of Scriptures as the divell used them in his allegations against our Saviour or Popes in their 〈◊〉 corruptly and 〈◊〉 and not according to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and true meaning of the text Yet that Scriptures are the onely sufficient rule was so generally a received truth that never any Hereticke denyed the same for although many of them denyed some Scriptures yet they confessed those which they acknowledged divine to bee delivered to the Church to reveale Gods will and to determine all doctrines in the Church and controversies of Faith by And whereas this wisest of his Brethren would perswade that we to cloake our errours with a shew of Pietie will not be subject to the sentence of any Iudge whatsoever but the sacred Scriptures Reply pag. 32 The Iesuite is here in a mist and sees nothing for wee refuse not the judgment of any whether Fathers Councels or consent of the Catholicke Church to judge us by the doctrine of Faith the sacred Scriptures but to be tryed without the Scriptures were to be tryed in the darke Tertullian calling Heretickes Flyers from the light of the sacred Scriptures Tertullian de resurrect carnis c. 47. Qualiter accipiunt Lucifugae isti scripturarum in his prescription against Heretickes he telleth us that they have a faith without Scriptures that they may believe against Scriptures c Idem praescript con Haeret cap. 23. Credunt fine scripturis ut credant adversus scripturas And what the Iesuite would make the note of an Heretick the contrary thereof did point them out in old Ireâ—â—us his time Hereticks were then known by the path wherein our Iesuite treades in rayling accusing the Scriptures when they are convinced by them as if they were not upright nor of authority and because they are ambigâ—â—â—â— and cannot afford the 〈◊〉 to them that are ignorant of Tradition d Irâ—â—eus lib. 3. cap. 2. Haeretici cùm ex scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum scripturarum quasi non reâ—â—e habeant neque sunt ex authoritate quia variae sunt dictas quia non possit ex his invenire veritas ab his qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You see Hereticks and their practises they hate the Scriptures because they beare witnesse of them that both their workes and doctrine are unsound and evill Now as if he would make it appeare to every weake eye that we submitting to Scriptures as the onely rocke whereon we build our faith doe thereby anoyde all tryall he prosequutes this with a simile For we see saith he in the temporall Courts besides the Law there must 〈◊〉 be a Iudge who must declare the true meaning of the Law and pronounce his sentence in matters of controversie according to the same e Reply pag. â—â— So likewise the same forme must be observed in the spirituall regencie of the Conscience if credit may be given to this Iesuite concerning the written Law of God If all this were true what maketh it against the sole rule of Scriptures Iudges doe not Ius dare but dicere and if they doe attempt more they usurpe which your controuling Iudge doth for he will declare what he pleaseth for Scriptures and will prove what he pleaseth by them nay our Iesuite himself can prove doctrines by Scriptures that were never knowne but by tradition f Reply Sect. x If a temporall Iudge trench against the law of Man as your infallible Guide doth against the Law of God his sentence may be disanulled revoked and the Iudge himselfe is not free from reproofe And wee know that the makers of a law may interprete it or give power to others to performe the same But Gods law is not made by man neither hath man received power to be such an infallible Iudge g August Confess l. 13. c. 23. Non enim oportet de tam sublimi autoritate judicaâ— neque enim de ipso libro tuo etiamsi quod ibi non lucet quoniam submittimus ci nostrum intellectum certumque habemus etiam quod clausium est aspectiâ—â—â— nostris rectè veraciterque dictum esse Siceâ—â—â— homo licet jam spiritualis renovâ—â—â—â— in 〈◊〉 Dei secundùm imaginem ejus qui creavit eum FACTOR tamen legis debet esse non IVDEX De his enim judicare nunc dicitur in quibus et corrigendi potestaâ—â—m habet Clemens Alexandrinus strom l. 7 Non enim absolutè eâ—â—â—ciantibus hominibus fidem habucrimus quibus licet etiam câ—â—tiare contrarium Sed oporteâ—etiam probare quod dictum est non expectamus testimonium quod datur ab hominibus sed voce Domini probamus quod quaeritur quae est magis side digâ—â— quam quaevis Demonstrationes Ibid. Hâc ergo ratione non sunt pij ut qui divinis praeceptis non acquiescant hoc est Spiritui sancto Quia est ergo ex scipso fidelis Dominicâ scripturâ voce est fide dignus quae per Dominum 〈◊〉 ad hominum beneficium Ipsa autem Iudice utimur ad res inâ— niendas Wadding Lâ—gat Philippi 3. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 multa sunt hujusmodi quae reâ—â—agantibus aut circâ—ca 〈◊〉 Doctor 〈◊〉 sunt à Pontificibus nec enim parvum Doctorum aggerem sed Dei sapientiam et spiritum pro regula etrectore veritatis habet â—â—â—cta haec 〈◊〉 quae falli non potest Mater Ecclesia That which God hath left his Church is the blessed Spirit in his word â— which Christ hath promised shall direct his owne in all at least fundamentall truth And what if some desperat men follow deceitfull guides must this of necessity make the true guiding of his Spirit contemptible Or must the Scriptures be uncertaine in their direction because we have men that will not see that will interpret by their owne passion not yeeld to the truth or absolute demonstration Besides how vaine is it 〈◊〉 to expect the Romane Iudge for our Determiner who â—â—y make us a new rule of faith as large as the Decretals pretending the Scriptures or tradition for it and yet never be an Heretick For if he might be an Hereticke it must be for denying some truth before defined but he cannot be â—◠〈◊〉 for defining any new matters saith your Cardinall Bellarmine for then hee doth not believe against any thing defined by the Church k Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 7. Nam Pontifex si possit esse Haereticus solum erit ne gando aliquam veritatem antea definitam non autem potest esse haereticus dum ipse aliquid novi definit tunc enim non senâ—it contra aliquid deâ—â—nitum ab Ecclesia And suppose he could not erre in expounding the Scriptures may not they which receive his exposition miâ—interpret the same and the people upon report be carried out of the Romane faith Our Iesuite proceedes It will be worth the marking also to observe how this manner of tryall by onely Scripture hath
