all Let not the Weapons of your Warfare be Carnal such as are Massacres Treasons Persecutions and in a word all means either violent or fraudulent These and other things which the Scripture commands you do and then we shall willingly give you such Testimony as you deserve but till you do so to talk of estimation respect and reverence to the Scripture is nothing else but talk 2. For neither is that true which you pretend That we possess the Scripture from you or take it upon the integrity of your Custody but upon Universal Tradition of which you are but a little part Neither If it were true that Protestants acknowledged The integrity of it to have been guarded by your alone Custody were this any argument of your reverence towards them For first you might preserve them entire not for want of Will but of Power to corrupt them as it is a hard thing to Poyson the Sea And then having prevailed so far with men as either not to look at all into them or but only through such spectacles as you should please to make for them and to see nothing in them though as clear as the Sun if it any way made against you you might keep them entire without any thought or care to conform your Doctrine to them or reform it by them which were indeed to reverence the Scriptures but out of a persuasion that you could qualifie them well enough with your glosses and interpretations and make them sufficiently conformable to your present Doctrine at least in their judgment who were prepossessed with this persuasion that your Church was to judge of the sense of Scripture not to be judged by it 3. Whereas you say No cause imaginable could avert your will from giving the function of Supream and sole judge to holy Writ but that the thing is impossible and that by this means controversies are encreased and not ended What indifferent and unprejudiced man may not easily conceive another cause which I do not say does but certainly may prevert your Wills and avert your understandings from submitting your Religion and Church to a Tryal by Scripture I mean the great and apparent and unavoidable danger which by this means you would fall into of losing the Opinion which men have of your Infallibility and consequently your Power and Authority over mens Consciences and all that depends upon it so that though Diana of the Ephesians be cryed up yet it may be feared that with a great many among you though I censure or judge no man the other cause which wrought upon Demetrius and the Craftsmen may have with you also the more effectual though more secret influence and that is that by this craft we have our living by this craft I mean of keeping your Proselytes from an indifferent Tryal of your Religion by Scripture and making them yield up and captivate their judgment unto yours As for the impossibility of Scriptures being the sole Judge of Controversies that is the sole rule for man to judge them by for we mean nothing else you only affirm it without proof as if the thing were evident of it self And therefore I conceiving the contrary to be more evident might well content my self to deny it without refutation Yet I cannot but desire you to tell me If Scripture cannot be the Judge of any Controversie how shall that touching the Church and the Notes of it be determined And if it be the sole Judge of this one why may it not of others Why not of All Those only excepted wherein the Scripture it self is the subject of the Question which cannot be determined but by natural reason the only Principle beside Scripture which is common to Christians 4. Then for the Imputation of increasing contentions and not ending them Scripture is innocent of it as also this Opinion That Controversies are to be decided by Scripture For if men did really and sincerely submit their judgments to Scripture and that only and would require no more of any man but to do so it were impossible but that all Controversies touching things necessary and very profitable should be ended and if others were continued or increased it were no matter 5. In the next Words we have direct Boyes-play a thing given with one hand and taken away with the other an acknowledgment made in one line and retracted in the next We acknowledge say you Scripture to be a perfect rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule only we deny that it excludes unwritten Tradition As if you should have said we acknowledge it to be as perfect a Rule as a writing can be only we deny it to be as perfect a Rule as a writing may be Either therefore you must revoke your acknowledgment or retract your retractation of it for both cannot possibly stand together For if you will stand to what you have granted That Scripture is as perfect a Rule of Faith as a Writing can be you must then grant it both so Compleat that it needs no addition and so evident that it needs no interpretation For both these properties are requisite to a perfect rule and a Writing is capable of both these properties 6. That both these Properties are requisite to a perfect rule it is apparent Because that is not perfect in any kind which wants some parts belonging to its integrity As he is not a perfect man that wants any part appertaining to the Integrity of a Man and therefore that which wants any accession to make it a perfect rule of its self is not a perfect Rule And then the end of a rule is to regulate and direct Now every instrument is more or less perfect in its kind as it is more or less fit to attain the end for which it is ordained But nothing obscure or unevident while it is so is fit to regulate and