward and virtuall substance of faith which was inherent in them let him declare it and by some meanes or other helpe our eye-fight that can perceive no such thing in the points here mentioned And whereas the wisard thinkes every man of his own profession hee is deceived his conjectures are farre from the grounds that are followed by the most learned Answerer and how farre it is from divining to expresse a truth any wil apprehend that knowes that divining hath relation to things to come and not to things past But what he promiseth in the next Chapter we will examine whereby I thinke wee may come to more perfect knowledge of their Catholicke frâ—â—des though not of their 〈◊〉 as he would perswade SECT XII THe Iesuite having travailed in the defence of certaine points from the Fathers testimony that are not of the foundation of Faith and fearing to be censured by Lyrinensis who saith that the aunciâ—â—t consent of the holy Fathers is with great care to bee sâ—ught and followed by us not in every pettie question belonging to the Law of GOD but ONE 〈◊〉 at least principally in the Rule of Faith a See the testimony urged by the most reverend the Lord Primate in his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge pag. 26. doth in this Section enquire Hâ—â—â— a point of Faith may be discerned from an indifferent opinion in Religion b Reply p. 96. and declares the reason of his so doing Forasmuch saith he â—â— our Answerer affirmeth that all the points by me laid downe in my demaund be not cheife articles I thought it meet by this disputation to disproove him herein and to shâ—w that they be all such cheife articles of faith at the obstinate denyall of any of them depriveth a man of all true beleife and maketh him a faithlesse Hereticke For performance whereof we are first to enquire which is the way or certaine Rule to know an article of Faith from an indifferent opinion and that being found out by squaring the said points thereby we shall easily understand whether they be theife articles yea or â—â— c Reply pag. 96 Now in this passage the Iesuite meeteth not at all with the most learned Answerers observation For he denyes all the points propounded by the Iesuite to be cheife articles in regard of those which are more necessary fundamentall which onely are to be enquired of by consent of Fathers in Lirinensis his judgment d See above lit â— and not because in their owne nature they are indifferent for if he should conceite them such why should he style you Heretickes for your false declarations concerning them nay why should there be controversies at all betwixt us Secondly all that the Iesuite urgeth here satisfieth not the most learned Answerer in shew onely For unlesse he can prove that these points were according to his Rule declared by the Catholicke Romane Church for cheife Articles of Faith before those Fathers times which he urgeth in Lirinensis his judgment all his quotations of antiquitie in defence of them are to no purpose And I would willingly see where the Romane Catholicke Church by her declaration hath defined these points de fide before the Ages of those Fathers which the Iesuite produceth for confirmation of the same But notwithstanding hee goeth a by way and followeth not his Answerer yet I will not leave him but take some breife veiwe of this discourse also And first he excepts against the Scriptures These must bee no Rule whereby to discerne cheife Articles of Faith from indifferent opinions in Religion nay to make Scriptures the Rule is but to shake hands with all condemned Heretickes Reply pag. 96 And this hee telleth us he hath already discovered but fearing least it be in conceit and opinion onely hee is heere resolved further to prosequute the same and layeth this for his ground There be many confessed points of Faith which are not in any sort expressed or as much as once touched by the Scripture f Ibid. Sure they are of the Popish Creed or not at all for the Catholicke Church taught none as necessary to salvation but what were contained in the Scriptures g Bellarm. de verbo Dei non scripto l. 4. c. 11 Dico illa omnia scripta esse ab Apostolis quae sunt omnibus necessaria quae ipsi palam omnibus vulgo praedicaverant Yet hee will proove his proposition from Augustine The Apostles truly saith S. Augustine as he is urged by the Iesuite have not delivered any thing concerning this point but that custome which was alledged against Cyprian ought to be held to have beene derived from their tradition b Reply pag. 96 But what point is this Rebaptization a point as farre from the foundation as Rome from Heaven that only concernes the manner forâ—â— of 〈◊〉 Baptisme What points else
of our Faith be grounded some way or other in the Scripture yet the Rule to finde out which is a point of faith and which not must be taken from the Church Reply p. 100. Observe here what we gaine from the Iesuite and then we will attend his arguments First he that in the page before told us that there be many confessed points of Faith which are not in any sort expressed or as much as once touched by the Scriptures f Reply pag. â—â— in this place would perswade the gentle Reader that the articles of their Faith are some way or other grounded in the Scripture Secondly he makes the ground of Faith to be the Scripture yet the Rule to finde out which is a point of Faith and which not must be taken from the Church so that although hee make their Pope their Cater-Pillar yet Scripture is acknowledged the ground of Faith But to make this discourse an over-sight I would know how the Rule can measure without the ground or how Faith can remaine grounded in Scripture when their rule measures without it Now the Iesuite would make this knowne by the practise of the Primitive Church but before he begins he prepares his Reader Some points there are in which controversie arising 〈◊〉 the affirmative nor yet the negative part is by the Church declared to be true nor commanded to be so beleived professed by her followers in which saith S. Augustine that Faith whereby we are Christians remaining safe either we doe not know which part in true and â—â— suspend our definitive sentence or else by humane and weake suspicion we doe guesse otherwise then the truth is and consequently are deceived Reply p. 100 Wee know that Augustine in this place speaketh not of any matter of Faith that is or can be by declaration of the Church but telleth us that our beleife whereby wee are Christians remaining sure and setled our ignorance errour in other things which are far from being of faith will not be so dangerous And other sort of points there is saith the Iesuite wherein when controversie doth arise one part is already found declared for true and commaunded of necessity to be so beleived by all and in these if a man be advertised of the Churches declaration and notwithstanding will obstinately maintaine the contrary then is he said to hold against a point of Catholick faith and therefore accounted to be an hereticke Let us suppose saith S. Augustin that some man doth hold of CHRIST that errour which Photinus held which he thinketh to be the true Catholicke Faith I doe not yet account him for an Hereticke except when the doctrine of the Church is layde open unto him he yet maketh choise to continue in that errour which before he held Reply ibid. Was ever any man so mad to thinke that the Church could not point out an article of Faith This may be done by private Churches private Doctors but shew us if you can that Augustine made a point of Faith from the naked ground of the Churches declaration with Scriptures or without onely and for no other reason then because it is declared Augustine affordeth nothing here for this purpose he sheweth his charity that if some man by weaknes and infirmitie hold on hereticall opinion if it be not obstinately and pertinaciously he doth not accompt him an Heretick â—ut I aske you although 〈◊〉 with mercie the errant whether you are perswaded that he would doe so of the Heresie The point is whether S. Augustine would have accounted Photius his opinion denying CHRIST to be GOD an indifferent point of Religion as the Iesuite would perswade us before it was defined by the Church No the words of Augustine plainely declare that the doctrine of the Church taught from the Scriptures not defined by a Councel is sufficient to detect Heresie though he would have the obstinacie of the party appeare against the truth before he condemnes him for an Hereticke But this will appeare saith the Iesuite yet more manifest by the manner wherewith S. Augustine excused S. Cyprian c. for that his errour was not against any point as yet declared by the Church i Reply ibid. pag. 101. Surely S. Augustine doth not contest for that the Iesuite dreameth He excuseth Cyprian why Because the Roman Church had not condemned this opinion This is false for this opinion was condemned Cyprian excommunicated by the strength of Rome as is before shewed confessed by your own * See before Sect. 10. yet he adhered therunto But that which Augustine saith here may be interpreted by his words urged immediately before that though Cyprian held this opinion yet was it not with obstinacie as the 〈◊〉 maintained theirs but that he would have forsaken that errour if the falshood thereof had beene demonstrated unto him not by a Generall Councell onely as it was at Nice but as the Iesuite urgeth his words if any man had shewed the contrary unto him Now the Pope with his Councell did decree against it but this Augustine did not conceive as the Iesuite would collect to be a demonstration sufficient to convict S. Cyprian so that the Iesuit doth but trifle in urging this testimony Now saith the Iesuite although this point is made plaine 〈◊〉 by this holy Fathers authority k Reply p. 101. c. What hath the 〈◊〉 no more but one Fathers authoritie and as you perceive a poore one for his infallible Iudge Yes That I may leave it past all doubt saith hee or replication wee will give a glance to see how the practise of this Doctrine was performed and to this purpose hee telleth us that wee shall finde how 68. Bishops writing from Garthage to Pope Innocentius after having related unto his Holines what they had concluded themselves in the matter they say that they thought it convenient to intimate the same unto his Charitie to the end that unto the decrees of our mediacritie say they be annexed the authoritie of the See Apostolicke for the preservation of the health and good estate of many and also for the correction of the perversitie of some others And that the second Councell held at Milevitum sent an epistle to Pope Innocentius about the same matter beginning with these words Seeing our Lord God by the gift of his especiall grace hath placed you in the See Apostolicke c we beseech you to use your pastorall diligence in remedying the great dangers wherewith the weaker members of Christ are invironed l Reply p. 101. 102. Nowhere is nothing that may conclude the Roman Bishop to be this infallible rule it being manifest that other Bishops were sought unto and consulted as well as himselfe nay after hee had declared his judgement For in the point of Easter after the Bishops of Egypt had declared their mindes and the Church of Alexandria with the Bishop of the Roman Church had defined the matter yet They
observed if the Truth were not before knowne The declaration doth not make it Faith but sheweth that the faithfull doe adhere unto it as revealed by God for if the truth were not there the declaration of it were an Hersie or error at least Neither doth hee produce any thing afterwards to make the Church the rule of faith Whereas he tels us that S. Augustine writing to S. Hierome requesteth him that setting downe the Catalogue of Heretickes he would joyntly expresse in what points they had beene condemned by Catholicke authoritie and againe in his Preface to the above mentioned Catalogue of Heresies hee mentioneth himselfe what the Church holdeth against such Heresies without making any mention of the authority of Scripture z Reply p. 10. I thinke the Iesuite would have a Church embracing heresie What doth the Churches adherence to truth make her the Iudge or rule of it and because Catholicke authority condemneth Herefie must therefore the contrary truth have its life from the declaration thereof Faith must then follow the Church not leade it The Iesuit may conceive that this Father meanes not by the Churches authority a power inherent in their Roman Apollo excluding all other assistance but a lawfull determination according to the Scriptures by the Bishops Preists of the Catholick Church For otherwise he must acknowledge in the Church such a domination as was amongst the Gentiles Luke 22. But sure it is that S. Augustine dreamed no more of your Iudge then the blessed Apostle S. Paul who in the enumeration of the divers degrees of the ministery Ephes 1111. v. 11. left him out Besides the Iesuite by Apostolicall directions in matters that concerne faith may see a Rule not a Iudge pointed out as having authority to guide us Phil. 3. 16. Gal. 6. 16. by which rule as the Church receiveth strength so limitation Finally saith the Iesuite observe how all the points layde down by me in my demand being declared by the Catholicke Church for articles of faith are of necessity to be beleived and held for such the contrary for dâ—â—â—able Heresie Reply p. 104 What the Iesuite doth say for the expresse declaration of all his points of Faith wil be examined in their severall places here an induction he brings us a conclusion whereby he would prove that the onely Rule to know a point of faith from an indifferent opinion in Religion is the declared determined judgment of the Church by which all the points laid down in his demand being propounded unto them for such must of necessity be accounted cheife articles of Catholick beleife b Reply p. 105. 106. But from whence the Iesuite draweth this conclusion I cannot see for if the Church command by the expresse Scripture and sense agreed on in all ages the Church then doth judge at least with undependant authority but direct calling for obedience to a former judgment if it decree in points doubtfull the Churches declaration can bind us to peace and externall obedience but here no infallible judge is allowed to make matters that were doubtfull to be of faith or to create from uncertainties a new Creed That the Church by her particular ministers and body representative hath applied the Scriptures to severall heresies thereby detected condemned them we deny not but will this make every point decreed by a Councell wilfully from their owne ends without direction or limitation to be a cheife article of Faith Your Quartadecimani were convinced of heresie by the Scripture as Alphonsus de Castro telleth us c Alphons de Castro advers Haeâ— l. 12. de Pascha Istorum ergo sententia inde convincitur haerescos quòd supra in titulo de lege oâ—tendimus esse hâ—resim asserere caeremonias judicia legis veteris obligare tempore legis evangelicae Nam Paulus reprehendens Galats co quod caeremonias legis observandas putaâ—ent inter alia dicit Dies observatis menses tempora annos but where by the naked declaratioÌ„ of Pope Victor without this rule Neither did he excommunicate all the Bishops of Asia in this cause if Alphonsus speake truth but they escaped it by Irenâ—us his chyding of your Pope d Idem ibid. Fâ—cisset nisi illum Iraeneus ob hoc redarguisset Here you see that these hereticks of the East after the Pope had condemned them had one Catholick Bishop pleading for them In like manner the Novatians e Alphons de Castro adver haer l. 12. de â—â—â—n haeâ— 3 Cum non sit alia res pluries apertius in sacris condicibus pâ—odita quà m misâ—ricordia quam Deus erga peccatorâ—s maxime poenitentes exercet illis peccatorum suorum indulgentiam tribuens might be condeÌ„ned as the Arians f Socrates Hist Eccles l. 1. c. 7. Evangelici enim Apostolici libri nâ—â—non antiquorum Prophetarum ora cula planè instruunt nos inquit Constantinus Imperator in Nicaea Synodo sensu numinis Proinde hostili politâ discordiâ sumaâ—â—us ex dictis divini Spiritus explicationes quaestionum Haec his similia memorabat ille velut amans paterni nominis filius sacerdoâ—ibus tanquam patribuâ— cupions confiteri Apostolicorum dogmatum unitatem Quibus assensus maximae conventus partis acceâ—â—it Macedonians g Theodoret. Hist Eccles l. 5. c. 9. Iam enim semel formam protulimus ut qui se Christianum profiteatur server â—a quae ab Apostolis tradita sunt quum dicat Sanctus Paâ—lus Si quis vobis annunciat aliud quam accepistis anathema esto Nestorians h Epistola Cyrilli Synodi ad Nestorium tom 1. Act. Concil Ephes Occum c. 14 Haec tenere haec sapere cum à sanctis Apostolis Evangelistis tum ab universa quoque sacra divina Scriptura tum ex veraci denique sanctorum patrum confessione edocti sumus Eâ—tich i Euagrius Histor Eccles l. 2. c. 4. Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum confitemur c. siâ—ut antiquitùs Prophetae de â—o postille ipse Christus nos docâ—â—t idem ipsum nobis Patrum Symbolum tradidit Pelagians k Concil Milevit c. 2. the Monothelites l Concil Constant Vniversale VI. Act. 1. 2. Propositis in medio Sanctis intemeratis Evangelijs but was this done by the judgement of the Church onely and absolutely surely no but by the Scriptures And it is more then cleare that the reason why you distast the Scriptures is as Clemens Alexandrinus observeth because you hold not the rule of faith Clemens Alexandr Stromat l. 7. Necesse est enim labi in maximis cos qui res maximas aggrediuâ—tur nisâ— regâ—lam veritatis ab ipsa veritate acceptam tenuâ—rint Qui autem sâ—nt ejâ—smoâ—i ut qui à recta via excideâ—int meritò etiam falluntur in pluâ—imis singularibus propterea quòd non habeant verorum â—alsoâ—um judicium planâ— exercitatum