the Fathers fayle But for the Scriptures their confidence hath not beene so great therein as to make them alone a rule for the least article of their new faith And this Iesuite that even now would perswade others to beleive that we adhere to the Scriptures onely because we would not be subject to the sentence of any judge doth here detect himselfe what judge he will allow The Scriptures must be locked up Bibling is Babling and generall Councells must do the worke well why then doe they not confirme Constance and Basill If they dare not submit to them why do they vainly pretend their authority But it may be they are not confirmed by the Pope So that you may see by the Iesuit's wavering his aime is onely to have that Exlex who ought at this time principallie to be corrected for his heresies to be both the rule and the Iudge But we are as free saith the Iesuite from the imputation of Heresie as our Adversaries are farre from finding out any such generall Councell in which wee have beene condemned z Reply pag. 17 Have you no better Apologies then this to exempt you out of the Catalogue of Hereticks The Pelagians had as good and pleaded the same against S. Augustine who answered them with scorne Aut vero congregatione Synodi opus erat ut apertu pernicies damnaretur quasi nulla haeresis aliquando nisi Synodi congregatione damnata sit a Aug. con â— Epist Pelag 4 4 c. 12. What is it needfull to assemble a Synode that a manifest corruption should be condemned as if no Heresie hath at any time beene condemned without the calling of a Synode And they are as surely branded for Novelists and Sectaries saith this Loyolist as their opinions have beene certainely condemned by many the like generall Councells b Reply pag. 37 I wonder where the Iesuite will find them nay what have they besides the names of generall Councells that may honour the assembly of their so many Bishops Some of these you dare not confirme why then should they have generall faith and esteeme amongst us If you dare not subscribe to your Councels for what reason should they have power to condemne us Some against Faith given have martyred those which you acknowledge ours Your Trent Synode hath anathematized the Catholick Church Doctrine And I am perswaded if that faction had as much power as they give to their Head the Church Catholicke should not bee long from martyrdome also Besides whose opinions have Generall Councels condemned ours Surely then our pretended Heresies are ancienter then Luther he is not the first that taught our doctrine But where are your Councels Mr Malone that condemne the holy Scriptures the foure first Generall Councels the three Creeds These are ours to them wee subscribe If these are Noveltiâ—s we are Novelists if this be doctrine of Sectâ—ries the Hereticke hath justly stiled us But if the Iesuite cannot bring Councels that have condemned God in his Word the Primitive Church in her Decrees and the generall Confessions of Faith I hope hee will upon better thoughts except Noveltie from our Faith Schisme from our Persons Neither let the Iesuite runne about as in other-places he hath done to coyne us an other Faith when as he himselfe revileth us for adhering to the Scriptures c Reply Sect. â— when as our Lawes justifie our embracing the foure first Generall Councels and our Liturgie doth enclose the Creedes The Iesuite continueth his vaine discourse And as saith he they never yet assembled any Generall Councell of Catholick Preists and Prelates of that Church which is dispersed through many Nations neither by reason of their fatall discord amongst themselves will ever beâ— able to assemble the same so wee may for ever live secure d Reply pag. â—7 Every Iesuite is not a Prophet We may have a Coâ—â—â—â—ll such a one where your Papa shall not be Presidâ—nt â—or your Cloâ—ke-bagge carry the Spirit that shall direct iâ— when the Church of Rome it selfe shall be frâ—â—â— from that Factioâ— which now doth tyrannize over it and the true Bishops thereof shall enjoy that authoritie which most truely is their owne by divine institution and Fryars and Iesuites may turâ—e Turkes for any station that they shall have in the Hierarchiâ— of the Church of God e Censura â—â—â—positionum ad sacram Facultatem Theoâ—â—giae Parisiâ—â— sem allat c. Priâ—â—a Propositio Hierarchia Ecclesiastica constat ex Pontifice Cardinalibus Archiepiscopis Episcopis Regularibus Câ—â—sura In istâ primâ— proposâ—tiâ—â—◠〈◊〉 ratio memâ—â—â—rum Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae seu sacri Principatâ—â— divinâ ordinatione instituti est manca redundaâ—â— atque inducens in errorem Finally saith the Iesuite the reason of this his â—ergivâ—rsaâ—ion from the Fathers authority is vaine and idle when hee saith that we have coyned clipped and washed their monuments And why I pray you For though saith he he endeavour to proove this by severall instances yet not one doth he produce that will serve his turne and therefore tells the most learned Answerer that he is bound to bring forth â—â—und prooâ—â— of this his accusation under paine of incuâ—ring the brand of forgerie and spitefull calumnie himselfe f Reply pag. 38 We may perceive the Iesuite is unwilling to enter into dispute concerning these particulars and therefore â—â—sts them off as wanting proofe Yet indeed the matter is so notorious in many of the instances that your owne have espied the counterfeits and branded them with their Censures But the Iesuite might have forsaken his selfe flatterie and have taken notice that there is more proofe against the particulars then hee had answered unto For is it possible that there should bee little respect given to the Church of Rome before the Councell of Nice as their Cardinall and after-Pope urged by the most reverend the Lord Primate affirmeth when wee finde the first Bishops of that Church writing such controuling Epistles Councels before that of Nice giving such unlimited power and the Romane Emperour qualifying with such unmeasurable Principalitie their Romane Bishop But because the Iesuite desires a further manifestation of these Counterfeitâ— I will take them as they are layde downe in order by the most reverend the Lord Primate beginning with your Craftie Merchant Isidorus Mereator that is justly charged with counterfeiting Decretall Epistles c. Our Iesuite hath a minde to justifie these brattâ— and to make Isidorus his merchandize to passe for good wares yet Bellarmine confesseth that they are infected with Errour script into them g Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 14. Aliquos errores in eas irrepsisse non negaverim nec indubitatas esse affirmaâ—e audeam â— Cusanus de Concord cath l. 3. c. 2. Sunt meo judicio illa de Constantino apocrypha sicut fortassis etiam quaedam alia longa magna scripta Sanctiâ— Clementi Anacleto Papâ— attributa In quibus volentes Romanam
