antiquitie rejecting sundry points which the major and sounder part of the auncient Fathers did teach in the Church r Wadding legat de Concep Virg. Mariae Sect. 2. orat 9 §. 6. mâ—â— 31. â—lures sunt graviores ij quos supra retuli contra quos cum alijâ— definitum est circa animaâ—uâ— ante diâ—m Iudicij beatitudâ—â—em Plures gra viores contra quos docet ecclesia Aâ—gelos esse spirituales Plures graviores contra quos â—el quibus dubitantibus dâ— varijs libris Scripturis Canonicis â—oâ—umque editionibus plâ—tâ— sunt statuta ab Ecclesia Multi graves sunt quos quidam citant â—t volunt â—â—nsisse ipsissâ—â—am hanc Virginem actualitâ—r peccâ—sse contra quos tamen actualem ejus inâ—oâ—enâ—iam 〈◊〉 â—â—â—dit Ecclesia Aliaque multa sunt hâ—jusmodi And if his confidence in this kinde of reasoning be so strong why doth he after labour to manifest us for Novelists when Bristâ— acknowledgeth That some there have bene in many ages in some points of the Protestants opinions Å¿ Mot. preâ— et Mot. â—â— And Reinerius hath as before Pag. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Margin hath beene shewed derived our doctrine condemned by you in the Leonistâ— from the Apostolicall times Whereas he saith that the most learned Answerer may much more be ashamed to tearâ—e them prophane and Hereticall when he is not able to finde out as I said before saith the Iesuite that either by authoritie of Church Councell or Fathers they have beene condemned for such Reply p. 109 I have answered hereunto before x Pag 99. and but even now told him out of Tertullian that whatsoever savoureth against the Truth is Heresie y Aboue lit p. but if a point as Bellarmine affirmes may be defined usu ecclesiâ— z Bellarm. de Reliq sanct c. 6. 〈◊〉 determinata â—rat usu totius Ecclesiae why may not the precedent Non-use of the Church condemne their intrusion of those points which the Church in her best times never practised And if no points of Religion can be prophane and Hereticall but such as are condemned by authority of Church Councels and Fathers I desire the Iesuite that he would forbeare to style us either Heretickes or prophane untill he can produce one Article of those agreed upon in the Synode held at London in the yeare 1562. concerning which he and all his Complices have beene Challenged †In the Lord Primate his Prefacâ— to the Reader before the Answere to the Iesuites Challengâ— but have given no Answere thereunto that hath beene condemned by authority of Church Councels or Fathers within the first 500. yeares Now the Iesuite vainely conceiting that he hath freed themselves from the imputation of Novelty proceedeth in this manner Let us as heretofore we have often done retort his tearmes upon himselfe and make him swallow downe his throat the shamefull reproach of Novelisme a Reply p. 10â— Here is a Champion in campis Gurgustidonijs Hee tels strange things monsters of his owne labour yet very few I thinke will beleive him But how will he performe this Why by proving that Martin Luther was the first broacher of the Protestants Religion b Reply ibid The Iesuite I suppose knowes that the Apostles were first called Christians at Antioch though the Reformed Churches are mistyled by them after Luther began to Preach But let them prove the Doctrine as new as the name they have given it otherwise they vainely contend Whereas he is further of opinion that this same cannot be more strongly proved then by the open confession of the said Luther himselfe c Reply p. 109. c. To This I Answere that if Luther should speake as the Iesuite beareth us in hand yet this should sway no more with us then Tetzelius did with Luther when he preached for Indulgences But I know not how this Iesuite is turned out of the way for we finde him snarling at a Latine worke formerly set forth by the most reverend Primate but never answered by any Iesuite wherein he hath pointed out a continuall succession of his Church for many ages before Luther but with such unfortunate event as even his own if we might beleive the Iesuit have judged him ridiculous herein d Reply ibid. And for what reasons I pray you Because first of all saith the Iesuite he tooke upon himselfe a taske impossible to be performed when he went about to search and to finde out his Church in those times wherein by the confâ—ssion of his owne learned Fathers and Brâ—thren it was invisible and not able to be sâ—â—nâ— Reply p. 1â—â— This wil be be tryed in the examination when the Iesuite will entreate one of his Brethren to examine the same and answere it In the meane time he chargeth us falsly to hold the Church absolutely invisible For if the Church be considered as containing all of all ages that beleeved the truth this wee say is not totally visible the greatest part being in Heaven If wee take the Church for those which are sinâ—â—re in their profession and are true members of CHRIST 2. Tim. 2. 19. Then we say that an humane eye cannot behold any member thereof but by probability and conjecture If foâ— the people that professe and the Pastors that teach the faith of CHRIST in severall ages this we say was never totally invisible but was knowne to them that professed the same though to persecutors that contemned the faith 2. Cor. 4. 3. or sought to oppresse it Rev. 12. 14. it might many times be hidd So that all the places brought by the Iesuit may be answered by that which hath bin said for some speak coÌ„paratively in regard of the outward glory of the Roâ—an Synagogue some in regard of precedent times some in regard of the world that persecuted them But doth the Iesuite conjecture that the most reverâ—â—d Primate thought by that booke to declare the Church in her succession as outwardly visible and glorious as Râ—me This was not his inâ—ent but to declare that there were many that professed the truth of CHRIST in all ages though under persecution in the succession of the Babylonish tyrannie And this the Iesuit might have observed if he had read the same for by the place of Ambrose in the Title-page we may conceive that his intention was to shew that though the Church be in condition many times like the Mâ—â—ne at full decreasing increasing yet it euer doth remaine a Church and such a one whose motions may be discerned and described f Ambros Hâ—xâ—â—â—er l. 4. c. â— Ecclesia vide tuâ— sicut Luna dâ—ficere sed noâ— dâ—ficit obâ—â—â—â—ari poâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secoâ—dly saith the Iesuite he bringeth in for Pillarâ— of his successive Church Waldo Wicklife and Husse g Reply p. 110. Here is sufficient to shew that the Iesuite doth not care what he saith nor feareth to censure things that he never saw For it is câ—â—are