n Cap 21. hath published a Booke in French translated into English whereby hee hath prooved it to bee an vnjust proceeding to deny the change happened to the Church vnder pâ—â—tence that the authors time and place of it cannot be specified And also Doctor Fulke o In his answer to a counterfite Catholick ar 11. â— 24 hereto agreeth that when the Scripture telleth vs that the Mysterie of iniquitie preparing for the generall defection and revelation of Antichrist wrought even in Saint Paules time 2. Thess 2. it is folly to aske whether suddenly and in one yeare all Religion was corrupted and if Mr Malone will have more hee shall not want numbers of our owne to witnes our consent heerein May not this shamelesse Iesuite blush then to produce Fulke and Whitaker and the rest to have answered this question when they conclude it vaine and of no necessity and never dreamed of answering the same For all the Quotations of the Iesuite out of our Authors doe not expresse one word of answere to his question Fulke speaketh of the time that the Pope began to blind the world Napier of the beginning of the Popes Papisticall and Antichristian raigne Brokard of the Popes falling from Christ Leigh sheweth his opinion how long the Popes have beene Divells Winckelman relates the different opinions touching the beginning of the 42. monethâ— in the 11. of the Revelation Whitaker coniectures at the last true and godlie Bishop of the Roman Church and so in like manner the rest of the learned men mentioned by him but there is not one of them whose words he expressely layeth downe that answeres the question What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion which you commend in them of the first 400 yeares or In what Popes dayes was the true religion over-throwne in Rome To this question from his owne words wee may proove a consent that this observation of times seasons doth often fayle and that they are not so easie to be discerned as fooleâ— are borne in hand they are For heerein with the learned Answerer doth Powell and the learned Whitaker agree yea so consonant are they in their resolutions that the learned Answererin this Iesuites observation seemeth to be spit out of Whitaker his mouth and Mr Powell hee confesseth agreeth with them The difference is not in answering this question In what Popes dayes was the true religion over throwne but In what Popes dayes did the revelation of the Antichristian tyrannie beginne The Iesuite may know there is a distance betwixt the blading of Antichrist his tyrannie whereby it became visible and the power of it the blading was but a preparation for evill the power and authoritie it got afterwards was that which brought these frauds and corruptions in whereby it appeareth that there is great difference in these questions and that worthy Whitaker was no weather-cock as this Buzard tearmeth him Yet notwithstanding we doe not deny that as Hectick agues whose beginnings are obscure declare themselves to Physitians by divers symptomes of the bodies decay waste whereby one Physitian at one time by one signe another by an other in a different houre may judge of the disease though from divers symptomes yet all aright So have our Divines done some perceiving the symptomes of Apostacie in the Church at one time some at another have declared the appearing of this defection fore-told some from one Popes tyrannie some from another Some saw this Apostacie by symptomes of notorious pride as in Boniface the third Others by out-daring impieties when Dagon images and idols were put vp in the Church of God Others by open vilenes and prophâ—nesse visible to Parasites p Plat. in Iohan 13. Onuph annot in Plat Iohan. â— themselves when your monstra and pertenta opened heaven gates But what is this to the Iesuites demaund the question that he is to exempt from vanity concerneth the time of the alteration or overthrowe of the true or the so much commended Religion of the first 400. or 500. yeares The Apostacie or defection began indeed in the Apostles time and the seedes of Antichristianisme were layde for the sixe following ages q See the most reverend Lord Primate in his book de Christ Eccl. success statu pag. 16. 17 18. and yet no Papist to bee found no such visible alteration that thereby religion should bee overthrowne About the sixt Centurie some of these tares began to blade and yet all the good grayne not vtterly choaked whereby the Iesuites question appeareth more vaine For consider this Apostacie in its beginning or inchoation then it not apparantly altered much lesse overthrew the Catholick faith consider it in the encrease although it assaulted Religion yet neither wholly or in any fundamentall part did it alter the same consider it when it came to more perfect ripenes if there be any perfection in Apostacie as in the latter Centuries doe not thinke that we conclude the Church of God overthrowne because that Antichrist playeth the Tyrant therein So that Mr Covell sayth nothing of the alteration or overthrow of catholick faith when he speaketh of the beginning of Apostacie His last objection is taken from S. Augustine his rule that whatsoever the vniversall Church vseth if no time can be found when that vse began it must necessarily be derived from the very Apostles themselves r Reply pag 4. We need not to question this ground although S. Augustine gave this rule not to discerne points of faith by for he knew they were in the divine word plenarily contained but ceremonies and matters belonging to Ecclesiasticall practise For can we thinke the Fathers in S. Augustine his dayes were so ignorant of the catholicke rule of faith that they must leane vpon such a conjecture as this for points fundamentall of necessary beleife Shew me one Councell that decreed any point of faith by the bare strength of this rule if you can I can shew you a point of practise that had all that this rule could give it as Childrens necessary eating the Eucharist Å¿ Maldon in 6. Iohan. Aug. de peccator merit remiss lib. 1. c. 24. and yet is rejected both by the doctrine practise of your Traditiondefenders Yet may we iustly reproove this Iesuites assertion that dare affirme those points vniversally held and practised by the Church at the time as he cals it of Luthers revolt then which nothing is more grosse for if he meane the very waiters of the Roman Mistresse Sylvester Prierias his representative Church the Pope and his Cardinalls they will not be found to agree in the points mentioned but did differ amongst themselves And for the Catholicke Church let him proove it if hee bee able for bare words will not sway it Yet if this will serve their turne we shal be able to proove that in the Catholicke Church these points were never generally received take the Church for the vniversall body of the
faithfull and not for a handfull of Donatisticall Romanists Nay this may bee manifested by Romanists themselves who although they yeelded outward conformitie to the practise and held communion with the Roman Church have yet notwithstanding loathed the burden and complained of the tyrannie 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.
Å¿ See Bern cited before in the 1. Section Besides iâ— iâ— a good Consequent Some Heresies have beene detected in their beginnings with the circuÌ„stances of person time place therefore those which have not in like manner beene maâ—e knowne are notheresies Are not false doctrines many times like false Christians like Hypocrites who are often accounted the best of those which professe righteousnes whenas afterwards Iudas is detected their fraud is apparant were all the Iewish corruptions before our Sauiours time vnvailed was the curtain of painted appearance drawne aside among the Pharisees were not many good men deceived by theÌ„ as Nicâ—◠〈◊〉 â— Iohn 3. 1. that entred their order who espied their painted Hypocrisies till Christ layd them open in their colours making them appeare to every pur-blinde eye what they truely were Our Iesuite to prove his demaund hath produced two t Reply pag. 8. places first Isaiah 62. 2. And what saith the Prophet there The Iesuite I thinke suspects the strength of his quotation or otherwise he would have layde downe the words nakedly and not with his glosse I have set watchmen vpon thy walles O Ierusalem which shall never hold their peace day or night These are the words but not one syllable that they should cry out still vpon every arising errour or Heresie Nay what is here to confirme that which he would prove God giveth his Church faithfull watchmen that will neither day or night be idle and keepe cloyster but will labour to build vp Ierusalem till GOD make it a prayse of the earth But alas what is this to the roote of Heresies to the circumstance of their espyall The birth of every Prodigy is not observed in the shepheards Calendar but of Comets those which are of like nature neither is every Heresie detected by the Iesuite's rule but such as in their first appearing shew themselves to be against faith and good life as Augustine u epist 119. cap. 19. saith in the words alledged Who knoweth not that little clouds may end in stormes which without an Elias * 1. King 18. 44 cannot be suspected Yet must God faile in his promise for his servants not espying the taresower The Apostle that could cry * 2. Cor 2. 16. quis idoneus ad hâ—c did not thinke the perfection of Pastors such that compleatly they might performe every circumstance which their Office doth require If God give faithfull watchmen that will not be tongue-tyed in Gods service nor cease to sound when the enemie approacheth this is sufficient to repute the watchmen faithfull to free their soules For God requires not the trumpet to be vsed before the enemie be espied when your cunnings appeared trechery they have not wanted opposers in all ages so that herein God hath no wayes failed his word For the other place Ephe 4. 11. it maketh no better to his purpose for who denyeth but Christ gave some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers but to what purpose to espy the person time place of hereticall beginnings no but for the perfecting of the Saints for the works of the ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ * Eph 4. â—â— which might be effected by the faithfull resisting of heresies by scriptures although their beginning time and place should be vnknowne For St Augustines words they are true make nothing against the Answerer for if every Pastor ought not to passe ever in silence their manners and doctrine which be against faith and good life but should labour to disgrace and condemne the same much more this will be required of the Church in generall but they must appeare first to be so Paul did not bitterly enveigh against Elimas till he appeared the child of the divell * Aâ—â—â—â—3 â— 10 resisted the streight wayes of the Lord Neither are mens opinions resisted till they appeare hereticall for otherwise every Pastor should be Iohannes ad opposituÌ„ fighting with his own shadow It is for Christ that knoweth the secret of hearts to say that Iudas is a divel * Iohn 6. â—0 And to as much purpose is Dr Fulks confession That the true Church hath resisted all false opinions with open reprehension This no man denyes but first they did appeare to befalse opinioÌ„s Besides cannot heresies be resisted with out naming their beginning time place Yes nodoubt as openly as Luther Fulke have resisted your errors whose beginnings you say they know not or you the Leoniste whose genealogy your great Inquisitor Reinerius x See this alledged in the â— Section could not find out So that the Iesuite may perceive it is no gross assertion to avouch such horrible errours as their opinions are to have assaulted the Church with most secret mysticall fraud although the beginnings of many of them may bee obscured hid But that ever we said they conquered the whole Church that they obtained vniversall estimation of true faith without being either contradicted or asmuch as once observed by any Watchman whatsoever this is no better then Iesuiticall jugling there remaining no truth in the same And now as the learned Answerer hath prooved this question or demaund to be vaine so here he goeth further to demonstrate the same by particular illustration shewing that the same things which they desire of vs cannot in the like case be performed by them And first saith the most reverend Primate We read that the Sadduces taught there were no Angels is any man able to declare vnto vs vnder what high Preist they first broached this errour To this he maketh a twofold Answere one of them is that if the certaine time of the beginning of this errour of the Saduces were not knowne at all little could that availe when as the like circumstance of time is vrged onely to finde out the truth of an â—â—ter in controversy c. which because you affirme we who deny the same doe vrge you to point vs out the time when c but that the Sadduces taught that errour there is no doubt nor controversy it being plainly testified by the scripture y Reply pag. â— Which is but a vaine simple straine of the Iesuite For how can it be but the reason must be alike in all even in those which be not declared expresly in scriptures as those that are And it is as plaine that you teach those particulars by your selfe proposed as the Sadduces did that there was no Angell So that if yours cannot be adjudged Heresies by GODS word vnlesse they be revealed by the circumstance of person time and place Why should this opinion of the Sadduces by strength of scriptures and other grounds be judge â—nd concluded to be so For otherwise if any Nathaniel in whom there was no guile * Iohn 1. 47. should have preached against the Sadduces before Christ revealed the same that they had beene Heretickes for denying