excepta cogitari potest quo illa sedes turpiter ma culata non fuerit maxime ab an no â—00 and therefore it were better to acknowledge the miracle with Bellarmine Bellarm. in Chronolog an 970. Vide seculum infelix in quo nulli Scriptores illustres nulla Concilia Pontifices parum solliciti de republâ— Sed divina providentia fecit ut nullae surgerent haereses novae from thence perswade obedience then from leâ—â—ning piâ—tiâ— or holinesse at all which you neither acknowledg requisite †Papiâ—ius Massonius in vita Pauli 3. In Pontificibus nemo hodiè sanctitatem requirit optimi putantur si vel leviter mali sint vel minùs boni quam â—aeteri mortales esse solent or assistant to the guider of your Catholicke faith And thus you see distinctions of points of faith left indifferent determined cannot preserve the Iesuite from his unsound and unreasonable supposition the reason being alike for both So that there needs no consideration of the points nor satisfaction to the Persons mentioned the mistake presupposed by the Iesuite being a just charge But he proceeds and tels us that through the like mistake the Answerer chargeth him with boldnes when he offered to produce good and certaine grâ—â—nds out of the sacred Scriptures in confirmation of such points of Religion as he layde downe y Reply pag. 93 M. Malone this is bouldnes beleive it and such which the best of your owne notwithstanding your flourishes will not adventure to defend therefore it is justly so stiled by the most reverend Primate It is apparant that your confidence herein had no other prop at first but ignorance to conceipt your ability howsoever your shame hath now attracted impudency for your further assistance if your answere to this be not meere blockish you shall tryumph everlastingly In your challenge your promise for the confirmation of all the therein mentioned points of your religion to produce good and certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures if the Fathers authority will not suffice And further you desire any Protestant to alleage any one text out of the said Scripture which condemneth any of the above written points z See the Iesuites challenge This rash escape begets in the most learned Answerer a just derision of your boldnes ignorance who against the coÌ„sent of your learned councell will attempt to prove confession prayers to Saints image worship Limbus patrum Purgatory c. by good certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures whenas some of those points are coÌ„fessed neither expresse nor involutè to be coÌ„tained therein a â—annes 2. 2 q 1 â— 10 all of them referred to the tradition of the universall Church b Gloss in Gratian de Poeniâ—en d 5 c. 1. in poenitentia Canus loâ— thâ—olâ— â— c 4 Coster in compend orthodoâ—ae fidei Demonstr propos 5 c. 2 p. 162. Is not here cause sufficient to deride your boldnes hath not your evasive answer confessed your ignorance who sees not an amazed Iesuite He dares not deny the truth that this doctrine is not delivered in Scripture neither hath he the modesty to confesse his lapse and therefore frames such an answere that justly makes him ridiculous unto all When by by saith he we shal come to dispute of Traditions we will prove even by good grounds of Scripture that such divine traditioÌ„s are no lesse to be beleived of us then are those points of faith which be expresly mentioned in holy Writ and then it will appeare how it was a confidence of the truth which did beget this boldnes in me and nothing else but partialitiâ— which begot in him that sinister suspicion c Reply pag. 93 Is not here wisedome merus Logicus is a better rational then we finde here He will prove by Scriptures traditionâ— are no lesse to be beleived then points of faith expressed in holy Writ will it follow therefore confession image-worship c. may be proved by good certain grounds out of sacred scriptures Where were your Canonists schoolemen late Iesuites their eyes or wits that they could neither see nor find out this but rather reckoned these points amongst traditions not laid downe in Scripture d See before lit â— They saw what you pretended your Arguments are no newes they used them to the same purpose with as much wilynes as you either have or can doe yet they could never prove those points that are acknowledged to be received from tradition to have good certain grounds out of the sacred scriptures Besides the points specified either have good certain grouÌ„ds out of scriptures or they have none If they have none how can the Iesuit produce them if they have any why doth your church perswade their beleif froÌ„ the word not written the tradition of the universall Church Neither will this evasion deceive a purblind sight for if he prove traditions of as necessary beleif as points expressed in scriptures what gaines hath he for he doth it in grosse this proves there are traditioÌ„s but not confâ—rmes any of the points by good grouÌ„ds out of sacred scriptures or in particular that confession Prayers â—o Saints Image-Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Purgatâ—riâ— c. are divine traditions And thâ—n the Iesuitâ— hath not performed what he promised in handling â—raditions no not in his endeavours neither will he ever doe if â—is owne guesse aright The Iesuite tels us he will forbear to urge any more â—hâ—â— other injurie whereby he charged us with forging câ—yning and clipping the â—â—nâ—ments of antiquity e Reply pag. 93 And doe you not thinke it had bene better his forbearance had begun before But let us examine this injury and it will not be any great trouble to make the Iesuite impudent or a confessionary of such frauds And first to begin with the first of forging and coyning not to name all this were to much but some of most kindes First Dâ—â—ation as Constantiues for his temporall Patrimonie f See before â— â—05 â—06 Secondly Councels as Conciliuâ— Siâ—â—â—â—â—an 〈◊〉 suâ— Sylvestrâ— g See before p 203. 204. 20â— Thirdly Canons as those of Nice pretended to the Bishops of Africke and the Arabian to the whole world h See before p. â—73 Epistles as your Deâ—â—â—â—â—ls never heard of in antiquitie but invented by your Merchant when Rome had forgot to speake in her auncient â—legancy i See before p 202 Besides false titles have beene given to Bookes but by whom for whose benefit you can judge If this be not forging and â—â—yâ—ing charge â—s with falshood But if I should at large proseqâ—â—te this it would trouble patience it selfe to attend Besides is it not forging and câ—yning to cite from a father that which he never spâ—keâ— as your Aquinas hath doâ—e from S. Cyrillâ— Thesaurus in the point of Supremacy an evidence applauded beyond all other For saith Canus all other anthors never
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