of God did execrate and abhorre All which is fully justified out of ancient monuments by the most learned Answerer f See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Answere to the Iesuites challenge pag. 461. 462. 463. And his booke De successione statu cap â— the Iesuite being tongue-tyed replying nothing thereunto But were there no seedes of Heresie in that age Bellarmine is willing to have it so and the Iesuite is confident in the same opinion but the truth is Heresie was embraced of them which should have resisted it otherwise there would not have been so many fruitlesse complaints as holy men powred forth in the immediate following times Yet how shall wee make a true search for Heresies in this age when Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that it was vnhappie as affording neither writers of any worth nor Councells g Bellarm. in Chronol Vâ—de hic Seculum infelix in quo nulli Scriptores illustres nulla Consilia It seemes wee must be beholding to their experiences which did observe somthing when they did awake Genebrard then telleth us that for almost 150 yeares Pontifices circiter 50. à virtute majorum prorsus defecerint Apotactici Apostaticive potiùs quam Apostolici About fifty Popes altogether fell away from the vertue of their Ancestors being disordered and Apostaticall rather then Apostolicall h Genebrard Chron in Annum Christi 901. Others relate that the Devill got power to elect him whom Papists now would have to be as an infallible oracle to direct to Heaven i Platina in vitâ Silvestri secundi Gerebertus ambitione et diabolicâ dominandi cupiditate impulsus largitione primò quidem archiepiscopatum Rhemensem inde Ravennatem adeptus Pontificatum postremò maiore conatu adiuvante Diabolo consecutus est hac tamen lege ut post mortem totius illius esset cuius fraudibus tantam dignitatem adeptus erat Aenaeas Sylv. in comment de gestis Basil Concil lib. 1. Nec â—â—â— fugit Marcellinum iussu Caesareo idolis thurificà sse alium vero quod majus horribilius est diabolicâ fraude Romanum pontificatum ascendisse Others amazed mourned for the Church as if in Rome Sathan had beene at liberty in perniciem totius Ecclesiae to the destruction of the whole Church k Baron Annal. toâ— 12. an 1170. And many not long after wondring at the face of the Church concluded that Antichrist had placed his seate in the Church of God l Vide reverendum doctissimum Episcop Derens de Antichristo l â— cap. 9 Could all this be effected and not one error creepe into your Church to bespot the Roman Puritie I might tell you that the opinion of the grosse and carnall eating of Christ in the Sacrament had so little admittance in the Church before this carelesse and snorting time that in the precedent age it was scorned of the most learned in the Christian Church Rabanus Bertramus Iohannos Scotus c. I might name you Purgatory if the most learned Primate had not declared it to be a new devise never heard of in the Church of God for the space of a thousand yeeres after the birth of our Saviour Christ * In the answere to the Iesuites challenge pag. 178. And it were no great matter to shew you the Hildebrandine Heresie which must have had his seeding in this age or not farre from it By all which the Iesuite may perceive how sleepy a defence he hath made for a snorting age and how vainely he deduceth arguments to make good his Popish Religion from our nescience of person time and place it being cleared that his demaund in respect of these circumstances is meerely vaine and that his Digressions doe nothing benefit his cause SECT III. IN this peice of Vanity the Iesuite proceeds to discover How vaynelie our Answerer betaketh himselfe to the Scriptures a Reply pag. 19 and the Iesuite hath shewed more vanity in his entrance into this third Section then I am perswaded he wil be able to declare against the Answerer throughout his whole Reply for he confesseth that the most learned Answerer hath thus farrerun on answerlesse b Reply ibid. a wonderfull thing that hee who hath so domineered should acknowledge here for a part as before for the whole that Responsa ejus which were replyed unto sine responsionibus were answerlesse notwithstanding the Reply Secondly he telleth us that the most reverend Primate in betaking himselfe to the Scriptures and shewing his copiousnes of Abilities hath abandoned all that he hath formerly said c Reply ibid. But if this were forcible and not Vanitie surely wee should have vaine Answerers amongst their Schoolemen their Commentators especially and the more learnedly and fully they expresse their thoughts the more vaine should they be demonstrated to bee by this line and measure Thirdly he insinuateth that this most reverend Lord is hereby brought to confesse that he cannot by the Iesuites way give them satisfaction d Reply ibid when as he hath most learnedly and punctually answered each particular of his demaund which sheweth in him not Vanity onely but Iesuiticall impudency and out-facing falshood There are other meanes left saith the most learned Answerer whereby wee may discerne the tures brought in by the instruments of Sathan from the good seed which was sowen by the Apostles of Christ besides this observation of times and seasons which will often faile us But the Iesuite would know what other meanes are these that yet remaine and the most reverend Primate hath manifested out of Tertullian e Tertull praescript advers Haeret cap. 32. that their very Doctrine it selfe being compared with the Apostolickâ— by the diversity and contrarietie thereof will pronounce that it had for author neither any Apostle nor any man Apostolicall f Reply pag. 20. I hope this meane is no new invention but Tertullians advice no upstart direction but the practise of his times whereby the Iesuite may see that the repugning of the vaine pretences of Heretickes may bee as well or better performed by comparing their heresies with that doctrine which is Apostolicall then by the circumstances of person time and place which convicteth him of notorious vanity in making his vaine demaund the necessary square to measure heresies by And whereas this Iesuite saith hee is content to winke a little for this time at the Answerers converghance g Reply pag. 20 The Iesuite for one promise keepeth faith he is not alwayes of Carthage his speech doth not here bewray him for hee winkes indeed and is so wilfully blinde that he will not take notice of Christs practise in convincing Pharisaicall novelties urged by the most learned Primate h In his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge from Mat. 19. 8. from the beginning it was not so neither Apostolicall Councell to prescribe against the infection of Seducers crept in at unawares earnestly to contend for the faith which was first