who being not justified doe dye are appointed for euerlasting punishments By which it is evident that the fiction of Purgatory is not to be admitted but in the truth it is determined that every one ought to repent in this life to obtaine remission of his sinnes by our Lord Iesus Christ if he will be saved And let this be the end This compendious and briefe Confession of vs we conjecture wil be a contradiction to them who are pleased to slander maliciously accuse vs and vnjustly persecute vs But we trust in our Lord Iesus Christ and hope that he will not relinquish the cause of his faithfull ones nor let the rod of wickednes lye vpon the lot of the righteous Dated in Constantinople in the Moneth of March 1629. CYRILL Patriarch of Constantinople OVr Iesuite is charged by the most reverend Primate Some things are maintained by you which have not beene delivered for Catholicke Doctrine in the primitive times but brought in afterwards your selves know not when The Iesuite pumping for an answere herevnto talketh of ambiguity doubtfull phrases fighting in a cloud As if a man could deale more plainely with the Roman faction then to tell them that there are many points held now of faith by them which the first times never received for Catholicke doctrine and that they themselves know not when many of them were first broached in the Roman Church But the Iesuite fearing least he should be espied in opposing so manifest a truth would here raife a myst or fogge that he might the better steale out of danger for he indeavoureth to perswade That by those words the Answerer goeth about to make his simple Reader beleive that we maintaine doctrine contrary to that of primitive times because forsooth we maintaine now somethings which were not expresly declared nor delivered as necessary articles of Christian faith c Reply pag. 11 He were a simple reader indeed that would beleive this Iesuite either in his faith or doctrine if it have no better support then the declaration of some of their late Councels to confirme it But he were more then simple that can pick the Iesuite his collection from the learned Answerer his words Simple men interprete the Bels as they imagine and imagination hath directed the Iesuite heere and not the truth For what hath the words of the most reverend Primate to doe with the species of opposition where chargeth he you with maintaining doctrine contrarie to that of primitive times where doth he insinuate so much He that discovered your intrufions to have been brought in vnder the name of Piety was not so forgetfull to judge those points contrary to the received doctrine of faith You teach new faith this is the charge You deny not the old professedly in any point this were too grosse and fit for the fooles your brethren open Heretickes and not for the wisest sonne that can promote his fathers kingdome by a more secret and mysticall fraud So that let his words be softer then oyle or sharper then darts I am sure heerein the Iesuite fayles when hee thinketh them to be shot at the innocent The Iesuite would speake more to purpose to free himselfe and his faction and to this end he delivereth to us two propositions 1. We maintaine some things as Articles of faith which were not in primitive times expressely determined declared delivered for such And 2. Wee maintaine some things as articles of our faith which are contrary to that which hath beene declared for Catholick doctrine in primitive times would have vs know that there is a great difference betwixt these two sayings d Ibid. But as the Iesuite granteth the former to be true of themselves so the most learned Answerer in this place doth not charge them with this latter at all For I doubt not but that the most reverend Primate will yeeld so farre vnto you that in shew at least you holde the Apostles Creed and with the Pharisees give it the first place of honour as they Moses law yet notwithstanding your additions have cast contumely many times vpon the ancient faith as Pharisaicall traditions vpon Moses law * Mat. 25. â— 9. That which Roffensis sayth may be acknowledged in a right sence that there were many points universally held by the Primitive Church in beleife and practise the which with explanation were defended against contradicting Hereticks that arose in after-times But what is this to new doctrine never universally received nor anciently knowne or what argument is heere perswading you to declare that for ancient faith which was never delivered from the Apostâ—â—s c. or received by the Primitive Church But the Iesuite that he might gaine credit to his first proposition tels vs. Before the Nicen Councell some books of Canonicall Scripture were doubted of yea and rejected from the Canon by some of the Ancient without any blame at all which after the said Councel could not lawfully be called in quèstioÌ„ e Reply pag. 11 And all to very little purpose For first the Nicene Councell did not declare doubtfull books for Canonical Scripture nor point out the Canon which the Catholick Church did universally receive neither doth it make at all against their universall receipt of those bookes that some privat men or Church doubted of or rejected them For the Iesuite will have his doctrine generally received if affirmed by ten or eleven Fathers †Valentia if by the choysest Why shall f Reply pag. 94 not Gods booke have equall priviledge with a Papall Indulgence when the first is acknowledged in a manner by most this never taken notice of nor acknowledged at all Besides suppose that some private men or some few Churches did not receive some booke of the Canon yet this can no way hinder the universal receipt of the whole more then a mountaine or a wave the Globes roâ—undity Secondly although they were not blame worthy as the Iesuite would have it which should not receive some bookes of the New Testament which is false yet they were not without blemish for if it were an honour to the Iewes especially to the tribes of Iudah Benjamin that to them wholly intirely were commended the Oracles of God * Rom. 3 2. it must needes bee a dishonour to the ten tribes to have rejected all but the five bookes of Moses Thirdly although those bookes were doubted of yet they were doubtingly received for you cannot finde them by any Church canonically rejected Fourthly it had bin as foule an errour to have decreed any thing against the authority of those books before the Nicen Councel as afterwards For if the Iesuit will take it to bee such a tye that all are bound to stand vnto the declaration of a Councel why did not the Councel of Laodicea f Carran in sum Concilâ— can 59. performe their obligatioÌ„ but in the repetition of the Canon leave the book of Iudith to be placed amoÌ„gst the Apocrypha not
unto us without some uncertainty h Reply pag. 13 Thirdly he flyeth to the institution of Christ as a sufficient rule to declare the originall of their faith which we like in them accepting the tryall thereby what he pretendeth for himselfe wee will on our part undertake to prove viz â— that all the points of our Religion by the confession of the very authors alledged by the Iesuite have their originals from the institution of our Lord. But if the Iesuite deny us the like liberty which he taketh unto himselfe he befooles his owne argument if he grant the same unto us then hee demonstrateth his owne demaund to bee vaine which requireth person time place as a necessary ground whereby to detect Heresie and errour by Finally it will most plainly appeare how vainly our Answerer proveth my demaund to be vaine if we gather his reason to a head thus we our selves cannot tell when some of those points which we maintaine against them began or by whom they were first brought in Ergo we have little reason to demaund the same of him seeing as he saith it is more then we our selves are able to tell The Antecedent hath beene already disproved i Reply pag. 13 How the Antecedent hath been disproved the Reader may judge by what hath been already said but I am sure it hath driven this Iesuite the Defenders of Purgatory c. to the Scriptures which the Iesuite â—â—r any Saylor in the Roman Gulfe would never anchor 〈◊〉 unlesse forced by a storme in case of necessity And further I wonder that the Iesuite should confesse that iâ— all their profession wee cannot shâ—we them any point or article whose Originall they cannot derive most plainely from Christ and his Apostles c. whenas they charge the Scripture with obscurity k Bellarm De verbo Dei lib. 3 cap. 1. Si res consideres necessarió fatendum est Scripturas esse obscurissimas Siquidem tradunt summa mysteria de divina Trinitate de incarnations verbi c Et 〈◊〉 post Si veromodum dicendi consideremus inveniâ—mus innumerabiles rationes 〈◊〉 darknes And thirdly you may perceive this Antecedent hath beene so well proved that omissâ successione intermediâ the Iesuite is willing to breake downe their bulwarke of succession and to originalize every point in his profession from Christ and his Apostles thinking that to be a sufficient meanes to declare the truth of Doctrine when their Champions Fisher and Sweet denyed the said liberty for the same end to their acute and learned opponent Doctor Featly l Answer to the Fisher catched in his own nâ—t Sect. 2. And although we should not stand with him upon his said Antecedent truely hee deduceth not a right conclusion out of the same For say that we our selves could not tell the precise time of their beginnings yet have we good cause to demaund the same of him m Reply pag. 14. c This is but a fancy and hath no ground in reason as if your Catholick Roman Church ought not to have as much care to prevent heresies as we to detect them or that you who make succession your note of truthes should not bee bound to shew their perpetuity by a preciâ—e continuance from the Apostles downewards as well as we to declare their falshood and to shew their upstartednes in following times Our Answerer surmising as it seemeth that the vanity of these foresaid proofes would quickly be descryed by his judicious Reader endeavoureth with other vaine instances and examples to cast a mist before his eyes n Reply pag. 14 c. Silly Dreamer how did his selfe-conceit flatter him when he compiled his Reply Doth he thinke a judicious Reader can espy that in transitu on a sudden and by view barely which a Iesuite and his fellow-labourers cannot manifest with all their paines Yet let the judicious Reader judge of things past he promiseth much in time to come But wee by Gods grace setting forth the light of veritie will easily disperse the foggie vapors of his vanitie that so wee may reduce the Reader to the path of truth o Reply ibid Gods grace assisteth truth not herefie the breath of his mouth must consume Antichrist not fortifie his kingdome the light of verity is so far from being set forth by this Iesuite that it is his master-peice to rayle against it to eclypse it if such a moone-calfe could performe the worke Yet let us see what these foggie vapors are which the glorious light of the Iesuites veritie will disperse He saith then concerning our Private Masse that he will tell us in what Popes dayes it first beganne if wee tell him in what Popes dayes the People first began to fall from their devotion r Reply ibid. But he hath left the most learned Primate's answere not because a fogge but because the light thereof ofâ—ends his sight For first the most learned Answerer setteth forth the vanity of his Demand in asking What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion which you commend in them of the first 400 yeares In what Pope his dayes was the true Religion over-throwne in Rome by severall arguments 1. from their owne disability 2. from their comming in pedetentim their lingring birth which cannot bee in one Popes dayes 3. from the tacite confent of many which cannot be wrought by one And heere hee bringeth two more instances the first taken from want of Devotion in the people the second from time it selfe And therefore to require a Pope for the altering of that which was done by another or to restraine us so to time as to urge us for to shew that to have beene brought into the Roman Church in one Popes dayes which perhaps was not effected in the lives of 100. of them this must needes be a vaine and ridiculous Demand But let us see whether the Iesuite be not lost in this mist Wee urge him with hiâ— promise saith he as he is a man of his word and wee give him to understand that in Pope Peter the Apostles time the people fell from their devotion of whom therefore the same Apostle saith That it had beene better for them not to have knowne the way of Iustice then after having knowne it to turne froÌ„ the holy comandement given them * 1. Peâ—â—â—â— 21. c. Behold now when people fill from their devotion and consequently when our private Masse began even by our Answerers owne rule unlesse he put chance betweene q Reply pag. 14 Did people in generall want devotion in S. Peters time was the best age of the Church the worst by your censure Is it the decay of love in some one or few hypocrites mindes that can answere the most learned Primates demaund You must shew us a time when the people did as universally lack Devotion as they doe among you the Sacrament or else you have accepted the Answerers promise to your
primitive times unlesse hee can make it as generally to be vnderstood in France and Spaine at this day as it was sometime in Spaine before the Latine ceased to bee the vulgar language in that Countrie m Bellarm. de vâ—â—bo Dei lib 2. cap. 15. A multis jam seculis desâ—â—t in Hispaniâlingua latina esse vâ—â—garis But our Iesuite confident in his variety resolveth not to trouble the most learned Answerer with any more demands untill such time as he shall have thought upon some better Answerer to my challenge for as we have seene saith he hitherto he hath well plaied the answerlesse Answerer indeed concluding at last out of Arnobius thus If I be not able to declare unto you by what Bishop of Rome and in what Popes dayes the simplicity of the auncient faith was first Corrupted it will not presently follow that what was done must needs be undone n Reply pag. 18 and 19. Can there be a better Answere then what hath been given him For the Demaund is not onely prooved vaine by the most learned Answerer but he hath moreover answered the foole in his folly and satisfied the vaine Demaundant not confessing his disability therein as the Iesuite would perswade but pointing out the originall of those bastard birthes which he doth struggle to legittimize Yet the Iesuite being hard pressed with Arnobius who directly affirmeth that the truth of a matter of fact doth not depend vpon any mans knowledge or detection replyeth Indeed I grant that if wee had agreed that it was done wee ought not to pose you about the time when it was done but wee denying that it is done and having already proved that vnlesse it be shewen when it was done it must needs follow that it was never done without doubt when you confesse that you are not able to shewe when it was done you declare plainly that it is not â—â— yet done Reply pag. 19 But is here any syllable that answereth Arnobius is not the answere answerlesse indeed For first Arnobius is produced to prove that a thing may be don though it cannot be shewen how it was done and the Iesuite for answere thereof telleth us that he hath proved the contrary but we are not tyed to beleive him vntill he pointeth out the time when and the place where it was done this being necessary by his own rule Besides the Iesuite doth not consider how hee shakes the foundation of their Roman faith Peters seat and Peters successor by this his assertion For the first Have the Protestants agreed that Peter placed his seat at Rome The Iesuit knoweth they altogether oppose the same yet if we argue froÌ„ the vncertainty of time when Peter did that greaâ— worke that it was never done Bellarmine answeres us that though their Divines disagree when it was done yet it doth not at all weaken the matter of fact but that it was done p De Rom. Pont. lib. 2. cap. â— Respondeo discordiam de tempore si qua esset quo Petrus Romam venit non infirmare sententiam nostram quòd Petrus Romam venerit Nam saepissimè accidit ut constet de re non constet de modo vel alia circumstantia Further it is the great foundation of your Roman faith that S. Peter left the Bishops of Rome his successors which we beleive was not done shall this article together with the RomaÌ„ church fall to the ground unlesse you can certainely lay us downe his immediate successor to whom he delivered this Commission Bellarmin is a greater friend to the Papacy then so Etiamsi plane ignoraremus quis Petro proximè successerit non tamen proptereà in dubium revocari debere an aliquiâ— successerit q Bellarm. de Râ—m Pont. lib. 2. cap. 5. Although we be ignorant saith hee of the person that immediatly succeded Peter yet doth it not breed any scruple that he had no successor at all Now compare these harpers together and you shall perceive that either our Iesuite wanteth skill or else his instrument is out of tune for otherwise he would not jangle thus against their Master-Musitian that unlesse we can shew him the time when a thing is done it must needs follow that it was never done Whereby also it appeareth how farre that parable of the good and bad seede saith the Iesuite by you alledged is from furthering of your cause r Reply pag. 19. Here is a discourse laced with wise observations First because the demaunders acknowledged the bad seede Å¿ Ibid. But how knew they that seede to be bad which they never saw was it not by the blade as evill trees by their fruite or was it by comparing it with the blade of the good seed as we examine heresies by Apostolicke doctrine Secondly saith the Iesuite the Master â—old them the party by whom it was sâ—wen t 〈◊〉 Yet the Servants told the Master that they were tares before the Master told them who was the seedesman and why in like manner may not we discover heresies before the hereticks that brought them in Thirdly by the text saith he wee 〈◊〉 when it was sowen to wit when men were asleepe u 〈◊〉 But will such a time satisfie the Iesuite if it be layed downe by us will this answere the Iesuites demands What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion which you commend in them of the first 400. yeares In what Pope his dayes was the true Religion overthrowne in Rome x See the Iesuites preface to the Reader if it do not he abuseth the parable if it doe let him receive his answere in the second page of the Answere to his Challenge where this most reverend Lord telleth him that they who kept continuall watch and ward against heresies which openly oppose the foundations of our faith might sleepe while the seeds of the Roman Apostasie were a sowing And now let the Reader consider how slightly and shiftingly the Iesuite hath cast off this parable of the seed Well then our Answerer telleth us saith the Iesuite that in the tenth age men not onely slumbred but snorted also by the testimonies of our owne Authors Genebrard Baronius and Bellarmine and what then must this sayth hee inforce mee to yeeld that the Divell brought in no tares all that while but let slip the oportunity of so darke a night and slept himselfe for company No Sr the case is cleare hee did not sleepe but bestirred himselfe most busily in soweing then his tares abundantly Then brought hee in all those vices which at that time raigned both in Princes and Prelates and made that age so unhappy yet Gods divine providence saith Bellarmine in the very place alledged by you did so worke that no new heresies did then arise y Reply pag. 19. Here we have many things seemingly confessed by this Iesuite First that the visibility of the Roman Church hath passed through an obscure age Secondly that the light of