questions then fight combates to begge the points controverted then to purchase the glory and honour of a Triumph He declares the preparation to the warre Mr Vsher vpon his receipt proclaimes this a Iesuites Challenge prepares himselfe to the fight buckâ—ls on his harnesse What to doe to warre with a Pigmie you are deceived A sling and a few stones * will best answere currish 1. Sam. 17. 40. Rhetoricke alicentious Rayler He desires to informe his Reader that for as much as the maine controversy concerneth the fathers iudgments for the first 500 yeares in his proofes hee hath kept compasse howsoever he hath descended to disproove his Adversary Here let him know that we will follow him in the path that he should tread in his extravagant collections and descent from the rule prescribed wee desert him and herein we take no other libertie then what he assumeth to himselfe as is apparant in his second information He hath enlarged himselfe in that article of the Reall presence and why I pray you In regard of the eagernesse wherewith the adverse part doth impugne the same Who seeth not that the blind beggar strikes but hee knoweth not whom for if he vnderstand by the adverse part that part of the Catholicke Church which liveth vnder his Majesties government as his words import he is blindlie mistaken for who knowes not that many in the Church of England confesse Christs presence in the sacrament though they assigne not the manner how but to entertaine the Catholicke meane as he tearmes it †pag. 44. to acknowledge Christs presence in the Eucharist in a sacrament all manner I thinke he can neither find pen nor tongue that contradicteth the same Yet what he saith he will proove by miraculous demonstration and surely I thinke he is better able to iustifie their doctrine about the Sacrament by their legends then the Scriptures and by new invented wonders c Alexand de Hales in 4. sent q. 〈◊〉 In sacramento apparet caro interdum humanâ procuratione interdum operatione diabolicâ then the venerable testimonie of the auncient Church And it is not to be neglected what an open way to Atheisme is prepared by their published legends and approoved miracles whilst they dare averre that none can beleive the scriptures wherein are contained Christs miracles but by their Churches proposall and that the same hand though not in the same manner doth deliver their legends for the comfort of her pretended catholicke children although the consequence be not necessary may it not fall out that one finding fraud and falshood in these wonders d Lyranus in Daniel 14. Aliquando fit in Ecclesia maxima deceptio populi in miraculis fictis à Sacerdotibus vel eis adhaerentibus propter luciuÌ„ temporale Ga Biel in Can Miss lect 49 Miracula dicit fieri hominibus ad imagines confluentibus nonnunquam operatione Daemonum ad fallendum inoidinatâ—s cultores Deo permittente exigente talium infidelitate may entertaine a jealousie of the truth of those miracles that confirme our faith e De tribus mundi impostoribus Italy I thinke knowes the effect of this snare not infecting inferiors alone but your infallible Chaire f Io. 23. Concil Const Sess 2. And doe not your imaginarie fables herein next to your images and idolls confirme the Iewes in their hardnesse of heart to thinke Atheisticallie of our faith and Messias For working feeling in the well disposed Protestant Reader by those your pretended supernaturall events I thinke vnlesse it be such as Augustine found in himselfe in reading Dido and Aenâ—as an imaginarie discourse a phantasticke compassion you may despaire of For we are not now to receive new doctrines or new miraculous confirmations g Stella in Luc. 11. 19. We have Moses and the Prophets let vs heare them * Luke 16. 29. if any man preach any other Gospell then that we have received let him be accursed †Gal. â— 9. Wadding Legat Phiâ— terâ—ii c. sect 3. And we need not to be ignorant Mr Malone how the Dominicans answered the Patrons of the immaculat conception of the blessed Virgin when they brought to confirme their cause miraculous proofes that they were of the same stampe that Iannes and Iambres wrought in Aegypt but let this expect its proper place I will not yet forsake the Preface The Iesuite confesseth that he hath roughly and freelie dealt with the Answerer and this he desires might not be imputed to any disregard that hee hath to his person or learning which hee honours and highly esteemes The Iesuites Common-wealth is not Athens all ingenuous men are not cloystered in their Colledges The Iesuite confesseth that we have one But to deale with one whose person he professeth to honour and learning highly to esteeme in more disgracefull and virulent straines then Michael did with the Divell * Iude. 9. how can the Iesuite apologise for this But here I hope his Maiestie and all others of eminent place will consider to what a height this spaune of Ignatius hath ascended in this kingdome that they did not onely builde the Babylonian turrets scorne and outface our true Religion practised by his sacred Maiestie established by the lawes of Church and State but also revile the most eminent for Pietie Learning and Prelacy in our Ecclesiasticall Government Yet let him triumph in his snarling language all good men doe see such eminencies of learning and sincerity in the most reverend Primate that a Iesuites tongue though more besmeared cannot defile his honour or his name Neither doth this coelestiall luminary greeve any more then the Moone at his Dogge-Rhetoricke That which vexeth Lots * â— Pet 2. 7. righteous soule is to see his Country made Sodome and Aegipt by blindnes and Idolatry An heard of swine he knowes may make a greater noise then an army of men and who wypeth her mâ—uth or vseth her tongue more then the harlot If such things as these will justifie Papall intrusions Mr Malone will not faile who hath given vs loud cryes and a large volume but praetereà nihil Some things else we finde in this preface as their pretence of Vnitie and our Division which because hee pipeth it so often in the body of his Reply we will there take some opportunitie for the consideration of the same The Iesuite a vayne Demaundant THe Iesuite after his Preparatives addresseth himselfe to the Reply and first layeth downe his demaund What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion which the Protestants commend in those of the first 400. or 500. yeares confessing it to have beene the true religion of Christ and his Apostles a Reply pag. â— And here we may see the Iesuites additions In his first demaund he expressed onely the true religion here he addeth of Christ and his Apostles which I do not except against as if I did conceive a religion might bee true that is not from Christ and