by miracle also as we may see in the Acts of the Apostles * Act. 8. 10. 11. where the dwellers in Phrygia and Pamphilia in Egypt and in the parts of Lybia about Cyrene and strangers of Rome Iewes and Proselites c. did heare the Apostles speaking in their tongues the wonderfull workes of God whereunto S. Chrysostome agreeth affirming more then once the Latine tongue to have beene imparted by miracle to the Apostles l Chrysost in Epist ad Cor. 1. cap. 14. homil 35. Idem Persarum ROMANORVM Indorum multorum praetereà linguis Spiritu susurrante loquebatur atque id munus munus tum vocabatur linguarum Eâ— paulo post Erant enim jam olim qui precandi donum linguae conjunctum haberent multi precabantur quidem linguâ sonabant vel Persarum vel ROMANA utentes Neither saith the Iesuite was it brought in by us but by our Answerer himselfe confessed to have beene from the beginning m Reply pag. 23. For this your second mistake the learned Primate saith that the Latine service was used from the beginning in those countries and who doubteth of it but was it not also understood if the Preists had then Latine tongues had not the people Latine eares n Azor. Ies Instit Mor. par 1. lib. 8. cap. 26. Nos tan en libeâ—ter fatemur tunc temporis laicos in Scripturarum lectione fuisse versatos quia sacra eloquia fueâ—unt Graeco vel Latino sermone conscripta quem sermonem vulgus quoque callebat nunc vero plebs fere rudis est imperita Latini sermonis at Laici qui Graecè vel Latinè noverunt Scripturaâ— jure optimo lectitant But this as the Iesuite pretendeth from the Answerers confession hath remained in the Church without alteration no such syllable in the Answerer when the people in their vulgar speech departed from it o Reply pag. 23. Imagine at the mistake the people departed from the vulgar speech who brought it after them or in amongst them that had departed from it but Popish Engineers For doth not the departing of the people make an alteration can this be denyed for although the Latine remaine the same yet is it not fit in these times for the same use purpose whereunto it was before appointed Is it not all one whether faith ranne from the people or the people from the faith Doth not both of these make infidels if the Candlesticke bee taken from the people or the people forsake the light will there not bee an operation of the same effect Wee confesse Latine service hath remained in some Churches like Saul in his Kingdome but the people have beene strucken with blindnesse as hee was possessed with the Divell ever since the spirit of truth and knowledge departed from them And heerein who cannot see that our great Logician in pleading for obscure Church-service deprives himselfe of reason for who will say because the Latine Church had their Latine Liturgie when that language was understood generally therefore they ought to have it so now or that there is no alteration among the people but that they are the same in knowledg devotioÌ„ now when they understand nothing as they were in the primitive times wheÌ„ they were well instructed or that because some churches within the Roman Empire had the continuance of a Latine Liturgie which at first they understood that therefore Popish Contrivers cannot as criminous bee charged with bringing in and continuing of a strange tongue amongst other Churches that were afterwards converted So that the Answerers charge is iust that that service which was lawfully practised when it was vulgarly understood hath by your carelesnes and negligence of the peoples instruction remained amongst you But for many other Churches as Ireland the Indies * The Iesuite argues that Latine was not commonly understood in France and Spaine because they had their proper languages c. who brought in those preparations to darkenesse amongst them but your Babâ—ll 〈◊〉 not indring light least your workes of darkenesse might bee detected or overthrowne And doth not your mistake lye in your way it being true that by your negligence it hath continued in some Churches where it ought to have beene changed and by your impudencyes it hath beene intruded upon others where it ought not to have beene admitted Thirdly saith the Iesuite the words following which hindred the edifying of Babell it selfe and scattered her builders are of the like nature for it was not one onely tongue that hindred the edifying of Babell as it is well knowne but many Finally â—e absurdely concludeth with manifest contradiction for if Babell was called Confusion and her builders scattered by a multiplicity of different tongues whilst we in one tongue and faith hold united together can any wiseman say that we build confused Babell p Reply pag. 24. But if one onely tongue confounded and not many hindred the edifying of Babell as it is well known or if Babell was called Confusion because that one only tongue was confounded will not the Iesuite bee ashamed to charge that pen with absurdities which he can no way resist but by such ignorant boldnes which here and in other places most freely and liberally he useth against it And that this is true St. Chrysostome affirmeth q Chrysost in epist ad Cor. 1. cap. 14. homil 35. Cum nâ—â—ris extrâ—â—retur una lingua in multas secabatur Iosephus doth fully declares where hee telleth us that the place of the towre was called Babel or Confusion not for the multitude of tongues which were then given but propter confusam linguaÌ„ quae priùs omnibus ex aequo clara fuerat because that tongue was confounded which before was indiffereÌ„tly understood of all the people r Iosephus l. 1. Antiq. cap. 5. Locu vero turris nunc Babylon vocatur propter confusam c nam Hebreâ— confusionem nominant Babel which your vulgar Biâ—le expresseth Venite igitur descendamus coÌ„fundamus ibi linguaÌ„ coruÌ„ ut non audiat unusquisque vocâ—â—◠〈◊〉 sui * Gen. 11. Gâ—â— to let â—â— goe downe and there confound 〈◊〉 language that they may not * Gen. 1â— 7. understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speâ—â—â—h and therefore in the 9. verse is the name of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord did there 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 all the earth which Torniâ—llus telleth us was done by 〈…〉 bringing upon them a soddaine and 〈◊〉 forgetfulnâ—s of their first speech 〈◊〉 Annal. sacr in an aâ— Orbe condâ—â—â— 1931. n. 10. 〈◊〉 dicimus quòd Deus inductâ mirabiliter in cunctis illis hominibus subitâ quâdam omnimodâ prioris idiomatis obliâ—ione illicò divinâ suâ dispensatione omnipotentâ—â— in corundem 〈◊〉 novoâ— direâ—â—â—sque indidit habitus juxta vanarum linguaâ—â—â— genera 〈◊〉 distributa ita ut statim 〈◊〉 ilâ—◠〈◊〉 promptum expeditumque ac 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illius sermonis qui 〈…〉 Quare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confusionis 〈◊〉