〈◊〉 Romana Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hist cap. 〈…〉 S. 〈◊〉 Basil Augustine stile thâ—se writings â—â—ving his counterfeit Calixius at Rome make these bookes Canonicall it being plaine that they were so tearmed in respect of other corrupt writings which were read in the Church at that time which practice was excepted against by the Third Councell of Carthage 〈◊〉 as it is urged by the Iesuite wherein it was decreed that nothing should be read in the Church under the name of divine Scriptures and I thinke you will not conceive this inhibition had any relation to any of those bookes we call Apocryphall they being never condemned to be read by the Church Besides Bellarmine telleth us the title of divine â—â— given by most 〈◊〉 and most 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Prayer of 〈◊〉 the 3 and 4. of 〈◊〉 the 3. and 4. of 〈◊〉 and the booke of Pastor â— c. And the calling of 〈◊〉 Propheticall Scripture by S. Ambrose is to like effect it being given to the fourth booke of Eâ—â—ras which the Iesuite will not have Canonical Scripture though it be lifted up with as great a testimony from that Faâ—her q Sixtus seneâ— Bibl. sancta lib. 1. de Esdâ—â— lib. 3. 4. Divus Ambrosius etiam quartum librum putat editum ab ipso Esdra non sine divinâ revelatione as the booke of Tobie which hee is willing to justifie But leaving Tobie with his dog the Iesuite hath some further proofe for the Macehabees They are alledged saith he as other Canonicall bookes of Scriptures are without any difference And who are the alledgers Cyprian 〈◊〉 â—en and Ambrose r Reply pag. â—â— Two things are here to be examined First whether every booke cited by a Father be Canonicall Secondly how and in what manner they be urged and cited by the Fathers First it is evident that there is no ground that the citing of a booke by a Father should turne his nature when an Apostles pen hath not that virtue in it selfe unlesse he will conclude all those Poets cited in the Scriptures and the booke of Eâ—â—ch by Iude to be reckoned within the Canon Besides if this Argument have any life in it against us why 〈◊〉 it not have the same strength against Papists to prove the booke called Pastor to be Canonicall which as Bellarmine observeth 〈◊〉 by the Fathers Irenaeus who giveth it the name of Scriptures Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen For the Bellarm de scriptor ecclesâ— Hermen five Hermes librum scripsit apud veteres valde celebrem 〈◊〉 inscripsit Pastorem Is libâ—â— quamvis à sancto 〈◊〉 reâ—â—o lib. 4 caprino Origeâ—â— et divinorum title Divine given by Cyprian and his testimony out of Augustine there needeth no further illustration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answered in substance before Our Iesuite from these grounds the principall whereof iâ— S. Hieromes ignorance beginnes his 〈◊〉 What wonder then if the Church at Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them also for Canonicall 〈…〉 The slightest cause hath two or three witnesses those without exception that directly agree one with an other in giving testimony to the proposed articles The Iesuiâ—e that pretended the auncient Church hath not given us â—â—â— compleat proofe from the same and those which he â—â—th produced are but particular men with one Provinâ—â—â—ll Councell which they themselves generally approve â—oâ— and some of his private testimonies say little to the pâ—rpose So all that our Iesuite can expect is this that in some private judgements these bookes might be judged Canonicall but never so delivered by the auncient Church which defence the booke Pastâ—r hath from 〈◊〉 confession and the fourth of Esdras by the confession of your owne Sixtuâ— Senensis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 1. de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefoâ—e there is reason sufficient that our Iesuite should 〈◊〉 doâ—â—â— his 〈◊〉 whichupon so vaine a confidence heâ— hath â—rected and acknowledge their change although they have doâ—â— it upon so good a ground as the imbracing of some private judgments three or foure hâ—â—dreth yâ—â—es after Christ leaving the streame of the ancient Church â—he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Thus the charge appâ—â—â—â—th to be 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 as the Iesuit hoped to have proved it that the Church of Rome hath leâ—â— the gâ—â—â—rall practise of the â—â—â—cient Church and hath imbracâ—◠〈◊〉 private 〈◊〉 not for love of their persons but 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 themselves they finde some shelter 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sâ—â—ing he cannot declare them scriptures by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither by the testimony of the ancient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all is sure if we cannot manifest that 〈◊〉 bookes held now 〈◊〉 by the Church of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a contrary sentence by the â—â—cient church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all his skill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—◠〈◊〉 saith the 〈◊〉 â—◠〈◊〉 thâ—â— evâ—â— the Church of God did 〈…〉 〈…〉 before the Church declared them for Canonicall by 〈◊〉 authoritie * Reply pag 2â— The Iesuit must tell us what he meâ—â—â—th by the Churches declaring them by publicke authority For if he understand a generall Councell it is idle for they never came to be so yâ— Canus loc Theol. l. â— c. â—â— Cyprianus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in expositione symboli â—osdem sex libros patrum anctoritate a quibus se 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quod idâ—◠〈◊〉 ci◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—ordium Cuâ—â—que diligeâ—ter de omnibus exploraverat omni investigatione comperit hos libâ—â—â— esse a veteris instrumenti am in Psalmum â—â—â— Sed i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril 〈◊〉 â—◠〈◊〉 Caâ— â—â— audacious in the primitive times as to claime the priviledge to â—â—eepe into the Canon Besides he is as foâ—d in the consequent that they have made no change herein froÌ„ the practise of the 〈◊〉 Church unlesse we can shewe that the ancient Church of God did give judgment or sentenâ—â— contrary to their Trent declaration in a generall councell For if this were good reason the councell of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have 〈◊〉 the 3. 4. booke of Esdras Pastor their decretall epistles Gregory Siâ—tus yea what not plead in the same manner that they had made no change they never being in your judgment I think condemned by the publicke authoritie of any generall councell in the ancient catholicke Church that did give judgment or sentence conâ—â—ry thereunto But if the Church might be said to give â—â—â— judgment against the bookes of Iudith Toby and the 〈◊〉 by keeping them out of the canoâ— as no doubt â—â— may practise being the best declareâ— of mens judgements it shal be manifested sufficieÌ„tly that they have long 〈◊〉 received their doome For first they were alwaies difâ—â—â—â—med in regard of the canon rule of faith 〈◊〉 that the Iesuit hath not produced one privat 〈◊〉 that is plaine and convincing for almost â—â—â— yeares 〈◊〉 Christ Secondly In the 〈◊〉 Catalogue
〈◊〉 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
they list interpreting it according to the times how they pleasâ— d Epistola 2. Nich. de Cusa Card. de usu commu ad Boâ—emoâ— Ecclesia hodierna non ita ambulat in ritu communionis sicut ante ista tempora quando sanctissimi viri utriusque speciâ—i Sacramentum necessarium esse vi praecepti Christi et verbo opere aâ—â—â—uebant Poâ—â—â—â— ne tunc Ecclesia â—rrare Certè non Quod si non quomodo id â—â—diè verum non est quod tunc omnium opinione affirâ—abatur cùm non sit alia Ecclesia ista quam 〈◊〉 Ceâ—â—â— hoc te non movent quod diversis temporibus alius alius ritus sacrisiciorum at etiam 〈◊〉 stante veritate invenitur scripturasque esse ad tempus 〈◊〉 et vaâ—â—â— intellectas ita â—â—uno tempore secundùm currentem universalem 〈◊〉 â—â—poâ—â—rentur mutato 〈◊〉 iterum sententia mutaretur SECT V. How vainely our Answerer betaketh himselfe to the Scriptures againe IN all this Section we finde nothing but what the most learned Answerer before stiled a sleight a In his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge pag 11. for where will he manifest the most reverend Lord scared with the auncient Church whose testimonies he is assured afflict these worst and last times but that he might first give the sacred Scriptures the precedencie which is due to the word of God and that he might not erect a new faith which was never builded upon the foundatton of the Apostles and Prophest b Ibid. Now let us see to what purpose the Iesuite hath heere spent his paines He it should seem was willing to finde out a way whereby the true Religion might be knowne and first hee taketh it for graunted that the Primitive Church of Rome held the true Religion for the first 500. yeares Secondly that this true Church of Rome did generally hold the chiefe Articles of Religion pointed out by himselfe in his demaund and then would have men to judge of true points of Religion by the testimony of that Church c See the â—â—â—â—ites Reply pag. 29. The most learned Answerer in this place saith nothing to these things in particular but to the Iesuites whole frame which he maketh a rule to finde out true Religion by arguing it first as a needlesse labour secondly as a tedious rule in regard matters in controversie might be brought to a shorter tryall thirdly as derogating from the Word of God that Rocke upon which alone wee build our faith from which no sleight that they can devise saith he shall ever draw us d See the 〈◊〉 reverend Lord Primaâ—â— his Answer pag. 11 Vpon this the Iesuite hath almost spent a whole page to prove that the sayings and authorities of those auncient Fathers are sufficient to prove what their opinion was e Reply pag. 29. in the points controverted as if the most learned Answerer had denyed that which in the very place alledged by the Iesuite he undertaketh to make good viz r that the Fathers writings fortifie the Catholicke cause against the Pope his party And this we say saith the most learned Answerer not as if we feared that these men were able to produce better proofes out of the writings of the Fathers for the part of the Pope then we can doe for the Catholicke cause when we come to joyne in the particulars they shall find it far otherwise f In his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge â— Gregor de Valen. Analys Fidei l. 8. c. 8. Fatendum est raro accidere posse ut quae sit Doctorum omnium uno tempore viventium de religione sententia satis cognoscâ—tur Sunt enim Catholici Doctores in Ecclesia ubique diffusa plurimi qui proinde omnes nec facile congregari nec interrogari possunt quid senâ—iâ—nt Whereby it is cleare that the Iesuite hath altogether fought with his owne shadow or the Iesuite Valentiag having not assaulted either word or passage of the most learned Answerers For if this most reverend Lord had accepted the rule I doubt not but he would have acknowledged the Fathers able to relate their owne beliefe and would further have accepted them as sole Umpier but accompting this but a Iesuiticall shift to avoide the true touchstone or ground of faith the holy Scripture he tells him that alledge what authority you list without Scripture and it cannot suffice which the Iesuite did observe although he is unwilling to take notice of it in regard hee supposeth that the Answerer will not be satisfied herewith h Reply pag. 29 This dispute sheweth that the Iesuite hath not beene so well imployed as the Emperour for in all this his fishing ne musca quidem he hath not caught a Fly and therefore the good man is sleepie that thinketh the Answerer hath for got himselfe for although he should graunt the first that the primitive Church of Rome held the true Religion of Christ for the first 500. yeares it will not needes follow that whatsoever points the Fathers of that Church generally held without the Scriptures should be points of true Religion For then every point of Morality Philosophy Rhetorick 〈◊〉 should be points of true Religion and this is crossed in the Greeke Church which is a true one but yet notwithstanding may not bee justified in every particular that they generally handle Neither dare the Iesuite admit the consequent for then the points of the blessed Virgins conception in originall some k Canus â—oâ— Theol. l. 7. c. 1 n. 1. n. 3. receiving of the Sacrament by children l Rejoynder pag. 25. and the opinion of the Millenaries m Sixtus Senens Bibl. sancta l. 5. c. 233. of the vulgar reading of the Scriptures n Rejoynder p. 139. 14â— 145. communion in both kindes o Rejoynder pag. 116. that the bookes of Toâ—y Iudith and the Macchabees are Apocryphall p Rejoynder pag. 166. must be points of true Religion Nay further the Iesuite urgeth that the most learned Answerer elsewhere confesseth that those which dye in the communion of the Church of Rome at this day dye under the mercy of God q Reply pag. 5 which surely this most reverend Lord would not have granted to them if he had not beene perswaded that they beleived aright in the foundation of faith and yet he doth not take any Church since the Apostles times to have beene more corrupt or full of errour then your owne So that a particular Church as the Roman may in some of her members be true in the foundation of faith and yet tainted with many corruptions both of manners and doctrine Is not this plaine by many of S. Paul his Epistles by the Church of Pergaâ—â—s * Revel â— â—4 And therefore the Iesuite may consider how weake a rule hee would perswade us to follow as if this argument were concludent because we hold a particular Church a true Church therefore that Church