direct them to whom it is so Therefore it is requisite also to a rule so far as it is a Rule to be evident otherwise indeed it is no rule because it cannot serve for direction I conclude therefore that both these properties are required to a perfect Rule both to be so compleat as to need no Addition and to be so evident as to need no Interpretation 7. Now that a Writing is capable of both these perfections it is so plain that I am even ashamed to prove it For he that denies it must say That something may be spoken which cannot be written For if such a compleat and evident rule of Faith may be delivered by word of mouth as you pretend it may and is and whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be written then such a compleat and evident rule of Faith may also be written If you will have more light added to the Sun answer me then to these Questions Whether your Church can set down in writing all these which she pretends to be Divine unwritten Traditions and add them to the verities already written
Tradition of which the testimony of any present Church is but a little part So that here you fall into the Fallacy à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter For in effect this is the sense of your Argument Unless the Church be infallible we can have no certainty of Scripture from the authority of the Church Therefore unless the Church be infallible we can have no certainty hereof at all As if a man should say If the Vintage of France miscarry we can have no Wine from France Therefore if that Vintage miscarry we can have no Wine at all And for the incorruption of Scripture I know no other rational assurance we can have of it than such as we have of the incorruption of other ancient Books that is the consent of ancient Copies such I mean for the kind though it be far greater for the degree of it And if the Spirit of God give any man any other assurance hereof this is not rational and discursive but supernatural and infused An assurance it may be to himself but no argument to another As for the Infallibility of the Church it is so far from being a proof of the Scriptures incorruption that no proof can be pretended for it but incorrupted places of Scripture which yet are as subject to corruption as any other and more likely to have been corrupted if it had been possible than any other and made to speak as they do for the advantage of those men whose ambition it hath been a long time to bring all under their authority Now then if any man should prove the Scriptures uncorrupted because the Church says so which is infallible I would demand again touching this very thing that there is an infallible Church seeing it is not of it self evident how shall I be assured of it And what can he answer but that the Scripture says so in these and these places Hereupon I would ask him how shall I be assured that the Scriptures are incorrupted in those places seeing it is possible and not altogether improbable that these men which desire to be thought infallible when they had the government of all things in their own hands may have altered them for their purpose If to this he answer again that the Church is infallible and therefore cannot do so I hope it would be apparent that he runs round in a circle and proves the Scriptures incorruption by the Churches infallibility and the Churches infallibility by the Scriptures incorruption and that is in effect the Churches infallibility by the Churches infallibility and the Scriptures incorruption by the Scriptures incorruption 28. Now for your observation that some Books which were not always known to be Canonical have been afterwards received for such But never any book or syllable defined for Canonical was afterwards questioned or rejected for Apocryphal I demand touching the first sort whether they were commended to the Church by the Apostles as Canonical or not If not seeing the whole Faith was preached by the Apostles to the Church and seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelations how can it be an Article of Faith to believe them Canonical And how can you pretend that your Church which makes this an Article of Faith is so assisted as not to propose any thing as a divine Truth which is not revealed by God If they were how then is the Church an infallible keeper of the Canon of Scripture which hath suffered some Books of Canonical Scripture to be lost and others to lose for a long time their being Canonical at least the necessity of being so esteemed and afterwards as it were by the law of Postliminium hath restored their Authority and Canonicalness unto them If this was delivered by the Apostles to the Church the point was sufficiently discussed and therefore your Churches omission to teach it for some ages as an article of faith nay degrading it from the number of articles of faith and putting it among disputable problems was surely not very laudable If it were not revealed by God to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the Church then can it be no Revelation and therefore her presumption in proposing it as such is inexcusable 29. And then for the other part of it that never any book or syllable defined for Canonical was afterwards questioned or rejected for Apocryphal Certainly it is a bold asseveration but extreamly false For I demand The Book of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom the Epistle of S. James and to the Hebrews were they by the Apostles approved for Canonical or no If not with what face dare you approve them and yet pretend that all your doctrin is