sed iâ— praescripto legis in prophetarum praedictis in psalmorum cantibus in ipsius pastoris vocibus in Evangeliâ—â—aâ—um praedicationâ—bus laboribus hoc est in omnibus Canonicis sanctâ—â—um librâ—â—â—m authoritatibus How fairely this Heretick Augustine opposeth this Catholicke Iesuite And further the same Father in a point of controversie openly professeth We ought not to depart from the authority of the divine Scriptures to which ALONE in this matter faith is to be given n Aug de Gen. ad liâ— l. 12. c. 33. Ab authoritate Divinarum Scripturarum quibus 〈◊〉 lis de hac râ— fides habenda est recedere non debemus And before this Heretick Irenaus a more auncient one in the same booke which the Iesuite directeth us to sâ—e agreeth with us We have by none others knowne saith he to obtaine salvation but by those that brought the Gospell to us for what first they preached that by the will of God they delivered to us in the Scripture that in aftertimes it might be the FOVNDATION and PILLAR of our FAITH o Irenaeus l. 3. â—â— Non per 〈◊〉 dispositionem nostrae salâ—tis cognovimus quam pereos per quos Evangelium perâ—â—nit ad â—oâ— quod quidem â—unâ— praeconiaveâ—â—nt postea 〈◊〉 per Dei 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 crunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By this which hath beene spoken we find our Appeale to Scriptures alone as the absolute rule of Faith not to bee the onely practice of Hereticks as the Iesuite would have it but of the most Catholick Fathers themselves indeed so uncontrouled a rule it was in points of faith to be judged by God in the Scriptures that never any Hereticke did deny the same till Papists tyrannizing over the truth brought in new faith which could not be justified by the old rule And as all acknowledged this rule most absolutes so Hereticks as well as Catholicks used to justifie their opinion by other meanes also It is probable that Eâ—nomius was more beholding to his Logick then Scriptures for he is painted out by Alphonsus de Castro as a most cunning Sophister p Alphons Castro adv Haer. l. 5. De Deo haer 10. Eunomius artis dialecticae callidissimus Besides the Montanists when they were overcome by force of argument fled for shift refuge unto Martyrs reporting themselves to have many q Eusebius Eccles hist l. 5. c. 14. Quando igitur in cunctis iftis redarguti argumentis destituuntâ—r admartyres confugere nituntur multos se martyres habere arque illud certum prophetici spiritus qui apud ipsos sit documentum esse dicentes Nay what practises have the Papists for the most part that Heretickes had not somtime they pleaded the Church r Opus imperf in Mat. hom 49. Nunc autem singulatim professores haeresium diversarum dicunt Ecce hic est Christus id est Ecclesia Et illic id est Ecclesia Quia jam non audiendo dogmatum verba sed videndo eorum Ecclesias Christiani scandalizantur infirmi somtime Fathers Å¿ See Dioscorus cited by the most reverend the Lord Primate pag. 24. Alanus Copus Dial. 6. c. 22. Veteres haeretici cum Patres ipsis apertissimè adversarentuâ— cos tamen à se stare magnâ contentione clamabâ—nt Baron Annal. an 431. num 170. Sed mirum dictu quam calumniose ad suam ipserum haeresim astruendam citare ijdem Nestoriani consueverint sanctos Patres quantâque mentiri jactantiâ universos fermè Orbis Episcopos secum sentire somtime Tradition t Euseb Eccl. â—ist l. 5. c. 25. Dicunt Samosateni Majores omnes etiam ipsos Apostolos â—a sensisse ac doâ—nisse quae ipsi nunc dicunt servatamque eam praedicationis veritatem usque ad tempora Victoris qui 13. â Petro Romanorum Episcopus fuit Irenaeus advers haer l 3. c. 2. Non enim per literas traditam illam sed per vivam vocem somtime Councels u Epiâ—tola quorundam 〈◊〉 ad Episcopum Rufuâ—â— apud Binnium inter Acta Conc. Ephesin O Ecumen Tom. 3. c. 13. Noâ— autem in sanctorum Patrum qui apud Nicaeam convenerant caeterorumque qui post illos in Ecclesia claruerunt Eustachij Antiocheni Basilij Caesariensis Gregorij Ioannis Athanaâ—â— Theophili Damasi Romani Ambrosij Mediclanensis reliquorumque qui cum memoraâ—is consentiunt doctrinâ perseveramus c. somtime Miracles x August in Iohan. tract 13. Pontius-fecit miraculum Donaâ—us oraâ—it respondit ei Deus decoelo somtime Visions y August ibid. de uniâ—at eccles c. 18. neither were they so naked but they had your great argument of succession z Aug. Epist 165. ad Generosum Synod Lateran apud Bin. Secretaâ—sive Consult 4. Haec piâ—tatis dogmata tradiderunt nobis qui ab initio praesentialiter viderunt ministri verbi facti sunt eorumque discipuli successores sequenter à Deo inspiraâ—i Ecclesiae Doctores id est sanctae universales quinque Synodi beaâ—orum à Dâ—â— inspiratorum Patrum qui in 〈◊〉 in hanc regiam civitatem nec non in Ephesium primùm in ChalcedonaÌ„ iterum in Constantinopolim in 5. congregati sunt concilioâ— also yet we must be Hereticks because we appeale to the Scriptures as â— most absolute rule of faith Vaenitas vaenitutuÌ„ I would have the Iesuit consider that although some of these blind wretches he nameth could not see God in the flesh yet none of them were so blind that they could not perceive light in the Sun the holy Ghost in the word in the sacred Scriptures they whose impudency durst deny any thing could not deny Gods rule to be the Scriptures For the heretick Maximus as he calleth him if he speake no worse then in defence of the sacred Scriptures we may give him the priviledge allowed to the Devill that sometime he may speake truth as the other acknowledged Christ to be the son of God And to agree with an hereticke in truth is not to be hereticall but as the Iesuite interpreteth his meaning not any whit to regard those sayings which are not Scripture and herein if the Iesuite did us right he would aâ—quit us for we give the auncient Church so much honour that we make her the greatest witnesse of Gods truth though we deny her to be the truth it selfe or rule of faith And whereas S. Hierome is brought answering the Lucifrians that they should not flatter themselves too much because they seemed to have Scripture for what they affirme for even the Devill hath alledged Scriptures which consist not in reading but in understanding * Reply pag. 3â— what is this to us nay with what corruption and falshood doth the Iesuite dragg this place of Hierome against the authors intent and meaning for the Iesuite urgeth it against the authoritie of the Scriptures and their determinative power when that Father presseth the same against a shew