Heresies did arise and with different names did end avour to teare in peices and devide Christ his dove and his queene or spouse was it not reason that the true Apostolicall Church should be called by her syrname of Catholicke thereby to discerne and distinguish her incorrupted unitie least that Vnspotted Virgin by other mens errors and mistaking might be devided u Reply pag. 6â— c. What have we here for the unspotted Roman Church Here is nothing to exempt her from present staines or after pollutions That there was a Catholicke Church and not â—espotted with the impurities of the auncient Herâ—ticks who doth deny yet this doth not prove Augustine over-shot in his retractation or the Iesuite justified in â—â—â— tearme Now as if hee had performed what he made us expect â—e swels Might not a man now bee bold to bee tryed by the judgment of our Answerers owne conscience whether hee had any reason to except against me for tearming the 〈◊〉 Catholicke Roman Church unspotted x Reply pag. â—â— And indiscreet man may be bould in an arme of flesh a â—eed of Egypt a broken tooth but vainely and to his losse The most learned Answerers Conscience may for any thing you have said commiserate your confidence not justifie it unlesse you would have him to be convicted with forged words and bare names When as I have saith the Iesuite this generall warrant from the holy Fathers and Doctours of this Primitive times for the same y Reply pag. 67 The most learned Answerer by excepting at your unspotted Church did not charge the â—niversall built upon the rocke confessed by Peter with desperate Heresie Particular members and Churches which have outwardly professed Christ have fallen into Heresie so may Rome z Frauciscus Picus Theo. 13 Iuxta Theoso gorumquotuâ—dam Iuris Interpretum aliquorum dogmata fieri possetut Romana Ecclesia quae particularis Ecclesia est contra universalem distincta infide aberraret but that the Catholick Church should forsake the foundation of faith this he well knew would crosse Christs promise and make the gates of Hell prevaile against his Church It would then be no rock upon which the Church was builded but the sand subject to wind weather The Iesuite in his Challenge did not stile the auncient Catholick Church which he here tearmeth Roman but the primitive Church of Rome unspotted in this sense it is there acknowledged by himselfe that the ancient Roman is by us confessed to be unspotted so that what he hath produced for their Catholick exemption from Heresie is nothing to his purpose But he proceedes in his Oratory The which being maturely pondered of thee Christian Reader thou mayest easily perceive how farre unlike our Answeters Church is unto that of the primitive confessed best times notwithstanding that he seemeth to claime so great affinitie therewith But wherein is this dissimilitude unliâ—enes In regard the Roman Church being head of all other Churches in earth c. thereupon rightly called the Vniversall or Catholick Church c is blessed with the prerogative of an inâ—incible perpetuity of an unspotted faith c. But our Adversaries Church saith the Iesuit forasmuch as by them it is confessed to want this infallible rule of faith to be lyable to error cannot with reason challenge unto it self the name of an unspotted Church therefore is rightly concluded to have no affiâ—ity or aliance with the true ancient catholick Church at al a Reply pag. 67 and 68. In answer to this we have told the Iesuit truly that the Roman Church is so far from being the head over all other churches that for all the Iesuits proofs if it were utterly destroyed the Catholick Church would not faile 2ly that in no sense the Roman Church can be truly called Catholick or Vniversall And here Godwilling I will shew that no Church in the world hath beene more besmeared with spots staines even of misbeliefe then the Roman in her successioÌ„ And if an heretical Pope can bespot the primitive church of Rome with heresy which indeed we beleive not though Papists must not deny the same it will appeare that the Primitive Church of Rome was not blessed with the Prerogative of an invincible perpetuity of unspotted faith And first if we believe their owne Rhenanus Pope Zephsrinus was defiled with spots of misbeleife Montanizing which is warranted by Tertullians testimony that was well acquainted with the Favourers of Montanus b Bellarm. de Rom Pont. l. 4. c. 8. Zepherinus Victoris successor videtur haeresim Montani approbasse Scribit enim Tertullianus in libro contra Praxeam Romanum Pontificem agnoscentem prophetias Montani ex eâ agnitione pacem Ecclesijs Asiae Phrygiae inferentem à Praxea fuisse persuasum literas pacis revocare quas jam emiserat Constat autem ex historijâ— to tempore Zepherinum fuisse Romae Pontificem Quare Rhenanus in annotationibus ad Tertâ—llianum ponit hoc loco in margine Episcopus Romanus Montanizat Neque dici potest eo tempore nondum fuisse damnatam ab Ecclesia haeresim Montani Nam ut ibidem Tertullianus dicit Praâ—eas persuasit Pontifici revocare literas pacis eâ praecipâ—rè ratione quia praedecessores ejus haeresim illam antea damnavissent neither hath Bellarmine any better shift to excuse this Pope then by telling us as if a Montanist knew not a Montanist that faith is not to be given to Tertullian c Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 8. Respondeo non esse omnino fidem habendam Tertulliano in hac parte quandoquidem ipse Montanista erat Some hundred yeares after we finde an other bespotted Pope Marcellinus acknowledged for an Idolater by Câ—sterus d Costerus Enchirid. c. 3. p. 137. Fatemur siquidem 〈◊〉 posse ut Petri successor Idola eolat quod beatum Marcellinum fecisse aiunt Bellarmine e Bellarm recognit l. de 〈◊〉 Pont. p. 20. Concessimus S. Marcellinum Idolâ—â— sacriâ—â—casse and reported by a Councell of their friends making Sinâ—essa f Concil Sinuessanum Ecce introierunt testes 14. qui dicebant se Marcellinum vidisse in temple Veâ—ta 〈◊〉 thuâ—ificantem Ibid. In sinu autem trecenrorum Episcoporum caputeinere convolutum Marcellinus Episcopus urbis Romae voce clarâ 〈◊〉 dicebat Peccavi coram vobis non possum in ordine sacerdotum esse quoniam 〈◊〉 me corrupit auro Subscripserunt autem in ejus damnationem damnaverunt â—â—â— exâ—â—â— civitatem by Pope Nicholas the first g Nicholaus â— ad Michael Imperator Epist â— Tempore Dioclesiam Maximiani Augustorum Marcellinus Episcopus urbiâ— Romae adeo 〈◊〉 est à Paganis ut in tempâ—â—â— eorum ingressus grana thuris super 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cujus nei gratia collecto numerosorum Concilio Episcoporum inquisitione facta hoc se idem Pontifex egisse confessus est Platina h Platina de vita
Marcellini At 〈◊〉 Pontifex ad sacrificia gentium ductâ—â— cum 〈◊〉 instarent carnificeâ— ut thura dijs exhiberet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deos alienos adoravit others But it may be they will say a Pope may have spots of Paganisme yet not of Heresie but I thinke any man will conceive that if the Pope may practise against all the points of Christian Faith and turne Pagan he may well turne Hereticke and pleade against one and then farewell the blessed Prerogative of an invincible perpetuity of unspotted faith Not many yeares after Liberius was Pope and although some desire to mince it yet is it plaine that he was an Arian Hereticke subscribed to that heresie as Athanasius i Athanasius in Epistola ad solimariam vitam agentes Liberius deinde post exactum in exilio biennium inflexus est minisque mortis ad subscriptionem inductus est and S. Hierome k Hieronymus Catal Script Eccles â—ortunatianus Episcopus Liberium Romae urbis Episcopum ad subscriptionem Haereseos compulit Idem in Chronico Liberius taedio victus exilij in haeteticam pratitatem subscribenâ— testifie Yea so publicke was the report hereof even in our late ages that many eminent Papists as Cusâ—â—â—â— l Nich. de Cusa Candiâ—â—al l. 2 de Concord Cathol c 5. Et licet Liberius Papa tunc suit qui ut scribit Augustinus contra Crescentium Arianae sectae se subscripsit licet resisteret in principio propter hoc in exilium missus esset habetur elegans disputatio Constan â—ij Imperatoris Liberij rediit autem de exilio Victus consensit errori ut scribit S. Hieronymus in Chronicis Platina m Platina de vita Liberij I Constantius Liberium ab exilio terocat qui Imperatoris beneficio motus â—â—m haereticis in rebus omnibus ut quidam voâ—â—nt senticas Sabellicus n Anton. Sabellicus Ennead 7. l. 8. c. 36. Hiprecibus suis apud Constantinum in Felicis iâ— vidiam Liberio reditum ad urbem confecere quo ille beneficio 〈◊〉 ex consesso Arianus ut quidam scribunt est factus and others made no doubt from the testimony of antiquity to charge him with it Surely if an Arian Head be no spot to Roman infallibilitie what will besmeare it These may fuisse to shew their Popes in the â—est times not to have beene without spots And now if in the best times of rhe Roman Church when it was most pure this pretended head was bespotted with heresie how can we expect that he should be blessed with such a prerogative to be infallible to others And indeede Experience hath confirmed our judgments herein For in the seaventh age Honorius was a Monothelite condemned by the judgment of three Councels o Concil VI. Occumeâ—icum Act. 13. Concil VII Occumenicum Act. 7. Concil VIII Occumenicum Act. 7. his own Epistles witnessing against him p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epistolae Honoris ad Sergium una in VI. Synodo act 12. altera ibidem Act. 13. â—â—â—â—raque autem Honorius approbat doctrinam Sergij principis Monothelitarum jubet non debere dici Christum duas habere voluntates aut operationes Pope Leo the second execrating him q Leo II. ad 〈◊〉 Imperatorem Epist 2 Anathemaâ—izamus novi erroris Inventorâ—s id est Theodoâ—â—â— c necnon HONORIVM qui hanc Apostolicam Ecclesiam non Apostolicae traditionis doctrina lustravit sed prophanâ proditione immaculatam fidem 〈◊〉 conatus est In the XIIth age Alphonsus de Castro affirmes Celestine the III. no way to be excused of teaching Heresie to wit that Heresie so dissolves matrimonie that a partie may marrie againe r Alphons de Castro adv haer l. 1 c. 4. Coelestinum Papam etiam errâsse circa matrimonium fidelium quorum alter labitur in haeresim res est omnibus manifesta In the XIIIIth Age Iohn the XXIIth taught that the Saints departed saw not God before the Resurrection Å¿ Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c 14. Ioannes XXII Papa à multis reprehenditur ac praessertim à Galielmo Ocam in opere â—â— dierum ab Adriano in quaestione de confirmatione circa â—nem quid docucrit animas beato â—um non visuâ—as Deum ante resurrectionem Erasmus praefat one ad ad librum 5. Ireâ—aei idipsum cum additamento affirmat In the XVth Centurie Iohn the XXIIIth denyed the Resurrection and life eternall and was accused of pertinaciâ— therein t Concil Constâ—ntiâ— self â—â— See this at large before pag. 53 Bellarmine telleth us at that time there were three pretenders for the Papacie so that it could not easily bee discerned quis eorum verus ac legitimus esset Pontifex which of them was the true and lawfull Pope u Bellatâ—n de Rom Poâ—â— l 4. c 14. Erant enim co temporâ—tres qui Pontifices haberi volebant Gregorius XII Benedictus XIII et Ioannes XXIII nec poterat facilè indicaaâ—i quis eorum verâ—s ac legitimus esset Pontifeâ— cùm non decssent singulis doctissimi patroni So that it seemed the Councell of Constance did not adhere to the Pope nor the Pope to the faith Now let the Reader judge what great reason we have to be waile our selves that we want this pretended infallible rule of faith which cannot rule it selfe and free the adherents thereto from errour how farre these Puritans are from the Catholicke humilitie that defend their staines when the auncienâ— Fathers best men in their journeying towards heaven did bewaile their imperfect estate hungred for that righteousnes and perfection that was to come And what cause have we to blush that the particular Church of Ireland is lyable to errour when the best particular Churches in the world never assumed a better Condition But is the Iesuits inference concludent here because our Church is lyable to error therfore it cannot with reason challenge to it selfe the title of unspotted Here is not so much as silly Sophistry the Churches of Ephesus Thessalonica Philippi in the Apostles dayes were lyable to error therfore bespotted posse et esse are two distinct things A Iesuite may be a true subject but it doth not follow therefore in an instant he forsakes his order And a Pope may be a Saint but who will thinke it necessary that hee will without delay forsake his tyrannicall condition The Church of Ireland may erre in faith yet it doth not follow that it is now bespotted with heresie or hereafter will bee So that it may have alliance and affinitie with all true auncient Churches true members of the Catholicke for any thing the Iesuite hath yet produced Yet as if the Iesuite had dreamed all this while and did now awake he bolts out with a phantasticke flourish Let them take then saith the Iesuite if they will their erring Church unto themselves but let them not withall deny us leave to sticke unto that
Church which by the testimonie of venerable Antiquitie wee finde approved to remaine ever free from all errour to that rocke against which the power of hell shall never prevaile to that foundation which Christ hath setled by his promise and made for ever immoveable by his obtained Prayer Reply pag. 6â— How non-erring a Church your Roman hath beene in her head is already declared How infallible a rule of faith your Cheife Pastor hath proved in the primitive times venerable Antiquitie by severall examples hath detected What a rocke Peters pretended Successours have beene when the divell was let loose to split so farre as possible the ship of the Church hath not been left you untold And who can beleive that CHRIST his prayer for Peters faith was effectuall for the POPES when against faith they day he desire to usurpe his kingdome This we Catholickes saith the Iesuite are exhorted to doe by S. Cyrill sayinâ— Let us remaine as members in our head the Apostolicke Throne of the Roman Bishops from whence it is our part to seeke what wee ought to believe This also all Protestants are advised to doe by a Doctour of their owne who as we heard before telleth them that they ought diligently to search out the spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the pillar and ground of truth having found her then setting aside all other questions they ought to embrace her communion follow her direction and rest in her judgment y Reply pag. 6â— What Doctor Feild advised Protestants to doe hath beene formerly declared And for what Catholickes are exhorted to doe he urgeth S. Cyrill but from whence From Aquinâ—s z Cyril Alleâ— in Thesauro alleadged by S. Thomas in opusc cont Graecoâ— Reply pag. 6â— who forged it For Cyrill hath no such words His Thesaurus hath no such filth He neither consented unto nor approved this tyranny Hee was one of them that sent the Copy of the Councell of Nice to curbe these pretences before they got head I wonder why the Iesuite added not the like forgery of the Councel of Chalcedon to the same end from the same Author Here wee may see that the best grounds he hath to prove their holy Father to be infallible and the Romane Mother without spots are but authorities taken from deceit But leaving Doctor Feild formerly urged and answered he presents us with these sentences of the Auncient in which saith he as in a pure mirrour they may if they list espy their enorâ—ions disagreement from the truth Reply pag 63 And the first Ancient Father that he produceth is Ireneus All they that are in the Church of God ought to obey saith he unto those Preists who have their succession from the Apostles who together with the succession of their Bishoprick have received the assured grace of truth according to the good will of the heavenly Father And we ought to have for suspected such as withdraw themselves from the like principall succession and joyne themselves together in any other place I say wee ought to hold them as hereticks of a perverse judgment or as schismatickes selfe-liking presumptuous fellowes And elsewhere saith the Iesuite he declareth how such like hereticks are to be conâ—â—â—ed confounded according to the practice of his times to wit in the second age after Christ We confound saith he al those who gather otherwise then they ought how by that Church which is the cheifest the most auncient best knowne unto all men which was established grounded in Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul pointing forth that Tradition and faith which this Roman Church holdeth from the Apostles by the succession of Bishops even unto our dayes After this manner also saith the Iesuite did Tertullian troâ—â—ce wrest those Heretickes whom hee had to deale withal Let them shew unto us if they can the original of their Churches let them rip up the order of their Bishops in â—ueâ—â—ort that by a succession derived from the beginning they prove their cheife Bishop to have some one of the Apostles or Apostolicall men for his author and Predecessour for by this meanes the Apostolicall Churches doe make up their accounts And because the Heretickes then were destitute of all such proofe as Tertullian exacted of them for the maintenance of their cause even as our Adversaries saith the Iesuite are as this day He therefore bringeth in the Catholicke Church upbrayding them with them all Protestants in this manner Who â— God 's name are yeâ— When from whence came yoâ— hither What doe you amongst mine being none of mine By what right O Marcion doest thou cut my â—ood what leave hast â—hâ—â— O Valentine to turne my streames fountaines another way By what authority doest thou remove my bounds O Apelles O Luther O Calvin O Zuiâ—glius The possession is mine I have it of old I enjoyed it before you c Reply pag 69 and 70. All that the Iesuite hath produced from Irenâ—us Tertullian will make little for justifying his pretences if the point be truly considered For there is a bare personall succession which may accompany a false Church as it did the Iewish when the Pharisees saâ—e in Moses Chaire and the Churches of the East when Heretickes invaded the chaires of Catholicke Bishops Secondly there is a Successâ—â—â— not only personall of Bishops Preists but where the Catholick Apostoliâ—all doctrine is continued also The people wee say where this is plaine are bound to receive the Doctrin from Timothie every succeeding Bishop as Timothie â— Tim 1. 14. from the Apostle that established and first published the same Now whatsoever the Iesuite hath brought from these Fathers is no way advantageous for the Church of Rome For first we can shew and have done as good personall succession as the Roman Bishops can claime any Secondly to this our orderly Succession we can and have proved by comparison and consanguinity of Apostolicall doctrin that we are true and Apostolicall Churches Thirdly the Roman certaintie upon which their Profelyres must depend is no firmer by these Fathers testimonies then Ephesus Smyrna Corinth Philippi Germany Spaine France Egypt Lybia Thessalonica c Irenaeus pag. 140 142. Disci te ab Apostoli cis Ecclesijs Habetis Romae Linum Polycarpum Smyrnae ab Apostolis edoctum Tertull. Praeser p. c. 37. Proximè est tibi Achaâ— habes Corinthum Si non longè es â— Macedonia habes Philippos habes Thessalonicenses Si potes in Asiam tendere habes Ephesum si autem Italiae adjaces haqes Romam unde nobis quoque authoritas praest ò est Rhenanus Argum in Tert. de praescript alibi Impress Basil 1521. Tertullianus Ecclesiam unam Apostolicam nulla loco affigit Romanum Ec lesiam ornat magnificae laudis elogio non tamen tantam illam facit quantum hodiè fieri videmus nam Apostolicis Ecclesijs numerat non