Apostolical Especially seeing it is evident that this point is not deducible by rational discourse from any other defined by them If they were approved by them this I hope was a sufficient definition and therefore you were best rub your forehead hard and say that these Books were never questioned But if you do so then I shall be bold to ask you what Books you meant in saying before Some Books which were not always known to be Canonical have been afterwards received Then for the Book of Macchabes I hope you will say it was defined for Canonical before S. Gregories time and yet he lib. 19. Moral c. 13. citing a testimony out of it prefaceth to it after this matter Concerning which matter we do not amiss if we produce a testimony out of Books although not Canonical yet set forth for the edification of the Church For Eleazar in the Book of Machabees c. Which if it be not to reject it from being Canonical is without question at least to question it Moreover because you are so punctual as to talk of words and syllables I would know whether before Sixtus Quintus his time your Church had a defined Canon of Scripture or not If not then was your Church surely a most vigilant keeper of Scripture that for 1500. years had not defined what was Scripture and what was not If it had then I demand was it that set forth by Sixtus or that set forth by Clement or a third different from both If it were that set forth by Sixtus then is it now condemned by Clement if that of Clement it was condemned I say but sure you will say contradicted and questioned by Sixtus If different from both then was it questioned and condemned by both and still lies under the condemnation But then lastly suppose it had been true That both some Book not known to be Canonical had been received and that never any after receiving had been questioned How had this been a sign that the Church is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost In what mood or figure would this conclusion follow out of these Premises Certainly your flying to such poor signs as these are is to me a great sign that you labour with penury of better arguments and that thus to catch at shadows and bulrushes
err in holding something necessary which was not so For the Negative Proposition viz. That the Eucharist is not necessary for Infants that it is the Doctrin of the present Church of Rome it is most manifest 1. From the disuse and abolition and prohibition of the contrary Ancient practice For if the Church did conceive it necessary for them either simply for their salvation or else for their increase or confirmation in grace and advancement to a higher degree of glory unless she could supply some other way their damage in this thing which evidently she cannot what an uncharitable sacriledge is it to debar and defraud them of the necessary means of their so great spiritual benefit especially seeing the administration of it might be so ordered that irreverent casualties might easily be prevented which yet should they fall out against the Churches and Pastors intention certainly could not offend God and in reason should not offend man Or if the Church do believe that upon such a vain fear of irreverence which we see moved not the Ancient Church at all she may lawfully forbid such a general perpetual and necessary charity certainly herein she commits a far greater error than the former Secondly from the Council of Trents Anathema denounced on all that hold the contrary in these words If any man say that the receiving of the Eucharist is necessary for little children before they come to years of discretion let him be Anathema Concil Trid. Sess 21. de communione parvulorum Can. 4. Now for the Affirmative part of the Contradiction to make it evident that that was the Doctrin of the Ancient Church I will prove it First from the general practice of the Ancient Church for several Ages Secondly by the direct and formal Testimonies of the Fathers of those times Thirdly by the confession of the most learned Antiquaries of the Roman Church My First Argument I form thus If to communicate Infants was the general practice of the Ancient Church for many Ages then certainly the Church then believed that the Eucharist was necessary for them and very available for their Spiritual benefit But it is certain that the Communicating of Infants was the general practice of the Church for many Ages Therefore the Church of those times thought it necessary for them To deny the consequence of the proposition is to charge the Church with extream folly wilful superstition and perpetual profanation of the Blessed Sacrament As for the Assumption it is fully confirmed by Clemens Rom. Constit Apost l. 3. c. 20. Dionysius Areopagita de Eccles Hierarch cap. ult S. Cyprian and a Council of African Bishops with him Epist 59. ad Fidum and in his Treatise de Lapsis p. 137. Edit Pamel Paulinus Bishop of Nola in Italy An. 353. in Epist 12. ad Senem out of Ordo Romanus cited by Alevinus S. Bedes Scholar and Master to Charlemain in his Book de divinis officiis cap. de Sab. Sancto Pasc Gennadius Massiliensis de Eccles dogmatibus c. 52. Concil Toletanum 2. Can. 11. It continued in the Western Church unto the days of Lewes the Debonair witness Cardinal Perron des passages de S. Austin p. 100. Some footsteps of it remained there in the time of Hugo de S. Victore as you may see lib. 1. de Sacram. Caerem cap. 20. It was the practice of the Church of the Armenians in Waldensis his time as he relates out of Guido the Carmelite Tom. 2. de Sacr. c. 91. de erroribus Armenorum It is still