accompted an Head How the Popes pastorall office was extended How little reason the Church of God had to depend upon the Popes Monarchie before he had a Crowne How vainly our Replyer tearmes oâ—â—r dissipation of their pride and vanitie the destroying of all true faith and doctrine Leâ— others conceive res acta non transacta est But as if he had said too little for the grand Impostor taking breath he gets into the CASTLE-CHAMBER where in-in-truth a Iesuite should be rather then in his Cloyster and primâfacie makes the STATE simple the most reverend Primate a Deluder and his Countreymen poore and afflicted Å¿ Reply pag. â—â— Heere is no meane man Totus Proteus totus Aristarchus many times flattering great ones alwayes censuring good ones Shall I defend their Wisedome that then were IVDGES in that honourable Court It were to dishonour them It may suffise that not onely those PATRES CONSCRIPTI wise Senatours but their wisest MASTER which could not at any time beedeluded by all the Sophisticall practices of Rome approved applauded the speech But who knowes not Delusus quia non delusus Every one is deluded by others in the Iesuites conjecture that is not deceived by themselves Yet how will hee make this most learned Lord a Deluder Hee hath said all and nothing something hee hath spoken without the compasse of the Virga that his Countreymen are poore and afflicted For how can they bee but poore when they live in an Egyptian dearth And affliâ—ted they will still remaine whilst such heards of frogges losusts Egyptian blessings prey upon them But let us see how wisely the Iesuite hath behaved himselfe In clearing the second maine branch of the oath the Answerer saith hee grounded himselfe altogether upon these â—wo fickle foundations First that S. Peter was not head of â—hâ— Church universall more then any other Apostle Secondly that the Bishop of Rome did not inherite by succession this same headship or universall Bishopricke which S. Peter had t Reply pag 53. The Iesuite distasted the first as well as the second but the opposall of that he supposeth not fit doctrine for the present time the second onely must endure a censure as grounded upon those two sickle foundations And be they as they shall appeare in tryall the Iesuit yet might have conceived if his eares had not failed him that the most reverend Primate did not so much question whether Peter was head of the Church universal as whether he had power in this kingdome his speech having relation to Peters power not over the Church absolutly but over us And what he saith is for the honor of S. Peter not to disrobe him For if S. Peter himselfe saith the most reverend Primate were now alive I should freely confesse that he ought to have spirituall authoritie and superiority within this kingdome But so would I say also if S. Andrew S. Bartholomew S. Thomas or any other of the Apostles were now aliue For I know that their Commission was very large to goe into all the world and to Preach the Gospel unto every creature so that in what part of the world soever they lived they could not be said to be out of their charge their Apostleship being a kinde of an universall Bishopricke u See the most reverend the Lord Primate his speech in the Castle-Chamber But the Iesuite telleth us that these two assertions before mentioned are manifestly contrary even by the confession of learned Protestants to the doctrin of the primitive Church x Reply pag. â—â— And to make this good Iohn Brereley is in the margent But I wonder the Iesuit will utter so grosse so deceiveable falshood For we know that in the sence the Iesuite would have Peter to be head neither Calvin Whitgift nor Musculus ever dreamed of it and to shew his precedency in order calling gifts abilities age or otherwise this maketh nothing either to the Iesuites purpose for Peters monarchy or the succeeding monarks So that the Iesuite as Brereley hath brought but ill advocates to plead for a Papall Monarchy from the headship of S. Peter But let the matter be examined for every government presupposeth not a Monarchy He might as in the schooles be the first in the head classe to dispose and order in some kindes the rest but this is far from being in Popish sence the head of the Church A poore wiseman might deliver a Citie * Ecclesi 9. 15. and an inferiour Priest remove a schisme and this they may do by their wisedome and government not Monarchy and power Besides if we grant the Iesuite that Peter excelled the other Apostles as one Angell excelleth another in glory he cannot conclude Peter the Apostles Monarch nor the Pope the Churches head unlesse he will have another Monarch in heaven besides God and an head over some of the Apostles whilst they lived upon earth that was not Peter The most grave Counsellor brought therefore no new doctrine into the Castle-Chamber If then you will have Peter head of the Apostles we yeeld it but we say withall that he was such an head that was neither adorned with Coronet or triple Crowne to declare a Papall supremacy over his brethren But to state the question as it ought to be let us enquire whether the Iesuite hath from the Fathers proved as he ought if he speake to the purpose viz. that S. Peter was so head of the Apostles and Church Universall that all were bound to acknowledge him as their Monarch You have seene all that he hath urged from Calvin Whitgift and Musculus prove no such matter and I doubt not but the Fathers will faile the Iesuite also First he urgeth S. Basill who saith That blessed Peter who was preferred before the rest of the disciples to whom the keyes of the kingdome of heaven were coÌ„mitted y Reply pag. â—4 And what makes this for a Monarchy That Peter was blessed so were the Apostles that he was preferred before the rest of the Apostles in many particulars is not denyed but every preferment is not Monarchicall neither do the keyes worke any more in Peter then the rest of the Apostles to whoÌ„ they were equally giveÌ„ So that Basil speakes not full for this headship His second instance is out of Hierome Therefore one Peter is chosen amongst twelue that a Head being ordained all occasion of schisme might be taken away z Reply ibid But what have we here that might not be found amongst equals For Bishops of the same dignitie may have among them a President Besides his Ambrose speaking of this Primacie maketh Peter to be that of the Circumcision that Paul was among the Gentiles a Ambros in ◠〈◊〉 Ab his itaque probatum dicit donum quod accepita Deo ut dignus esset habere Primatum in praedicatione gentium sicut et habebat Petrus in praedicatione circumcisionis that is a Primate of Order of Eminencie of Gifts