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
said so much for it as Aquinas his Cyrill Canus l 6. â— 5 Cyrillus apud Thomaâ—â—ulâ—o evidentiùs quim authores â—aeâ—eâ—i huic veritati testimonium perhibet and yet in the true Cyrill there is never a word to be found And further in the Councell of Chalcedon hath not the same Thomas l In opâ—sâ— con â—rrores Graecoâ—â—m mentioned decrees they never dreamed of and laboured to make the Greekes esteemed Hereticks by such invented forgeries that he hath brought against them and all for Appâ—aâ—â—â—â— Râ—â—â— â—or â—â—â— holinesse his universall vicarage The cause sheweth the forger and the forger confesseth the weakeâ—â—s of the cause Now not onely forging and coyning but also clipping hath bene too manifest You say your selves that Hereâ—ickes have done this and we beleive it and who are those heretickâ— if you cannot declare who those be surely they were never done the assigning of persons time and plâ—â—e by your doctrine being the mâ—dium to finde such concealâ—menâ—s out Further if the monuments of antiquitie be corrupted we may justly accuse you that pretend to bee the keepers and teachers of the Church that you would suffer such things to be done and know not whom you may truely suspect so that if you confesse corruption declare the corrupters if you know corruptions and doe not assigne them it is more then probable that you were acquainted with the worke Howsoever you may not reâ—urne this upon us whom you acknowledge to be little â—â—â—â—ienter then your order and but a little in antiquitiâ— preceding your faith So that we may conclude the injury is little the accusation being just The Iesuite nameth other injuries that he will let passe as when to shun that difficultie which pinched him saith he in my demaund he framed it fâ—â—re otherwise then it was prepâ—â—nded Reply pag 93 94. See the answere thereto whether the Iesuite played not Simplician in the demaund For the â—â—iâ— passages which he likewise complaineth of the Iesuite promiseth afterwards to discover theâ— c. To which we referre the Reader Yet one thing the Iesuite must not lâ—t passe to observe that when he said that the Answerers Religion cannot be â—â—ue because it disalloweth of mâ—â—y cheife articles which the Saynts and fâ—thers of that priâ—itive Church of Rome did generally hold â—o be true the Answerer will needes prescribe unto him what he must prove saying that it will not â—e sufficient for him that some of the Father◠〈◊〉 some of those opinions but he must prove if he will deale to the purpose that they held them generally and held them too not as opinions but 〈◊〉 dâ—â—ide as 〈◊〉 to the substance of faith and Religion Reply pag. 94 Surely if these be not fit caâ—tions for them to observe that by antiquity universalitie and consent of Fathers pretend to find the truth of doctrine let any modest nature discerne for if the Iesuite observes not these rules he may urge at pleasure but can prove nothing if they be of faith now they must have beene so in the Primitive times for that rule is unalterable and without change And besides Tertul. dâ— Virg. vel c. 1. Regula fidei una omnino est sola illa immobilis iâ—reformabilis if they were then reputed points of faith the rule to prove doctrine by consent would faile if the Fathers did not generally consent in every one of these for if Fathers did diâ—fer in grounds of Faith and Catholicke Religion where was their harmonie And if they consent not in all why should their consent be made a rule for the confirmation of any p Cal Lex Iurid Regulae ofâ—icium est exhibere nobisgeneraliter definitionem juris But wherefore doth the Iesuite distast these he shewes it is not for any just exception he can take against them but out of a jealouâ—ie from whence they proceed whether from charitie which he will not beleive or which is more likely perchance from a conceipt of his weakenes and ignorance whereby the Answerer was afrayde that he knew not himselfe what he had to prove or how it might be prâ—â—ved Reply pag. 94 which the Iesuite for his ownesake is unwilling to acknowledge For saith he though I confesse my selfe to be the weakest of a thousand yet have I no reason to thinke that he would any way support my weakenes who hath undertaken to enter into 〈◊〉 with me before such Specâ—â—tors â—â— in their veiw the â—east â—â—yle cannot be reâ—â—ived without a great disgrace r â—bid Here the Iesuite manifesteth his charitie but declareth no syllable for defence of his knowledge He makes his owne glorie the end of his quarrell and deemeth the Answerers indeavours to looke towards the same end but it i◠〈◊〉 glory â—â— disgrace that his 〈◊〉 resolution 〈◊〉 â—â— feares â—◠〈◊〉 Godâ—â—â—uth from the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 to keepâ— Christs 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 this iâ— the worke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee bee reviled by frogges and â—â—custes hee despiseth it 〈◊〉 â—e knoweâ— will 〈◊〉 in â—er 〈◊〉 and wisdome will have a time as to be justified of so to 〈◊〉 her children And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Answerer◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what hee esteemes them the Iesuites chaâ—â—ty appeaâ—â—s but small that feedes Christs flocke like the hireling for the wages of applâ—â—se and not from the ground of 〈◊〉 Pases because hee 〈◊〉 the Lord. For â—er him 〈◊〉 of the most leaâ—â—ed 〈◊〉 câ—â—â—itie to himselfe or 〈◊〉 towards the Fatheâ—â— as â—â— pleaseth I am 〈◊〉 â—e hath said nothing heere that may perswade us that hee hath swallowed downe all antiquitie or that his knowledge is so great that from the Answeâ—â—â—s learned 〈◊〉 he might not receive instruction But the Iesuite 〈◊〉 know that these are not the reasons that mooved him to perswade the obsâ—â—â—ation of these rules but their desperate impudeâ—ciâ—s for who knowes not that they can pretend Fathers for their cause that held 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by devising a 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make them their friends when they are urged against them and also make that faith which was not in the Fathers Creed neither found in any of their expositions upon the same This is the reason of giving these câ—â—tions because they use the Fathers to blind not to manifest the truth of the ancient â—aith therefore the Iesuite may see how â—ond his imaginations are how poore hâ—â— conceit But the Iesuit sees the RomaÌ„ faith to be such that he dare not undertake to prove it but bysome few and that not as points 〈◊〉 but as points held by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by presuÌ„ptioÌ„ as if in antiquity there were not a 〈◊〉 betwixt their Creed with the points therein other remote deductioÌ„s from the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from hence are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether this 〈…〉 which the 〈…〉 of Fathers Now he will give 〈…〉 wherefore he 〈◊〉 these 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 is he 〈…〉 any puâ—pose For first he confesseth it absurd that
is 〈…〉 Fathers 〈…〉 and saying of all and 〈…〉 time 〈◊〉 Religion and therefore it will be much more 〈◊〉 to find out their generall consent that aâ—â— so lâ—ng deâ—â— And there he would â—â—ve the Reader 〈◊〉 that the agreâ—ment thou 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one 〈◊〉 which iâ— not otherwise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—â—led the generall conâ—ent of aâ—â—cient Fathers and to prove this he hath urged S. Augustine That when he dispâ—ting 〈◊〉 the Pelagâ—â—â—s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fathers he thougâ—â—â—â— had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby the common â—aith of the whâ—â—e Church And the 〈◊〉 of Ephesâ—â— having produced â—â—t â—en Fathers made no 〈◊〉 but thaâ— by theâ—â— agreeiâ—g aâ—thority the consent of the whole Church wâ—â— fâ—lly 〈◊〉 against Nestâ—riâ—â— for â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doubt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but thâ—s◠〈◊〉 did iâ— jâ—dgement agree with all the rest of their 〈◊〉 Reply pag. 94 95. But all the whâ—â—e he doth little consider that his owne doe not agree with him what makes the consent of Fathers For 〈◊〉 would haâ—e those to bee counâ—â—â— all the Doctors that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be justly 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 and the rest neglected Greg. de Valen loco supra citat Omnes esse censentur iâ— quorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnibus consideratis â—ruditionis piâ—tatis 〈◊〉 c. ut à prudentibus certè â—â—â—um solummodò ratio habeâ—i debâ—â—t câ—â—â—ris neglectis quasi nihil 〈◊〉 si cum illis 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 â—â— was of 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—llect by hiâ— practiâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he concâ—â—â—ing Augustiâ—â— who 〈◊〉 Maâ—â—chiâ—s dayâ—â—â— sacrifice of 〈◊〉 and pâ—â—yers of 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— Aâ—or inst Mor part 1. lib 10 cap. â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there be on◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doâ—â—ors â—â—â—ing thâ—â— is 〈◊〉 the rest Now if 〈◊〉 take consent of Fathers according to 〈◊〉 then wee â—inde a conseâ—t of Fathers in a point of 〈◊〉 against 〈◊〉 Catholicke Church â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aâ—brose â— Stapleton deâ—ens Ecclesiastic 〈…〉 quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ante 〈◊〉 〈…〉 non sunt â—â—sensâ— sed sententiam contrariam tradiderunt Clemâ—ns 〈◊〉 and Berâ—ard did not assent unto the 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 saith he in the 〈◊〉 of Flâ—rence 〈…〉 if you desire more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iustinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈…〉 obligandi For your coâ—sent whether it would prove better for you thâ—◠〈◊〉 hath done I cannot tell but I am sure that the Answerer who durst try the 〈◊〉 by the Fathers which hee is â—ot â—ounâ— unto their consent being not by 〈◊〉 coâ—fession the 〈◊〉 of faith â—â— conâ—ident that by them you will not finde two witnesses much lesseâ—enne that will justifie your cause without a personall or at least materiall opposition And therefore howsoever this be not their generall consent if we speake properly yet we will presume iâ— to be so for the present to see whether you bee able to performâ— any thing that so gloriously boast of so much which we are confident you cannot in regard some of your points mentioned are confessed by your owne neither to be in Fathers oâ— Scriptures at all as Adâ—â—â—tion of Images for so Massâ—â—â—â— in libelliâ— de Picturiâ— Imaginibâ—â— doth seeme to acknowledge and Roffensâ—s your Martyr hath the same opinion or but a very little better of the scorching Article of your Purgatory faith c See before pag. â—4 so that the Iesuite hath little cause to thinke that we â—eaâ—e the testimonies of Fatherâ— for the points in coâ—â—â—overâ—ie when as wise as himselfe know that they are not thâ—â—â— to be found But though wâ—â—ermit this for the preseâ—â— to see whether the Iesuite can prove any thing by his owne â—ouâ—hstone yet it will not be amisse to consider that his collection out of S. Augustine is rejected by that Fathers testimony for whereas the Iesuite insinâ—â—teth that S. Augustine was of opinion that the common faith of the whole Church may sufficiently be prâ—â—â—d by the unifâ—rme doctrine â—f 1â— cheife Fathers Yet when S. Hierome brought a â—umber of Fathers S. Augustine sticketh not to answer him in this manner I might as I beleive easily findâ— some Fathers to be of the contrary opinion if I did reade much but the very Apostle S. Paul â—ffereth himselfâ—â—â—tâ—â—eâ— for all these yâ—â— above all these To him I â—lye to him I appealâ— from all other interpreters and seeke unto him in that which he writes to the Galathians d Aâ—gust epist 1â— â—oâ—â—eâ— quâ—dem ut arbitroâ— facilè repeâ—â—râ— â—i 〈…〉 ipse 〈◊〉 â—ro his 〈◊〉 â—â—ò supra â—os omnes Apostolâ—â— Paulus â—ccuâ—â—â—â— Ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad ipsum aâ— omnibâ— qui aliud senâ—iâ—nt liteâ—â—â—â—â— ejus 〈…〉 provoâ—â—◠〈◊〉 iâ—â—â—ogaâ—◠〈◊〉 â—â— quâ—â—o in â—â— quod 〈…〉 And by this which hath beene said wee perceive that the Iesuite in a manner is urged to confesse that this Rule wants perfection and that the Fathers consent cannot bee absolutely produced but presumed onely Neither doth it please the Iesuite the other caution layde downe thâ—â— hee must prâ—â—ve that the Fathers held thâ—se points not onely generally but as appâ—rtâ—ining to the substance of faith and Religion and from hence hee would collect that the most learned Answerer feareth that they shall bee able to proove that the Fathers hâ—lde them generally indeede and therefore provideth this revye â—rgeing them to prove further that they held them as appertâ—ining to the substance of Faith and Religion e Reply p â—â— A fit collection for a wise apprehension before he tells us that in points noâ— determined shee the Church graâ—nteth free libertie unto all Catholicke Doctours to expound â—swell the Scriptures as the Fathers for the upholding of that part which themselves doe thinke to bee most probable f Reply pag 9â— In which he meanes that the Scriptures in points not determined as in the cause of Predestination and conception of the blessed Virgin might bee interpreted against the generall consent of Fathers as the two Iesuites Pererius and Maldonate have done and the Fathers themselves expounded with such a glosse as makes best for the upholding of that part Now if the generall consent of Fathers be able to determine a point that is not de fide why are they rejected by the Iesuites and the Iesuites justified by Mr Malone if the Fathers consent hath strength onely in points of Faith why doth he quarrell at this caution which he must acknowledge necessary not proceeding from feare but from a wise and prudent consideration And to prevent us herein saith the Iesuite he affirmeth before hand that the said points bee not all cheife articles of faith g Reply pag. 93. what doth he labour to prevent you in unlesse it be