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
of the Greekes hee mixeth Papists and Protestants and yet both put together they are not able to shew the distinct time without a circum circa and turne about for so hee expresseth it The denyall of vnleavened bread in celebration of the Sacrament was begunne about anno Domini 1053. as appeareth by Leo the 9. in his Epistle to Michael Bishop of Constantinople y Reply pag. 10 The Iesuite hath produced nothing but vanity for the finding the beginning of this notorious heresie For Leo the 9. saith no such thing viz that Michael was the first that broached this errour neither doth he cite the first author of it For it cannot follow because Michael did oppose the Azymes used in the Latin Church about the yeare 1053. therefore about that age it did beginne For that Patriarch charged the Church of Rome with other practises quod Sabbat a quadrageâ—â—mâ— observâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 quod suffocata comederunt gentiliter quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantùm in Paschate nunquam vero in quadragesimali tempore decantarent Brovius in anno 1653. All which I thinke you will not say were first distasted by Michael at that time The Iesuitè runneth from his path and vainely without any relation to the thing in controversie telleth vs that the Greeke Church doth vehemently professe to detest the Protestants Religion a Reply pag 10 c. Wherein we have no reason to beleive him in regard he bringeth not any particular out of the Authors cited by himselfe to convince the same which I make no question but hee would have done if they had fairely offered it vnto his hands Secondly there would not be that freindly entercourse betwixt some of the Patriarchs of the Greeke Church and our Bishops as there is neither would they have sent their Preists to our Vniversities for instruction omitting yours which are nearer to them neither would the Grecians that are amongst vs frequent our Chappels Churches when they avoyd yours if they conceived them equally polluted or held vs in equall detestation b Concil Lateran 4. sub Inno 3. apud Bin. c. 4. In tantum Graeci coeperunt abominari Latinos quod inter alia quae in derogationem 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 committeâ—â—â—â— si quando sacerdotes Latini super corum celebrâssent altarianon prius ipsi sacrificare vo lebant in illis quam ea tanquam per hoc inquinata lavissent Baptiâ—atos etiam à Latinis ipsi Graeci rebaptizare ausu remerario praesumebant adhuc sicut accepimus quidam agere hoc non verentum with â—â—â—â—selves Neither doe they differ from vs in the fundamentall points of Doctrine we giving them as we ought a charitable interpretation although in some of the points in the Iesuites Catalogue taken from the Divines of Wittemberge they may be censured somewhat to savour of superstition and errour And that it may appeare whether the Greeke Church doth most favour Papists or Protestants I will insert here a Confession of faith of Cyrill Patriarch of Constantinople translated into English and published at London 1629. An other translation whereof I have seene vnder which is written This Copy hath beene translated out of the originall made * * done by the hands of the most reverend Patriarch Cyrill which I know well The writing it selfe being in my hands and having examined it my owne selfe I doe testifie that it doth agree with it word for word Corneille Hague Embassadour of the vnited Provinces of the Low-Countreyes at the gate of the Grand Seignour IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SONNE AND OF THE HOLY GHOST VEE beleive one God Almightie and infinite three in Persons the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost the Father vnbegotten the Sonne begotten of the Father before the World consubstantial with the Father the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father by the Sonne having the same ofsence with the Father and the Sonne wee call these three Persons in one essence the Holy Trinity ever to bee blessed glorified and to bee worshipped of every creature Wee beleive the Holy Scripture to bee given by God to have no other Authour but the Holy Ghost which wee ought vndoubtedly to beleive for it is written Wee have a mere sure word of Prophecy to the which â—ee doe well to take â—eede as to a light shining in a darke place Besides we beleive the authority thereof to be aboue the authority of the Church It is a farre different thing for the Holy Ghost to speake and the tongue of man for the tongue of man may through ignorance erre deceiue and bee deceiued but the Word of GOD neither deceiueth nor is deceiued nor can erre but is alwayes infallible and sure Wee beleiue that the best and greatest GOD hath predestinated his Elect vnto glorie before the beginning of the World without any respect vnto their workes and that there was no other impulsiue cause to this election but onely the good will and mercy of God In like manner before the world was made hee hath rejected whom hee would of which act of reprobation if you consider the absolute dealing of God his will is the cause but if you looke vpon Gods orderly proceeding his justice is the cause for God is mercifull and Iust Wee beleive that one GOD in Trinity the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost to bee the Creator of all things visible and invisible Inuisible things wee call the Angels visible things the Heauens and all things vnder them And because the Creator is good by nature hee hath created all things good and cannot doe any evill and if there bee any euill it proceedes from the Diuell and man for it ought to bee a certaine rule to vs that GOD is not the Author of evill neither can sinne by any just reason bee imputed to him Wee beleiue that all things are governed by GODS Prouidence which wee ought rather to adore then search into sith it is beyond our capacity neither can wee truely vnderstand the reason of it from the things themselves in which matter wee suppose it better to embrace silence in humilitie then to speake many things which doe not edifie Wee beleive that the first man created by God fell in Paradise because neglecting the Commaundement of God hee yeelded to the deceitfull counsell of the Serpent from thence sprung vp originall sinne to his posterity so that no man is borne according to the flesh who doeth not beare this burthen and feele the fruits of it in his life Wee beleive that IESVS CHRIST our Lord hath made himselfe of no accompt that is hath assumed mans nature into his owne Subsistence that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost that hee was made Man in the Wombe of Mary alwayes a Virgin was borne and suffered death was buryed and glorified by his resurrection that hee brought salvation and glory to all beleivers whom wee looke for to come to judge both quicke and dead Wee beleive that our Lord IESVS CHRIST sitteth