ancient Doctrine Doe you thinke the Divell playeth â—ex onely in his owne Kingdome No assure your selves no more then the Pope Pontifex only at Rome for though hee swayes not universally yet many States â—eele his secret practices to worke division amongst those that are united to the truth Is not this the greatest part of your worke to make sedition to breake peace Divide impera is not a lesson that the Iesuites are now to learne seeing it hath beene their dayly practice l Dist Compeâ— Dâ— Iesuit 〈◊〉 â— 27. â— Watson Quodâ— 3. art 4. p. â—â— And although the Iesuite would now excuse it I cannot see but the Christian CoÌ„mon-wealth at this time is pestred by their Vrbanus or Turbanus as Cardinall Benno stiled an other of the like Condition of the same name m Benno in vita Hildebrand So that the Iesuites pretences to free his Supercilious Master from being that which he was justly stiled are too vaine and light there being no hope that we shall fee a generall peace for matters of Religion settled to the Christian world as long as he is suffered to keepe this rule in Gods house n The Iesuite might have taken notice of what was urged by the most reverend Primate immediately before those words whereas he carpeth in the Sermon preached before his Majesty pag. 13. 14. viz. That Nilus Arch bishop of Thessalonica entring into the consideration of the originall ground of that long continued schisme whereby the West standeth as yet divided from the East and the Latine Churches from the 〈◊〉 wrote a whole booke purposely of this Argument wherein he sheweth that there is no other cause to be assigned of this distraction but that the Pope will not permit the cognisance of the controversie unto a generall Councell but will needs sit himselfe as the alone Teacher of the point in question and have others hearken unto him as if they were his Schollars and that this is contrary both to the ordinances and the practise of the Apostles the Fathers thereunto we may adde the testimony of their owne Cassander consult Art 7. de Ecclesia vera Neque unquam credo controversia apud nos de externa Ecclesiae unitata extitisseâ— nisi Pontifices Romani hâc authoritate ad dominationis quandam speciem abusi fuissent eamque extra fines à Christo Ecelesia peaescriptos ambitionis et cupiditatis causâ â—utulissent But returning againe to the Answere he telleth us that Our Answerer alledgeth for himselfe the example of S. Cyprian who with the rest of the African Bishops dissented from the Pope and Church of Rome without being cut off from the Catholicke Communion To which the Iesuite replyes that this is easily answered forasmuch as the point wherein S. Cyprian did vary from the Pope was not declared by the Church untill after S. Cyprians death and therefore it might have beene maintained without any breach of Catholick Vnitie * Reply pag. 80 What he speakes concerning the Churches declaration will have a more fit place hereafter But to shew how little the Iesuite hath spoken for his cause wee may first consider That Cyprians opinion was condemned by your Pope his Councell the contrary defined o Bellar. l. 2. de Concil c. 5. Constat Cornelium Papam cum nationali Concilio omnium Episcoporum Italiae statuisse non debere haereticos rebaptiâ—â—ri et eundem sententiam postea approbasse Stephanum Papam et jussisse ut haeretici non rebaptizarentur yea S. Cyprian himselfe excommunicated and so severely dealt withall by Pope Stephen that he would not admit the African Legats to speake with him but styling Cyprian a Counterfeit said that CHRIST did deny any Communion to be held with him p Cassander Consult ar 7. Cùm Stephanus Episcopus Romae utbis Cyprianum quod in ipso erat repelleret Episcoposaâ— ipsum ex Africâ legatos nec ad sermonem communis colloquij admitteret praecip eret universae fraternitati ut venientibus non solum pax communio sed tectum hospitium negaretur insuper Cyprianum Pseudo Christum dolo sum operarium diceret Haec scribit Firmilianus Episcopus è Cappadociâ ad Cyprianum cujus Firmiliani meminit Eusebius Histor 6 l. c. 25. l 7. c. 13. Ad quem Stephanus scripsit non esse communicandum ijs qui ad Haereticos transcuntes rebaptizant All which did not make the declaration of the Church in Augustines opinion so that we may easily perceive that Augustine did not thinke the Pope to bee the Church or his declaration to be the Churches definition And indeed what toyle did Vincentius Lyrinensis q Advers prophan Novat take in vaine if the Pope could define alone if there were no true knowledge of Scriptures but where he gapes if for him CHRIST onely prayed Besides see what Church did define this Not the Roman out of which Cyprian was excommunicated and never reconciled but that for which Cyprian shed his blood r Augustin l. 2. cont Crescon c. 32. Non accipio quod de baptizandis haereticis et schismatics B. Cyprianus sensit quia hoc Ecclesia non accipit pro qua B. Cyprianus sanguinem fudit to wit the true Catholick which with Cyprian is every Maundy Thursday by their Bulla Coenae excommunicated at Rome And therefore the Iesuite hath unwisely urged S. Augustines wordes against the Donatists Put your selves into that Church which as it is manifest S. Cyprian defended and then may you alledge S. Cyprians authoritie for your Doctrine Å¿ Reply pag. 81. It being plaine that the Roman Schismatickes accuse and accurse that Church in which Cyprian dyed a blessed Martyr accompting it no further Catholicke then it is Roman All that followeth is chaffe Finally saith the Iesuite I would our Answerer did observe in this example how notwithstanding so many Bishops as in Africke joyned with S. Cyprian who in number were more then are in all his Majesties dominions yet was there found a superiour Church that did controule them all herein prescribing both to them others what they ought to follow and beleive by whose authority S. Augustine as we have heard and all the rest of the African Bishops did reject that opinioÌ„ of S. Cyprian embraced the contrary t Reply pag. 81. First wee may see that the Bishop of Rome had not so peaceable a dominion as the Iesuite pretends if so many Bishops did resist his controuling as the Iesuite acknowledgeth Secondly you may see his falshood in his cautelous conveighance labouring to perswade that the Roman Church was the superiour Church having authority to controule them all to prescribe to them and others what they ought to follow and believe whenas Augustine never dreamed of it when he and the African Bishops alwayes resisted and disdained it u See before pag. 301. That they did not adhere to Cyprians opinion the