in force in the Church of the Abyssines witness Franc. Alvarez Hist Aethiop c. 22. Thomas a Jesu de procuranda salute omnium gentium It has cotinued without any interruption in the Greek Church unto this present Age as may be evidently gathered out of Lyranus in c. 6. John Arcudius lib. 1. c. 14. lib. 3. c. 40. de concord Eccles Orient Occident in Sacram. administratione Card. Perron des passages de S. Austin p. 100. where he also assures us of the Primitive Church in general that she gave Infants the Eucharist as soon as they were baptized and that the custome of giving this Sacrament to little Infants the Church then observed and before p. 21. That in those Ages it was always given to Infants together with Baptism The same is likewise acknowledged by Contzen in John 6. ver 54. and by Thomas a Jesu de proc salute omnium gentium So that this matter of the practice of the Ancient Church is sufficiently cleared Seeing therefore the Ancient Church did use this Custom and could have no other ground for it but their belief that this Sacrament was necessary for Infants it follows necessarily that the Church then did believe it necessary But deductions though never so evident are superfluous and may be set aside where there is such abundance of direct and formal Authentical Testimonies whereof some speak in Thesi of the necessity of the Eucharist for all men others in Hypothesi of the necessity of it for Infants My Second Argument from the Testimonies of the Fathers of those times I form thus That Doctrin in the affirmative whereof the most eminent Fathers of the ancient Church agree and which none of their contemporaries have opposed or condemned ought to be taken for the Catholick Doctrin of the Church of those times But the most eminent Fathers of the Ancient Church agree in the Affirmation of this Doctrin that the Eucharist is necessary for Infants and none of their contemporaries have opposed or condemned it Ergo it ought to be taken for the Catholick Doctrin of the Church of their times The Major of this Syllogism is delivered and fully proved by Card. Perron in his Letter to Casaubon 5. obs and is indeed so reasonable a postulate that none but a contentious spirit can reject it For confirmation of the Minor I will alledge first their sentences which in Thesi affirm the Eucharist to be generally necessary for all and therefore for Infants and then their Suffrages who in Hypothesi avouch the necessity of it for Infants The most pregnant Testimonies of the first rank are these Of Iraeneus lib. 4. cont Heres c. 34. where he makes our Union to Christ by the Eucharist the foundation of the hope of our resurrection in these words As the bread of Earth after the Invocation of God is now not common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an earthly and an heavenly so our bodies receiving the Eucharist are not now corruptible for ever but have hope of resurrection The like he hath lib. 5. c. 2. And hence in probability it is that the Nicene Council stiled this Sacrament Symbolum resurrectionis the pledge of our Resurrection And Ignatius Ep. ad Eph. Pharmacum Immortalitatis the Medicine of Immortality Cyril Alex. lib. 4. in Joan. They shall never partake nor so much as tast the life of holiness and happiness which receive not the Son in the mystical Benediction Cyril
without alteration should then be profitable and now unprofitable then all things considered expedient to be used if not necessary and therefore commanded And now though there be no variety in the case all things considered not necessary nor expedient and therefore forbidden The Issue of all this Discourse for ought I can see must be this That either both parts of a Contradiction must be true and consequently nothing can be false seeing that which contradicteth truth is not so or else that the Ancient Church did err in believing something expedient which was not so and if so why may not the present Church err in thinking Latin Service and Communion in one kind expedient or that the present Church doth err in thinking something not expedient which is so And if so why may she not err in thinking Communicating the Laity in both kinds and Service in vulgar Languages not expedient V. An Argument drawn from the Doctrin of the Millenaries against Infallibility THE Doctrin of the Millenaries was That before the worlds end Christ should reign upon earth for a thousand years and that the Saints should live under him in all holiness and happiness That this Doctrin is by the present Roman Church held false and Heretical I think no man will deny That the same Doctrin was by the Church of the next Age after the Apostles held true and Catholick I prove by these two Reasons The first Reason Whatsoever doctrin is believed and taught by the most eminent Fathers of any Age of the Church and by none of their contemporaries opposed or condemned that is to be esteemed the Catholick Doctrin of the Church of those times But the Doctrin of the Millenaries was believed and taught by the eminent Fathers of the Age next after the Apostles and by none of that Age opposed or condemned Therefore it was the Catholick Doctrin of the Church of those times The Proposition of this Syllogism is Cardinal Perrons rule in his Epistle to Casaubon 5. observ And is indeed one of the main pillars upon which the great Fabrick of his Answer to King James doth stand and with which it cannot but fall and therefore I will spend no time in the proof of it But the Assumption thus I prove That Doctrin which was believed and taught by Papias Bishop of Hierapolis the disciple of the Apostles disciples according to Eusebius who lived in the times of the Apostles saith he by Justin Martyr Doctor of the Church and Martyr by Melito Bishop of Sardis who had the gift of Prophesie witness Tert. and whom Bellarmine acknowledgeth a Saint By S. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons and Martyr and was not opposed and condemned by any one Doctor of the Church of those times That Doctrine was believed and taught by the most Eminent Fathers of that Age next to the Apostles and opposed by none But the former part of the Proposition is true Ergo the Latter is also true The Major of this Syllogism and the latter part of the Minor I suppose will need no proof with them that consider that these here mentioned were equal in number to all the other Ecclesiastical Writers of that Age of whom there is any memory remaining and in weight and worth infinitely beyond them they were Athenagoras Theophilus Antiochenus Egesippus and Hippolitus of whose contradiction to this Doctrine there is not extant neither in their works nor in story any Print or Footstep which if they or any of them had opposed it had been impossible considering the Ecclesiastical Story of their time is Written by the professed Enemies of the Millinaries Doctrine who could they have found any thing in the monuments of Antiquity to have put in the Ballance against Justin Martyr and Irenaeus no doubt would not have buried it in silence which yet they do neither vouching for their opinion any one of more Antiquity than Dionysius Alexandrinus who lived saith Eusebius nostra aetate in our Age but certainly in the latter part of the third Century For Tatianus because an Heretick I reckon not in this number And if any man say that before his fall he wrote many Books I say it is true but withal would have it remembred that he was Justin Martyrs Scholar and therefore in all probability of his Masters Faith rather than against it all that is extant of him one way or other is but this in S. Hierome de Script Eccles Justini Martyris sectator fuit Now for the other part of the Minor that the forementioned Fathers did believe and teach this Doctrine And first for Papias that he taught it it is confessed by Eusebius the Enemy of this Doctrine Lib. 3. Hist Eccles c. 33. in these words Other things besides the same Author Papias declares that they came to him as it were by unwritten Tradition wherein he affirms that after the Resurrection of all Flesh from the Dead there shall be a Kingdom of Christ continued and established for a thousand years upon Earth after a humane and corporeal manner The same is confessed by S. Hierome another Enemy to this opinion descript Eccles S. 29. Papias the Auditor of John Bishop of Hieropolis is said to have taught the Judaical Tradition of a thousand years whom Irenaeus and Apollinarius followed And in his preface upon the Commentaries of Victorinus upon the Apocalypse thus he writes before him Papias Bishop of Hieropolis and Nepos Bishop in the parts of Egypt taught as Victorinus does touching the Kingdom of the thousand years The same is testified by Irenaeus lib. 5. cont Her c. 33. where having at large set forth this Doctrine he confirms it by the Authority of Papias in these words Papias also the Auditor of John the familiar friend of Policarpus an Ancient man hath testified by writing these things in the fourth of his Books for he hath writtten five And concerning Papias thus much That Justin Martyr was of the same belief it is confessed by Sixtus Senensis Biblioth Stae l. 6. An. 347. by Feverdentius in his premonition before the five last Chapters of the 5th Book of Irenaeus By Pamelius in Antidoto ad Tertul. parad paradox 14. That S. Melito Bishop of Sardis held the same Doctrine is confessed by Pamelius in the same place and thereupon it is that Gennadius Massiliensis in his Book de Eccles dogmatibus calls the followers of this opinion Melitani as the same Pamelius testifies in his Notes upon that fragment of Tertullian de Spe fidelium Irenaeus his Faith in this point is likewise confessed by Eusebius in the place before quoted in these words He Papias was the Author of the like Error to most of the Writers of the Church who alledged the Antiquity of the Man for a defence of their side as to Irenaeus and whosoever else seemed to be of the same opinion with him By S. Hierome in the place above cited de script Eccles S. 29. Again in Lib. Ezek. 11. in these words For neither do we
employ their time and wits and tongues and pens in the maintenance and propagation of it Thus Paul V. and Gregory XV. Yet this is not all For Thirdly You bind men by Oaths to defend the new opinion and to oppose the ancient So the University of Paris Yet still you proceed further For Fourthly By your General Councils confirmed by your Popes you have declared and defined that this new invention is agreeable and consequently that the ancient Doctrin is repugnant to the Catholick Faith to Reason to the Holy Scripture So the Council of Basil These things I entreat you weigh well in your Consideration and put not into the Scale above a just allowance not above three grains of partiality and then tell me whether you can with reason or with modesty suppose or desire that we should believe or think that you believe that all the points of Doctrin which you contest against us were delivered at first by Christ and his Apostles and have ever since by the Succession of Bishops and Pastors been preserved inviolate and propagated unto you The Patrons I confess of