in resisting you making those articles of faith which were never of universall beleife in the Christian world But to whom doth hee tell these tales if to those of his owne profession it is idle and needlesse if to us it is most â—â—â—rue for saith hee it is well knowne that with us they bee cerâ—â—inely accounted cheife articles of faith being all of them declared for such by the sacred and infallible â—â—thâ—â—itie of the Church h Reply ibid. It is neither â—eedelesse for his owne nor untrue being delivered to your selves For the most reverend Father knowes it is his dutie dayly to perswade against faith-intrusions for the preservation of his owne neither can your Arguments make it untrue for are all things you accompt or the Trent Câ—â—ncell hath determined of so necessarie light that everie man must beleeve them You may perswade this in Peru or Mexico but your neighbours the Vâ—â—etians will not beleive you that dwell nearer home neither have all your Catholicke Children such opinion of that Councell as to receive it Now our Iesuite would have them of faith from our confession Neither can our Advâ—rsaries themselves saith hee deny that they appertaine to the substance of Faith and Religion sâ—â—ing that they condemne them for heresiâ— in us i Reply pag. 93. Heere the Iesuite will not have an Heresie to bee but in point of faith that the denyall thereof might exclude us from salvation if this be the rule by which the Iesuite will try Heresies I thinke these will not proove of that stampe in our opinions For first we deny not salvation to those which by ignorance communicate with them that imbrace these grosse follies Secondly we say not that they belong to any article of the Apostles faith but are additions that had nothing to glue them to the Creed but Babylonish Clement We take them for grosse corruptions but to make them errours in fundamentall points our Church hath not I thinke declared it Heresies of deeper errour and more elavated pride then are found in this Catalogue proclaime themselves among you those peâ—ces declare noâ— your greatest defection Who abhorres not your tyrannicall Hildebrandine insurrection whereby you trample upon Gods power the authority delegated to Kings and Bishops and the whole Preisthood of the Catholicke Church Secondly your Conscience Monarchy whereby you cast Christ out of his chaire and give the Pope Christs infallible office This Constance could not endure and k Sess 2 4 Basill l Sess â—3 thought Heresie never doubted of Who is ignorant that heresies have had their degrees which they could not have had in respect of faith if all did equally totter the foundation Augustine defines an hereticke otherwayes then from the foundation Hee is an Hereticke that for lâ—cre of any temporall commoditie aâ—d especially for his owne vaine-glory and preferments sake as your Courtiers doe doth beget or follow false or new opinions m August in libro de utilieredend caâ—s 2â— quest 3. c Haereticus 〈◊〉 qui alicujus teÌ„poralis commodi maâ—imae gloriae principatusque fui gratia falsos ac â—oâ—as opiniones vel gigniâ— vel sequitur and this may be done in points which are not fundamentall Besides how many are accounted Heretickes in this common course of appellation and yet free from denying the foundation of Faith For wee finde Leo the Xth. in his Bull against Luther * 4 Iâ—â—â—â— 1â—â—â— to style it Heresie for any man to say that the Church or himselfe hath not power statuere â—rticâ—lâ—s fidei to make new articles of faith as also that Luthers assertion was no lesse optima pâ—â—itâ—â—tia novâ— vita new lifâ— was the best repentance and yet I hope the Iesuite will reâ—oove these farre from the foundation And if the Pope may erre in his Buls to call that Heresie which is not fundamentall errour why may not you give leave to others to use the same Libertie seeing hee is the patterne of imitation unlesse you thinke the Pope above Angels and that hee may deliver what he pleaseth and make Heresie what hee list and the Anathema that thereby hee deserves himselfe by his verie pleasure should fall upon others Nay you have gone further De Consecrat dist 5. Cap. â—t jejun that hee will never bee a Christian qui confirmatione Episcopali non fuit Chrismatus Now if a man may bee counted an infidell and unbeleiver by you for omission of the Ceremonie of Confirmation why should you draw from the liberties of mens tongues an Argument that whosoever by you or our selves are styled Heretickes must needes in regard of those points erre in the foundation Doe you not know it often fals out as when you charge us that after the way which is called Heresie so doe many of the faithfull serve the Lord God of their Fathers Shall we condemne to eternall fire Irenaeus Iustine Martyr all the Millenaries and all those which consented to those points which Epiphanius Augustine or Alphâ—â—sus de Castro have styled Heresies it were too rigide a censure and more fit for the Iudges of Hell then the Preists of God So that this proves but a vaine ground to inferre these points to be of faith because they are accompted heresies and if we will observe it we may from his owne words finde that heresies have declared themselves not so much from the matter whether fundamentall or not as from the perverse manner of holding an opinion against any ones conscience being lawfully convicted of the same And therefore our Iesuite will not have them Hereticks that deny tradition Images c. simplie by a bare and naked negation but wilfully and perversly by obstinate denyall Yet will our Answerer say saith the Iesuite that by the Fathers they were held but onely as opinions and not as belonging to the substance of faith and this is but his owne opinion for wheresoever the Fathers doe professe them in their works they never tell him that they hold them for opinions rather then for points of faith Reply pag. 9â— The Iesuite speakes of the Answerers divining but here divines amisse himselfe indeed proves down-right a Deceiver for if the learned Answerer will say that the fathers held them as opinions why should he require the Iesuites proofe for their consent and therefore let him fasten this opinion upon whom he can the most reverend Primate knowes well enough that they neither held them generally as opinions or of faith neither is he so ignorant in antiquity but that he well understands those ancient Souldiers of the Catholicke Church were alwayes ignorant of the after invented marches under Roman Coloâ—â—s so that the Iesuit would perswade the reader by a trick of deceit that 〈◊〉 knowledge the Fathers generall consent in these points as opinions but not as of faith which was never dreamed of by the Church By this it will appeare that they care not by what meanes they establish their decrees nor
hath he thaâ—â—â— not concludent from the Scripture Not one unlesse you suppose that he keeps them as concealements yet he thinkes he doth something when he tels us from Hierome that the scriptures consist not in reading but in the true understanding of their sence meaning that by an evill interpretatioÌ„ the Gospell is no more the word of God but the word of man yea which is worse the word of the Divell i Reply ibid. As if this were not the matter that we complaine of that Popes will interpret as they please presume to say this shal be the sence of the Holy Ghost But to fit himselfe for performance of what he hath undertakes he saith that there be â—â—â— three meanes or wayes by which a Conclusion deduced from the scripture may be pretended to be infallible k Reply pag. 97 But what is this to the foundation of Faith I hope every infallible proposition is not of such necessary beleife that a maâ— must beleive it on paine of damnation You told us but 〈◊〉 that your new Creed was propounded onely to Scholleâ—s and cheifely unto such as are to receive promotions unto Scholasticall or Ecclosiasticall dignity l Reply pag. 98 what are all lay-men Clerks or is the nature of your faith changed Now the Iesuite nameth his three onely meanes the first humane discourse the second Private inspiration the third the authority of some externe meane ordained by GOD betwixt the Scripture and us c m Reply pag. 97 To avoyde the two first he makes a long discourse but he fights with his owne shadow for wee make not the Scripture of private interpretation as being against the Apostles rule * 2 Pet. 1. 20. neither doe we make our reason the onely Inquisitor to finde out the sence of Scripture knowing that the carnall man perceiveth noâ— the the things that are of GOD Yet this we say that reason being assisted by grace becomes a divine instrument whereby the scriptures may be used to saving knowledge and to finde out the mysteries of our Faith Now seeing that neither humane discourse saith the Iesuite 〈…〉 by God betwixt the Scripture and â—â— such as is the authority of the Magistrate 〈…〉 the Princes law and the people that it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and propound unto us all decisions and 〈◊〉 whatsoever Reply pag. 97 The Iesuite shall never finde that there is any such exterâ—â— infallible means 〈◊〉 by GOD betwixt the Scripture and â—â— to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and propound unto us all decisions and conclusions whatsoever that we are bound to beleive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 Neither when they come to point it out are they agreed who it is For sometime it is the generall and uniforme consent of auncient Fathers that is the assured Touch-stone to try all controversies betwixt us o See the Iesuites Epistle to the King and this generall consent may consist of 〈…〉 fathers p Reply pag. 94 â—â—â— sometimes of fewer as in 〈◊〉 of the Commandements and leaving out the Second they cannot find the one halfe to reckon them after that sortâ— sometime the practise of the Church sometime the rule of Faith sometime the Councels interpretations and sometime all must vanish and that which the Head determineth is a knowne truth that which the Head condemneth is a knowne error q Hart colloque cum Rainolds pag. 44. Now which of all these are infallible For Consent of fathers Cajetan will tell us that God hath not tyed the exposition of the Scriptures to the sence of the Fathers and therefore he resolves to follow a new sence agreeable to the Text. 〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alienus though it be repugnant to the streame of the sacred Doctors t Cajetan in Prooem comment in Genes In like manner Andradius Andradius Defens Triden Fid. l. 2. pag. â—â—â— Non 〈◊〉 debentur eorum explicationibus addicti alligarâ— quin sit 〈◊〉 omnibus illis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quid Dei praesidijs adjuti explicando valeamus sensum alium 〈◊〉 etiam dissimilem afferre atque noris explicationibus 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae sanctorum 〈◊〉 fidem atque pietatem illustraâ—â— For the practise of the Church if they meane the Roman it is no good direction in regard as we have shewed before it is very subject to varietie as in the point of Childrens receiving of the Eucharist t See before pag. 25. â— See before pag. 10â— and in the point of Iudges and the like all which are full of uncertainty For their rule of faith we see that this may be in the Roman Church enlarged extended yea we have wits in the Church of Rome that can censure it making it in some considerations standalous hereticall x Censura Symboli Apostolorum censur ar 3. Tota Haec propositio equivocatione laâ—orat quae inducere potest in haeresim propter ambiguas particulas de ex quia ordinaria de habitudinem importat principij componentis c. Ideo propositio in hoc sensu falsa est scandalosa haeretica 〈◊〉 y Censur ar 4. Haec propositio ambigua est aliquo sensu haeretica Periculosa est propositio 〈◊〉 obrium illum sensum intellectâ— quasâ— diviniâ—as aliquid passa aut â—â—â—tua fuctit non solum haeretica est sed etiam impis â— blasphema deceitfull z Censur ar 2. Tota haec propositio captiosa est â—â—llax blasphemous z See before lit erroneous See hereafter lit â— false c See before lit â— dangerous d See before lit 7. absurd Censura ar 9. Absurda ambiguous See before lit â— contrary to the word of GOD the common sence of the Fathers and of the universall Church g Censura ar 7. Propositio 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 falsa erronea nec non verbo Dei communi Patrum totiusque Ecclesia sensui contraria â— Wadding Legat. Phil. 3. Sect. 2. orat 9. § 9. Pro Petro in fide Petrâ— succedentibus non pjo Concilio oravit exoravit Adversus hoâ— adversus Ecclesiam in Petro in illisque fundatam non adversus Concilium dixit infernum non praevalituram 〈◊〉 â—oncilia errâsse viderimus quando à suo capitâ— Ã quo 〈◊〉 sanctius veritatis influentia recesserant vel dissenâ—â—râ—nt Non â—â—â—buit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—em Pontifici sed à Pontifice habet Concilitum ut sit ratum ac 〈◊〉 For Councels interpretations we shall have as much to doe for to finde out the sence of a Councell as of the Scripture it selfe Besides how many weake particulars may suspend a Councell from her pretended infallible authoritie as if not rightly called rightly headed c So that there remaines none but the Pope for whom Christ prayed It is he that gives authoritie to a Councell not the Councell to him But if this Lord that would be of our conferences prove a Lord of Mis-rule where then shall we
finde this Iudge that represents the Magistrate betwixt the Scripture and us And surely if the Spirit of GOD doth interpret the Scriptures as he delivered them holy men speaking as the spirit gave them utterance I have said sufficient before to declare that your Popes are no such manner of men And many of your owne exclude the Pope from this soveraigne power of interpreting the Scriptures i Bellarm. de Concil â—â—câ— l. â— c. 14. Concilium esse supra Pontificâ—m asscrit candinalis Cameracensis Ioannes Gerson Iacobus Almainus Nicolaus Cusanus Panâ—â—mitaâ—us Cardinalis Florentinus Abulensis et alij Alij vero volâ—nâ— Papam esse in Ecclesia id quod est Dux Venetiarum in republ Veneta some reckoning up his Hereâ—iâ—s as Alphonsus de Castro k Advers Haer. l. 1. c. 4. Omnis enim home erraâ—e potest in â—ide etiam â—â— Papa sit Nam de Liberio c. Yet if the Iesuite will have another Iudge then the Spirit of GOD in his word let him be ruled by it He sâ—â—â—â—e none of our ruler we follow that rule which the Apostles have taught Acts XV. XXV III. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to â—â— c. Neither is this supreme Iudge without atongue dumbe and mure as they caluminate but speakes by the writings of the Prophets and the Apostles wherein every necessary point of Faith is determined and made knowne And who can be judge of these hid and secret matters but he that knowes them and makes them knowne even the Spirit of GOD 1. Cor. II. X. XI XIII Who should interprete the law but the maker of it l Vult com inâ—â— l. 1. tit 2. §. 