were first brought in whether by Balaam or an Apostle though the Iesuite his fellowes could proâ—e it by Apocrypha to be as auncient as the towre of Babeâ—â— it wil be prophane and new in the opinion of any Christian iudgment and vnderstanding still And here it is not to be omitted how the Iesuite flyes to that which they coÌ„temne in us the sacred scriptures deserting the successioÌ„ of this article of glorious RomaÌ„ faith suspecting the fathers so much boasted of by him to prove it of universall beleife must we be urged then in reason to tell you at what time Purgatory and Indulgences were first brought into the Church wheÌ„as the Greeke Fathers seldome mentioned Purgatory never received it x Roâ—â—ens ar 18. Graecis ad hunc vsque diem non est creditum Purgatorium esse when some of the Latine apprehended it not y Ibid. Sed neque Latini simul omnes ac sensim huâ—us rei veritatem conceperunt when sometime it was vnknowne z Ibid. Aliquandiu Purgatorium in cognitum and but lately knowne to the Church a Ibid Sero cognitum ac receptum Ecclesiae fuerit vniversae when it got strength pedetentim by little little not from scriptures or fathers interpreting them onely but partly ex revelationibus b Ibid. by some whisperer in a trunke or a worse Gipsy But if these notable points in the opinioÌ„ of Valentia Caiâ—tan Fisher had their original froÌ„ Christ his Apostles the word of God why should the Iesuit desire any other medium to examine the truth of their report but their own levell The word of God is sufficient to canonize these of faith could you but finde them delivered there But we are sure of your disability herein vnlesse you fly vnto the ayde of your pro ratione voluntas your will-guiding Interpreter And the Iesuit might have forborn to charge the Answerer with untruth in regard he but only repeats Fisher Caietans opinions and the Iesuite himselfe thus farre jumpeth with them that there is some uncertainty when first their vse began Besides I would gladly know whether the word of God without succession be able to point us out the certaine original of the Doctrine of faith if it be what will become of his demaund if it be not where findeth he the vntruth that he doth falsly charge the Answerer withall Finally Because Fisher affirmeth that the knowledge of Purgatory came in pedetentim by little little therefore it ought not to be admitted nor esteemed For by the same Logick he may prove that S. Iames his epistle ought not to be admitted for Canonicall Scripture because as S. Hierome c Paulatim tempore procedente meruit authoritatem Hieron de vitis illust verbo Iecobus doth witnesse by little and little in processe of time it obtained authority credit d Reply pag. 13 This is another brat of the Iesuites begetting let him foster it the most learned Answerer concludeth no such thing but shewes that this profane Novelty crept pedetentim like a snaile to the height of Papall faith and therefore is not easy to be discerned But the Iesuite had a great mind to make vse of Ierome's words and without a forged preparation hee was not able to bring them in Yet as he vrgeth them there is great difference betweene these two instances For the Epistle of S. Iames was first received by the Catholike Church e Eusebius apud Sixt. Sâ—nens Bibl. Sanct lib. 7. haer 9. Noâ— tamen scimusistam epistolâ—m Iacobi cum caeteris ab omnibus Ecclesijs recipi though doubted of by some particular members thereof f Sixtuâ— Senens ibid. Nec ita perperà m sequentia verba Hieronymi interpretanda sunt ut ex his dedueamus Epistolam hanc vel temporum successu vel Ecclesiae diâ—â—imulatione divinam factam Iaâ—obo ascriptam cum tadis ipsa non esset hoc enim impossibile prorsus est sed sic potius juxta veram Hieron mi mentem exponenda sunt quod Epistolam hanc de qua primum inter ALIQVOS ambigebatur an divino spiritu aâ— ab Apostolo Iacobo scripta esset Ecclesia Christi paulatim tempore procedente â—â—mperit esse veram et canonicam etipsiâ—s Iacobi germanam But Purgatory was not received so far as they can manifest but by degrees in particular Churches only never at the best esteemed as of faith but among Romanists Secondly Purgatory partim ex revelationibus came to be beleived of some particular Churches when the Epistle of S. Iames from the worth divine light that was in it selfe meruit authoritatem got authority not in the Catholicke but amongst those doubting Churches which had not received it So that heere is the difference of paulatim and pedetentim S. Iames his Epistle was knowne and received by the Catholicke Church and did by degrees remove the jealousie of those particular Churches that suspected it Purgatory being vnknowne at sometime to the Catholick Church which must either be in the Apostles dayes or never vnlesse this point were more vnhappy then any other point of Doctrine got to be knowne afterwards in the Roman Church not from Scriptures which knew it not but by revelations and tales of a Ghost When our Answerer then c. doth demand of us whence tho foresaid points of Purgatorie Indulgences Communion in one kind have their Originals we can shew even out of the very authors alledged by himselfe that they have their Originals from the institution of our Lord howsoever it be granted that there is some uncertainty when first began their publique and frequent use g Reply pag. 13 What doth the Iesuite get by this he affordeth us matter sufficient to prove his Demaund idle For first what little reason hath he to aske What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion which wee commend in them of the first 400. yeares and In what Pope his dayes was the true Religion overthrowne in Rome when they themselves are forced to distinguish in regard of time the practise of their faith from the person that instituted the Doctrine thereof confining this vnto the age of Christ acknowledging the other to have beene brought into the Roman Church they know not when †〈◊〉 constat Secondly what ground hath the Iesuite the rest of his profession to require the circumstances of person time and place to find out heresies by but because the true auncient faith hath beene ever continued in the Church by perpetuall succession being beleived practised therein without interruption And yet here our Adversaries confesse that a doctrine may be taught by Christ yet never practised in the immediate following times but as a thing forgotten begin in particular Churches after the Apostolick times and from thence slyde into the Roman never into the Catholick at such a time which they are not able to designe