reason was not because it was condemned by the Roman Bishop or his Roman Church but because out of the sacred Scripture by a lawfull Councell * Concil Nicen of the Catholick Church it was detected as erroneous and false But whilst our Adversaries doe not acknowledge any such superiour Church what wonder saith the Iesuite that they live forlorne consumed and confounded with â—dious discord and debate amongst themselves deprived of all true faith forasmuch as they refuse to listen unto her by whom God hath decreed all faith should be delivered unto his people throughout the world x Reply pag. 81. This is but fuming froth We acknowledge a Catholick Church as superiour to all particular Churches in the world But wee say your Roman is so farre from being it that it gaines well if it appeare a true member thereof when it comes to be examined What is there no God but at Dan and Bethel Must your Calves measure true worship or your Excommunicating the Levites make the Catholick to be no Church It is not your censuring of all others for Heretickes that can exempt you from being Schismatickes any more then the Donatists which did the like Being then aliens from this Church wherein no where else the right Christian faith is certaine to be found they must not wonder saith the Iesuite that we should thus bewayle them as perished and lost y Reply pag. â—â— For your bewayling us as perished and lost it is but a fetch of your Hypocrisie I could wish your teares if you shed any were bestowed upon your selves who need them We 〈◊〉 know the temper of your teares too well How bewayled you the French Massacre the Butchery of Princes but with teares of blood with groanes of applause z See the Oration of Pope Sixtus the fift upon the death of the French King Henry the third The places which you brought out of the Fathers against Schismatickes doe most properly point out your selves and therefore ill chosen to discredit us Take then your owne charge unto your selves who justly deserve it for howsoever you glory as if you onely had the Church of CHRIST which we doe not it will not therefore follow that you belong unto his consecration in regard you are separated from the body of CHRIST keeping neither Communion nor Unity with the whole being sequestred by your selves doe censure all that will not forsake the libertie of CHRIST and hold from you in villany and Vassalage Whereas the Iesuite thinketh to despise the Answerers Church by his frames of folly and falshood tearming it â— Church lurking in a corner of the earth obscure and in glorious that can neither obtaine friendship with any abroad nor yet maintaine agreement in itself at home a Reply pag. 8. Wee know the true Church many times doth lurke when the where sits as Queene and knowes no sorrow * Rev. 18. 2. Yet it is not so obscure but it hath enlightned the world that it can despise your outward glory and deride your lyes in Hypocrisie your tales of Hobgoblins your deceit from Purgatory your holinesse for gaine and new declarative doctrines Secondly we hold peace with the Catholick Church as hath beene manifested when you have and doe really excommunicate it And in fundamentalls both with them and amongst our selves wee are faithfully knit together although there be some differences in matters of nâ— absolute consequence which the purest Churches have been ever subject unto when you are not agreed who is onely able to teach uncontroulâ—ably an infallible point of doctrine whether a Councell or the Pope b Francise â—icus Theorem 16. Fuere qui diâ—erent Concilium in â—ausa fidei praeesse Pontifici fuêre qui Pontificem Concilio praeponerent alia etiam quaestio utrum sine Pontifice utrum â—o â—efragante convocari colligique possit Bellarm l. 2. de Conciliâ— cap. 13. § Sed dum Vsque ad hunc diem quaestio superest When your Church is so farre from holding freindship with other Churchâ—â— that it malitiously sets it selfe against the whole raiâ—ing warres and tumults against the true members thereof as lately against the Greekes and eveâ— against that part of the Latin Church that refused her command as the Monkes of Bangor the Waldenses c. can well witnesse And although you are continually speaking of dissentions yet the best judgments wisest eyes that our ages have afforded have found your peace to be but the outward effect of Policy not naturall from truth but forced from your bloody laweâ— and cruellest Inquisition What is further urged against Schismatickes out of the Fathers we assent unto Which the Iesuite well know and therefore telleth us I know our Answerer here will say that these heavy threats admonitions and exhortations of the ancient Fathers doe make nothing against him at all forasmuch as hee pretendeth himselfe to bee within the true Church alreadie c Reply pag â—5 Here wee may perceive the Iesuite hath taken a great deale of paines to little purpose For whereas hee should have proved us to have beene schismatickes before hee had given sentence against us hee as it seemes according to the practise of their Inquisition with Hallyfax-law condemneth first and enquires for the Schismatick afterward and so poorely that a Iurie of morall honest Papistâ— rightly informed would finde an Ignoramus upon his bill for he bringeth us no proofe but repeates what hee hath formerly done But howsoever saith the Iesuite hee is able with this â—ond conceipt to sâ—oth up and quiet his owne Conscience â— doubt not but otherâ— many wil be found who taking more tâ—â—eart the businesse of their salvation will ponder advisedly what Church the holy Fathers above produced doe point at and whether they declare it not plaine enough to bee the Roman Church embracing in her holy Communion all Christian Churches of the earth out of which our Adversaries are confessedly departed and have erected to themselves a new Congregation so farre unlike unto that Vniversâ—ll and Apostolicall Church designed by the Fathers that neither in other Nationâ— doth she find any other Churches to joyne in one sincere Communion with her nor yet is able to maintaine agreement amongst her owne at home it selfe as above hath beene abundantly declared d Reply pag â—â— Wee have shewed in answere to that which the Iesuite hath formerly produced that the Fathers never thought the Romane Church to be the Catholicke nor dreamed of necessary Communion with her any further then she communicated with the Catholicke Church teaching that Truth which was first delivered by the Apostles And that we have left your Romane schisme it is just as before is declared in regard you have gone out of the Catholicke Church and corrupted and depraved the Catholicke Faith The repetition of Lutheran and Puritan accusations might have beene spared seeing they have beene urged and answered before where the Reader may see not onely the Pope and