this new Invention set not much by the Decree of the Council of Basil for it but plead very hard for a full and final definition of it from the Sea Apostolick and finding the conspiring opposition of the ancient Fathers to be the main impediment of their purpose it is strange to see how confidently they ride over them First Says * Disp 51. in Epist ad Rom. Salmeron in the place forecited they press us with multitude of Doctors of whom we must not say that they err in a matter of such moment We answer says he out of †De moribus Eeclesia lib 1. cap. 2. S. Austin and the Doctrin of S. Thomas That the argument drawn from Authority is weak Then to that multitude of Doctros we oppose another multitude Thirdly We object to the contrary the efficacy of reasons which are more excellent than any Authority Some of them reckon two hundred Fathers other as Bandellus almost three hundred Cajetan fifteen but those as he says irrefragable But as a wise Shepheard said pauperis est numerare pecus Some of those whom they produce are of an exolete Authority and scarce worthy of memory Lastly Against this objected multitude we answer with the word of God * Exod. 23.2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil Neither shalt thou in judgment yield to the sentence of many to depart from the truth For when the Donatists gloried in the multitude of their Authors S. Austin answered it was a sign of a cause destitute of truth to rely only upon the Authority of many men which may err It falls out sometimes also that from some one Doctor especially if he be famous proceeds a multitude of followers of his Opinion and some taken with an humble and pious fear choose rather to follow the Opinion of another against their mind than to bring out of their own wit any thing new lest they should so bring any new thing into the Church Whose humility as it is to be praised so the confidence of others is not to be condemned who for the love of truth fear not to bring in better things Thus S. Hierome in his Sermon of the Assumption if it be his fears to affirm that the Virgin Mary is assumed into Heaven and thinks it rather to be piously desired than rashly defined But * In the Margint here he says The Doctrin of S. Austin alone hath brought into the Church the Worship of the blessed Virgins Assumption S. Austin more happily dared to affirm it and settle it with many argument by which adventure this the Church hath gained that perswaded by his reasons she hath believed it and celebrates it in her worship But they fetch their arguments from the Antiquity of the Doctors to which always greater honour was given than to Novelties But I answer old men are praisers of ancient times but we affirm the younger the Doctors are the more perspicacious Moreover we say that although they were ancient yet they were men and themselves held under the darkness of Original sin and might err But go to who are these Ancients are they Apostles are they Ambrose or Hierom or Austin but none of them discuss'd this Controversie on purpose Chrysostom is opposed in his Commentary on S. Matthew where he saith though Christ were not a sinner yet he has humane Nature from a sinner Understand says Salmeron from her who of her self and according to the condition of nature was a sinner Thomas says that Chrysostom speaks exorbitantly for he constitutes the Virgin under actual sin Or that the Commentaries which go up and down under his name ane not his Or that these passages are adjectitious Or if they be indeed his with the good leave and favour of so great a man they are to be rejected Neither ought any man to marvel that he Bernard and Thomas and Bonaventure and Alexander of Ales and Albert and Durand and Egidius and Lastly The greater part followed that opinion both because they were men and because in progress of time new mysteries are revealed which before were unknown For as holiness of life purgeth no man from sin so it frees no man from danger of error Every age finds out some verities proper to it self which the former ages were ignorant of and there in the Margin Every age hath its peculiar divine revelations Thus far Salmeron by whom we may see That Protestants are not the only men who say that the Fathers may err but that Roman Catholicks too can and dare valiantly break through and tread under their feet though perhaps with cap in hand and some shew of reverence and even ride over whole bands of Fathers when they stand in their way Another great Achilles for the same opinion is one Joannes Baptista Poza a Jesuite and Professor of Divinity at Complutum He in his fourth Book of his Elacidarium Deiparae pleads very earnestly to have it defined and labours very lustily to remove all exceptions to the contrary but above all those many ones That there is no Tradition for it That the stream of Ancient Tradition is against and therefore well and worthily may it be condemned for an Heresie but to be Canonized among the Articles of Faith it can with no reason expect To the Second exception he brings two answers which Salmeron it seems forgot in the prosecution whereof he hath many excellent passages which I have thought good to cull out of him to evidence the wonderful reverence and constant regard of the present Church of Rome to the Tradition of the Ancient The first That it is possible the Writings of the Fathers out of which these Testimonies against the Immaculate conception are taken may be corrupted But to shew it probable they are so in these places he speaks not one word of sense nor so much as any colourable reason