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
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
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
it be yet it being cleare that it is the Popes will that that course of interpreting shall hold their mancipiall vow oath makes them perjured that violate the same The Iesuite esteemes these but â—hifts therfore he will justifie his Fathers an other way to that end proceedeth in this maner But let us put the ease that Maldonate did â—â—kâ— that â—ath if you doe without a dispensation he must be perjured yet shall not our Answerer be able ever to shew that either he or any other Iesuite did once violat the same i Reply pag. 9â— I feare you wil be deceived for if your excuse faile Maldonate must get a learneder advocate or plead guilty and it seemes you are to seek when you flye from the words of the oath seeke reliefe from the extension of the intent thereof For I suppose he is not so ignorant saith the Iesuite but that he knoweth how the intent of that oath extends it selfe no further then to bind the taken never to interpret the word of God in matters of faith contrary to the consent of ancient Fathers k Reply pag. 9â— He should be as blind as Mr Malone if he should take his shifts for a fit glosse for this text who shal measure the exteÌ„t of this oath but they that first occasioned it the councell of Trent and wil their decree patronize his conceipt It will tell you that ad câ—â—rcenda petulantia ingonia to restrain petulans wits l Conc. Trid. sess 4. Decret 3 the Synode doth decree that Doctors shal not interpret the Scriptures contra eum sensum quem tenuit tonet sancta mater ecclesia aut contra unanimem consensum patrum against that sense which the holy mother Church hath doth hold or against the unanimous consent of Fathers m Ibid. But is this all if it were the Iesuite would think himselfe secure but we shal find that in the first place it inhibites â—t nemo prudentiae innxus sacram scripturaÌ„ ad suos sâ—nsus contorqueat that no man leaâ—ing to his own wisdome doe wrest the Scriptures to his own sense Ibid. which Maldonat doth confesse he hath don non nego me hujus interpretationis authoreÌ„ nemineÌ„ habere I do not deny saith he that I have no author of this interpretation Besides the councel condeÌ„nes interpretations contrary to the unanimous consent of fathers but the Iesuit will not have the oath bind so it be not contradictory in that point which is expounded whether the councell wants faith or the Iesuit let the Iesuit resolve The words of the oath excludes the Iesuits gloss are stricter then the Councels decree The councell condemnes interpretations that are private from a mans owne wisedome or 〈◊〉 against the Consent of Fathers o Ibid. though it be with many assistants but the oath inhibites the receiving and interpreting of the Scriptures not onely with glosses that are contra against the Fathers this were too little but with such that are not juxta unanimem consensum according to the uniforme consent of Fathers p Bulla Pij 4. Nec eam unquam nisi juxta c. So that the place of Augustine is produced to small purpose it neither shadowing nor salving the Iesuites credite for the question is not whether a Divine free and at libertie may use S. Augustines practise in the interpretation of Scripture but whether a Iesuite tyed to the oath nec eam unquam never to interpret nisi juxta unanimum consensum Patrum but according to the uniforme consent of Fathers â—ay without breach of faith enjoy this libertie this is the question But their Iesuite Pererius hath interpreted quite contrary to the consent of Fathers and this Iesuite onely affords him a good word but sweats not at all for his releife or defence So that all may see the most judicious Answerer is freed from malice slander ignorance and of bold and desperate forehead which the blistered tongue of the Iesuite would have cast upon him He wrongeth me in like sort q Reply pag. 92 saith the Iesuite If his learned pen hath done you wrong it hath beene by detecting your frauds as before the perjuries of your Order For wherein is the wrong but in shewing forth the wisedome of your insinuations For the truth is he indeavoureth not to make his Reader beleive that you should be so unreasonable as to say that a man might not dissent from the auncient Doctors so much as in an exposition of a text of Scripture without making himselfe more learned more pious and more holy then they were r See the Reply pag. 92. but shewes that you have done it enforcing the same from your reason of the Fathers learning pietie and holynes which lookes upon all points with like authoritie And suppose that according to your owne principles an interpreter should dissent from the Doctors in exposition of one text the most remoâ—est from the foundations of Faith as Tâ—bies dogge his wagging of his tayle I hope you cannot deny but by that Act if they bee not more pious and holy then the Fathers from whom they vary yet they make themselves more learned in that particular if your reason be true or sound For if the learning pietie and holinesse of the Fathers be an argument of truth in deducing points of doctrine from the Scripture they that vary from them in doctrine drawne from thence must make themselves more learned 〈◊〉 and holy then they were But upon revisall what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to confesse he doth labour to excuse and to this intent he refines his character and tels us a long story of his thoughts that he who in such points of faith as those be which I layde downe in my demaund would prefette his owne private interpretation of Scripture before the generall and uniforme agreement of holy Fathers therein could not be excused from the guilt of such like arrogancie Å¿ Reply pag. 93 Is it but arrogancie to deny the Fathers in a point of faith such as those be which you have layde downe It seemes your faith is of your owne making otherwise it would be heresie especially being perversâ—y done against so great a light and conjoyned testimonie but why more in these points that are named by you and such like then in others learning pietie and holinesse direct in every point of religiou as well as in these and therefore if it conclude arrogancie to those that oppose in these you must shew us a reason why it doth not in others also And so farre as I can see the Iesuite hath no reason against the currant of their whole Church to make learning pietie and religion causes of true interpretation of Scripture no not in points of faith when by their owne confession these three Graces were suspended from guyding the Romane faith for whole ages together t Stapl. Relect. cont 1. q. 5. A. 3. Vixullum peccatum solâ Haeresi