9 n. 1. Iâ—s interpretandi leges est penes â—undem qui habet jus â—â—â—â—nâ—i leges Whose words are the Scriptures but the words of the Spirit of GOD Acts XXV III. XXV II. Pet. 1. XXI Neither is it to be omitted that the Scriptures speake as a Iudge for what is attributed to GOD in regard of his supreame power and justice Rom. XI XXXII GOD hath concluded them all in unbeleife that he might have mercy upon all is spoken of the Scriptures Gal. III. XXII The Scripture hath concluded all under â—iâ—â—â— that the promise by faith of IESVS CHRIST might be given to them that beleive Who is it that accuseth who is it that condemneth but this Iudge Io. V. XIV The law the word is the Iudge absolute and infallible a ministeriall duty onely is committed to the Pastors of the Church Io. XII XLVIII Neither are Papists able to cast of this blessed Samuel from judging Israel and to erect up their owne Saul but by blaspheming the word of truth charging it with imperâ—â—ction obscuritiâ— and what not that may deprive it of its power So that there is nothing but the wrangling of Heretickes to plead for the Papall Headship and this is as vaine as the rest for unlesse he may irresisteably enlighten not onely the understanding but also the will he can never compound and silence Controversies in regard his words let them make them divine or otherwise are as subject to misinterpretation as the Word of GOD and may with more facilitie be perverted But if we doe but observe we may perceive how they casting off the absolute direction of Truth are involved in errour and blindnes For by making their Church the only teacher determiner of an article of faith they tye themselves to receive no other light from the Scriptures then Lucifer their Pope for he is their Church will convey unto them And howsoever they boast of the Fathers of Councels of the Church yet when all comes to all their Iudge of Controversies is onely their Roman Bishop m Grâ—gor Valent tom 3. Commentar in Thomam disp 1. quaest 1. punct 1. Cùm dicimus propositionem Ecclesiae esse conditionem necessariam ad assensum fidei â— nomine Ecclesiae intelligimus ejus caput id est Romanum Pontificem perse vel unâ cum Concilio ex praedicta auctoritate propositiones fidei fidelibus declarantem either with or without a Councell n Ibid. punct 〈◊〉 Si quando oriantur controversiae de Fide Ecclesia non potest in ijs definiendis à veritaâ—â— aberrare Haec autem Ecclesiae infallibilis auctoritas ad definiendum non est in singulis fidelibus quippe qui sine controversiâ possunt errare singuli Neque est etiam in omnibus omninò fidelibus Frustra enim data illis esset cùm â—ieri vix possit in fidei causis ut ab omnibus illis sigillatim sententia dicatur Sed residet summa illa Ecclesiae auctoritas in Christi Vicario sâ—â—â—â—o Pontifice sive unâ cum Episcoporum Concilio sive absque Concilio res fidei definiâ—e velit Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 3. Summus Pontifex cùm to tam Ecclesiam docet in his quae ad fidem pertinent nullo easu errare potest Constat generalia concilia saepè errasse quando caruâ—â—unt Summi Pontificis suffragio Ex quo apparet totam firmitatem Concilioâ—um legitimorum esse â Pontifice non partim à Pontifice partim à Concilio Staplâ—ton relect prinâ— doctr contr 6. quaest 3. in explicatar 5. Potestas infallibilitâ—s Papalis est potestas gratia personalis personae Petri successorum ejus à Christo data Majoritas discretionis maturitas judicij si de scientia rerum sacrarum intelligatur non solùm Concilium sed Theologoâ—â—m collegium imò unus aliquis Theologus Pontificem facilè superabit Si autem de judicio fidei determinationâ— sensus Scripturae quem credere oporteat intelligatur non est Concilium supra Papam sed unus Papa Petri successor cui uni Christus indeâ—ectibâ—hâ—atem fidei impetravit super omnes est it matters not So likewise they are deluded with the spirit of errour in giving the power they doe to this externall Iudge for our Iesuite will have the Iudge to be the rule whereby to discover which is a point of faith and which not the manner how I have told you before whatsoever he saith is faith must needes be so let it be with a Councell or without Others make the Popes authority equall to the Scriptures o Christophorus de Sacrobosâ—o Defens Decr. Triden part â— c. 6. Dico Ecclesiâ— authoritatem parem esse authoritad Scripturae ratio est quia unuâ— idem Deus qui regebat Apostolos Prophetas ne eâ—â—arent scribendo diright Ecclesiam ne labatur in interpretando to the vâ—yce of GOD. Neither will they have their Pope or Church onely equall to the Scriptures but also somewhat superiour thereunto p Albert. Pighius l. 1. Hierat Eccles c. 2. dicit non soâ—â—â— non inferâ—orem non solâ—m parem imo quodammodò â—â—periorem â—â—otiorem Ecclesiae autoritatem autoritaâ—â— Scripturaâ—um for the Church is a Prophet q Defensor Iohannis Pistorâ—â—
falso 415. Ecclesia Propheâ—â— est more then a Prophet r Idem falso 224. Plâ—â—quaâ— Propheta yea greater then all the Prophets Å¿ Idem circ fals 286. Major omnibus Prophetis having the Spirit of GOD for 〈◊〉 â—iâ—ar t Idem falso 416. Spiritum Sanctum Ecclesiae Vicarium dicit Thus wee see what judge the Iesuite doth contest for and how farre they labour to extend his power to wit that the Pope who is not onely a Prophet but more then a Prophet yeaâ— greater then all the Prophets who hath the Spirit of God for his Vicâ—â— either with or without a Councell hath onely power to determine matters of Faith whereby we may know what to beleive and what not with authority not onely equall but superiour to the scriptures Now what strength doth the Iesuite bring to confirme this Rule His first place is Esay LIIII and the 17. Thou shalt judge every tongue that shall resist theâ— in thy judgment u Reply pag. 99. Surely the Iesuite is like to their Divines in the Councell of Trent who being restrayned to the Scriptures and forbidden schoole-disputes brought all the places out of the Prophets and Psalmes where they stand the words Confitâ—â—r and its verball Confissiâ— to proove Auricular Confession and they were accounted best learned who brought most of them * Hist Concil Tridâ—â— l. 4. p. 345. For here is nothing whereby to make the Pope the infallible Iudge of Controversies unlesse he will conclude that wheresoever Iudge or Iudgment is expressed it is meant of him The second is out of Mat. XI and the 18. Hâ—ll gates shall not prevaile against her x Reply ibid We confesse that all the powers of Hell shall never prevaile against the Church but we say this Church is neither the Pope naked nor Roman as hath in many places beene shewed Yet I would gladly know to what purpose this text is here produced The third place is Mat. XVIII and the â—7 Hâ—e that will not heare the Church let him be to thee aâ— a Heathen and a Publican y Reply ibid. If an infallible judge bee heere pointed out then all these abâ—â—â—dities will follow First that every particular Church should bee infallible and the Iudge of Controversies for Dâ—c Ecclesia hath relation to particular Churches not to the Catholicke Secondly a particular Church should not be subject to errour in criminall causes if this place pointed out an infallible judgment when as this infallibility is denyed not only your own Councels but your Popes also 3ly If the Churches judgment must be infallible because CHRIST requireth us to heare the Church How can the Pastors of the Church bee excluded from this priviledge when the people are enjoyned by the Apostle to obey and follow them Heb. XIII 17. His fourth place is Ephes IIII. II. and 14. God hath placed in the Church Apostles Prophets Pastors and Doctors c. To the end that we be â—â— more little children â—aâ—oring with every winde of doctrine z Reply ibâ—â— I shall shew hereafter that this text maketh against his Iudge his Monarch for the present he may take this with him First that we acknowledge as long as the Church had Apostles Prophets their testimonies were divine and could infallibly direct Secondly although the â—aâ—tors now are meanes ordained by God to the end that wee bee no more little children wavering with every winde of doctrine yet it doth not follow that they are infallible Iudges seeing the argument may as well hold of each as of all who are ordained to the same end which I thinke the Iesuite will not acknowledge His last is 1. Tim. 2. The Church is the Pillar and foundation of truth a Reply ibid. What therefore the Pope the infallible Iudge This followes not For he is the rock if we beleive Popish interpreters upon which the Church is built How then can he be the Church infallibly to direct The foundation surely differs from the roofe the Church that is builded from the rocke that she is builded upon Secondly the Iesuite may know that we envy not the priviledges which GOD hath given his Church nay he were no member of her that should not reverence her with obedience and therefore we acknowledge her the pillar and ground of Truth if containing the Apostles absolutely perfectly if without the Apostles we deny not her Counsels but with all obedience embrace them if she commaund as she is limited in matters of faith by the Scriptures But we see this place is more for the Church of Ephesus concerning which the Apostle speakes literally then Rome and yet experience hath perswaded us that there is no infallibility there Further then this some of your own dare not goe but make a difference betwixt the judgment of GOD and the judgment of the Church the one they say is infallible but the other may sometime deceive b Panorm in Decret De senten Excom cap. 28. Iudicium Dei veritati quae nec fallit nec fallitur semper innititur judicium autem Ecclesiae aliquando sequitur opinionem quae sâ—pè fallit fallitur Dried de dog Ecclesl 2. p. 58. Generale Concilium Papae Cardinalium Episcoporum Doctorum â—â— Scripturis propheticis intelligendis non est tantae authoritatis quantae fuerit olim Apostolorum collegum For Ruffinus his testimony that S. Basil and S. Gregory Nazianzen did take the interpretation of the Scripture not according to their owne proper understanding but according to the tradition of the Fathers c Reply p. 99. The Iesuite pointeth not out the place if he did I thinke little would appeare for his purpose in regard he is to prove the authority of a Iudge not the discretion of a Doctour And who doubts but any wise interpreter will use all meanes that may informe him to performe his worke But let Ruffine passe Augustine maketh an out-cry And doth not S. Augustine cry out saith the Iesuite that Truth reposeth in the belly of the Church c. d Reply ibid. And who saith otherwise He that should thinke that Truth is removed out of the Church thinkes amisse But to conclude from hence the Church the Roman Church the Roman Pope to be the Iudge or Rule of faith is inconsequent Neither doth that place of Augustine cited by the Iesuite in the Xth Section Evangeliâ— non credereâ—â— nisi me Catholica Ecclesiae commoveret authoritus containe any thing to enforce this for many things may move us to beleive that are not the Rule of Faith Miracles did this worke in many but this I hope is far from your Rule What is urged from Vincentius Lirinensis hath been fully answered His note from the Geneva Bible proves nothing If he finde this Iudge at Geneva he speedes well In these words I feare he cannot be espied And now having little or nothing he beginnes his Perâ—ration Behold here gentle Reader how although the articles
doe as yet expect my sentence what I thinke fit to write concerning Easter day saith Saint Ambrose m Ambros ep 83. Meam adhuc expectant sententiam quid 〈◊〉 scribere de die Pascha But wee are not ignorant that the consent of the Patriarchall Sees was a great helpe to the advancement of Truth and repelling of errour and therefore those Bishops were sought unto to adde their assistance for suppression of innovations or arising Heresies Yet was not Rome sought unto in point of infallibilitie any otherwise then Alexandria For wee finde lovinian seeking to Athanasius that from his hand-writing hee might receive an exact exemplar or declaration of the Faith n Theodoror histor Eccless l. 4 c. 2. But what Iudgment would the Iesuite have their Innocent to have had A judgment of assent This what Bishops had not Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theoguis of Nice Heretickes exercised it o Sozom. hist Eccles l. 2. c. 15 Illa quae vestro judicio decreta sunt non contradicendo impugnare sed consentientibus animis confirmare decrevimus et hoc libello consensum illum roboramus Yea Liberius a Pope desires the Emperour that the Nicene Councell might in the same manner of all Bishops bee confirmed p Sozom. hist Eccles l. 4. c. 10. Liberius postulavit ab Imperatore ut fides in Concilio Nicaeno tradita subscriptionibus omnium obique Episcoporum confirmaretur which I am perswaded hee would not have done if he had conceived that subscriptive Confirmation had made a Iudge of Faith It may be he will have the Bishop of Romes subscription to make an Edict Why if this were graunted it were too weake to conclude him the rule of Faith for Emperors did the like with a power not usurped but sollicited and that by Councels and Popes too The first Councell of Constantinople petitioned Theodosius to ratifie the Decrees of that Councell that as by his Letters he called the Councel so by Seale he should fortifie their Decrees q Epistola Synodalis ad Theodosium Imperatorem Rogamus igitur tuam clementiam ut per literas tuâ— pietatis ratum esse jubeas confirmesque Concilij decretum et sicuti literis quibus nos convocasti Ecclesiam honore prosecutus es ita etiam summam corum quae decreta sunt conclusionem sententiâ â—tque sigillo tuo corrobores And Euagrius reports your Pope Felix to doe the like sending his Nunâ—ies to the Emperour by his authoritie to confirme the Chalcedon Councell r Enagrius histor Eccles l. 3. c. 18 Mittantur à Felice ad Zenonem Vitalius Misinus Episcopi ut ejus authoritate tum Concilium Chalcedoâ—â—â—se confirmaretur and many places to the like purpose may be urged But if the Church be the rule of Faith how many absurdities will follow thereupon As first that there must bee a Church before and so without Faith because faith in the Iesuits judgment cannot be before it is defined Secondly the Church must be the Rule of it selfe unlesse they will put forth that Article The holy Catholicke Church out of the Creed Thirdly the Church must rule the foundation upon which it is builded Ephes 2. Revel 21. Fourthly it is not denyed by the Iesuite that this rule is ruled someway by Scripture and therefore it hath not its rectitude in it selfe So that we see the Church of God hath her ministery the word of God the controule The Councell of Nice did her duty but Theodores telleth us how l. 1. c. 8 Å¿ Ibi animadversa fraudulcÌ„tia allegârunt Episcopi ex Scriptura resplendentiam soutem flumen charactera ad substantiam hoc In lumine tuo videbimus lumen Et hoc Ego Pater unum sumus luculentius deinceps ac com pendiosius conscripsere EIVS DEM CVM PATRE ESSE FILIVM ESSENTIAE And that all may perceive with how much fraud and falshood these places of Augustine are forced we may consider that the Scriptures are sufficient t August in Ioan tract 49. Cum multa fecisset Dominus Iesus non omnia scripta sunt sicut idem ipse sanctus Evan gelista testatur multa Dominum Christum dixisse fecisse quae Scripta non sunt electa sunt autem quae scriberentur quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur Serm. 38. ad fratres in Eremo inter opera August Legite sacram Scripturam in qua quid tenendum quid fugiendum sit plene invenietâ— not onely to teach faith but also to condemne heresies * See before pag. 199. in that fathers judgment and that Generall Councels themselves may be amended u See before pag. 319. Further he would never have moved to have past by the Councels of Nice and Ariminum x August con Maximin l. 3. c. 14. Neque ego Nicenum nec tu debes Ariminense tau quam praejudicaturus proferre Concilium Nec ego hujus autoritate nec illius detineris Scripturarum autoritatibus non quorumcunque proprijs sed utriusque communibus testibus res cum re caussa cum caussa ratio cum ratione decertet Reply pag. 100. if the Church had onely ruled the Faith So that the Iesuite hath concluded upon halting principles For never was the Pope acknowledged alwayes or at any time the onely Pastor of the Church neither the Roman Church the rule to find out heresies or to declare truthes neither did the auncient Bishops dreame of submitting to the Roman Church as the onely way to prevent errour neither did they thinke Arius his blasphemy onely cursed after the determination at Nice neither did Augustine ever breath forth as the Iesuit would father upon him y though with caution that an opinion which formerly was not held for a point of Faith may by the declaration of the Church be received and held for such Neither lastly did the Catholick Church expresly declare the Iesuites points for Cheifâ— articles of Faith True it is that a point of the Catholicke Faith may not be so fully preached or so openly professed or so publickely declared at one time as at another but that the same article might be no cheife point of faith at one time in the Christian Church and at another time by the Churches declaration be fundamentall is grosse and ridiculous For either the Churches declaration doth make that which was not to be of the substance of Faith giving it authoritie and credit making it of necessary beleife and so fundamentall which is too grosse to bee defended at Mid-day or else it doth declare to others what was formerly the foundation out of the Scriptures against some new arising Heresie And what doth the point gaine from the Church whether authoritie or light Authoritie they feare to say Light they cannot affirme for by the producing of it the darkenes is detected the Heresie is condemned Truth it receives not for it was there before Nay how could an Heresie against the foundation be
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