agree with us in any why dâ—â— you beleive one God three 〈◊〉 Christs incarnation crucifixion resurrection and his last comming to Iudgment c. Such as accord therewith in none at all are not heretickes or schismatickes but 〈◊〉 Atheists and Infidels and who 〈◊〉 not but every gâ—pe of the Iesuite is ad oppositum and crosse to himselfe And here wee shall see to what shifts this Iesuite flyes for shelter the question is whether wee agree with the ancient Fathers in points of Religion the Iesuite answeres sometimes in very few an other time in none at all here to justifie this lashing Hyperâ—ole he tells us That howsoever some few points might be assigned in the outward profession whereof you will say you doe not vary from the common faith of Primitive times yet whilst we can shew that in very many points you beleive contrary thereunto and that with all you hold not with the Church Vniversall but have departed from the same we may not yeeld unto you that your inward faith can bee true and sound in any one article whatsoever notwithstanding that from the teeth outward you make professioÌ„ of this your imaginary agreemeÌ„t never somuch g Reply pag. 9â— All which is sliding and beside the point for we speake here of doctrine as in truth of position it doth agree with the ancient Church and not as it respects the act of beleife in the sincere receiving and imbracing of it Suppose we have with us as great a dearth of Saints as you at Rome that Protestants were as bad as 〈◊〉 Popes h Geneb 〈◊〉 in ann Christi 901. Pontificâ—â— circiter â—0 à virtute majorum prorsus defecâ—runt Apotactici Apostaticive potius quà m Apostolici yet notwithstanding this will not make the Apostles Creed to be no ancient faith neither the ancient doctrin which we hold to be hereticall Who doubts that the denyall of one point of the foundation perversly or expresly atleast makes the beleife of all the rest uneffectuall but what will the Iesuite inferre from hence that therefore we have not in the confession of our Church one point of Religion that agreeth with antiquitie We might as well argue that Arius Nestorius a Iesuite had no true and sound inward faith therefore they agreed in no particular doctrines with the ancient Church Or would this consequent found well Many of your Popes have had no true inward faith being such monsters as you have painted them therfore they agreed in no point of faith with the Primitive Church if this conclude well what will become of Papists who are only Catholickes by dependance whose faithes are judged by their adherence to their Head The Iesuit now runs to another shift that of calumnie charging us that we make profession of the ancient faith with an imaginary agreement from the teeth outward i Reply pag. 90 I must confesse we are not so zealous for that doctrin the ancient Church hath taught us the rooting out of your innovations as we ought to be pardon us this but whether you or we embrace the faith of Christ practised and taught in the ancient Church with more sincerity it is not here to be judged but must be left to him that knoweth the secrets of hearts And now we may see how impertinent the Iesuites allegations are Augustin saith that Schismaticks separated from the body of the Church are not in the Church that hereticks schismaticks cannot be profâ—â—â— by the truth they hold with the Church being in their heresie schismâ— that those that keep not communion with the Church are hereticall antichristian according to Prosper k Reply pag. 90 Who denyes this wherin makes it against us If we acknowledge things in controversie that Rome were the Church our selves schismaticks heretiks it were somthing yet nothing to this purpose neither of strength sufficient to prove that we agree not with the ancient Church in any doctrin of faith or point of religion as he should here manifest so that we see his ouâ—facing cannot protect his impudency but that he speakes vainely in charging us that we agree with the primitive Church in very few articles of Religion and just none at all And here Augustine and Prospers wordes are their cut-throats who not only reject coÌ„munion with the Catholick Church but judge that Catholick body to be a schisme and hereticall because it will not joyne in communion with themselves if Augustines and Prospers words may convict a Pope they have force in them sufficient to performe it for though he hold all the doctrine of the primitive church in shew yet fayling in the point of the Church denying the authority thereof and preferring his simple power before the 〈◊〉 authoritie of all the preists of God against the streame of antiquity and the two 〈◊〉 generall Councels of Constance Basill Is it not sufficient to bring him within your capitall letters that his holines and others of like sanctity ARE NOT IN THE CATHOLICKE CHVRCH AT ALL. And thus you see that the Iesuite doth both deceive himselfe others when he would perswade that upon paine of eternall overthrow all mustadhere to the Pope who indeed is taken by them for the ancient Roman Catholick Church And also that the doctrine of the Church of Ireland is sincere and agreeable to the foundation neither by heresie forsaking the doctrine delivered by Christ his Apostles imbraced by the ancieÌ„t Church neither by schisme departing from the body of Christ making their faith uneffectuall But that rule of faith saith the most reverend Primate so much coÌ„mended by Irenaeus Tertullian the rest of the Fathers all the articles of the severall Cteedes that were ever received in the ancient Church as badges of the catholick profession to which we willingly subscribe is with this man almost nothing at all none must now be counted a catholick but he that can conforme his beleife unto the Creed of the new fashion compiled by Pope Pius the 4. some foure fifty yeares agoe l See the moâ—â— reverend the Lord Primate his Answere 〈◊〉 the Iesuitâ— challenge pag. 25. The Iesuit tels us that he hath already made it knowne how far we have strayed from that rule of faith m Reply pag. 91 and we tell him againe that he is deceived in the wanderer and that we have manifested it also and that we doe willinglie subscribe unto all the articles of the severall Creedes that were ever received in the auncient Church although the Iugler †Iesuita est omnis home is jealous we intend nothing lesse then what we say n Reply pag. 91 But it is Iesuitisme to remoove the tongue from the heart equivocating you defend we abhorre it why doe you suspect us but upon a sudden the Iesuite flying from this calumnie without one word to justifie it but his detraction or Iealousie is rapt up with admiration shall
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