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
praedestinatioâ—is quae quidem sententia in Pelagio damnata est Moreover Baronius hath slandred all the Historiographers of the fourth age with words as uncomely as any the Iesuite hath produced from any of ours charging some with obscuritie others with defect of â—rder diligence pietie truth and some with writing lyes for private affection b Baron Ann 395. n. 43. Licet tot historicis haec aeâ—as abundâsse videatur tamen adhuc iâ—opâ— harum facultâ—â—um remansit in noâ—nullis obscura quod ex his alij res multas brevitate nimia contra â—eâ—int alij intactas penitus reliquerâ—â—t desideretur auâ—â— in alijs ordo in alijs veâ—ò teâ—poâ—â— exactioâ— indagatio pericliâ—enturque alij veritatâ— aâ— pariter â—iâ—tate affectuque privato ducti pro arbâ—triâ— mendacia veris aâ—texuerint And in the point of the immaculatâ— conception although the affirmative point brought more Doctours then will make a consent in the Iesuites judgment yet the negative â—ast them off tell us that they are not tyed to so poore a number of the Fathers c Wadding Legat. de conâ—â—â—â— Virg Mâ—riâ— sect 2 orat 9 §. 6. Totidem scil 15. plures Doctores non ita potestatem Ecclesiâ— coarctent ligent ut si consultum rectum duxerit non possit contra â—os cum alijs dâ—fiâ—â—â—â— neither hath the Church the Fathers but the wisdome of GOD his Spirit for a rule and governour which cannot be deceived d Ibid Neâ— enim parvum Doctoâ—â—m aggâ—rem sed Dei sapientiam spiritum pro regula et rectore veritatis habet sancta haec nostra quae falli non poâ—â—â— Mâ—tâ—â— Ecclesia Further Alphonsus de Castre will beleive Anacletus a Merchant better then either Augustine or Hiâ—româ— Alfons de Castro adver haerverbo Episcop â—uic Anacle to â—oli magis credidâ—riâ— quam â—ille Wicleâ—itis imâ—o magis quam Hiâ—â—â—nymo aut Augustine Yet although they thus censure sometimes justly oft-times unjustly those Auncients I will not conclude against them that they utterly discard their opinions and doctrines Now as their owne affirme that although the writings of the Doctors are to be received with reverence yet they binde us not to beleive them in all their opinions but that we may justly contradict them when they speake against Scripture or truth g Turrecâ—em in cap. sanct Rom dist 15. n. 12. so the Fathers themselves professe the same as I have at large shewed in many places before h See before Sâ—ct 5. And S. Augustine as he could not please himselfe without the Scriptures so he feared to offend others and therefore presupposing as the most learned Answerer hath affirmed that without Scripture no certainty no satisfaction can be had he thus declareth himselfe That which I say brethren if I cannot avouch it as certaine you must not be offended I am but a man and what I am assured by the Scriptures that I dare affirme and of my selfe nothing Hell neither I have yet experience of neither you and perchance there shal be an other way and by heâ—â— it shall not be For these things are altogether uncertaine August in psal 85. Quod diciâ—â—â— fraâ—res hoc si non vobis tanquam certâ—â— exposuero â—e â—uccenseatis â—omo enim sum quaâ—tum conceditur de Scripturis â—anctis tantum aâ—deo dicâ—â—e nihil ex â—e Inâ—eâ—â—â—neâ— ego exper â—us â—um â—dhâ—c nec vos 〈◊〉 alia via erit non per inâ—erâ—um 〈◊〉 Iâ—cerâ—a â—â—nt enim haec So that we see the most learned Answerer his lesson Alledge what authority you list without Scripture and it shall not suffice is both Orthodoxe and ancient also But letting this passe as sufficiently urged already will our Answerer have the Forehead now saith the Iesuite to charge us any more with Novelty k Reply p. 10â— Truth needes not a brasen Forehead but where it is persecuted and then it hath defence little enough to have not onely her Forehead but face of brasse also For how doth the Iesuite out-face brow-beate triumph and tell every Passenger that hee hath beaten her against her nature into a Corner when there is no thing but a raging Sea and watery foame But the great ones of his owne profession teach him saith the Iesuite that the auncient Fathers did maintaine those points we now defend against him and therefore one of them calleth our Religion A patched Coverlet of the Fathers errors sowed together Although then our Religion did consist of errours as Whitaker doth affirme yet may our Answerer blush to call them novelties seeing they be confessedly as olde as the aâ—â—ncient Fathers themselves l Reply p. â—â—â— All this will not suffice to exempt the Iesuite and his party from Novelty For it being admitted by him that their Religion doth consist of errours notwithstanding that we in courtesie should graunt that they lay long lurking among those that were auncient they will yet deserve I doubt not obtaine of all men the title of Nâ—veltie For as I have before declared that is new in Religion which is not most aâ—â—cient Pag. 19â— 194 yet I will wayte upon his repetition a little and shew that if the Iesuite cannot derive his Religion further then from the Fathers the tradition whereupon it is builded is then but humane so a new thing even Novelty it selfe And therefore Tâ—rtullian telleth us That is most true which is most auncient that most auncient which was from the beginning that from the beginning which from the Apostles Teâ—â—â—l l. 4 aâ— Mâ—rc Id veriâ—â— quod â—râ—â—s id priâ—â— quod est ab initio ab initio quod ab Apostoliâ— How convincing an Argument then hath the Iesuite produced for his purpose Will he find a truth in Faith that was not from the beginning If CHRIST was alwayes and before all Truth is a thing equally auncient and from all eternitie saith the same Father Idem de Veland Virgin c. 1. Si â—emper Christus prior omnibuâ—â—què veritas sempiteâ—â—â— antiquâ— res And therefore whatsoever savoureth against the Truth this saith he is heresie though it be of long continâ—ance Ibid. Quodcunque adversâ—â— veâ—itatem sapiâ— hoâ— erit hâ—resis etiâ—â— veâ—us coâ—suâ—â—â—eâ— And although errours which are as auncient as some of the Fathers be not Novelties in the Iesuites judgment yet they are new and herefies also to him that hath received his Commission doctrine from CHRIST for which cause Tertullian adviseth those that measure Novelties as the Iesuite doth Viderint quibus novum est quod sibi vetus est Let them beholde to whome that is new which they apprehâ—nd as auncient q Tertul. loco vlt. cit supposing that present Hereticks many times conclude that for auncient which CHRIST and his Apostles distaste as Novelty Besides if the Iesuite collect aright the Church of Rome hath in many things defined for Noveltie against